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

[badradio]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Agreed, it's entirely on him. He didn't do enough in camp, and others (Kulak, Hamilton) took the opportunity and showed they had enough to belong.

It's unfortunate because I had him penciled into one of the top 6 spots all off-season. I bet he thought he was going to be given more credit for what he did at the end of the year on the top line. Doesn't work that way kid, you gotta be consistent.

To be fair, how many games did Hamilton get compared to Shinkaruk? I think Freddie played most of the games and Shinkaruk got 2?

[Finger Cookin]

Credit to TheOriginalFFIV for mentioning this to me - but if Grossman is signed for two years to a league minimum or so contract, and plays 12 games this season for the Flames, then the exposure requirements for a D in the upcoming LV expansion draft are met.

[hockey.modern]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Credit to TheOriginalFFIV for mentioning this to me - but if Grossman is signed for two years to a league minimum or so contract, and plays 12 games this season for the Flames, then the exposure requirements for a D in the upcoming LV expansion draft are met.

But why would LV take Grossman when they can a younger and better player in Jokipakka?

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

But why would LV take Grossman when they can a younger and better player in Jokipakka?

There are certain requirements that need to be met in order to not be penalized for the expansion draft. We need a defenceman signed for next season that has played a certain amount of games between the upcoming season and the one that just passed to be left exposed.

Currently only the big 3 are signed next season so we don't currently meet the requirements.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

But why would LV take Grossman when they can a younger and better player in Jokipakka?

Doesn't matter. Jokipakka will be available, but doesn't meet the exposure requirements unless he signs an extension and plays enough games. Grossman under the circumstances I mentioned means the Flames meet the league requirements for expansion and don't get fined. 12 games of Grossman is worth that, IMO.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Hyperbole gets you nowhere

Hyperbole will cause the end of civilization as we know it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

There are certain requirements that need to be met in order to not be penalized for the expansion draft. We need a defenceman signed for next season that has played a certain amount of games between the upcoming season and the one that just passed to be left exposed.

Currently only the big 3 are signed next season so we don't currently meet the requirements.

But if you extend Jokipakka then you meet the requirement right? Maybe he gets claimed, but you know you are going to lose someone. I guess signing Grossman and wasting a contract slot on him guarantees a forward gets picked.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But if you extend Jokipakka then you meet the requirement right? Maybe he gets claimed, but you know you are going to lose someone. I guess signing Grossman and wasting a contract slot on him guarantees a forward gets picked.

Yea if Jokipakka plays a certain amount of games and we re-sign him then we would meet the requirements after protecting the big 3.

I'm sure that is how things will play out, it was just a theory of another poster as to why we might sign him.

I personally doubt Grossman gets signed and if he does it won't be for 2 years.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by badradio

To be fair, how many games did Hamilton get compared to Shinkaruk? I think Freddie played most of the games and Shinkaruk got 2?

Freddie played in 5 preseason games and got about 69 minutes in total ice time. Shinkaruk played in 4 preseason games and got about 59 minutes in total ice time.

Shinkaruk got more PP time in the preseason. Hamilton got more PK time and also took a bunch of faceoffs (he took at least 12 faceoffs in each game and wasn't below 50% in any of the games). Even if he doesn't play Centre, Hamilton gives the Flames a right-handed shot who can take faceoffs, which none of the current top-4 Centres are.

[Finger Cookin]

Jokipakka and 12 games + an extension before the draft meets the requirements. He's an RFA, and might not sign before the draft. If he does, then the Flames would avoid being fined. If he doesn't, it might make him less attractive to Vegas picking an arbitration eligible RFA without a known contract cost.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Grossman should be signed or if he is that he would be a worthwhile addition or should play regularly. If he gets signed as an exercise in paperwork with an eye to next summer's expansion draft, though, it seems like a valid enough reason to keep him around. And it might make Jokipakka less attractive in the expansion draft, maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Jokipakka and 12 games + an extension before the draft meets the requirements. He's an RFA, and might not sign before the draft. If he does, then the Flames would avoid being fined. If he doesn't, it might make him less attractive to Vegas picking an arbitration eligible RFA without a known contract cost.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Grossman should be signed or if he is that he would be a worthwhile addition or should play regularly. If he gets signed as an exercise in paperwork with an eye to next summer's expansion draft, though, it seems like a valid enough reason to keep him around. And it might make Jokipakka less attractive in the expansion draft, maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seems like it could be a possibility. In Trelivings case though it might just be easier to send LV a lower pick to not take Jokipakka.

