Proposal: PIT - VGK (bribe)

[WayneSid9987]

I dunno.
Everything i've been hearing is that JR isn't in a big hurry to move MAF in season.
Colby Armstrong believes MAF will be in PIT for the full season and he's obviously very close to the players on the team.

I'm thinking JR and crew are either 1)totally fine with a buyout or 2)they have a gentlemens agreement with MAF that he'll waive for the exp. draft if it came to that.

Why would MAF agree to waiving for the exp. draft some may ask?
The answer is quite simple, he gets to stay and play for PIT one last full season.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Trades like these won't happen. Bribing expansion teams to not take certain players has happened in past drafts, but bribing expansion teams to take specific players has never happened and I doubt it will happen. If the Penguins are going to bribe Vegas into not taking someone, it will most likely be Schultz for like a 2nd round pick. If Schultz doesn't want to sign long term in Vegas, a 2nd round pick and someone like Wilson is more valuable than Schultz.

I'd be totally stunned if Marc Andre-Fleury waived his NMC for Vegas, Just don't see it happening. I think he will be dealt at the TDL possibly to Dallas. Just can't see Fleury willing to play in Vegas for 2 years. And i'm not sure if Vegas would be seeking an aging Goaltender in Fleury i think that Vegas will want a younger Goalie then 32 years of age i would believe.

There's a chance that Vegas wasn't allowed to be on NTCs for this season (since they don't technically exist yet), and since the current NTCs will still be used when Vegas enters the league, it's possible that any player without a full NTC would be eligible to be traded to Vegas. Fleury doesn't have a full NTC.

 

[is the answer jesus]

This is unnecessary. If Fleury waives his NMC, he can be exposed to Vegas in the draft. I doubt Vegas takes him anyway, because we have better players on cheaper deals available.

I don't think we need to give something up to force them to take Fleury. We will lose a contributing player for sure, but we will only lose one.

I doubt Fleury waives his NMC. Why the hell would he risk being taken by an expansion team?

 

[Liferleafer]

I doubt Fleury waives his NMC. Why the hell would he risk being taken by an expansion team?

Also opens the door to be traded anywhere without having any input.

 

[seafoam]

Who are the Vikings?

 

[nmbr_24]

-_-

Because of all of the reasons I've been saying.

They are guarenteed to get Fleury, they get Pouliot, plus another player who they will pick in the expansion draft.

If they don't accept the Fleury trade then someone else may get him, either through free agency following a buyout or a Pens trade. Fleury is the best goalie available right now, besides maybe Bishop. And Bishop is also headed to FA, so there is a very good chance that Vegas could end up with no goalie instead of just accepting a free Fleury, a Pouliot, and a third lower end player.

They will be receiving high amounts of quality for a low round pick. Why wouldn't they agree to it?

They get an expensive goaltender who has history of being the worst playoff goaltender ever, they get a D who can't make a team who's fans say they need D, and they get a cast off. If you were them wouldn't you rather take the best player possible? Maybe even someone who has a chance to be more thn a bottom pairing D or a 4th liner?

There would be a premium on bailing the Penguins out I imagine. It would have to make Vegas think they are getting a much better deal in the long run. Just about every bottom half of the lineup player in the league who is past their entry level deal is going to be up for grabs to Vegas, I don't think offering them a bottom half of the lineup guy is going to mean anything to them.

I also imagine that they still have to pick 3 goaltenders in the draft, I am pretty sure they league isn't going to let them take another position player instead so after the draft Vegas will have 3 NHL goaltenders and a minor league guy.

If you want them to take someone that has no future or is a 4th liner or bottom pairing guy instead of someone with promise then I am just guessing that the Penguins would have to fill that requirement with something else. When you add in that they are taking Fleury off the Penguins hands, both of which help the Penguins immensely, then Pouliot just doesn't seem like what it would take to me. Come up with something that isn't a bottom half of the lineup player or they might as well take the best that they can get from the Penguins. They can only have so many players, offering them more of what they already have choice of from the entire league just doesn't seem enticing to me.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

I'd be totally stunned if Marc Andre-Fleury waived his NMC for Vegas, Just don't see it happening. I think he will be dealt at the TDL possibly to Dallas. Just can't see Fleury willing to play in Vegas for 2 years. And i'm not sure if Vegas would be seeking an aging Goaltender in Fleury i think that Vegas will want a younger Goalie then 32 years of age i would believe.

