King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 At this point Weal is showing that he needs to be protected. I've been there bkungnit butbhoping he could fly below the radar. Seems impossible at this point. So so who gets exposed n his place (among The forwards)? Protect: g (have to) jake simmer schenn coots val (have to) weal Expose raff Weise read cousins peb vdv laughton Exempt: TK Lyuby Who am I forgetting?
DaGreatGazoo Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 You know the rules better than me these days, but Weal is a pending UFA. I don't protect him, hoping that scares LV away and if they pick him up, it's possible he signs with Philly after July 1? Is that allowed? Personally, if I'm Weal....I'm not signing with anyone prior to July 1. He's proven he can play in the league, and is probably in line for a nice pay increase.
elmatus Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 From my personal standpoint, I don't see protecting Weal as an issue. Hex would need to convince him to stay first though, and at a reasonable price. The sample size for his performance is still far too small. It would need to be a sort of bridge deal for a couple years at a very reasonable salary I think. All of which is certainly doable. From there, protecting him is easy with this bunch of misfits. Just pick any of the ones you've listed as exposed. They all have less potential than Weal. Raffl is better than the rest in that he's probably an actual solid bottom six. Many in that list aren't even that at this point. Laughton is passed the moment where he really needs to prove himself. If for some reason Vegas wants him, I say take him. Yeah, he still has a chance to develop into a pretty good player, but I'd be fine with that risk at this point. He just hasn't shown enough. I put Cousins in that same boat really. The rest of your list is basically a bunch of folks I'd much rather were not in an O&B sweater next year. I'd take the potential shown by Weal over any of them without thinking twice. Of course, that's all my personal standpoint. The reality is other things are a clear factor. For instance, PEB and CVV are apparent darlings. I will be exactly 0% shocked if it turns out Hex chooses to protect PEB over all the rest.
icehole Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 45 minutes ago, King Knut said: At this point Weal is showing that he needs to be protected. I've been there bkungnit butbhoping he could fly below the radar. Seems impossible at this point. So so who gets exposed n his place (among The forwards)? Protect: g (have to) jake simmer schenn coots val (have to) weal Expose raff Weise read cousins peb vdv laughton Exempt: TK Lyuby Who am I forgetting? I have no idea how this whole expose/protect thing works. Why do you "have" to protect certain players? What happens to the salary when you lose the player?
JR Ewing Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 I would be very cautious about protecting Weal. In this short stretch, his shooting percentage is nearly twice that of league average, so that will definitely come down to earth. He's currently shooting at a 27 goal rate; a pace that he never did in the AHL, let alone the toughest league in the world. That's not sustainable, and gambling that he can do this in the NHL seems like a bet against the house. After all, it's not like we're talking about a young prospect here, where you can expect much in the way of growth in his game.
Podein25 Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 58 minutes ago, King Knut said: I've been there bkungnit butbhoping Ack, who hasn't?
murraycraven Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, elmatus said: From my personal standpoint, I don't see protecting Weal as an issue. Hex would need to convince him to stay first though, and at a reasonable price. The sample size for his performance is still far too small. It would need to be a sort of bridge deal for a couple years at a very reasonable salary I think. All of which is certainly doable. From there, protecting him is easy with this bunch of misfits. Just pick any of the ones you've listed as exposed. They all have less potential than Weal. Raffl is better than the rest in that he's probably an actual solid bottom six. Many in that list aren't even that at this point. Laughton is passed the moment where he really needs to prove himself. If for some reason Vegas wants him, I say take him. Yeah, he still has a chance to develop into a pretty good player, but I'd be fine with that risk at this point. He just hasn't shown enough. I put Cousins in that same boat really. The rest of your list is basically a bunch of folks I'd much rather were not in an O&B sweater next year. I'd take the potential shown by Weal over any of them without thinking twice. Of course, that's all my personal standpoint. The reality is other things are a clear factor. For instance, PEB and CVV are apparent darlings. I will be exactly 0% shocked if it turns out Hex chooses to protect PEB over all the rest. could not have said it any better....
radoran Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, icehole said: I have no idea how this whole expose/protect thing works. Why do you "have" to protect certain players? What happens to the salary when you lose the player? https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592 Anybody with a NMC you "have to" protect. Teams can protect either 7F/3D/1G or 8FD/1G. They must expose 2F/1D/1G. Vegas selects one player from each team. The salary of the player is paid by Vegas if they pick them. This site has a neat tool for looking at who's protected, who "must be" retained and who can go. https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Podein25 said: Ack, who hasn't? It's all the top secret magic encoding my fat fingers do so president Fillmore can't wire tap me through my microwave.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, icehole said: I have no idea how this whole expose/protect thing works. Why do you "have" to protect certain players? What happens to the salary when you lose the player? Are you trolling me because I can't type on my phone? I'll be happy to talk about it if not. I'm already a fool. I don't need help looking foolish.
