Makar Goes Fast
grocery stick
none. teams will take the minnesota approach and rather than loose 2 good players, they will accept it and just loose one.
Speculation: Players that will be moved cheap due to the exspansion draft.
- Thread starter LEAFANFORLIFE23
- Start date
go4hockey
Registered User
While this is part true often player won't wave if they like where they are or will limit where they will go to thus severely limits said players return. It can and has gone both ways so you really can't act like every player will wave it's different for each player and their situation.
go4hockey
Registered User
More important things in life than to nitpick. Everyone in the world clearly understood his point.
Makar Goes Fast
grocery stick
my mistake...
lea fan for life.
must be a big fan of cows grazing or something. i support your passion none the less. you do you.
Makar Goes Fast
grocery stick
100% agree.
people think the core is set up for something great but in reality they are given a whole lot of nothing which tricks people thinking what is happening is working.
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
- Feb 20, 2012
- 7,965
- 58
You violated the 3rd law of HFdynamics: fringe players may neither be created nor destroyed. This other bolded fringe player is not accounted for otherwise and your equation is unbalanced.
If you believe in an infinite supply of fringe players, then we have 2 scenarios:
make a trade, get fringe player + pick, lose 2 roster players
OR
sit tight, keep 2nd best exposed roster player, lose 1 roster player
If we assume you have a player on your roster because you think he is good and the other fringe player is unsigned by 30 teams, we can conclude that the former is better than the latter. Essentially you violate the 1st law of HF, which is not to trade quality for quantity. And when we consider the caliber of these players, that pick is going to come in the 5th round if you are lucky.
You could do that and get some team's #7 for those essentially worthless players, but I don't think that would really help your team. Gaining the equivalent defenseman won't be worth more than losing two of those 4 will hurt your forward depth.
Tripod
I hate this team
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
- Feb 20, 2012
- 7,965
- 58
Which part is wrong? Either those players aren't worth anything, which means both you won't get any good defenseman for one of them and you can afford to lose two. Or those are very good players and you will be hurt by subtracting two of them. In both cases losing one is preferable to losing two, and it's probably the first because expansion eligible forwards that aren't worth protecting are becoming worthless as we approach next summer. And I didn't group those players together, I just went with whatever the other poster said.
Comes down to 2 things
A. Management outlook. Are they placing more value on immediate roster strength or playing the long game with organizational asset management.
B. F v D depth cut offs and weighing the 7+3 vs. 8 protection schemes.
A team that could very well satisfy both is the Preds.
Under 7+3
Exposed D: Ellis/Ekholm
Exposed F: Scissons? Depth player anyway
Under 8 (4+4)
Exposed D: Granberg
Exposed F: 2 of Smith/Wilson/Jarncrok
If they're not a prime contender it makes more sense for them long term to move Ellis/Ekholm for a good return (maybe not full value but not peanuts) and lose Scissons/Granberg for nothing than to lose one of the 5 vets listed above. Either for a top 6 forward (by my count they have 1 slot avaialbe) or futures.
Like I said earlier in the thread, it wont be about players being available cheap. Giveaways don't make any sense. But some players may be available that otherwise would not.
A. Management outlook. Are they placing more value on immediate roster strength or playing the long game with organizational asset management.
B. F v D depth cut offs and weighing the 7+3 vs. 8 protection schemes.
A team that could very well satisfy both is the Preds.
Under 7+3
Exposed D: Ellis/Ekholm
Exposed F: Scissons? Depth player anyway
Under 8 (4+4)
Exposed D: Granberg
Exposed F: 2 of Smith/Wilson/Jarncrok
If they're not a prime contender it makes more sense for them long term to move Ellis/Ekholm for a good return (maybe not full value but not peanuts) and lose Scissons/Granberg for nothing than to lose one of the 5 vets listed above. Either for a top 6 forward (by my count they have 1 slot avaialbe) or futures.
Like I said earlier in the thread, it wont be about players being available cheap. Giveaways don't make any sense. But some players may be available that otherwise would not.
RangerBoy
Dolan sucks!!!
The expansion draft is set up for most if not all of the teams to lose a player they would rather not lose.
rt
Clean Hits on Substack
Clearly you just don't recognize the massive popularity of Toronto with free agents. Why I hear Tavares will be signing there in a year.
Fun fact: Arizona was on Alex Golikoski's No Go list with his last contract. He had to waive for the rights trade.
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
- Feb 20, 2012
- 7,965
- 58
You don't want to waste a protection slot on them, so unless there is evidence that somebody does they have no worth. I assume it isn't news to you that expansion is going to take some good defensemen from some teams and that defensemen are generally worth more than forwards. When we consider that a team can already protect more than half its forward group and that most of the exempt NHL players are forwards who develop faster, the league average best exposed forward is going to be a 4th liner. Relative to forwards, the value of defensemen will never be higher and many teams will need their #5 and #6 to play more once their #4 gets taken. Not hard to see that the market for a guy you can't be bothered to protect and who plays in your bottom 6 isn't going to involve any defensemen that would be worth protecting.
The preds are one of the teams that make the least sense in this scenario, Ellis and Ekholm are so much more valuable than any forward we're going to expose. It makes zero sense to trade either for less value just to lose a depth player.
