[Rumour] Friedman: Flames have inquired about Pittsburgh Goalie Matt Murray - Page 10 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Vinny01 · 02-25-2016, 10:21 AM

In just showing the Rutherford deals. Iggy and Stempniak were Shero trades. I think Ritherford has made bad deals since joining the Pens. Hornquivst and Spaling for Neal? Brutal

Dr. Doom · 03-16-2016, 08:08 PM

Had to re-hash this thread after watching the Habs/Sabres intermission tonight.

Friedman was asked who he would take if an NHL expansion draft were to take place and he had high praise for Matt Murray. He had him hands down over Andersen...

In a later segment Doug Murray said (although I'm paraphrasing as admittedly I was half paying attention because he's hard to listen to obviously), that from is experience teams will look to move players that would otherwise be exposed and ahead of the draft. I *think*

Makes me wonder if Pittsburgh would re-consider moving Murray in order to get a return for him ahead of said event? This TSN article with details on the draft cite him as a specific example:

Quote:

It would create an interesting dynamic with a team like the Pittsburgh Penguins. One year from now, would the Penguins protect backbone netminder Marc-Andre Fleury or 21-year-old prospect Matt Murray? Murray is widely considered the best goaltender not currently in the NHL.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-presents-poten...plans-1.454239

Thoughts?

CalgaryFan1988 · 03-16-2016, 08:14 PM

I'm curious as to why Matt Murray would even have to be protected? Does that mean we'd have to worry about Gillies?

HelloHockeyFans · 03-16-2016, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I'm curious as to why Matt Murray would even have to be protected? Does that mean we'd have to worry about Gillies?

Interesting indeed, though I don't have the answer.

They're very comparable though.

Murray: 3-year entry level deal signed in 2014 that expires with him as an RFA in 2017. He's 21 years old, drafted in the 3rd round.

Gillies: 3-year entry level deal signed in 2014 that expires with him as an RFA in 2017. He's 22 years old, drafted in the 3rd round.

sureLoss · 03-16-2016, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I'm curious as to why Matt Murray would even have to be protected? Does that mean we'd have to worry about Gillies?

It is confusing right now cause no one knows what definition of "pro year" they are using, but as it is being described first year "pros" and second year "pros" do not need to be protected.

Murray needs to be given protection if you go by the CBA definition of pro year as he will be a 3rd year pro player next season.

Gillies maybe not

OzSome · 03-17-2016, 12:34 AM

If this Murray guy is as good as everyone thinks, I think should gamble and protect him and expose Fleury hoping that Las Vegas or whichever expansion team it is would shy away from picking a big salary goaltender. I am sure there are other cheaper good goaltender they can pick instead. Anaheim will definitely in tough because they might have to expose Andersen, Ottawa, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis and Dallas will be exposing one of their goalie as well.

I wouldn't worry about losing Gillies if not protected as I am sure the expansion team would rather select some of the experienced goaltender from the team I mentioned above.

Poe969 · 03-17-2016, 07:31 AM

I honestly think the pens would expose Fleury. If they think Murray is good enough to protect and they don't want to lose anyone else off the team, what's the point? If they think both goalies are at the same level, it would only make sense to keep the one on a less expensive contract.

sureLoss · 03-17-2016, 07:52 AM

Where it gets interesting for Pittsburgh is how the expansion draft handles NMC.

Some are reporting that if the NHLPA gets its way players with NMC would count against the protected list.

Guess who has a NMC? Fleury. That would mean Pittsburgh would be forced to use their 1 protected goalie spot on Fleury regardless of how they feel about Murray.

Obviously they then would try to trade Fleury if they are in love with Murray. Fleury has a pretty massive contract that would last another 2 years after expansion. He also has a partial NTC where he lists 12 teams that he would be willing to go to. The contract and NTC may make it very difficult to trade him.

If they then can't trade Fleury and can't protect Murray, then they have no choice but to trade Murray or very likely risk losing him for nothing in the expansion draft.

kyuss275 · 03-17-2016, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzSome

If this Murray guy is as good as everyone thinks, I think should gamble and protect him and expose Fleury hoping that Las Vegas or whichever expansion team it is would shy away from picking a big salary goaltender. I am sure there are other cheaper good goaltender they can pick instead. Anaheim will definitely in tough because they might have to expose Andersen, Ottawa, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis and Dallas will be exposing one of their goalie as well.