icehole Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, radoran said: https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592 Anybody with a NMC you "have to" protect. Teams can protect either 7F/3D/1G or 8FD/1G. They must expose 2F/1D/1G. Vegas selects one player from each team. The salary of the player is paid by Vegas if they pick them. This site has a neat tool for looking at who's protected, who "must be" retained and who can go. https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft Thanks!
icehole Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 5 minutes ago, King Knut said: Are you trolling me because I can't type on my phone? I'll be happy to talk about it if not. I'm already a fool. I don't need help looking foolish. No...I really don't know the rules. I didn't notice your typing mistakes.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 2 hours ago, elmatus said: From my personal standpoint, I don't see protecting Weal as an issue. Hex would need to convince him to stay first though, and at a reasonable price. The sample size for his performance is still far too small. It would need to be a sort of bridge deal for a couple years at a very reasonable salary I think. All of which is certainly doable. From there, protecting him is easy with this bunch of misfits. Just pick any of the ones you've listed as exposed. They all have less potential than Weal. Raffl is better than the rest in that he's probably an actual solid bottom six. Many in that list aren't even that at this point. Laughton is passed the moment where he really needs to prove himself. If for some reason Vegas wants him, I say take him. Yeah, he still has a chance to develop into a pretty good player, but I'd be fine with that risk at this point. He just hasn't shown enough. I put Cousins in that same boat really. The rest of your list is basically a bunch of folks I'd much rather were not in an O&B sweater next year. I'd take the potential shown by Weal over any of them without thinking twice. Of course, that's all my personal standpoint. The reality is other things are a clear factor. For instance, PEB and CVV are apparent darlings. I will be exactly 0% shocked if it turns out Hex chooses to protect PEB over all the rest. Oops have to correct. You're totally right Weal is UFA that sucks. He's not getting exposed at all. This whole thread (as interesting as it's been) is irrelevant. MY BAD! Teach me to try to read Cap Friendly on my phone. If they can sign him, And a short bridge deal is of course all he'd get. The dude has a handful of NHL games. He doesn't get a big raise or anything like that. I don't think any agent in the world would try to convince Hextall of that. I'm just concerned that he's playing well enough (and he is playing very well... not just scoring. that goes up and down regardless, but he's playing well on the whole) to attract attention from McPhee. While I still think the Neuvy situation is fishy enough to make me think he is what Vegas is taking, I could also see them going for Raffl, Cousins or Laughton. Like you say, Raffl is going to add the most to your team, but Cousins and Laughton are both cheap and they both have positive play driving and 2-way numbers that simply haven't resulted in goals. Essentially if McPhee is in a position where he needs to fill out a lineup with one of our guys (and he does HAVE to take one) but he doesn't have a lot of money left, I could see him taking either one and I'm good with that. That's the kind of guy I don't mind losing in an expansion draft. Raffl is a positive contributor and a solid player for this team and it would be really great to see him play on the third line where he would seem to most belong. He doesn't make a ton, but he might make more than McPhee is willing to spend for a role player. It depends on who he takes from whom elsewhere in the draft I suppose.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, icehole said: No...I really don't know the rules. I didn't notice your typing mistakes. Never hurts to check. Stop me when I'm saying something you already know. If Vegas drafts a player from the Flyers roster, they take the player and his current contract. I forget exactly how it works if they draft a guy that is an unsigned RFA like Cousins or Laughton or Lyubimov. But essentially if Vegas were to draft Jake, They'd have to pay Jake's 8 million for the duration until they traded him again. The Flyers can "protect" 7 forwards, 3 d men and 1 goalie. They are required to "expose" At least 1 guy who meets certain qualifications (40 NHL games played this year or 70 over the past two) at each position. (it may be more for forwards I can't remember). Players on Entry Level Contracts (essentially rookies) are exempt (Konecney, Provo) - I don't believe Lyubimov is exempt as he'll be coming off his ELC, and isn't under contract for next year yet. Players with certain types of No Movement Clauses are required to be protected (Giroux, Filppula). It's assumed that MacDonald was playing so much early in the season to ensure that he made 40 games