|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Jul 25, 2016 18:19:26 GMT -5
And so does Goldobin ( 9 NHL ) and McKenzie ( 7 over 2 yrs )...
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 25, 2016 20:44:29 GMT -5
Good point Dane. I am guessing this means you would need to be sure to land another goalie during FA or pick one up via trade if we went this route So just trying to compile a list of teams who will need to trade for or sign a goalie with 2 consecutive years NHL card or lose their only goalie Montreal - Markstrom a UFA and wouldn't count Price cant be protected Baltimore - Martin Jones unprotected Cincinatti - No goalie protected needs to sign 2 in order to protect 1 Colorado - Must retain pickard if traded bishop unprotected Cornwall - Hutton cant be protected unless resign Luongo Detroit - needs another goalie to protect/expose Ramo Edmonton - needs a goalie to protect lehtonen Philadelphia - Chad Johnson UFA won't count need one or Bernier can't be protected Pittsburgh - Khudobin UFA needs 2 and can only protect 1 (bad idea to trade for just one can't be protected) Quebec - needs one or Niemi can't be protected St. Paul - needs one or Lehner can't be protected Washington - needs one to protect crawford Also teams with 2 great goalies should make sure a trade has an NHL goalie with 2 years GHL card in a row or their other great one may be unprotected I have cap to sign one of the 6 ufa goalies that will have 2 years consecutive card but this rule needs to be adopted soon so owners are made aware of what they need to do to retain their franchise goalie. I think 20 GHL games played might work better for goalies but I'll leave that up for debate
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 25, 2016 22:00:44 GMT -5
Protect one Goalie per team.
Any Goalie, no matter what card or NHL ect
Lets stay in the real world
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 25, 2016 22:30:41 GMT -5
This is why I suggested 3 GHL cards, anyone having 3 should have to be protected, that way we are avoiding all of this. The NHL rule appears to be players of two years, it does not seem to specify what status, so technically even players on ELC's may be left exposed, correct?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 25, 2016 23:08:36 GMT -5
There is no limit on games played for goalies according to the NHL rule, it states that the goalie left unprotected must be either contracted in 2017-18 or an RFA
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 26, 2016 9:01:37 GMT -5
I am fine if we make it 3 carded years. That's why I suggested GHL games played because that is a truer indication of guys with usable cards.
Maybe we drop the rule altogether about needing to expose x number of players. Maybe we just use the who doesn't need to be exposed and of the list of players who are exposed that we will be protecting. That keeps it simpler.
Also, our expansion team isn't paying 500M to enter the league so we don't have to be as generous with the talent that we expose to them.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 26, 2016 10:40:05 GMT -5
I am just hoping that at least some decent talent gets left exposed so the expansion team will have a healthy looking roster
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 26, 2016 11:17:58 GMT -5
There are a decent amount teams with more than 7 or 8 guys I'd say are top talents, the new team will get some help, and if they draft 3rd overall like I think the NHL is doing that'll be a nice bonus as well.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 26, 2016 13:22:42 GMT -5
There are a decent amount teams with more than 7 or 8 guys I'd say are top talents, the new team will get some help, and if they draft 3rd overall like I think the NHL is doing that'll be a nice bonus as well. Yea shit assuming Domi and Burakovsky are exempt I can only protect Malkin Kopitar Toffoli Mackinnon Rask Hertl Strome Carlson Hjalmarsson Marchenko Mrazek Leaving Zucker, Nieto, Laughton, Wilson along with more than likely Bogosian and Enstrom available as well. They won't be a championship contender right away but if they draft right they can have a strong team in a year or two. That being said the a 6 players above may be on the block haha
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 26, 2016 14:13:23 GMT -5
What are everyone's thoughts on upping the number of players that can be protected as well as making the threshold for exempt guys 3 NHL carded years?
Perhaps a team can protect 12 or 13 players?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 26, 2016 14:19:44 GMT -5
I obviously like the 3 year card option but I think 12-13 is too many just because some teams won't have anything available for the expansion team to choose from. That is why there are requirements concerning the players that must be left unprotected
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 26, 2016 14:23:48 GMT -5
12-13 is too high, I'd be able to protect basically all of my guys signed beyond this year and the new team will get nothing but fourth line talent
|
|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Jul 26, 2016 14:39:37 GMT -5
I think the number of guys you protect is fine. Every team will lose one guy. Based on the numbers it'll either be a 3rd line forward, a #4 defenseman, or a backup goalie.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 26, 2016 14:41:54 GMT -5
Would it be 3 years of using the card or just 3 years of having a card because technically next year Burakovsky will be on his 3rd card but he would only be 2 years removed from being drafted.
Also I think the number is good were protecting 11 already if you go 7 forwards 3 D and 1 goalie route.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 26, 2016 14:51:16 GMT -5
Scott suggested the 3 year rule. Scott, what were you thinking?
|
|