Warhippy Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 It's nice to know other GMs make mistakes like this in regards to players and sinking trade values Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhukini Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, zzbottom said: Miller's been doing that for two years anyways I think you spelled Eddie Lack wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Warhippy said: It's nice to know other GMs make mistakes like this in regards to players and sinking trade values What he iis really saying is the market is pretty low. ie You can have him if you want him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Jade Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Miller for Penguins' 1st and Fleury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, Warhippy said: It's nice to know other GMs make mistakes like this in regards to players and sinking trade values Pretttttyyyyy sure everyone already knows that's what they would do this regardless. It's called common sense. They aren't exposing a young, cheap, stud goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower102 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, Devon Jade said: Miller for Penguins' 1st and Fluery? Something like this could make sense. For me to do it, I would have to know that Fleury loses his trade protection once being traded (I believe some players lose it but some retain depending on the contract), that way we could make him available to the expansion draft instead of Marky. If this is the case, it could tempt Vegas to take Fluery instead of Sbisa or Granlund/Hansen (whoever we leave unprotected). I don't like the idea of losing any of those three. This is best case scenario. We essentially play out the year with Fleury instead of Miller, get an asset back from Pitt and don't lose a current roster player to the draft. Worst case scenario is that Vegas doesn't take Fleury with the draft. In which case we run with Fluery and Marky as our two goalies (Demko could use more time anyways to develop), gain an asset from Pitt, and lose the same roster piece we would have anyways in the draft. For Pitt, they lose an asset in a 1st or whatever is agreed upon, slightly downgrade G spot, but Miller and Fluery is fairly close for me, esspecially with Murray being the guy now. They get to dispose of the Miller contract at years end, and are not stuck with the buyout cap implications that they otherwise would have. Since they have so many high ticket players, all the help they can get on the cap is huge. Plus they have shown that they are willing to give up a 1st at the deadline. Even if it isn't a 1st though, I feel like we could rope some sort of asset worth while out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Tower102 said: Something like this could make sense. For me to do it, I would have to know that Fleury loses his trade protection once being traded (I believe some players lose it but some retain depending on the contract), that way we could make him available to the expansion draft instead of Marky. If this is the case, it could tempt Vegas to take Fluery instead of Sbisa or Granlund/Hansen (whoever we leave unprotected). I don't like the idea of losing any of those three. This is best case scenario. We essentially play out the year with Fleury instead of Miller, get an asset back from Pitt and don't lose a current roster player to the draft. Worst case scenario is that Vegas doesn't take Fleury with the draft. In which case we run with Fluery and Marky as our two goalies (Demko could use more time anyways to develop), gain an asset from Pitt, and lose the same roster piece we would have anyways in the draft. For Pitt, they lose an asset in a 1st or whatever is agreed upon, slightly downgrade G spot, but Miller and Fluery is fairly close for me, esspecially with Murray being the guy now. They get to dispose of the Miller contract at years end, and are not stuck with the buyout cap implications that they otherwise would have. Since they have so many high ticket players, all the help they can get on the cap is huge. Plus they have shown that they are willing to give up a 1st at the deadline. Even if it isn't a 1st though, I feel like we could rope some sort of asset worth while out of them. Maybe even Pouliot could be moved. But on LD you would have Edler, Sbisa, Hutton, Juolevi, Pouliot. Sbisa is likely to be claimed by Vegas, so Pouliot could slot 3rd pairing, Juolevi keeps getting groomed. Edler-Stecher Hutton-Tanev Pouliot-Gudbranson/Tryamkin But Pouliot would have to be exposed, so I think the draft pick would be better. Other interesting prospects include Sprong (RW) and Guentzel (C). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 If the team that showed interest isn't one that you want to go to right now, then if I was Fleury and or his agent, I stick to my guns, let that buy out happen, then I become free agent. I bank some big $$ and then see what my options are. May even sign for less on a team that I prefer. Not a huge biggie. Not like he will have a hard time sending his kids to private school ... admittedly, crappy way to leave Pens after giving so many years but that's the 'business' side of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Nirvanagut Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 55 minutes ago, Zhukini said: I think you spelled Eddie Lack wrong Aww, poor Eddie. His career is a hot mess right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower102 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, Neversummer said: If the team that showed interest isn't one that you want to go to right now, then if I was Fleury and or his agent, I stick to my guns, let that buy out happen, then I become free agent. I bank some big $$ and then see what my options are. May even sign for less on a team that I prefer. Not a huge biggie. Not like he will have