03-01-2017, 03:40 PM
|
#121
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy
He's a UFA, they can sign him and then they still get to select another one of our unprotected players.
|
Not if they sign him before the expansion draft in the 48hr window.
http://www.tsn.ca/concerns-about-nhl...merge-1.609388
Quote:
Specifically, GMs worry that Vegas could take advantage of the 48-hour window before the expansion draft in June to quietly agree to terms on a deal with a pending unrestricted free agent, then wait until July 1 to sign him, so as to pluck another player off a team's roster in the expansion draft.
This would circumvent the rule that if a team loses a free agent to Vegas in that 48-hour free-agent-signing window, it cannot lose another player in the expansion draft. Some GMs worry that veteran GM George McPhee, who wasn't born yesterday, would take advantage of the situation.
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Anduril For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:45 PM
|
#122
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Not too worried about Stone signing with LV anyway. He wants to be in Calgary.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:46 PM
|
#123
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Kulak and Shinkaruk are the only exposed players I would be mildly interested in if I were the Knights.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nsd1 For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:47 PM
|
#124
|
Franchise Player
|
Ferland is the 6th forward, not Brouwer.
The 7th spot will be interesting. If Lazar performs down the stretch here, he'll get the slot. Brouwer can likely be exposed without issue as I'd guess it's fairly unlikely that VGK wants to take on the contract.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:50 PM
|
#125
|
something else haha
|
Yea I think you protect Lazar and Ferland and expose Brouwer.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Swayze11 For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:51 PM
|
#126
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nachodamus.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Ferland is the 6th forward, not Brouwer.
The 7th spot will be interesting. If Lazar performs down the stretch here, he'll get the slot. Brouwer can likely be exposed without issue as I'd guess it's fairly unlikely that VGK wants to take on the contract.
|
I keep seeing people say this but I also see a lot of people talking about how the Knights have to also hit the cap floor which might possibly make him a touch more palatable from their perspective.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:54 PM
|
#127
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Ferland is the 6th forward, not Brouwer.
The 7th spot will be interesting. If Lazar performs down the stretch here, he'll get the slot. Brouwer can likely be exposed without issue as I'd guess it's fairly unlikely that VGK wants to take on the contract.
|
They need to reach the cap floor so they will be selecting some players with less than desirable contracts. That said, since Brouwer was building a home in Calgary prior to free agency, its obvious he wants to be here and it would reflect poorly on the team to expose a player one year after signing him as a UFA. I think Tre sends LV either a mid-round pick or B prospect to not select Ferland, Brouwer or Lazar.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MisterJoji For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:54 PM
|
#128
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
|
I can't see the Flames exposing Brouwer, it would turn Calgary a UFA blackhole for the team to expose a player 1 year after signing a long term contract.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Otto-matic For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:54 PM
|
#129
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan
I keep seeing people say this but I also see a lot of people talking about how the Knights have to also hit the cap floor which might possibly make him a touch more palatable from their perspective.
|
That's ok though.
__________________
I hate just about everyone and just about everything.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:56 PM
|
#130
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto-matic
I can't see the Flames exposing Brouwer, it would turn Calgary a UFA blackhole for the team to expose a player 1 year after signing a long term contract.
|
I don't think so, its course of business.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backlunds_socks For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:57 PM
|
#131
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Ferland is a bigger lock for protection than Brouwer
|
Based on the way Ferland has played, I agree.
However, from what I'm hearing in the media, by exposing Brouwer, Treliving would be admitting that the signing was a mistake. So essentially, Brouwer will be protected for Tre's pride.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:57 PM
|
#132
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto-matic
I can't see the Flames exposing Brouwer, it would turn Calgary a UFA blackhole for the team to expose a player 1 year after signing a long term contract.
|
If a player wanted to avoid that situation, he would need to negotiate a NMC. Brouwer either wasn't concerned or didn't have that leverage. It isn't a blackhole, it is business and players know that. Also, expansion drafts don't happen every year.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:57 PM
|
#133
|
Resident Videologist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto-matic
I can't see the Flames exposing Brouwer, it would turn Calgary a UFA blackhole for the team to expose a player 1 year after signing a long term contract.
|
I agree... but I don't see the Flames exposing Ferland or Lazar now either.
I think the best course of action will be to trade Vegas an asset, or if they sign Engelland instead.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2017, 03:58 PM
|
#134
|
Franchise Player
|
I don't think the Flames, if they do decide to expose Brouwer, would be the only team exposing a recently-signed free agent. It's not like they're going out and trading Brouwer, it's an expansion draft so somebody has to go. It's the nature of the business and I would be very surprised if it had any impact at all on Calgary as a FA destination if he were picked up.
That said, I think the odds are better than even that the Flames either break a deal with Vegas or lose Engelland.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 04:01 PM
|
#135
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
How many players per team can LV choose to steal?
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 04:04 PM
|
#136
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: I don't belong here
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks
How many players per team can LV choose to steal?
|
One.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 04:07 PM
|
#137
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buff
One.
|
Lazar will not be the chosen one.
Brouwer will be protected.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 04:09 PM
|
#138
|
Franchise Player
|
The Lazar acquisition definitely muddies the waters. I think the Flames have to consider exposing a veteran like Brouwer or Frolik and then cutting a deal with Vegas to ensure they're not taken. This is assuming that Ferland and Lazar will be protected.
I'm sure Treliving will be talking with McPhee quite a bit leading up to the expansion draft. That should result in the Flames having a very good sense of what kind of cost would be associated with ensuring Vegas skips an exposed player we want to keep.
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 04:13 PM
|
#139
|
Franchise Player
|
Since Lazar doesn't have a contract next year, doesn't that mean we don't have to protect him
|
|
|
03-01-2017, 04:22 PM
|
#140
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeoff
Since Lazar doesn't have a contract next year, doesn't that mean we don't have to protect him
|
No, it doesn't mean that. RFAs have to be protected if they have enough time spent in the league or as a pro. Which Lazar has.
Last edited by Finger Cookin; 03-01-2017 at 04:25 PM.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 AM.
|
|