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

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

Perhaps they could still be eligible for the draft, but the player would have to waive their clause to move. So it would be a big risk to draft a player with a NMC/NTC, but it could also be a big risk to leave them exposed (if they are players you want to keep).

Could be interesting.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

Even if they force guys with NMCs to go to LV (I doubt it very much), all said player would have to do is demand a trade if he didn't want to go. We've seen it countless times in the past, if a player really doesn't want to be somewhere, he will orchestrate his own departure. I think these NMCs will end up being a non-issue, whichever way the league/nhlpa goes. Some guys would be okay with it, some won't, depending on their personal situation. I bet the GM of LV would approach any potential NMC draftees and get their consent, at least that's what I would do. Why would you want a player who doesn't want to be on your team? It makes no sense.

[JJ1532]

Not sure if its been mentioned in this thread, but Murray is due to start for the Pens tonight:

Pittsburgh Penguins ‏@penguins 3h3 hours ago
Coach Sullivan confirms that Matt Murray will be tonight’s starting goaltender.

Will be keeping an eye on that game to see how he gets on.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

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.

That seems like a fair compromise.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

That seems like a fair compromise.

Not really, because they are forcing teams into a situation they couldn't have envisioned or planned for.

[Demetric]

slightly off topic, for the expansion draft, if happens, you only need to protect the players that would be on contract for the following year, correct? so the soonest this draft would happen is next June, so the players you would need to protect are the ones under contract for 17/18 season ....

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Not really, because they are forcing teams into a situation they couldn't have envisioned or planned for.

If the union wants NMC players to be completely exempted from the expansion draft, and the league wants to completely disregard NMC clauses, this is a fair compromise.

[powderjunkie]

This isn't really going to force the Pens hand that much; worst case is they trade a 3rd rounder for a promise to not draft Murray.

IF they are able to expose Fleury, they may have to just to get to 25% of previous season's payroll. Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Hornqvist, Letang and Maatta = 40.6M dollars. They could protect another 3 F, 1 D and 1 G.

A question for the 25% calculation will be which AAV number is used (16-17 contract, or 17-18); in a case like Pouliout , he will be ending his 0.894 ELC, and probably be signed for at least 4M for 17-18.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Not really, because they are forcing teams into a situation they couldn't have envisioned or planned for.

Expansion has been rumoured for years. Not saying teams could/should have been planning with it in mind, but there was nothing stopping them from considering it before handing out NMC's like candy...

[Toonage]

It would be nice if Dallas makes the conference final and the Flames have another 1st round pick. Might be tempting to dangle that in front of Pittsburgh that doesn't have their 1st this year.

[Lanny_McDonald]

I doubt Pittsburgh moves Murray. They could very easily keep him and protect two goaltenders for the expansion draft. They could also expose Fleury. If they are that high on Murray, and all indications are that they are, they have the ability to hold onto him.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by New Era

I doubt Pittsburgh moves Murray. They could very easily keep him and protect two goaltenders for the expansion draft. They could also expose Fleury. If they are that high on Murray, and all indications are that they are, they have the ability to hold onto him.

Unless something changes, it has been reported by everyone that all the protection schemes the NHL is considering only allows teams to protect 1 goaltender.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Unless something changes, it has been reported by everyone that all the protection schemes the NHL is considering only allows teams to protect 1 goaltender.

I thought it was 7 forwards, 3 defense, 1 goaltender or 8 skaters and 2 goaltenders. Protecting the 2nd goaltender forces you to expose two more players.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by New Era

I thought it was 7 forwards, 3 defense, 1 goaltender or 8 skaters and 2 goaltenders. Protecting the 2nd goaltender forces you to expose two more players.

No its 7 forwards, 3 defense, 1 goalie or 8 skaters and 1 goaile.

First choices exposes a top 4 defenceman, 2nd choice potentially exposes 2 or more top 6 forwards.

[Enoch Root]

why in the hell would any team choose 8 skaters over 7 forwards and 3 defensemen?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

why in the hell would any team choose 8 skaters over 7 forwards and 3 defensemen?

Well if you are deep on defense like say Nashville and not so deep on forwards like Nashville, maybe you can afford to lose forwards for nothing rather than a top 4 defenseman.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Expansion has been rumoured for years. Not saying teams could/should have been planning with it in mind, but there was nothing stopping them from considering it before handing out NMC's like candy...

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.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Well if you are deep on defense like say Nashville and not so deep on forwards like Nashville, maybe you can afford to lose forwards for nothing rather than a top 4 defenseman.

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

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Well if you are deep on defense like say Nashville and not so deep on forwards like Nashville, maybe you can afford to lose forwards for nothing rather than a top 4 defenseman.

Or you're shallow on D like Edmonton and there's no point in protecting 3 guys when Nurse is the only one of value.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

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

Depends how a team might value defensemen versus forwards. If you think top 4 defensemen are more than twice as valuable as 2nd line forwards then it might make some sense.