I'd be shocked if Vegas picks anybody else besides Wilson.
Because of the format it will be Goalies and Dmen that become available as a result of the expansion draft.
For goalies think teams that have a very good # 2 they control beyond next year like Pittsburgh with Fluery, possibly Avs with Pickard, possibly Panthers with Reimer.
For D, teams that have a # 4 D who they might not want to lose for nothing look at Ottawa (Phaneuf or Methot), Anahiem (Despres or Montour?), Minnesota (Scandella or Dumba), Islanders (Pulock), Jets (Enstrom), Nashville (Ellis). Some teams will simply choose to protect 8 skaters instead of 7F/3D but a few of the guys I noted I'm betting move teams.
Teams with lots of depth in the form of exempt players and extra picks will be in the best position to benefit. Think teams like Yotes, Jets and Leafs who've got lots of extra picks and quality prospect depth from being sellers in recent seasons.
For goalies think teams that have a very good # 2 they control beyond next year like Pittsburgh with Fluery, possibly Avs with Pickard, possibly Panthers with Reimer.
For D, teams that have a # 4 D who they might not want to lose for nothing look at Ottawa (Phaneuf or Methot), Anahiem (Despres or Montour?), Minnesota (Scandella or Dumba), Islanders (Pulock), Jets (Enstrom), Nashville (Ellis). Some teams will simply choose to protect 8 skaters instead of 7F/3D but a few of the guys I noted I'm betting move teams.
Teams with lots of depth in the form of exempt players and extra picks will be in the best position to benefit. Think teams like Yotes, Jets and Leafs who've got lots of extra picks and quality prospect depth from being sellers in recent seasons.
Makar Goes Fast
grocery stick
yeah obviously. but the point is why trade away a player, and then lose one when you can just lose one.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
Actually, except for Reilly and Andersen those are unproven prospects who will play at some time for the worst team in the league. No one waives for that crappy team. We don't know what Reilly will become, he could become a legit top pairing guy or he could become a #4. Andersen? If he was a #1 goalie, he wouldn't have been traded for so little.
Reilly won't be a #4 guy seeing as he's already a legit #2
As for Andersen he's already been a #1 guy on a playoff team so there is that and it was either trade him or expose him next summer and lose him for nothing.
And before you come back with some crap about "well if he was a #1 he wouldn't be exposed." Because I know you will
The ducks are a budget team and they have a great young goalie that's much cheaper than Andersen
That doesn't mean Andersen is not a #1 it means they had 2 #1 guys
Kind like how the pens look to have that situation now
Doesn't mean MAF isn't a #1 guy but at some point they have to move him.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
Reilly is a #2 on a team with no blue line. What is he in Nashville? Minnesota?
If you think Andersen is a #1, I don't know what to tell you. He is not a top 20 goalie. Neither is Fleury. Exposed? Not exposed? It doesn't matter. You are so hung up on bottom fishing because there is an expansion draft it's funny. How many players will each team lose? How many goalies can Vegas take? The draft is not a reason to dump players to help you rebuild your team.
And the Leafs are a no go for most UFAs or players with NMCs. Ask Stamkos, Rick Nash, Brad Richards etc.etc.etc. I can't wait for the Tavares to the Leafs threads just like those listed above.
The only UFA of note that went there? David Clarkson!
You are letting your "Leaf Fan for Life" glasses color your perspective. The Leafs are less attractive to players than Arizona, Columbus, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary etc.etc. I think players are more likely to waive for the teams you listed than Toronto. You know what's really sad? So many of them are FROM Ontario and still won't sign there.
As someone pointed out, people who live in glass houses. Think before you post.
Last edited:
The Zetterberg Era
Ball Hockey Sucks
I think the more interesting angle here is who attaches something to a player they want to get rid of.
As a Wings fan I would be willing to attach a second round pick to either Ericsson or Howard for future Considerations just to make sure they take one.
As a Wings fan I would be willing to attach a second round pick to either Ericsson or Howard for future Considerations just to make sure they take one.
I, never thought Stamkos was coming and if you don't believe me go back and find my posts from that time I I had him staying in TB up until the deadline and when it looked like he might leave I had him going to Buffalo NEVER Toronto
I certainly don't have JT coming here either.
As for Andersen and MAF not being top 20 goalies there is no way you could possibly believe that all those guys do is win games, sure Andersen doesn't have as many games as MAF but his record speaks for itself he is a #1
Same goes for MAF
you also talked the Leafs being a no go for UFA players, that was the case it won't be much longer
Players go to teams that are either good or on an upswing
Look at Buffalo pre Eichel NOBODY came, now? They Okposo
Pre Mcdavid NOBODY would go to Edmonton
Now? They land Lucic
Now the Leafs have Babcock and Mathews once Mathews shows that he is the guy, players will come play with him
me2
Go ahead foot
If expansion waiver players were going cheap I'd be buying as many as I could. You can only lose one. Keep them and strengthen your team, or sell them after the draft for fat profits.
That's not enough. Vegas rather take a good exposed player than a bad one and a 2nd. I suspect Vegas will nab a AA or Mantha and then deal with cap dumps.