as the Flyers only look to have 3 D men elligible to expose otherwise and they would likely wish to protect them all (Gudas, Ghost, Manning) MacDonald's contract acts as a de-facto protection anyway because who the hell would want to take that on? The intention was never that Vegas would take Mac, just that the Flyers would be able to protect other players. It is assumed that Hextall signed Neuwirth because he is required to expose a goalie under contract. Without signing Neuwirth, Hextall would have to expose an unsigned Stolarz. This way he can protect Stolarz and expose Neuwirth. Some have suggested that Hextall and McPhee have made an under the table deal for Hextall to extend Neuwirth a contract that Vegas found friendly, then expose him so they could draft Neuwirth. The reasons people suspect this is because McPhee has a personal affinity for Neuwirth (he really seemed to like the player when he ran things in Washington) and because there were leaks to the press that such deals were happening and that the NHL was turning a blind eye because it seemed to benefit both Vegas and the existing teams, so who cares? I suspect it's true because I can't figure out another reason on earth Hextall would have extended Neuwirth at all, giving him a raise no less. There is also suggestion that the reason Mason is unsigned is because he and the Flyers have a gentleman's agreement that he will resign in the off season at a predetermined contract in order to avoid having to protect or expose him in the Vegas draft. It's possible they might be thinking something similar with MDZ, but in all likelihood, they'll just let him go so they can bring up Sanheim, Morin, Hagg, Myers (on the outside) and/or sign a stay at home type Vet to complement the pairings better.
icehole Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 3 minutes ago, King Knut said: Never hurts to check. Stop me when I'm saying something you already know. If Vegas drafts a player from the Flyers roster, they take the player and his current contract. I forget exactly how it works if they draft a guy that is an unsigned RFA like Cousins or Laughton or Lyubimov. But essentially if Vegas were to draft Jake, They'd have to pay Jake's 8 million for the duration until they traded him again. The Flyers can "protect" 7 forwards, 3 d men and 1 goalie. They are required to "expose" At least 1 guy who meets certain qualifications (40 NHL games played this year or 70 over the past two) at each position. (it may be more for forwards I can't remember). Players on Entry Level Contracts (essentially rookies) are exempt (Konecney, Provo) - I don't believe Lyubimov is exempt as he'll be coming off his ELC, and isn't under contract for next year yet. Players with certain types of No Movement Clauses are required to be protected (Giroux, Filppula). It's assumed that MacDonald was playing so much early in the season to ensure that he made 40 games as the Flyers only look to have 3 D men elligible to expose otherwise and they would likely wish to protect them all (Gudas, Ghost, Manning) MacDonald's contract acts as a de-facto protection anyway because who the hell would want to take that on? The intention was never that Vegas would take Mac, just that the Flyers would be able to protect other players. It is assumed that Hextall signed Neuwirth because he is required to expose a goalie under contract. Without signing Neuwirth, Hextall would have to expose an unsigned Stolarz. This way he can protect Stolarz and expose Neuwirth. Some have suggested that Hextall and McPhee have made an under the table deal for Hextall to extend Neuwirth a contract that Vegas found friendly, then expose him so they could draft Neuwirth. The reasons people suspect this is because McPhee has a personal affinity for Neuwirth (he really seemed to like the player when he ran things in Washington) and because there were leaks to the press that such deals were happening and that the NHL was turning a blind eye because it seemed to benefit both Vegas and the existing teams, so who cares? I suspect it's true because I can't figure out another reason on earth Hextall would have extended Neuwirth at all, giving him a raise no less. There is also suggestion that the reason Mason is unsigned is because he and the Flyers have a gentleman's agreement that he will resign in the off season at a predetermined contract in order to avoid having to protect or expose him in the Vegas draft. It's possible they might be thinking something similar with MDZ, but in all likelihood, they'll just let him go so they can bring up Sanheim, Morin, Hagg, Myers (on the outside) and/or sign a stay at home type Vet to complement the pairings better. OK. That's basically what I was getting at. I didn't know you had to protect NMC. I was also thinking about if unprotecting voracek would be a good strategy or not. You would like to get trade value for him, but if you could "dump" his salary, would that be such a bad thing? Would an expansion team take on his $8m? If you unprotect him and Vegas passes, how would he react to being unprotected?
