Confirmed with Link: Chad Johnson Signs One Year $1.7m

[PensFan6687]

They could always extends him or Elliot later in the season. I'm not a big fan of giving up on Ortio either but that part's not a big deal.

And then there is always this. They are playing it safe for now to see how they do... but yes they will definitely need to extend one or the other... maybe both... just to be on the safe side, because if they both look strong and Las Vegas does pick up on one of the two, you still want a guy remaining. Never fun to start back to zero again and you don't know what will be available next Summer.

 

[Lunatik]

Johnson > (I'm only using one because there is a character limit and the number needed would far exceed that number) Ortio

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Soooooo we don't have a goalie to Expose expansion draft now? So we either get a penalty or are forced into a trade. This signing is so bad. I'm convinced our management has no idea what a good goalie looks like. What a joke.

It's really not a big deal, and simple solution. Just extend Elliott, not hard and makes sense. Aside from his time in NYI, he has put up good numbers. Elliott has also been at the top of the NHL for the past 3 years. I think they know just well what a good goalie looks like.

You're nitpicking at this point because we lost Ortio.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

It's really not a big deal, and simple solution. Just extend Elliott, not hard and makes sense. Aside from his time in NYI, he has put up good numbers. Elliott has also been at the top of the NHL for the past 3 years. I think they know just well what a good goalie looks like.

You're nitpicking at this point because we lost Ortio.

So then we lose Elliot to the expansion draft. Yes signing a backup goalie to a one year deal was a huge mistake. Anyone saying otherwise is just wrong.

It's bad enough we signed Chad Johnson, at least sign him to a two year deal so he can be exposed. Jeez.

 

[PensFan6687]

It's really not a big deal, and simple solution. Just extend Elliott, not hard and makes sense. Aside from his time in NYI, he has put up good numbers. Elliott has also been at the top of the NHL for the past 3 years. I think they know just well what a good goalie looks like.

You're nitpicking at this point because we lost Ortio.

I can see them extending both. Johnson will surprise you guys with how good he tracks the puck ... very good goalie.

 

[InfinityIggy]

So then we lose Elliot to the expansion draft. Yes signing a backup goalie to a one year deal was a huge mistake. Anyone saying otherwise is just wrong.

It's bad enough we signed Chad Johnson, at least sign him to a two year deal so he can be exposed. Jeez.

We will have Elliott extended long before that is ever a concern. I'd bet my account on it.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

So then we lose Elliot to the expansion draft. Yes signing a backup goalie to a one year deal was a huge mistake. Anyone saying otherwise is just wrong.

It's bad enough we signed Chad Johnson, at least sign him to a two year deal so he can be exposed. Jeez.

How would we lose Elliott? Just protect him, Gillies should be exempt.

 

[Lunatik]

I hope he wears #85

 

[Isles5513]

I sort of like it. He was only really bad with the Islanders and aside from that, he was an OK backup.

He was more than really bad. He was Hiller bad with the Isles. The year before, he had a good year as a backup but with a great D in Boston.

If he plays nearly as good as he did last year though, good signing.

Also, don't forget that I'm also an Isles fan. We're never happy. A lot of us get upset when we don't draft a guy we like in the 6th round.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

I hope he wears #85

And a name change?

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

We will have Elliott extended long before that is ever a concern. I'd bet my account on it.

My point is that we have to expose a goalie with either a) a year left on his contract or b) RFA. We now have neither of those things. So if we sign Elliot we have to expose him unless we have another NHL goalie ünder contract. Stupid idea not to just sign a back up for two years and forget about it.

Edit: if we have no goalie to expose we get fined in draft picks and it puts us into a corner IMO. Now we are dealing from a position of weakness.

 

[Lunatik]

And a name change?

naw, just a nickname. didn't he wear 85 for a bit with the Rangers?

 

[Ace Rimmer]

So then we lose Elliot to the expansion draft. Yes signing a backup goalie to a one year deal was a huge mistake. Anyone saying otherwise is just wrong.

