Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LV

[Oscar Lindberg]

Isn't the requirement on exposed and not protected?

In theory, couldn't the Rangers could choose to expose a goalie, not protect one, and then fill the position after the draft either via a trade, free agency, or internally with someone like Wall.

Theoretically yes but I don't know if there are rules about not using a protection spot because as far as I know, it hasn't been done haha

 

[Edge]

Theoretically yes but I don't know if there are rules about not using a protection spot because as far as I know, it hasn't been done haha

Truth be told, it's probably a non-point anyway. The Rangers could very well someone in either the ECHL or AHL who qualifies.

But my understanding has been that the league really doesn't give a shit what teams do with their slots so long as they as expansion teams have access to exposed player minimums and there isn't a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules.

 

[Avery16]

FFS, no I didn't. I said assuming the same replacement cost.

Smith and Staal saves us 3.7 mil. Their replacements cost a minimum of 1.4 mil, saving us a net of 2.3 mil.

Hank saves us 3 mil. His replacement costs a minimum of 700k, saving us a net of 2.3 mil.

If you can't admit you were wrong, then just move on. Either way, I'm done with this.

Why would you only allocate 700k for a backup to Igor? He’s still a rookie. You’re going to want a quality, experienced backup, if not Hank. That will cost closer to 2 million than 700k.

You should dispense with the ad hominems. Just make your point or don’t, there’s no cause for personal attacks.

 

[Irishguy42]

That's part of my question. Looking at the rules it talks about needing a goalie to expose. I don't see a requirement on needing one to protect.

They need to submit protection lists to the league, which will have one goalie on it (regardless of going 7F-3D or 8 skaters). It's right at the top.

They must also have at least one other goalie eligible to be exposed.

Here is what the NHL says, which is the exact thing CF is saying in their FAQ.

It's very straight-forward.

Right now, the Rangers need to bring on one other eligible goalie to protect/expose.

If they trade away Georgiev this offseason, they need to bring on two eligible goalies (one to protect, one to expose).

They don't have the option to not protect a goalie. They have to protect one.

 

[Edge]

They need to submit protection lists to the league, which will have one goalie on it (regardless of going 7F-3D or 8 skaters). It's right at the top.

They must also have at least one other goalie eligible to be exposed.

Here is what the NHL says, which is the exact thing CF is saying in their FAQ.

It's very straight-forward.

Right now, the Rangers need to bring on one other eligible goalie to protect/expose.

I'm reading from the same document and not seeing a protection requirement. Just a limit.

If they trade away Georgiev this offseason, they need to bring on two to protect/expose.

Legally that still doesn't address my question.

It says they are permitted to protect a certain number of players. It doesn't say they are required to protect all those players. They just can't exceed it.

 

[Off Sides]

I feel like people here believe that Shesterkin is going to play in nearly every game and always be really great in all of them. Sort of like he is a direct Lundqvist replacement. And while that may turn out to be quite true, I at least have some trepidation in attaching myself to that opinion at this juncture.

And it's not that I believe Geo is on Shesterkin's level, yet I do believe he could be a starter for some other team.

More so I believe he is a much better option as a backup for the Rangers than what they'll end up with should the backup be needed for any lengthy period of time. And yes I do understand that comes with more cap allocated to the goalie position.

I like seeing the Rangers garner more picks and prospects as much, if not more than most who post here, however in this case if I were the Rangers I'd be playing it safe.

 

[Irishguy42]

 

[JimmyG89]

The goalie market is pretty flush, including more veteran options available in trades like Murray, Andersen, Raanta/Keumper and Fleury. UFA's a pretty flush as well. Georgiev might not get the direct return we are looking for due to expansion.

I was on the side of trading him for a while, but with how the goalie market is breaking down, his value is going to be much lower at the moment.

Clearly it feels like Hank is not here under any circumstances next season. Georgiev is going to be extended and I think they may try and move him at the expansion draft to Seattle. Gives them a young goalie that could grow with their team.

Maybe Detroit is destination for him. Rebuilding team, goalies are a little older. Bernier could tandem with him for this season. They have an abundance of picks in the 2nd and 3rd round this year and an extra 3rd in 2021. They have the room to protect him. If we can get either of their 3rds, which are both high 3rd round picks (DET and SJ), it could be a match. Immediate boost to their current team and grows with their young players.