FWIW I don't think Fleury can even block a move to Vegas if it comes to that...his NMC is hardly a NMC, it just prevents him from being placed on waivers. Fleury's no-trade clause only allows him to list 12 teams he won't accept a deal to without waving. I'm not sure if Vegas was an option to put on his NTC list or not, but it's a list submitted before the start of the season...so who knows.

I don't expect Fleury to have any desire to go to Vegas and I think Rutherford will do his best to find the best destination for him possible...but if options are limited then Fleury may not have the power to block such a move if he wasn't allowed to put Vegas on his no-trade list.

The deal you make should set them up to take Pouliot...not give them Pouliot and then tell them to take something else...

You really just have to find a way to protect Murray in all this...leaving a player like Scott Wilson or Tom Kuhnhackl unprotected and worrying about is not in the realm of reality...

You tell Fleury to waive his thing, you expose him, protect Murray, dangle Pouliot out there and let sleeping dogs lie...I think this deal is too complicated for both teams...

Agreed.

 

[StevenB]

Vegas doesn't touch a trade involving fleury. If you have he chance to grab a goalie like Murray, you take it and run

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Vegas doesn't touch a trade involving fleury. If you have he chance to grab a goalie like Murray, you take it and run

They won't. Murray is not an option for Vegas at all. The worst case scenario for the Penguins involves buying Fleury out.

 

[etm124]

If you have he chance to grab a goalie like Murray, you take it and run

Vegas has a chance to grab Murray like I have a chance to quarterback the Pens' power play.

 

[Headshot77]

Ehh, it seems like it favors VGK a little too much. Simplify it a bit:

Penguins Trade Fleury to Vegas, and in return, Vegas agrees to leave rust/sundqvist/whoever on the board and takes Pouliot in the expansion draft.

IMO, Fleury still has value as a low-end starter/high-end backup, and Pouliot still has potential in a change of scenery situation, so I think that is enough to entice VGK to do this deal.

In a vacuum, I'd say that Rust (a young middle 6 forward) would have less value for vegas than a capable goaltender and a raw defensive prospect.

 

[Liferleafer]

Ehh, it seems like it favors VGK a little too much. Simplify it a bit:

Penguins Trade Fleury to Vegas, and in return, Vegas agrees to leave rust/sundqvist/whoever on the board and takes Pouliot in the expansion draft.

IMO, Fleury still has value as a low-end starter/high-end backup, and Pouliot still has potential in a change of scenery situation, so I think that is enough to entice VGK to do this deal.

In a vacuum, I'd say that Rust (a young middle 6 forward) would have less value for vegas than a capable goaltender and a raw defensive prospect.

Or,the Pens trade/buyout Fleury elsewhere, and Vegas drafts one of any number of good goalies that will be available...and grabs one of the players you want to keep instead of a lesser Pouliot. Why do you think Vegas would take a 32 year old goalie and Pouliot over a cheaper/younger goalie (from elsewhere) and a better younger player like Rust/Sundquist?

 

[Empoleon8771]

Or,the Pens trade/buyout Fleury elsewhere, and Vegas drafts one of any number of good goalies that will be available...and grabs one of the players you want to keep instead of a lesser Pouliot. Why do you think Vegas would take a 32 year old goalie and Pouliot over a cheaper/younger goalie (from elsewhere) and a better younger player like Rust/Sundquist?

Well what cheaper/younger goalie would they be taking over Fleury? Even with Fleury's struggles this year, he's likely the 2nd or 3rd best goalie that Vegas will even have a shot at taking (and there's no guarantees that they get Bishop or Varlamov either). You're talking about him as if Vegas would be inconveniencing themselves by taking him, which just isn't true.

 

[Liferleafer]

Well what cheaper/younger goalie would they be taking over Fleury? Even with Fleury's struggles this year, he's likely the 2nd or 3rd best goalie that Vegas will even have a shot at taking (and there's no guarantees that they get Bishop or Varlamov either). You're talking about him as if Vegas would be inconveniencing themselves by taking him, which just isn't true.

They have multiple option over giving up value for Fleury, some may not be better or cheaper, but in the long run...the makeup of the whole team would be better.
Ramo
Johnson
Pickard
Howard
Ward
Kincaid
Hutton
Raanta
Neuverth
Bishop/Vas (depending on what happens there)
Riemer/Luongo (depending on what happens there)

The point is, They would be better off going with another goalie option than having to A: Take Fleury and B: Take Pouliot. Why should they bail out Pittsburgh and not take the best player they can? Even if you buy out Fleury, that saves Murray, but Rust/Sundquist are still up for grabs. And this is all hinging on Fleury waiving...he may not.