It's bad enough we signed Chad Johnson, at least sign him to a two year deal so he can be exposed. Jeez.

Any goalie under contract can be exposed by the team, there does not appear to be games played requirements for exposing a player under contract, they would just not have him on the protected list.

Sign a veteran AHL backup, expose him, Bob's your uncle.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Solid choice. Goaltending should definitely not be a concern next season.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Any goalie under contract can be exposed by the team, there does not appear to be games played requirements for exposing a player under contract, they would just not have him on the protected list.

First and second year pros are exempt. We have no players under contract who fit the parameters for expansion. Therefor a mistake.

 

[Ynnek]

Compared to last year we now have NHL goaltending.

 

[InfinityIggy]

My point is that we have to expose a goalie with either a) a year left on his contract or b) RFA. We now have neither of those things. So if we sign Elliot we have to expose him unless we have another NHL goalie ünder contract. Stupid idea not to just sign a back up for two years and forget about it.

Edit: if we have no goalie to expose we get fined in draft picks and it puts us into a corner IMO. Now we are dealing from a position of weakness.

Ah I see, thanks for explaining.

Well we have lots of options though. Extend Johnson as well. Sign an AHL/NHL journeyman. Give an NHL deal to one of our AHL guys.

I am not too concerned about it.

 

[Rangediddy]

You'd have to extend the goalie you want to expose. If CJ & Elliot become an incredible tandem and we want to keep them both, we have to extend one and protect him and let the other go through the expansion as an FA then sign him after (if nobody else does).

THEN we have to sign another goalie so we have someone to expose and likely that goalie won't be taken in the draft so we'll be stuck with a third goalie again.

Unless I'm off on how this would play out? Maybe we can trade for a top goalie that another team would be left exposed (Fluery, Bishop etc) and likely taken.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

First and second year pros are exempt. We have no players under contract who fit the parameters for expansion. Therefor a mistake.

If only there weren't a whole year to fix that problem...

Also, first and second year pros are exempt unless the team chooses to expose them.

 

[Rangediddy]

If only there weren't a whole year to fix that problem...

Also, first and second year pros are exempt unless the team chooses to expose them.

Maybe Gillies busts or has injury concerns and we elect to expose him

 

[MonyontheMoney]

We certainly have options to deal with this "problem", it's a non-issue.

 

[Fig]

So then we lose Elliot to the expansion draft. Yes signing a backup goalie to a one year deal was a huge mistake. Anyone saying otherwise is just wrong.

It's bad enough we signed Chad Johnson, at least sign him to a two year deal so he can be exposed. Jeez.

Uhh... what's the worst penalty? We can't protect either Johnson or Elliott? Flames protect 3D, 7F and 0G?

Let's says LV takes Elliott. If he likes us, on July 1 after the draft, we sign him and pay STL their 3rd.

I don't see the problem.

Plus I feel like there will be better goalies to target come expansion draft, and perhaps someone will be extended mid season.

 

[Rangediddy]

Uhh... what's the worst penalty? We can't protect either Johnson or Elliott? Flames protect 3D, 7F and 0G?

Let's says LV takes Elliott. If he likes us, on July 1 after the draft, we sign him and pay STL their 3rd.

I don't see the problem.

Plus I feel like there will be better goalies to target come expansion draft, and perhaps someone will be extended mid season.

Don't players who are exposed have to be under contract for the 2017/18 season? For LV to be able to select him, we'd have to extend him. So we extend him, pay St. Louis a 3rd then lose him to LV... not a chance

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Don't players who are exposed have to be under contract for the 2017/18 season? For LV to be able to select him, we'd have to extend him. So we extend him, pay St. Louis a 3rd then lose him to LV... not a chance

No but you sign Pouliot to a one year deal for $575k, and expose him.

 

[Rangediddy]

No but you sign Pouliot to a one year deal for $575k, and expose him.

There you go. Problem solved.

Just curious, anyone know what the penalty is to not have a goalie exposed?