 

[DutchShamrock]

Also keeping Georgiev just to expose him seems like a waste of assets. If he can be traded for a decent pick or part of a package, you do that and try to find another goalie to sign to expose

If Georgiev is claimed over Howden, Lemiuex, Fast and Strome (assuming they are retained), is that really a waste?

It's true that he can return some asset, but that is true of anyone we lose in expansion. It's the spot we can absorb the best right now. I also look at his potential return now a little more conservatively.

I'm more than happy to role with Georgiev next year and let the two Russians work together. Not in the cliche "show him Brighton beach" way, but translate for Allaire and talk in the same goalie/Russian vernacular. I'm also putting a little more weight on the compressed schedule next season. If Georgiev helps out Igor and goes in expansion instead of lemiuex, that's a win for me.

 

[Edge]

Look, I get that it seems stupid, but it is a valid question.

I don't know if the provision is that a team has to sign someone just to protect them. The emphasis has always been on making sure teams hit the minimum requirement for expansion teams to select from. But I can't recall there ever being a mandate where you have to sign someone just to protect them.

If there is, so be it. But I genuinely don't know if that's in place.

 

[Trxjw]

Legally that still doesn't address my question.

It says they are permitted to protect a certain number of players. It doesn't say they are required to protect all those players. They just can't exceed it.

I'm with you. I can't imagine they'd be required to fill all of those slots if they weren't needed.

 

[EdJovanovski]

 

[kovazub94]

I guess it depends if you feel they're that attached to Geo. If they are hell bent on keeping him short of an insane offer, then sure.

I don't think they're at that point though. This comes down to a matter of dollars and unless they need every penny that they'd get from buying out Hank vs. Staal, I don't see how Hank is the correct choice here.

I know it's a tough-to-accept statement but it definitely seems that the organization doesn't think anymore that Lundqvist is qualified to perform at the NHL (back up) level than Staal as NHL (3rd pair) defenseman.

 

[GAGLine]

Legally that still doesn't address my question.

It says they are permitted to protect a certain number of players. It doesn't say they are required to protect all those players. They just can't exceed it.

I'm 99.9% sure we don't need to protect a goalie. We could expose Georgiev and call it a day. We won't, but we could.

 

[Edge]

I'm with you. I can't imagine they'd be required to fill all of those slots if they weren't needed.

It particularly applies to a team like the Rangers.

Let's say they trade Georgiev this summer because there's a deal they like.

They sign an UFA back-up goalie to a two-year deal. That's the guy they are going to expose. Based on age, they don't think he's a prime candidate to be selected. Likewise, none of their other goalies need to be protected.

In theory there could be someone like Berube in the system who is "protected" and it's a non-issue.

Or hell, maybe they sign a FA with the knowledge he is likely to be picked. And they hope to protect someone else. It still might not change their other strategies.

Let's say a year from now teams are being particularly selective with contracts. Is the mandate that they would need to sign someone just to protect them? What if their strategy revolves around the belief the guy they expose isn't a candidate to be taken? What if he is and they want that? What if they want to use a contract spot on a rookie free agent instead who doesn't meet protection requirements? Is the league going to make them sign someone just to "protect" that player?

That would seem strange to me.

It's possible that could very well be the mandate. I honestly don't know. But I am curious now.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I know it's a tough-to-accept statement but it definitely seems that the organization doesn't think anymore that Lundqvist is qualified to perform at the NHL (back up) level than Staal as NHL (3rd pair) defenseman.

We just started him in two play in games ahead of Georgiev.

I suspect that any reservations the team has about Lundqvist being the back up are linked to his price tag or potentially to the impact on Georgiev if they keep him; not his level of play for this single season.

 

[Avery16]

 

[Thirty One]

Imagine playing an 8-game preseason in these uncertain times.

 

[kovazub94]

We just started him in two play in games ahead of Georgiev.

I suspect that any reservations the team has about Lundqvist being the back up are linked to his price tag or potentially to the impact on Georgiev if they keep him; not his level of play for this single season.

IMHO it was specific to his historical success against the Canes. If Shesterkin was available available maybe Lundqvist doesn't even dress up.