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 2 hours ago, JR Ewing said: I would be very cautious about protecting Weal. In this short stretch, his shooting percentage is nearly twice that of league average, so that will definitely come down to earth. He's currently shooting at a 27 goal rate; a pace that he never did in the AHL, let alone the toughest league in the world. That's not sustainable, and gambling that he can do this in the NHL seems like a bet against the house. After all, it's not like we're talking about a young prospect here, where you can expect much in the way of growth in his game. This whole thread was based on mistake on my part. I thought Weal was RFA, but he's not. I read Cap Friendly's grid wrong because I was on my phone. He's UFA. If he resigns with the Flyers at all, they can just do it after the draft and avoid protecting him or exposing him at all. However, vegas gets to make him offers before the rest of the NHL and the rest of the NHL gets to offer him deals on 7/1. Hextall could extend him now I suppose and then protect him. Sorry I screwed up. I would prefer to keep Weal. I like his game. I like his fire and I like his competitive nature. Of course it may all be a show because he's a UFA. What does he give next season? That said, the guy has been knocking on the door of the NHL for a long time. He's had a lot of time to develop in the AHL and did quite well there. I don't think he's a future star, but I'd rather have him on my third line than Weise or even Lyuby and I'd sure as hell rather have him on the ice than VDV. That's not to say that he couldn't play top 6 minutes next year. Anything's possible on this roster with this coach. but another team could try to give him top 6 dollars and I agree that the Flyers shouldn't be doing that.
AJgoal Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Just now, King Knut said: If Vegas drafts a player from the Flyers roster, they take the player and his current contract. I forget exactly how it works if they draft a guy that is an unsigned RFA like Cousins or Laughton or Lyubimov. Vegas has two days to negotiate with pending RFAs/UFAs who are left unprotected prior to the expansion draft. If they come to an agreement, they can sign them as if they were a free agent, and it counts as their pick from Philly. Just now, King Knut said: But essentially if Vegas were to draft Jake, They'd have to pay Jake's 8 million for the duration until they traded him again. The Flyers can "protect" 7 forwards, 3 d men and 1 goalie. Or 8 skaters and one goalie. Just now, King Knut said: They are required to "expose" At least 1 guy who meets certain qualifications (40 NHL games played this year or 70 over the past two) at each position. (it may be more for forwards I can't remember). 2 forwards, 1 defenseman. Just now, King Knut said: Players on Entry Level Contracts (essentially rookies) are exempt (Konecney, Provo) - I don't believe Lyubimov is exempt as he'll be coming off his ELC, and isn't under contract for next year yet. It's not players on ELCs. It's players with two years or less of pro experience (including AHL). Lyubimov should actually be exempt because this is his first "pro" season. Just now, King Knut said: Players with certain types of No Movement Clauses are required to be protected (Giroux, Filppula). It's assumed that MacDonald was playing so much early in the season to ensure that he made 40 games as the Flyers only look to have 3 D men elligible to expose otherwise and they would likely wish to protect them all (Gudas, Ghost, Manning) MacDonald's contract acts as a de-facto protection anyway because who the hell would want to take that on? The intention was never that Vegas would take Mac, just that the Flyers would be able to protect other players. It is assumed that Hextall signed Neuwirth because he is required to expose a goalie under contract. Or an RFA who has received a qualifying offer. Just now, King Knut said: Without signing Neuwirth, Hextall would have to expose an unsigned Stolarz. This way he can protect Stolarz and expose Neuwirth.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 5 minutes ago, icehole said: OK. That's basically what I was getting at. I didn't know you had to protect NMC. I was also thinking about if unprotecting voracek would be a good strategy or not. You would like to get trade value for him, but if you could "dump" his salary, would that be such a bad thing? Would an expansion team take on his $8m? If you unprotect him and Vegas passes, how would he react to being unprotected? Yeah I was thinking something similar with Jake. I think it would be worth the risk. I highly doubt Vegas wants to take on an 8 million dollar RW that's scoring like Jake. At the end of the day, Vegas is literally required to take a player from every NHL team and 3 of them have to be goalies. Even with minor leaguers and league minimum salaries, that has the potential to add up to a pretty hefty cap hit pretty quickly because there are going to be some valuable (cup winning) but expensive players available. All in all, I think they need to hang on to Jake at this point and they're not risking losing anyone I'd be so desperate to keep. Expose jake in 3 years when the whole thing happens again with Quebec
flyerrod Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, icehole said: I was also thinking about if unprotecting voracek would be a good strategy or not. You would like to get trade value for him, but if you could "dump" his salary, would that be such a bad thing? Would an expansion team take on his $8m? If you unprotect him and Vegas passes, how would he react to being unprotected? Personally, I think his cost of his contract will protect him. It would be worth the risk of losing his under-performing MacDud-like contract at this point in time were they to take him. The bottom line is that it is a business and if players do not know that by know then they need some help. To me, Jake has not performed well enough to be protected.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, AJgoal said: Vegas has two days to negotiate with pending RFAs/UFAs who are left unprotected prior to the expansion draft. If they come to an agreement, they can sign them as if they were a free agent, and it counts as their pick from Philly. Or 8 skaters and one goalie. 2 forwards, 1 defenseman. It's not players on ELCs. It's players with two years or less of pro experience (including AHL). Lyubimov should actually be exempt because this is his first "pro" season. Or an RFA who has received a qualifying offer. -Okay thanks re: the RFAs. I had thought Vegas would be responsible for the new contract, but I didn't have time to double check. - Right, but I think we all assume the Flyers are doing 7-3 right? It's not like they'd leave Ghost, Gudas and Manning unprotected just so they could sign and protect Weal. -Thought it might have been more forwards. -Sorry sometimes I use ELC as a blanket term. I shouldn't do that. - Right but we assume he wants to protect Stolarz, right?