I wouldn't worry about losing Gillies if not protected as I am sure the expansion team would rather select some of the experienced goaltender from the team I mentioned above.

An expansion team could do a lot worse than picking up Fleury as their starting goaltender if he is not protected.

As for Gillies not sure why an expansion team would not want him? Expansion teams will also need a back-up and young farm team players also. If anything the only player i am worried about losing from the flames in an expansion draft is Gillies. It will depend on the rules and what the flames do this summer picking up a goalie. If they spend/trade lights out on a true starter they might want him protected.

Edit: The Av's are really high on Pickard and i could see them protecting him and risk losing Varly. The more i think about it, good chance an expansion team will have a solid goaltender to start with and probably solid goaltending prospects also.

Dr. Doom · 03-17-2016, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyuss275

An expansion team could do a lot worse than picking up Fleury as their starting goaltender if he is not protected.

As for Gillies not sure why an expansion team would not want him? Expansion teams will also need a back-up and young farm team players also. If anything the only player i am worried about losing from the flames in an expansion draft is Gillies. It will depend on the rules and what the flames do this summer picking up a goalie. If they spend/trade lights out on a true starter they might want him protected.

I think it was said last night the last expansion draft a team took a whopping 6 goalies, so there would definitely be room for a guy like Fleury

dustygoon · 03-17-2016, 08:31 AM

Goalies just got cheaper.

Cali Panthers Fan · 03-17-2016, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Some are reporting that if the NHLPA gets its way players with NMC would count against the protected list.

I'm having trouble understanding why the union would want this. I would assume that more protected players for a team is better for the union, since players would rather not just get plucked off a roster and move to a brand new city on what would likely be a very poor team for a number of years.

Coach · 03-17-2016, 08:40 AM

If the NHLPA gets its way, wouldn't the NTC/NMC crowd not need to be protected because they'd be ineligible to move?

sureLoss · 03-17-2016, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I'm having trouble understanding why the union would want this. I would assume that more protected players for a team is better for the union, since players would rather not just get plucked off a roster and move to a brand new city on what would likely be a very poor team for a number of years.

They don't necessarily want it. The union wants NMCs to protect players from being picked up in an expansion draft. What is being is reported is that if the NHL does have to acknowledge a NMC does prevent a player from being picked up in an expansion draft, then the NHL would implement that protection by making players that have NMC count against the protected list.

Ashasx · 03-17-2016, 08:42 AM

why stajan why

sureLoss · 03-17-2016, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

why stajan why

I am not sure Stajan would count. It seems to be reported only NMCs. NTCs don't seem to be an issue.

For example a NTC doesn't prevent a player from being waived and picked up by another team.

lazypucker · 03-17-2016, 08:48 AM

Isn't a NMC already include a NTC built-in? Isn't a NMC means a player cannot be sent down to the minors or sent to another team via trade without his consent? The only way to get rid of the player from the parent NHL team is to buy him out?

sureLoss · 03-17-2016, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Isn't a NMC already include a NTC built-in? Isn't a NMC means a player cannot be sent down to the minors or sent to another team via trade without his consent? The only way to get rid of the player from the parent NHL team is to buy him out?

If you are given a full NMC, then yes.

But teams can give a NMC with a modified NTC. Which means the player can't get waived and has to give a list of teams that they would/wouldn't accept a trade to and/or conditions as to when the player can be traded.

Alberta_Beef · 03-17-2016, 09:38 AM

I am of the belief that an NMC should protect the player from an expansion draft. It in my mind is no different for the players than the old waiver draft, which an NMC would protect a player from.

Erick Estrada · 03-17-2016, 09:57 AM

I'm not a lawyer but surely in a contract there would be stipulations regarding the NMC and if the wording of the contract does not include expansion draft I fail to see how the NHLPA would have a case. At the very least it would have to be on a contract to contract basis as it's possible some players contracts do in fact have expansion draft included in their NMC.