|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 27, 2016 10:56:05 GMT -5
I'll be the team with one good goalie. But I'm sure to lose a decent forward or dman. It all works out.
The teams with two good goalies are worried as they should be.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 11:00:46 GMT -5
I'm not... teams with one good goalie should be worried about whether they can protect that one good goalie, meaning they would have to have another goalie eligible to be exposed. This shouldn't be a serious issue seeing as all teams must carry five but I'd make sure if I was in this situation that I had another goalie who I didn't mind leaving exposed signed through the 2017-18 year.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 27, 2016 12:00:58 GMT -5
I'm not... teams with one good goalie should be worried about whether they can protect that one good goalie, meaning they would have to have another goalie eligible to be exposed. This shouldn't be a serious issue seeing as all teams must carry five but I'd make sure if I was in this situation that I had another goalie who I didn't mind leaving exposed signed through the 2017-18 year. Again all I'm saying if we go NHL route (which we should) almost pointless add this rule to the criteria. What team won't have 2 goalies signed through 2018. Or if they don't they will just sign a guy this offseason for 2 years at the minimum. I mean if we want to make the 2-3 teams that don't have a second goalie signed til at least 2018 worry about it we can add the rule but seems fairly unnecessary and just overcomplicating a rule that could just as easily be "each team can protect 1 goalie"
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 27, 2016 12:13:40 GMT -5
I'm not... teams with one good goalie should be worried about whether they can protect that one good goalie, meaning they would have to have another goalie eligible to be exposed. This shouldn't be a serious issue seeing as all teams must carry five but I'd make sure if I was in this situation that I had another goalie who I didn't mind leaving exposed signed through the 2017-18 year. Oh I'll sign at least one extra mediocre goalie...there are a lot to be had. Signing an average 'extra goalie' is very easy this year. Rolling the dice and keeping 1 or 2 extra 'good' goalies is indeed cause for worry.
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 27, 2016 12:19:31 GMT -5
We are also letting the cart go before the horse.
Will we even have an interested owner for a new franchise? We have at least 1 rudderless team right now, am I suspect 1-2 more are circling or will be vacant, so the dream of a new owner taking the new franchise is kinda a pipe dream at this point.
NOW,
It would be supremely interesting to have the draft lottery teams go in order next season and select 1 player from all the other teams to flesh out the new franchise.
Not only would that be FUN but pretty strategic too and it would allow the poorer teams to have a little fun choosing first ect.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 27, 2016 12:39:40 GMT -5
Has someone hacked Phil's account? This is the Phil "If it's in the NHL it's in our game" Phil right? Even if we don't have a ready owner for the new franchise it is coming on board. The NHL will have 31 teams and since we use their schedule, so will we. Even if we do have an owner, I am thinking that the expansion draft will be a a community even handled via Skype call or google hangout. This will be open to everyone [Bracing for inner circle nonsensical comments non-the-less]. My rationale is a new owner would be overwhelmed in trying to handle this request. If we did have a new owner, we could have him be a part of the call and everyone could offer their suggestions as to who to select (abstaining from guys on their own team of course)
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 27, 2016 12:42:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 27, 2016 12:46:36 GMT -5
Has someone hacked Phil's account? This is the Phil "If it's in the NHL it's in our game" Phil right? Even if we don't have a ready owner for the new franchise it is coming on board. The NHL will have 31 teams and since we use their schedule, so will we. Even if we do have an owner, I am thinking that the expansion draft will be a a community even handled via Skype call or google hangout. This will be open to everyone [Bracing for inner circle nonsensical comments non-the-less]. My rationale is a new owner would be overwhelmed in trying to handle this request. If we did have a new owner, we could have him be a part of the call and everyone could offer their suggestions as to who to select (abstaining from guys on their own team of course) It's good to see you embrace the INNER CIRCLE title.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 27, 2016 12:48:42 GMT -5
Now all you need to do is rename the Administrator thread to INNER CIRCLE
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 27, 2016 12:52:05 GMT -5
Now all you need to do is rename the Administrator thread to INNER CIRCLE It's more of a neighborhood watch, but we do wear black hoods during skype calls.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 27, 2016 12:55:34 GMT -5
Yes, hoods...and nothing...else....
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Alaska on Jul 27, 2016 16:34:01 GMT -5
I think the best thing for the goalies is as Phil said with protecting 1 of your choice and leaving it at that. My question is however, are goalies included in the 2018 RFA and later auto protection or no?
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 27, 2016 16:40:14 GMT -5
I think they would be yes Chris. Protecting one is fine. The issue is needing to expose 1 that meets the criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 27, 2016 17:02:18 GMT -5
I think they would be yes Chris. Protecting one is fine. The issue is needing to expose 1 that meets the criteria. If we really want to match the NHL then just say must be contracted in 2017-18 I was just saying this is a pretty useless rule since every team has an extra goalie contracted that far or for the very few that don't they'll just sign one for 2 year min. Phil may actually be the only team that is affected by this so I'd sign a goalie Phil haha
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 27, 2016 17:11:49 GMT -5
Cincy Pittsburgh Washington need one and Detroit Hershey Johnstown need one unles they're allowed to expose one of their protected draft picks then they're fine
|
|