Expansion Draft Thread II
- Thread starter caley
- Start date
Yeah I'm sure Minnesota would go into this season with 3 top 4 D instead of losing one to expansion and still keeping 4.
Also end of the day McPhee could have just grabbed any unprotected player, handshake smandshake this is the real world
Olofsson is projected as a top 4 D, he wouldn't be the first rookie pressed into #4 D service time.
Also, you are discounting the assets the Wild could have gotten back, and the HUGE amount of cap space that would have been cleared opening a lot more trade/free agency options they wouldn't have otherwise.
The depth of the Wild, they could have handled it just fine.
It's clear Fletcher was not going to let his best assets go for nothing, he was going to get the max he could for those assets and then deal with building the team after the ED with the wider array of options if his hand was forced. He had the deals ready to pull the trigger and Vegas knew that. It benefited both teams to deal with each other though to the benefit of both teams... thus they did.
rikker
Registered User
i can see how Bettman might encourage the teams to spread out the announcements of the signings.
Pandaman11
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2009
- 2,799
- 1,293
There are three things regarding the draft I don't understand:
1) Why does Vegas select only 3 goalies? It seems to be clear that Fleury-Pickard is their tandem, but what if two get hurt? Will they quickly sign someone like Emery or Labarbera?
Also, not choosing Mrazek is even weirder than Detroit exposing him.
2) A 2nd rd pick from PIT to make sure they select Fleury? Why did they want to ged rid of him so badly? Cap space?
3) Why does McPhee trade for so many 2017 picks? If I were him, I'd have asked for 2018 picks, as that seems to be the better class. Or is he simply hoping to flip a couple players at next year's deadline?
1) Why does Vegas select only 3 goalies? It seems to be clear that Fleury-Pickard is their tandem, but what if two get hurt? Will they quickly sign someone like Emery or Labarbera?
Also, not choosing Mrazek is even weirder than Detroit exposing him.
2) A 2nd rd pick from PIT to make sure they select Fleury? Why did they want to ged rid of him so badly? Cap space?
3) Why does McPhee trade for so many 2017 picks? If I were him, I'd have asked for 2018 picks, as that seems to be the better class. Or is he simply hoping to flip a couple players at next year's deadline?
1. They evaluated the market and determined from consultations with other GMs that the asset other teams would offer the most in trade for were defensemen, so they used all their 'extra' selection spots on defensemen. There's still a whole summer's worth of trades and free agent signings they can use to shore up goaltending depth. If they weren't worth much to draft+trade they also won't be worth much to acquire, should they even need to negotiate with a team rather than just UFAs and their agents.
2. Murray is the starting goalie in PIT now. Fleury was going to be the backup despite being paid like a starter and wanting to be a starter. This gives everyone what they want - Vegas gets a proven starter, Fleury gets to play as a starter, Murray gets to play as an uncontested starter, and Pittsburgh has the freed cap space from the Fleury contract to improve/maintain their team elsewhere. And Pittsburgh avoids losing a skater from their cup Champion team.
3. Other teams were clearly hesitant to move picks further in the future. Between uncertainty about the strength of the future drafts and uncertainty about their pick slot in those drafts, a premium was being placed on picks in future years, and as such there likely wasn't a case of GMGM being able to say "Give me your2018 1st instead of 2017, at the same terms". The teams would come back with "We aren't offering our 2018 pick at the same terms. If you want that you'll have to offer a lot more in return."
Sting
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2004
- 7,914
- 2,914
What?
Isn't the point of a no trade clause that you get to choose where you don't want to be traded?
Good for Methot - he should stick it to Vegas for choosing him. It was abundantly clear he didn't want to play for them.
Pandaman11
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2009
- 2,799
- 1,293
1.But Raanta was just involved in a deal that brought back a 7th overall pick. Okay, Vegas didn't have a Derek Stepan.
I'm just wondering if 3 are enough, should they be unable to sign someone else.
3.As far as I know, the other teams were offering picks to not touch some unprotected players. McPhee may have as well said "if you don't give your 2018 pick, I'm gonna draft Dumba/Nelson/etc", or "I refuse to take Clarkson's/Garrison's/etc contract"
Don't worry, somehow Fletcher is now the one that was fleeced by managing to hang onto a 50 pt, 23 year old RD. It is completely impossible that the expansion draft worked out relatively well for both teams.