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, flyerrod said: Personally, I think his cost of his contract will protect him. It would be worth the risk of losing his under-performing MacDud-like contract at this point in time were they to take him. The bottom line is that it is a business and if players do not know that by know then they need some help. To me, Jake has not performed well enough to be protected. I agree that Vegas wouldn't take him. In all likelihood. However, let's just say they did. What on earth would the Flyers do then? Drop even more money to sign TJ Oshie so he could come here, play for his former coach and score a whole lot less than he did in DC? This is not a good year for Free Agents. If they were to lose Jake for nothing, as much as he hasn't met expectations, it would leave a big glaring hole in the lineup. Of course by exposing him and taking the risk, we could keep Cousins! Is that what you're thinking?
flyerrod Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 1 minute ago, King Knut said: Of course by exposing him and taking the risk, we could keep Cousins! Is that what you're thinking? #1 I really don't think that McPhee wants anything to do with Jake's contract. That is whole lot of money for a guy that has under-performed the last 2 years. #2 I think it will send a message to Jake to start carrying his own weight again. He certainly has the potential to be that 8 million dollar man but he has not shown it for a while now. As far as protecting Cousins, I did not even factor him into the equation. I would protect Raffl before I protected Cousins.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 22 minutes ago, icehole said: OK. That's basically what I was getting at. I didn't know you had to protect NMC. I was also thinking about if unprotecting voracek would be a good strategy or not. You would like to get trade value for him, but if you could "dump" his salary, would that be such a bad thing? Would an expansion team take on his $8m? If you unprotect him and Vegas passes, how would he react to being unprotected? It's weird because it depends on the clause. No Movement Clauses have to be protected. Modified Clauses (No trades mostly I guess) may not need to be. They decided on a case by case basis a while back. Somehow Filppula's specifics meant he had to be protected. I assume in the NMC portion.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Author Posted March 29, 2017 6 minutes ago, flyerrod said: #1 I really don't think that McPhee wants anything to do with Jake's contract. That is whole lot of money for a guy that has under-performed the last 2 years. #2 I think it will send a message to Jake to start carrying his own weight again. He certainly has the potential to be that 8 million dollar man but he has not shown it for a while now. As far as protecting Cousins, I did not even factor him into the equation. I would protect Raffl before I protected Cousins. As with the complaints on several other players, I find it difficult to single out Jake when the entire team has been playing poorly. However, Giroux and Couturier, Schenn and even Weise have been producing more lately and it doesn't seem that Jake has, so maybe you've got a point. Long and short is that I haven't had as much of a problem with Jake this year. He's the leading scorer on a really terrible even strength team. It's hard for me to single him out. They can protect Raffl now can't they? 1) Giroux 2) Jake 3) Filppula 4) Simmonds 5) Schenn 6) Couturier 7) Raffl
icehole Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 22 minutes ago, King Knut said: Yeah I was thinking something similar with Jake. I think it would be worth the risk. I highly doubt Vegas wants to take on an 8 million dollar RW that's scoring like Jake. At the end of the day, Vegas is literally required to take a player from every NHL team and 3 of them have to be goalies. Even with minor leaguers and league minimum salaries, that has the potential to add up to a pretty hefty cap hit pretty quickly because there are going to be some valuable (cup winning) but expensive players available. All in all, I think they need to hang on to Jake at this point and they're not risking losing anyone I'd be so desperate to keep. Expose jake in 3 years when the whole thing happens again with Quebec Maybe Vegas wouldn't take a $8m contract, but what about a $4.5m 3rd line center? Now I'm trolling!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.