Outside of these three games it's worth looking at the last couple of months when the Rangers carried three goalies and Lundqvist played the list number of games.

 

[kovazub94]

Also keeping Georgiev just to expose him seems like a waste of assets. If he can be traded for a decent pick or part of a package, you do that and try to find another goalie to sign to expose

Question would be if a. he'd be more likely to be chosen vs. other players exposed and b. whether his trade value higher vs. exposed skaters.

 

[Avery16]

IMHO it was specific to his historical success against the Canes. If Shesterkin was available available maybe Lundqvist doesn't even dress up.

Outside of these three games it's worth looking at the last couple of months when the Rangers carried three goalies and Lundqvist played the list number of games.

How do you go from “team doesn’t trust him to back-up” to “team trusts him to start against only one NHL team” in a single post?

 

[Kovalev27]

I’ll tell you what’s an interesting trade idea.

Sergachev and Tampa’s 2nd for Nils Lundkvist and #22

and I’ll tell you why. It’s the same reason for both teams.

Tampa needs to clear cap space as always and can’t afford him. They’ve committed to Hedman and Mcdonagh long term for their top 2 LD spots just as we have committed to Trouba Fox as our top 2RD. Even if you trade DeAngelo. Lundkvist still is your 3rd most important right d.

this gives Tampa a legit talented and cheap top four righty D that can play on the pp and replace shittenkirk

let’s us get the top LD we need.

we still eventually will have to trade tony if we aren’t going to move him to the left. But now you’ve got a top 4 of Sergachev Trouba and Miller Fox as your foundation. While Tampa has Hedman Lundkvist Mcdonagh Cernak.

 

[Trxjw]

It particularly applies to a team like the Rangers.

Let's say they trade Georgiev this summer because there's a deal they like.

They sign an UFA back-up goalie to a two-year deal. That's the guy they are going to expose. Based on age, they don't think he's a prime candidate to be selected. Likewise, none of their other goalies need to be protected.

In theory there could be someone like Berube in the system who is "protected" and it's a non-issue.

Or hell, maybe they sign a FA with the knowledge he is likely to be picked. And they hope to protect someone else. It still might not change their other strategies.

Let's say a year from now teams are being particularly selective with contracts. Is the mandate that they would need to sign someone just to protect them? What if their strategy revolves around the belief the guy they expose isn't a candidate to be taken? What if he is and they want that? What if they want to use a contract spot on a rookie free agent instead who doesn't meet protection requirements? Is the league going to make them sign someone just to "protect" that player?

That would seem strange to me.

It's possible that could very well be the mandate. I honestly don't know. But I am curious now.

Yeah it seems weird to require a team to protect a minimum number of players. By definition that would mean fewer players available to the expansion team which seems counter-intuitive to the process as whole. If we said "Hey, we only need the 7-3 and not the '1'" I can't imagine the league would be like, "No way! You have to find a goalie to protect!"

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Look, I get that it seems stupid, but it is a valid question.

I don't know if the provision is that a team has to sign someone just to protect them. The emphasis has always been on making sure teams hit the minimum requirement for expansion teams to select from. But I can't recall there ever being a mandate where you have to sign someone just to protect them.

If there is, so be it. But I genuinely don't know if that's in place.

I also don't know if there is a requirement that – if you are actually required to designate someone protected – the player need be someone who would be eligible for selection. In other words, could they simply name Shesterkin as the protected goalie even though he'd be exempt if exposed.

(I genuinely don't know – just positing the possibility.)

EDIT: also, to the point you have been making, note the language in CapFriendly's writeup:

Teams will be permitted to protect a certain amount of their players, meaning that they would not be exposed as available players in the Expansion Draft. Teams will be permitted to protect a group of players that fall under one of the following two options:

Expansion Draft FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

That to me seems to imply "up to 8 and 1 or 7, 3, and 1."

 

[bleedblue94]

If the Coyotes ever move, it will almost certainly be to Houston.

That makes the most sense based on conference layout and the owner having a desire for a team if he can buy one for the right price. But a move would also come with an ownership change, and so does ARZ hire a new gm right now if they have any possibility of selling and moving? If it's actually a possibility why not just keep sullivan on as GM rather than hire armstrong?