Possible expansion draft -- Big choice at the goalie position?

Postby **shafnutz05** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:49 pm

DK had an article on his site today talking about the potential dilemma the Pens might face if they do decide to expand--of course, NHL teams can only protect one goaltender during a draft. With Fleury and Murray, it's a pretty good bet that an expansion team would jump on the chance to draft a young, talented guy like Murray if we protected Fleury. If we protect Murray, Fleury will probably be a top commodity as well with other teams protecting their starters.

It's something I hadn't thought about, but certainly a realistic scenario. Of course, if the draft is next year, Murray and Jarry would both be exempt. It's VERY speculative at this point, but "fun" to think about.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:16 pm

Meh, just do what the Sharks did..."hey, jambronis...here's a 2nd round pick, leave Fleury out of this..."

Postby **Trip McNeely** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:29 pm

Meh, just do what the Sharks did..."hey, jambronis...here's a 2nd round pick, leave Fleury out of this..."

Or you protect Murray and tell Fleury to activate his no time trade clause.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:32 pm

Good point. But if they classify this as a "waiver claim" and not a trade, which I think they will...he would need a no-move to nix it, not a no-trade...no-trade wouldn't do it...

We'd also have to factor in what other goalies will be available...

Postby **King Colby** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:05 am

Also by the time any expansion draft happens Fleury might already be traded... if it's 2 years from now he's have 1 more year left on his deal anyway.

Postby **count2infinity** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:04 am

Out of curiosity, can teams do some dealings before an expansion draft or are FA signings and trades not available around that time. If it comes down to it two years from now and we still have Murray and Jarry looking awesome, would it be possible to trade one of the 3 goalies before the draft to not worry about it?

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:19 am

Yeah you can make trades. And as I referenced above, you can try to bribe a team to leave a player alone. The Sharks bribed Minnesota to leave a young Evgeni Nabokov alone in 2000...

Postby **NTP66** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:32 pm

To expand on it a bit, there are a few options on the table: protecting 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 1 goalie, or 8 skaters and a goalie. However, each team is only subject to losing 1 player off their roster, and entry-level players are exempt. Personally, I would absolutely hate it if the league expanded into a market like Las Vegas, where it would die a slow, horrible death, and the league is stupid enough to seriously consider that.

Postby **columbia** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:35 pm

So we're back to the trading Fleury talk. Great.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:08 pm

To get a better portrayal, we need to simulate who else would be available in this thing. It's like when a player gets put on waivers and it's like "oh no! He'll definitely be claimed!" until you realize that each roster probably has 20 similar or better players on their roster already.

What if Winnipeg in 2018 has to expose Eric Comrie or Connor Hellebucyk or Michael Hutchinson...? Better option than 34 year old Fleury pending UFA? Probably. Or what if Buffalo hits it big with Lehner and Makarov? Holtby, Grubauer, Samsonov...who knows what could happen and what better options might be available. The thought of exposing Fleury makes me queasy, but it might end being a non-issue...the full-est scope possible for this is gonna be necessary...then we can panic...

Postby **Jim** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:49 pm

To expand on it a bit, there are a few options on the table: protecting 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 1 goalie, or 8 skaters and a goalie. However, each team is only subject to losing 1 player off their roster, and entry-level players are exempt. Personally, I would absolutely hate it if the league expanded into a market like Las Vegas, where it would die a slow, horrible death, and the league is stupid enough to seriously consider that.

It is 7+3 or 8+1. 7+3+1 is not the option.

Postby **NTP66** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:55 pm

To expand on it a bit, there are a few options on the table: protecting 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 1 goalie, or 8 skaters and a goalie. However, each team is only subject to losing 1 player off their roster, and entry-level players are exempt. Personally, I would absolutely hate it if the league expanded into a market like Las Vegas, where it would die a slow, horrible death, and the league is stupid enough to seriously consider that.
It is 7+3 or 8+1. 7+3+1 is not the option.

Somebody better tell the guys over at TSN that.

Edit to include this, too:

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status ... 3619119104

Postby **Jim** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:04 pm

It was said that that was a typo which is why it is an "I" (i) and not a "1" (one). I honestly do not know for sure, but 7+3 or 8+1 was the last that I saw.

Postby **NTP66** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:05 pm

He repeated it in the video, too. Either way, it could still change.

Postby **MR25** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:08 pm

That almost doesn't make sense, since it seems like protecting 10 skaters > protecting 8. But I guess if you have a young D corps, or your D corps sucks, you'd rather take 8 forwards.

Postby **Jim** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:10 pm

He repeated it in the video, too. Either way, it could still change.

If it is 7+3+1 or 8+1 you would technically be "trading" 3F spots for 1D or all 3D spots fro 1F. The 8 would be 8F+0D or 4F+4D (on through 0F+8D). But that fist spot for cost you 3 of the other skater position. That seems very extreme to be correct.

2 skaters for 1G seems more realistic.

7F+3D vs 5F+3D+1G or 6F+2D+1G etc

Postby **MR25** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Also, doesn't Fleury have some type of NMC?

Postby **meecrofilm** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:11 pm

It's also unclear whether or not teams will be forced to have players with NMC's be part of their protected group. If that were the case, Pens would have no choice but to expose Murray as long as Fleury was on the roster.

Edit: Yeah, what MR25 just brought up.

Postby **NTP66** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:12 pm

Fleury does have an NMC, yes, along with Sid, Geno, Letang and Kessel. Daley and Hornqvist have modified NTCs.

Postby **MR25** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:12 pm

I don't think Murray would be an issue if it were to happen this year, because Murray is only a 1st or 2nd year pro (I'm not sure how they determine this), both of which (I think) are automatically protected.

Postby **meecrofilm** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:13 pm

I believe next year is the earliest they were talking about, no?

Postby **NTP66** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:14 pm

Prospects, 1st, and 2nd year players are protected.

Postby **Jim** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:14 pm

I believe next year is the earliest they were talking about, no?

Correct.

Sprong is probably/possibly the only person currently of note that would not need to be protected.

Postby **MR25** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:38 pm

But that still affects my question:

Since Murray only played in the AHL last year, does that count as one year of "pro", or would this be his first year?

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:40 pm

AHL = pro for these purposes. And typically, all purposes. NHL games is the more specific deal, pertaining to waiver exemption and pension...