I don't understand what LeBrun is saying here. If they have a deal in place with Vegas securing what player Vegas will select. Then they're completely set, they know who Vegas gets and everyone else stays with them. How do they need to make a separate trade with another team. The initial trade with Vegas whatever it is would protect Manson as well because it will guarantee what player Vegas takes. Unless it only guarantees the protection of Vatanen, in which case a seperate trade would have to be made with Vegas to guarantee the protection of Manson as well, not with some other team.
idk it reads confusing but maybe the trade we have with vegas is for them not to take manson, but that still leaves vatanen available... so the other team involved might be a move for vatanen so vegas doesnt take him.I don't understand what LeBrun is saying here. If they have a deal in place with Vegas securing what player Vegas will select. Then they're completely set, they know who Vegas gets and everyone else stays with them. How do they need to make a separate trade with another team. The initial trade with Vegas whatever it is would protect Manson as well because it will guarantee what player Vegas takes. Unless it only guarantees the protection of Vatanen, in which case a seperate trade would have to be made with Vegas to guarantee the protection of Manson as well, not with some other team.
I might be missing something here, but it seems that Lebrun is just stating that Manson isn't involved in whatever side deal the Knights have with the Ducks.
Someone else suggested that they might have offered up Shea Theodore (expansion draft exempt I think) and maybe something else to not pick Vatanen or Manson.
Not understanding the concept of Anaheim losing Manson, Pretty understandable that Bob Murray protects Lindholm, Fowler and Manson. Trades Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive his NMC can't really see a problem here or why there's a possible risk of losing Manson unless Murray thought the Bieksa wouldn't waive which it sounded like he would. Just kind of confused why there would be an issue with possibly losing Manson.
Why would Bieksa waive his NMC for an expansion team?
ANA probably knows his answer and has decided to make a deal with LV to not pick Manson and take Vatanen instead.
Manson would not be traded away. He will be exposed but LV wont take him. (ie the deal)
Why would Bieksa waive his NMC for an expansion team?
ANA probably knows his answer and has decided to make a deal with LV to not pick Manson and take Vatanen instead.
Manson would not be traded away. He will be exposed but LV wont take him. (ie the deal)
Not understanding the concept of Anaheim losing Manson, Pretty understandable that Bob Murray protects Lindholm, Fowler and Manson. Trades Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive his NMC can't really see a problem here or why there's a possible risk of losing Manson unless Murray thought the Bieksa wouldn't waive which it sounded like he would. Just kind of confused why there would be an issue with possibly losing Manson.
I don't understand what LeBrun is saying here. If they have a deal in place with Vegas securing what player Vegas will select. Then they're completely set, they know who Vegas gets and everyone else stays with them. How do they need to make a separate trade with another team. The initial trade with Vegas whatever it is would protect Manson as well because it will guarantee what player Vegas takes. Unless it only guarantees the protection of Vatanen, in which case a seperate trade would have to be made with Vegas to guarantee the protection of Manson as well, not with some other team.
Not understanding the concept of Anaheim losing Manson, Pretty understandable that Bob Murray protects Lindholm, Fowler and Manson. Trades Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive his NMC can't really see a problem here or why there's a possible risk of losing Manson unless Murray thought the Bieksa wouldn't waive which it sounded like he would. Just kind of confused why there would be an issue with possibly losing Manson.
Why would Bieksa waive his NMC for an expansion team?
ANA probably knows his answer and has decided to make a deal with LV to not pick Manson and take Vatanen instead.
Manson would not be traded away. He will be exposed but LV wont take him. (ie the deal)
Yeah no way is Murray exposing Vatanen, When it's already been said that quite a few teams have interest in him. Murray will get something for him then lose him for nothing guarantee that.
I think his comment is because Freidman said Bieksa isn't waiving. I'm sure he got one thousand questions right away about Anaheim not being able to protect Manson and that maybe he was available.
Apparently we didn't ask Bieksa to waive because Murray already had something worked out with McPhee. If there's already a trade worked out, then it doesn't matter if Bieksa is exposed or Manson.
Ducks probably agreed to expose Silvferberg.