[News] Official expansion alignment, expansion draft rules, and 2017 entry draft rules

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Par

This means if the Flames are going to get a starting goaltender it has to be before June 17.

No it doesn't. Why do you believe it does?

[Erick Estrada]

I would imagine that if the Flames don't add a goaltender by the draft it's a good indication one or maybe even both of Johnson and Elliott may be back. I'm sure Treliving will be working the phones hard between now and the draft in hopes he can do better.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

No it doesn't. Why do you believe it does?

Sorry I should have been more clear, I meant if they want a goalie before the expansion draft, so they can protect one in the expansion draft.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Par

Sorry I should have been more clear, I meant if they want a goalie before the expansion draft, so they can protect one in the expansion draft.

Can they not protect Elliott?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Par

Sorry I should have been more clear, I meant if they want a goalie before the expansion draft, so they can protect one in the expansion draft.

Gotcha. Seems more likely they'll find one after. Calgary may have told VGK that they would trade them for goalie X or Y if VGK takes them. So we could get one from Vegas. Or we could get one from UFA. Trade is another route.

The only reason we would get one before the expansion draft is if a team needs to deal one (for example PIT). But with all the talk that Fleury will go to VGK that may not be likely.

I wonder about the possibility of Fleury agreeing to go to VGK in order for VGK to then trade him to a team closer to contending. I mean wouldn't Fleury rather go to CGY than VGK if he wants to win?

Can't wait to see what happens that week, should be crazy.

[Roof-Daddy]

They dont have to protect a goalie.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Gotcha. Seems more likely they'll find one after. Calgary may have told VGK that they would trade them for goalie X or Y if VGK takes them. So we could get one from Vegas. Or we could get one from UFA. Trade is another route.

The only reason we would get one before the expansion draft is if a team needs to deal one (for example PIT). But with all the talk that Fleury will go to VGK that may not be likely.

I wonder about the possibility of Fleury agreeing to go to VGK in order for VGK to then trade him to a team closer to contending. I mean wouldn't Fleury rather go to CGY than VGK if he wants to win?

Can't wait to see what happens that week, should be crazy.

The problem with the Flames doing a deal with Pittsburgh is they don't have an additional goalie who meets the exposure requirements (under contract for next season) that they could move to Pittsburgh so that complicates the deal.

They have Tom McCollum but if they moved him to Pittsburgh, they'd need to find a goalie to expose of their own.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

The problem with the Flames doing a deal with Pittsburgh is they don't have an additional goalie who meets the exposure requirements (under contract for next season) that they could move to Pittsburgh so that complicates the deal.

They have Tom McCollum but if they moved him to Pittsburgh, they'd need to find a goalie to expose of their own.

Yup, doesn't seem likely.

I was more talking about the Flames acquiring Fleury from VGK, not PIT.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

They have Tom McCollum but if they moved him to Pittsburgh, they'd need to find a goalie to expose of their own.

Is it too late to sign a guy like McCollum from the minors (assuming there is one on the scrap heap somewhere)?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

The problem with the Flames doing a deal with Pittsburgh is they don't have an additional goalie who meets the exposure requirements (under contract for next season) that they could move to Pittsburgh so that complicates the deal.

They have Tom McCollum but if they moved him to Pittsburgh, they'd need to find a goalie to expose of their own.

Maybe I am missing something. I thought common thinking was that If MAF wouldn't waive NMC, Pens would buy him out instead of exposing Murray.

Are you saying they couldn't do that, since they would have no goalie to expose? Has MAF agreed to waive and I missed it?

[Roof-Daddy]

MAF has probably already agreed to waive his NMC and we just haven't heard about it.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

MAF has probably already agreed to waive his NMC and we just haven't heard about it.

Why would he?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Why would he?

Maybe he doesn't think LV will take him and wants to remain a Pen

Murray hasn't exactly stayed healthy

Also, maybe he likes the organization he played his entire career for and is about to win a 3rd cup and has no issue doing them a favour after years of nothing but a mutual respect to each other

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Maybe I am missing something. I thought common thinking was that If MAF wouldn't waive NMC, Pens would buy him out instead of exposing Murray.

Are you saying they couldn't do that, since they would have no goalie to expose? Has MAF agreed to waive and I missed it?

They can't buy out Fleury unless they acquire another goaltender who's under contract for next season, otherwise they'd have to expose Murray anyway.

No player has agreed to waive yet as they don't have to until Friday, June 16. I think Fleury will agree to do it, though.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yup, doesn't seem likely.

I was more talking about the Flames acquiring Fleury from VGK, not PIT.

Throwing all that aside, I wonder if the price to acquire from Vegas would be higher or lower than the price to acquire from Pittsburgh.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is it too late to sign a guy like McCollum from the minors (assuming there is one on the scrap heap somewhere)?

Never too late for that. Any minor league goalie would love to secure a contract for next season sooner rather than later I'm sure.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

Throwing all that aside, I wonder if the price to acquire from Vegas would be higher or lower than the price to acquire from Pittsburgh.

The price will be higher to acquire him from Vegas.

Pitts would just be trying to get as much as possible before losing him, and the market will be incredibly small as anyone acquiring MAF would then have to use a protection slot on him. Pitts will have to take pretty much whatever's offered to them.

Whereas Vegas will be dealing to a much larger market, and won't be as desperate as Pitts to just get anything in return. It'll be post-expansion draft, so they'll have pretty specific things they'll be looking for at that time.

[FanIn80]

To put a Calgary slant on the MAF question...

The cost for the Flames to acquire MAF from Pittsburgh will be some combination of draft picks and players that were going to be unprotected anyway. PLUS losing either Ferland or Lazar to Vegas (as they'll have to expose one of them to protect MAF).

The cost to acquire MAF from Vegas will be... who knows? It's also worth mentioning that we'll probably be trying to deal with them to take Brouwer off our hands in the draft too.

This whole thing is so ridiculously (yet awesomely) complicated.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

To put a Calgary slant on the MAF question...

The cost for the Flames to acquire MAF from Pittsburgh will be some combination of draft picks and players that were going to be unprotected anyway. PLUS losing either Ferland or Lazar to Vegas (as they'll have to expose one of them to protect MAF).

The cost to acquire MAF from Vegas will be... who knows? It's also worth mentioning that we'll probably be trying to deal with them to take Brouwer off our hands in the draft too.

This whole thing is so ridiculously (yet awesomely) complicated.

Acquiring MAF, or any goalie for that matter, doesn't impact the protection status of Ferland / Lazar. Teams can protect 7F, 3D and 1G (OR 4-4-1).

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

To put a Calgary slant on the MAF question...

The cost for the Flames to acquire MAF from Pittsburgh will be some combination of draft picks and players that were going to be unprotected anyway. PLUS losing either Ferland or Lazar to Vegas (as they'll have to expose one of them to protect MAF).

The cost to acquire MAF from Vegas will be... who knows? It's also worth mentioning that we'll probably be trying to deal with them to take Brouwer off our hands in the draft too.

This whole thing is so ridiculously (yet awesomely) complicated.

If Calgary acquires MAF from Pittsburgh, they won't need to expose Ferland or Lazar. (although I could see Lazar being part of the package). The Flames have a protection spot available for a goalie.

It is complicated, especially given that a team needs to have an eligible guy exposed. For that reason, I think the Flames end up making a deal with Vegas, which might seem more costly, but it avoids these other complications in making a deal with the other teams.