CMayton
Registered User
- Dec 20, 2020
- 82
- 44
3rd year pro, I think he should be.Lindstrom isn't available for expansion if I'm not mistaken
He didn't play enough games, I would suggest to use the option on capfriendly3rd year pro, I think he should be.
It says he's not exempt. Games played doesn't factor in to exempt/not exempt. You might be thinking of the requirement to expose one defenseman who has reached GP thresholds for the last one/two seasons.He didn't play enough games, I would suggest to use the option on capfriendly
Devon Toews? I have Colorado protecting him.Interesting that Toews isn't on list anymore. Not good enough for Seattle?
3rd year pro, I think he should be.
2018-19 he was signed by the Red Wings and loaned to Frolunda, which counts for expansion draft purposes.2019/20 and 2020/21, where’s the 3rd year?
2018-19 he was signed by the Red Wings and loaned to Frolunda, which counts for expansion draft purposes.
Well-reasoned, constructive criticism. Not what I was expecting!Couple of things for the sharks.
Balcers will be protected no doubt. Your options will likely be Simek, Burns, Gambrell or Donato. I suspect you take Gambrell or Simek
Dunn is not very likely to be a target for the sharks. Our LHD position has three solid guys right now and two young guys with lots of potential. They could easily get one more if the sharks draft a D man high such as Power. They much more critically lack a goalie and a 3C, so those are more likely to be sources of a trade.
It could happen and I actually wouldn’t be upset at all. I think the sharks will probably decide to spend that second round pick elsewhere though to bolster another position. However if the sharks pick a forward in the draft and lose Simek somehow, it would make a little more sense to spend an asset on Dunn.Well-reasoned, constructive criticism. Not what I was expecting!
With Dunn, it wasn't about identifying LD as their biggest need, but identifying the Sharks as a team that could protect another D and pick one up at good value.