[Rumour] Friedman: Flames have inquired about Pittsburgh Goalie Matt Murray

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah but if you protect 4 Dmen, you can only protect 4 forwards.

Even Nashville has more than 4 forwards.

Protecting 10 players is better than protecting 8 players

But you lose at most one player assuming Vegas is the only team that gets an expansion team.

Its your choice of keeping your top 4 D in tact and losing a top 6 forward.

or

Losing a top 4 D to keep in tact a top 6 that is not that great.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Nothing stopping them except the abundance of terrible contracts handed out. Let's be honest here if a team doesn't want to protect a guy with a NMC chances are it's because they got themselves in trouble with a bad contract.

They are already punished by having an unmovable anchor. I'm not sure how it makes sense to force them to lose another player because of it. In some of these cases, it's an issue of the player failing to live up to the deal, not that the team signed a "bad contract" initially. I think some of you would be singing a different tune if the Flames had a couple bad contracts with NMCs.

I think they (NMCs) should be exposed to the draft but the player can always just say no, what's stopping them? LV can pick the NMC player but there's nothing stopping the NMC player from not reporting. The official policy should be "take them at your own risk, Las Vegas".

Makes no sense to punish the teams, who in some cases are under completely different management than when the bad deal was signed.

This is like when the NHL started penalizing teams retroactively on the back diving contracts with the recapture penalty. It's bush league but I guess we should all be used to this by now.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They are already punished by having an unmovable anchor. I'm not sure how it makes sense to force them to lose another player because of it. In some of these cases, it's an issue of the player failing to live up to the deal, not that the team signed a "bad contract" initially. I think some of you would be singing a different tune if the Flames had a couple bad contracts with NMCs.

I think they (NMCs) should be exposed to the draft but the player can always just say no, what's stopping them? LV can pick the NMC player but there's nothing stopping the NMC player from not reporting. The official policy should be "take them at your own risk, Las Vegas".

Makes no sense to punish the teams, who in some cases are under completely different management than when the bad deal was signed.

This is like when the NHL started penalizing teams retroactively on the back diving contracts with the recapture penalty. It's bush league but I guess we should all be used to this by now.

So your solution is to punish the expansion teams.

Bottom line is if you hand out a no movement clause, you should be prepared to honor it. It's called a no movement clause not a no movement unless it's an expansion draft clause

[Red Menace]

I imagine we could see some trades/agreements to the expansion team in order that they don't take certain players...
I also wonder if this will effect current GM's handling new prospects...if the limit is x number of games played of pro hockey by 2017 for example, could GMs try to hold some players back so they would not be exposed?
This will be an interesting process...

[Fire of the Phoenix]

nm

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

So your solution is to punish the expansion teams.

Bottom line is if you hand out a no movement clause, you should be prepared to honor it. It's called a no movement clause not a no movement unless it's an expansion draft clause

How are they being punished? Even without the NMCs, there is going to be a pool of 400+ players to choose from, as well as likely the 1st overall pick in the draft. If they can't make a go of it from those parameters, I would suggest that their management is uniquely incompetent.

In my scenario, teams would still be honouring the NMC, but it would be the league/Las Vegas that wouldn't be. Retroactive punishment for something that was unpredictable is not the way to go IMO.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

How are they being punished? Even without the NMCs, there is going to be a pool of 400+ players to choose from, as well as likely the 1st overall pick in the draft. If they can't make a go of it from those parameters, I would suggest that their management is uniquely incompetent.

If they aren't able to get an exposed player it is punishing them. Or at the very least giving teams a free keeper. Say Giordano has a NMC and he's said he doesn't want to play for an expansion team, so the Flames leave him exposed knowing that he wouldn't be taken.

It's an unfair situation you are suggesting.

And how is it a punishment to make a team honor a contract they signed? That's such a ridiculous thing to say

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

If they aren't able to get an exposed player it is punishing them. Or at the very least giving teams a free keeper. Say Giordano has a NMC and he's said he doesn't want to play for an expansion team, so the Flames leave him exposed knowing that he wouldn't be taken.