There should be at least 7 better defenceman left exposed throughout the league no?

I don't want to lose Jokipakka however it works out.

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Seems like it could be a possibility. In Trelivings case though it might just be easier to send LV a lower pick to not take Jokipakka.

There should be at least 7 better defenceman left exposed throughout the league no?

I don't want to lose Jokipakka however it works out.

You're missing the point. We need to have a waiver eligible d man to expose or risk a fine. You can still offer lv a pick to not take Kevin but you need to meet expansion criteria.

[getbak]

Signing Grossmann to a two-year deal and playing him in the minimum number of games this season just to expose him in the expansion draft (where he would never get claimed) would be absolutely horrible roster management.

At worst, you go out and acquire someone who meets the minimum requirements after this season ends and before the expansion draft. You don't waste a contract and roster spot for two seasons on a guy you don't otherwise want.

[Finger Cookin]

It's a roster spot for 12 games, not two seasons. Bounce him down afterward, and take the enormous risk that he clears waivers. The contract would be fully buriable, so no cap implications. And the Flames would then only have 6 contract slots left under the 50, instead of 7. And nothing is surrendered to acquire a defenseman to expose.

I don't see the horribleness of it, I guess. Though I'm not married to the idea, either.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Thought Shinkaruk looked good. Surprised he got cut.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by getbak

Signing Grossmann to a two-year deal and playing him in the minimum number of games this season just to expose him in the expansion draft (where he would never get claimed) would be absolutely horrible roster management.

At worst, you go out and acquire someone who meets the minimum requirements after this season ends and before the expansion draft. You don't waste a contract and roster spot for two seasons on a guy you don't otherwise want.

Could he not be bought out next summer, and thus take up a contract for the rest of this season only?

Does anyone know what the fine would be? Is there a cap penalty, roster exposure penalty, or merely a $ fine?

If the penalty is something worse than just a cash fine, I see it as potentially an astute move by the GM, provided there are unused contract spots, and he is signed to the league minimum. It provides a way to meet the expansion draft requirement, losing only a little of the owner's $, while making Kevin less appealing to LV. It also provides a contingency for if Kevin were to get injured and fail to meet those requirements himself. AND you don't lose valuable draft picks needlessly.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I wonder if Russell was holding out for Calgary because they were going to give him a two year deal and leave him exposed, versus just the one year deals that might have been in the table, but he just couldn't wait any longer.

[stang]

Originally Posted by getbak

Signing Grossmann to a two-year deal and playing him in the minimum number of games this season just to expose him in the expansion draft (where he would never get claimed) would be absolutely horrible roster management.

At worst, you go out and acquire someone who meets the minimum requirements after this season ends and before the expansion draft. You don't waste a contract and roster spot for two seasons on a guy you don't otherwise want.

So instead you spend an asset to acquire a player you don't want to fill that void?

Which is the less of the 2 evils?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Darren Hayne @DarrenWHaynes

Some time being spent on the power play today. How the Flames two PP units are looking:
- Bennett, Monahan, Brouwer
- Backlund, Vey, Tkachuk

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.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by getbak

Signing Grossmann to a two-year deal and playing him in the minimum number of games this season just to expose him in the expansion draft (where he would never get claimed) would be absolutely horrible roster management.

At worst, you go out and acquire someone who meets the minimum requirements after this season ends and before the expansion draft. You don't waste a contract and roster spot for two seasons on a guy you don't otherwise want.

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.