Flames cut 4 players - Hathaway, Rittich, Shinkaruk, Wotherspoon

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

Not to pick on you, but also wanted to note that your "at worst" scenario could potentially imply the exact same result: A player that is under contract for the next year, who has played the minimum amount of NHL games. That means that you risk keeping that acquired player on the payroll, taking up a potential roster spot and contract, but you have less control over the amount of salary or cap hit, so you may not get a desirable player, or at least as desirable as a league-minimum contract that can be bought out or buried in the minors.

Sure, a year from now, it's the same scenario, but you're not carrying that garbage contract this season, only next. That's the worst case because it only happens if you somehow can't get Jokipakka (or some other more desireable defenceman) under contract before the expansion draft.

The preferred scenario would be to just sign Jokipakka and expose him. At this time, he's the player to Flames are most likely to lose in the expansion draft. If he doesn't get claimed, you have a player you want under contract for 2017-18. If he does get claimed, well, you expected that to happen.

Wasting a two-year contract on Grossmann just to expose him in the expansion draft, where you're still going to lose Jokipakka, makes no sense.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by getbak

Sure, a year from now, it's the same scenario, but you're not carrying that garbage contract this season, only next. That's the worst case because it only happens if you somehow can't get Jokipakka (or some other more desireable defenceman) under contract before the expansion draft.

The preferred scenario would be to just sign Jokipakka and expose him. At this time, he's the player to Flames are most likely to lose in the expansion draft. If he doesn't get claimed, you have a player you want under contract for 2017-18. If he does get claimed, well, you expected that to happen.

Wasting a two-year contract on Grossmann just to expose him in the expansion draft, where you're still going to lose Jokipakka, makes no sense.

So, ultimately the trade-off is to dress Grossman for 12 games in exchange for Jokipakka being an unsigned RFA at the time of the expansion draft instead of being a signed player. That might just save Jokipakka from being selected, so it comes down to whether that reduction in risk of losing Jokipakka is worth suffering through <10 minutes of Grossman for a dozen games. Only then does it make sense.

The contract spot is irrelevant unless we are pushed to the contract limit, and the future year signed is irrelevant if we are willing to buyout the contract or bury him in the minors.

It's not a big deal, so I don't have much of a preference in this scenario, but if we see a lot in Jokipakka, then the slight reduction in risk it might be worth it.

[Badgers Nose]

I was surprised that people had hunter pencilled on the first line. Im not seeing it.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

I was surprised that people had hunter pencilled on the first line. Im not seeing it.

He was put there methinks only because they don't really have an answer for that hole in the lineup other than wishful thinking!

[jlh2640]

Hathaway is an injury full in at best. Everyone is acting as if he actually is something more the. A 4th liner

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

So, ultimately the trade-off is to dress Grossman for 12 games in exchange for Jokipakka being an unsigned RFA at the time of the expansion draft instead of being a signed player. That might just save Jokipakka from being selected, so it comes down to whether that reduction in risk of losing Jokipakka is worth suffering through <10 minutes of Grossman for a dozen games. Only then does it make sense.

The contract spot is irrelevant unless we are pushed to the contract limit, and the future year signed is irrelevant if we are willing to buyout the contract or bury him in the minors.

It's not a big deal, so I don't have much of a preference in this scenario, but if we see a lot in Jokipakka, then the slight reduction in risk it might be worth it.

I'm pretty sure we can't protect Jokipakka by just not signing him before the expansion draft. As long as he's Flames property,
not on the protected list, but sent his qualifying offer, he should be eligible to be drafted.

It would be too easy for teams to protect their RFAs if that was the case. I doubt signing Grossman will sway LV from picking Jokipakka or any other of our RFAs, whether signed or not.

[GranteedEV]

Would LV rather claim Jokipakka than the younger, swifter Kulak?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Thought Shinkaruk looked good. Surprised he got cut.

He looked average at best. I was surprised he lasted so long. Should have been one of the first cuts.

[1qqaaz]

Shinkaruk didn't necessarily look out of place in the lineup. But he definitely didn't impress, and he did not look like top line material (at least for now).

Freddie Hamilton actually had a few very good games. He deserves to still be around at this point in time IMO.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm pretty sure we can't protect Jokipakka by just not signing him before the expansion draft. As long as he's Flames property,
not on the protected list, but sent his qualifying offer, he should be eligible to be drafted.

It would be too easy for teams to protect their RFAs if that was the case. I doubt signing Grossman will sway LV from picking Jokipakka or any other of our RFAs, whether signed or not.

Yeah, I agree, but I suppose the point of Finger Cookin (and TheOriginalFFIV also, apparently) is that having Jokipakka as an RFA with arbitration rights and an unknown contract status might make him slightly less desirable for LV. That is the slight reduction in risk I am talking about.
For example, if LV has to choose between Jokipakka and another similar defenceman that is under contract at a known (average) contract amount, all things being equal, LV would pick the other D over Jokipakka.

[MarkGio]

Granlund was pretty good tonight against Edmonton

[Badgers Nose]

nvm

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Granlund was pretty good tonight against Edmonton

So what?

[SmoggyFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Granlund was pretty good tonight against Edmonton

I still don't know how I feel about him bring traded for Hunter. Granlund was good centre depth, but time will tell.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

...dress Grossman for 12 games in exchange for Jokipakka being an unsigned RFA at the time of the expansion draft instead of being a signed player...

The Flames could accomplish the same thing by extending Engelland. In spite of his contract—which is too expensive for his role—he is a solid bottom-pair defender, and is also an extremely popular leader in the dressing room. I see the Flames re-signing Engelland at a lower AAV before ever signing Grossman for the sole purpose of exposing him in the expansion draft

[Doc Hudson]

Nobody saw it, or any of the other possible options, since the first line envisioned by fans never played in the preseason.

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

I was surprised that people had hunter pencilled on the first line. Im not seeing it.

[A Shot Wide]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

We still have to keep in mind we have an unsigned Johnny Gaudreau that will be going onto one of those two PP units.

Vey drops off the second powerplay unit, Backlund moves to Center, Gaudreau takes a wing on one of the two lines.

Gaudreau, Backlund, Tkachuk? The playmaker, the responsible vet, and the scorer with some sandpaper.

Not sure why you would split TBB line and Gaudreau/Monahan but I think the way it shakes out is maybe Frolik or possibly Chaisson 1st powerplay unit, then TBB 2nd.

[djsFlames]

Let's see Granlund still be good a month from now, in the real games, then we'll talk about Granlund.

..#disappearingact #seenitbefore

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by A Shot Wide

Not sure why you would split TBB line and Gaudreau/Monahan but I think the way it shakes out is maybe Frolik or possibly Chaisson 1st powerplay unit, then TBB 2nd.

Chiasson had some good PP success in Dallas, then in Ottawa his PP time dropped and so did his production. Whether he lost PP time because he struggled, or he struggled because of a lack of PP, I don't know; but I do know his drop in overall production almost matched his drop in PP production.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Would LV rather claim Jokipakka than the younger, swifter Kulak?

Kulak is young two years and change younger, don't know about swifter but it's not like Jokipakka is some aging veteran Vegas would pass on.