a hard time sending his kids to private school ... admittedly, crappy way to leave Pens after giving so many years but that's the 'business' side of it. Ya but if you're Pitt you can ask him for his list, after that he can't go back on it and turn down a trade to a team if he determines the trade is one that will leave him exposed to the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 56 minutes ago, Patrick Kane said: Pretttttyyyyy sure everyone already knows that's what they would do this regardless. It's called common sense. They aren't exposing a young, cheap, stud goalie. It's the announcement of the buyout. That's what drops that value. Sure they're playing hardball but there's little to no value in him now People harp on JB for things like that, turns out it's normal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Still a really good goalie. If Pittsburgh does this, i wouldn't hesitate to see what he wants. Not convinced yet Marky is ready for a number one gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Devon Jade said: Miller for Penguins' 1st and Fluery? Because the Canucks would be on Fleury's list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garthsbutcher Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Can we buy out the Twins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotDogHorvat Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Tower102 said: Something like this could make sense. For me to do it, I would have to know that Fleury loses his trade protection once being traded (I believe some players lose it but some retain depending on the contract), that way we could make him available to the expansion draft instead of Marky. If this is the case, it could tempt Vegas to take Fluery instead of Sbisa or Granlund/Hansen (whoever we leave unprotected). I don't like the idea of losing any of those three. This is best case scenario. We essentially play out the year with Fleury instead of Miller, get an asset back from Pitt and don't lose a current roster player to the draft. Worst case scenario is that Vegas doesn't take Fleury with the draft. In which case we run with Fluery and Marky as our two goalies (Demko could use more time anyways to develop), gain an asset from Pitt, and lose the same roster piece we would have anyways in the draft. For Pitt, they lose an asset in a 1st or whatever is agreed upon, slightly downgrade G spot, but Miller and Fluery is fairly close for me, esspecially with Murray being the guy now. They get to dispose of the Miller contract at years end, and are not stuck with the buyout cap implications that they otherwise would have. Since they have so many high ticket players, all the help they can get on the cap is huge. Plus they have shown that they are willing to give up a 1st at the deadline. Even if it isn't a 1st though, I feel like we could rope some sort of asset worth while out of them. I would be surprised to hear that be the case with any contract. As someone who has worked with alot of legal contracts, simply moving a player would (at least in my view) unlikely lead to any changes in the clauses within the contract - ie his NTC wouldn't 'fall away', that would be a pretty signficant loophole in the CBA and the NHLPA would never allow it A player having a NTC then waiving it to move to a certain team wouldn't then negate the NTC with the new team in my view. From a legal perspective it would make no sense. Happy to see an occasion where this has occurred though if you have one but I highly doubt its the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Devon Jade said: Miller for Penguins' 1st and Fluery? Or something along the lines of Fleury to the stars for Nichuskin rights + Niemi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 The link Vintage posted takes you to a deleted page. I wonder if this was an instance of The Score mis-quoting/paraphrasing Bob McKenzie. As others already mentioned, it would be moronic of the Pens to come out and say this, and Rutherford isn't some chump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Poor Flower. Got phased out by a younger and just as skilled tender as him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotDogHorvat Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Rick Blight said: Why would they come out and say this? Presumably there would be some reason why they felt compelled to say this but I sure can't see the rationale. It's not like its a secret. Reality is, any GM can see Pit is over a barrell here regardless of them stating it or not Clearly Pitt is going to protect a younger and as capable Murray Fleury has a NTC so had to be protected Any rational GM can see either they trade him for 'whatever they can get' or its a buyout situation. Advantage for a team trading is they have him for a playoff run (ie Dallas if he'll waive, LA depending on cap and timing for Quick, hell even the Isles could use a REAL number 1 as they've had issues for a decade in net)... By putting it out there you let the league know he's available for cheap and send signal to him that he needs to 'open up his choices' if he doesn't want to be a UFA at the end of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I still don't understand this. The media release says "The 32-year-old is signed through the next two seasons at a reasonable $5.75-million cap hit, but a 12-team no-trade list can dictate where he is traded to, not to mention if he's willing to waive it to spend the final years of his career with an expansion club. Fleury has a NMC and not a NTC so I don't understand why he would have to provide any kind of list. The NHL CBA describes a NMC as: A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player's consent. Something is off with this media release. He can't have a contract that calls for a list of 12 teams as that would contravene the CBA NMC definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.