Duhatschek runs a mock expansion draft...bye bye Bennett?

[GreenLantern2814]

I still don’t see this team having seven forwards worth protecting, especially at the expense of one of the defensemen.

We can find another Dube or Mangiapane a lot easier than Kylington, Valimaki, Andersson and Hanifin.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I still don’t see this team having seven forwards worth protecting, especially at the expense of one of the defensemen.

We can find another Dube or Mangiapane a lot easier than Kylington, Valimaki, Andersson and Hanifin.

Gaudreau
Monahan
Lindholm
Tkachuk
Dube
Mangiapane
Backlund

Hanifin
Andersson
Kylington

Exempt: Valimaki

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I still don’t see this team having seven forwards worth protecting, especially at the expense of one of the defensemen.

We can find another Dube or Mangiapane a lot easier than Kylington, Valimaki, Andersson and Hanifin.

I am pretty high on Dube (no pun intended) and think he will be a fixture in the top 6. I would rather lose Kylington than he or Mangipane for nothing

[Jiri Hrdina]

Kylington hasn’t shown me enough at this stage to earn an exemption slot

[MrMike]

Kylington and Bennett will be trade bait before it even comes to losing one for free. Better off trading them for picks and getting something in return than just losing them. I don't see us losing someone of importance.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Kylington and Bennett will be trade bait before it even comes to losing one for free. Better off trading them for picks and getting something in return than just losing them. I don't see us losing someone of importance.

The only way to not lose someone with some value is to have such a crappy team that you don’t have to. Let’s say you can get a second and third for those two guys. Are you better trading both or losing one and keeping the other?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The only way to not lose someone with some value is to have such a crappy team that you don’t have to. Let’s say you can get a second and third for those two guys. Are you better trading both or losing one and keeping the other?

Wow it’s almost as if this was taken into consideration while drafting up the rules!

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The only way to not lose someone with some value is to have such a crappy team that you don’t have to. Let’s say you can get a second and third for those two guys. Are you better trading both or losing one and keeping the other?

I think the important point is to not overthink the expansion draft. I'm sure the Wild would rather have Alex Tuch and the Ducks would rather have Shea Theodore right now than the pieces they were worried they couldn't protect

[Roof-Daddy]

Unless Kylington takes a massive leap forward this season I highly doubt he comes anywhere near the protection list.

Does anyone see the Flames going into next season with just Giordano, Hanifin and Andersson as proven top 4 Dmen? They will add somebody whether by free agency or trade.

My guess is either Barrie or Vatanen by trade or Montour/Miller by trade.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Kylington is the perfect player to leave exposed. Tantalizing as well as a coin flip. Young, and plays a position the Flames are deep at.

[SeanCharles]

I feel like I’m one of the the only ones who thinks Kylington can develop into a really good dman if given the opportunity.

I like the idea of throwing him out on the PP next season to see what he can do.

He’s been very conservative so he can earn the coaches trust and I still can notice his on ice vision and heads-up offensive plays.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

I feel like I’m one of the the only ones who thinks Kylington can develop into a really good dman if given the opportunity.

I like the idea of throwing him out on the PP next season to see what he can do.

He’s been very conservative so he can earn the coaches trust and I still can notice his on ice vision and heads-up offensive plays.

I think there is majority agreement here that he has value. We’re going to lose someone good though. I personally like the idea of leaving Kylington, Backlund, and Giordano all exposed.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I think there is majority agreement here that he has value. We’re going to lose someone good though. I personally like the idea of leaving Kylington, Backlund, and Giordano all exposed.

I can’t imagine Seattle taking Gio even if he’s available. A 38 year old D with one year left who’s the captain of the team he spent his whole career with? He’s as likely to retire as report.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I can’t imagine Seattle taking Gio even if he’s available. A 38 year old D with one year left who’s the captain of the team he spent his whole career with? He’s as likely to retire as report.

Perfect. So he’d be a waste of a protection spot.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I think there is majority agreement here that he has value. We’re going to lose someone good though. I personally like the idea of leaving Kylington, Backlund, and Giordano all exposed.

If Gio and Kylington are exposed I’m assuming we have a new acquisition to protect?

I agree with you about Backlund and Gio and I think I’ve come to accept the fact that Kylington is not going to be a Flame for long so I get it.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If I remember correctly from the last expansion draft, pending UFAs were exempt from protection, and for teams to add them to their protected lists it required a new contract.

This is what happened with Engelland; because he signed as a UFA with VGK, he then counted as their selection from the Flames. I could totally see the exact same thing happening with Derek Ryan, and I would also be reluctant for the Flames to extend him prior to the expansion draft because of what it would likely cost.

The only thing that is not similar to the Engelland deal is that the Knights could have delayed signing UFA Engelland until after the expansion draft and picked another player from the Flames exposed list. The Flames did not have any player exposed that Vegas wanted.

They signed Engelland to a 1 year 1M deal on the 18th of June rather than July 1.

Troy Brouwer was the name getting the most pub, but Matt Stajan, Lance Bouma, and 22-year-old Hunter Shinkaruk were all also available to be selected. Bear in mind, Vegas could have taken any of these players, and still signed Engelland on July 1st.

This time all things being even, Seattle would take a chance on Kylington or Bennett or Dube were Bennett protected.

[Toonage]

Man. To just let the highest pick in Calgary Flames history walk? For nothing? Does not seem right. Regardless if he's worked out or not.

[flambers]

Personally I am not sure Bennett will still be a Flame when the expansion draft finally occurs...

My guess he is traded before that event.... likely in this up coming off season

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If I remember correctly from the last expansion draft, pending UFAs were exempt from protection, and for teams to add them to their protected lists it required a new contract.

This is what happened with Engelland; because he signed as a UFA with VGK, he then counted as their selection from the Flames. I could totally see the exact same thing happening with Derek Ryan, and I would also be reluctant for the Flames to extend him prior to the expansion draft because of what it would likely cost.

I don't think there was any special exemption. It just wouldn't make any sense to protect a player who could sign with any team he wants less than 2 weeks after the expansion draft. I doubt anyone would have tried to stop a team that wanted to waste one of their protection slots on a pending UFA.

In fact, thinking back, until the Smith trade, it looked like the Flames protected goalie was likely to be a pending UFA... and it appears that Arizona actually did protect Chad Johnson as their goalie in the Vegas draft.



In most situations, it wouldn't make sense for an expansion team to take a pending UFA in the expansion draft, but Vegas taking Engelland was a very special case. As Vegas residents, the team wanted Engelland and his wife to be available as resources to the new players on the team, to offer advice on where to live and where to send their kids for school and things like that. They also wanted them to reassure the new players and their families that there's more to living in Vegas than just what you see on the Strip.

In order to have him and his wife available to do all that, he had to officially be a member of the team.




I don't think Seattle will have the same issues to deal with. Also, a player who's from Spokane isn't going to have any special insight into living in Seattle. That would be like expecting someone who was born and raised in Lethbridge to be an expert on living in Calgary.

[Geeoff]

Personally, if I'm Brad I just keep trying to improve the team. Protect who we can protect and lose only 1 piece to Seattle. The more options Seattle has to choose from, the more likely it is that Seattle will make a mistake rather than us.



Don't:
-make dumb trades to reduce Seattle's options
-give up Jakob Pelletier to save Travis Hamonic or something and then also lose another player