It's an unfair situation you are suggesting.

And how is it a punishment to make a team honor a contract they signed? That's such a ridiculous thing to say

No matter how you spin it, it's an unfair situation. Perhaps a compromise like each team gets one NMC that doesn't need to be protected or something?

Some teams don't have any NMCs, so perhaps they would get a free draft pick at the end of the second round or something to that effect.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

No matter how you spin it, it's an unfair situation. Perhaps a compromise like each team gets one NMC that doesn't need to be protected or something?

Some teams don't have any NMCs, so perhaps they would get a free draft pick at the end of the second round or something to that effect.

A player gets a NMC to not be moved anywhere, it's that simple. To expose them they should have to waive their NMC. It's not unfair to make a team keep a contract they chose to sign.

[Jay Random]

What happens if a team has two goalies with NMCs?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What happens if a team has two goalies with NMCs?

As far as I know no team does.

Dallas has two guys with NTC's but not NMC's

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

No matter how you spin it, it's an unfair situation. Perhaps a compromise like each team gets one NMC that doesn't need to be protected or something?

Some teams don't have any NMCs, so perhaps they would get a free draft pick at the end of the second round or something to that effect.

Making the rules special to accomadate teams w/ NMC is arguably punishing the shrewd teams with no NMC's...

[Mattman]

Just had a dream we traded Jankowski for Murray.

As much as Jankowski is going to be a good player one day, won't he be living in the shadow of Monahan and Bennett? Kinda makes him expendable in a way.

That being said I wouldn't have a problem with a deal shaped around Mark Jankowski and Matt Murray.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mattman

Just had a dream we traded Jankowski for Murray.

As much as Jankowski is going to be a good player one day, won't he be living in the shadow of Monahan and Bennett? Kinda makes him expendable in a way.

That being said I wouldn't have a problem with a deal shaped around Mark Jankowski and Matt Murray.

I wouldn't have a problem with a trade shaped around any of our prospects for Murray (or an equivalent), as it would be trading from a position of strength to one of need.

Having Ortio, Murray, Gillies and McDonald would really have us set up in net for the future.

It would also mean that we could avoid having to dole out a big contract to shore up the short-term needs in net.

[GranteedEV]

Murray is a blocking style goalie, no? Won't his effectiveness be affected by the change in equipment?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Murray is a blocking style goalie, no? Won't his effectiveness be affected by the change in equipment?

Not sure what a blocking style goalie but one of the knocks on Murray is his svelte size. He's a tall guy but not much meat on him, really needs to fill out.

All goalies will be effected by the equipment change don't know if he'd be hit harder.

[calculoso]

This whole NMC discussion only seems to be considering the NMC players that people don't want.

What happens if the Flames give Gaudreau a NMC? If there's an exception that teams don't need to protect NMC players, then the Flames all of a sudden have one more player that they can protect, taking one more quality player away from the pool that Expansion teams can select from.

To me, the only thing that is fair is to force teams to protect players with NMC, unless the player agrees to waive the NMC. Player gets the protection of the NMC that they agreed to in the contract. Team is forced to live up to the NMC, but still has an out if they can get the player to agree to it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Mattman

Just had a dream we traded Jankowski for Murray.

As much as Jankowski is going to be a good player one day, won't he be living in the shadow of Monahan and Bennett? Kinda makes him expendable in a way.

That being said I wouldn't have a problem with a deal shaped around Mark Jankowski and Matt Murray.

Pittsburgh would use the word nightmare if that was the best they can do on return for Murray.

[Harry Lime]

Does anyone watch a lot of WHL and can comment on the progress of Nick Schneider? He seems to be the forgotten man when talking about prospects, but his ETA could be about the same as MacDonald.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Not sure what a blocking style goalie but one of the knocks on Murray is his svelte size. He's a tall guy but not much meat on him, really needs to fill out.

All goalies will be effected by the equipment change don't know if he'd be hit harder.

Some traits of a blocking goalie would be positioning his body to be in front of the puck so it hits him and swats at the puck with his glove rather than catching it. Very little movement.

I think.