 

[Empoleon8771]

They have multiple option over giving up value for Fleury, some may not be better or cheaper, but in the long run...the makeup of the whole team would be better.
Ramo
Johnson
Pickard
Howard
Ward
Kincaid
Hutton
Raanta
Neuverth
Bishop/Vas (depending on what happens there)
Riemer/Luongo (depending on what happens there)

The point is, They would be better off going with another goalie option than having to A: Take Fleury and B: Take Pouliot. Why should they bail out Pittsburgh and not take the best player they can? Even if you buy out Fleury, that saves Murray, but Rust/Sundquist are still up for grabs. And this is all hinging on Fleury waiving...he may not.

A lot of the goalies you listed are clear downgrades on Fleury and aren't really relevant to Fleury. Guys like Hutton are totally irrelevant to whether Vegas would be interested in MAF. The only relevant guys are guys like Bishop, Raanta (to an extent) and Varlamov, aka other starters. Your entire assumption is that there are better players available on the Penguins than Fleury and the Knights would be losing vlaue based on taking Fleury, which are both flawed IMO. Fleury's value is less to the Penguins due to Murray, but at the same time, he's definitely more valuable than guys like Schultz and Fehr. Getting Fleury from the Penguins is getting the best player available on the Penguins, that's where your entire assumption falls apart.

I just really don't get your angle here. You seem to be arguing that Fleury is bad and it would cripple Vegas in taking him, which is just completely off base. Fleury is the best and most valuable player Vegas could possibly get from the Penguins unless Hornqvist is exposed (which simply won't happen). That also doesn't even mention how you're assuming taking Pouliot is a negative. I just really think you're off with your analysis for both Pouliot and Fleury here. I think you're assuming that taking say Ward and Rust is better in the long run than taking whoever from Carolina and getting Fleury and Pouliot from the Penguins, which I think is pretty baseless to say. Fleury, Pouliot and Grigorenko is better than Rust and Varlamov for example.

 

[Liferleafer]

A lot of the goalies you listed are clear downgrades on Fleury and aren't really relevant to Fleury. Guys like Hutton are totally irrelevant to whether Vegas would be interested in MAF. The only relevant guys are guys like Bishop, Raanta (to an extent) and Varlamov, aka other starters. Your entire assumption is that there are better players available on the Penguins than Fleury and the Knights would be losing vlaue based on taking Fleury, which are both flawed IMO. Fleury's value is less to the Penguins due to Murray, but at the same time, he's definitely more valuable than guys like Schultz and Fehr. Getting Fleury from the Penguins is getting the best player available on the Penguins, that's where your entire assumption falls apart.

I just really don't get your angle here. You seem to be arguing that Fleury is bad and it would cripple Vegas in taking him, which is just completely off base. Fleury is the best and most valuable player Vegas could possibly get from the Penguins unless Hornqvist is exposed (which simply won't happen). That also doesn't even mention how you're assuming taking Pouliot is a negative. I just really think you're off with your analysis for both Pouliot and Fleury here. I think you're assuming that taking say Ward and Rust is better in the long run than taking whoever from Carolina and getting Fleury and Pouliot from the Penguins, which I think is pretty baseless to say. Fleury, Pouliot and Grigorenko is better than Rust and Varlamov for example.

Not at all, what i'm arguing is Pens fans acting like they are doing Vegas a favor...when in reality, they are just trying to keep there own choices. If you think the best options for Vegas is to take Fleury...they will...oh wait, that's the problem...they can't.

 

[ONO94]

FWIW I don't think Fleury can even block a move to Vegas if it comes to that...his NMC is hardly a NMC, it just prevents him from being placed on waivers. Fleury's no-trade clause only allows him to list 12 teams he won't accept a deal to without waving. I'm not sure if Vegas was an option to put on his NTC list or not, but it's a list submitted before the start of the season...so who knows.

I don't expect Fleury to have any desire to go to Vegas and I think Rutherford will do his best to find the best destination for him possible...but if options are limited then Fleury may not have the power to block such a move if he wasn't allowed to put Vegas on his no-trade list.



Agreed.

If MAF's contract says he can name 12 out of 30 teams where he cannot go--then a trade to Vegas isn't possible without his consent. The contract will be read to include only the 30 existing teams and if there is a team added by the NHL, it is not contemplated in his contract and therefore not part of the discussion either way. If it just says 12 teams without mentioning 30 overall or similar language, then the interpretation gets more difficult--but I don't think the NHL or player's union would help out the Pens at the expense of a player.

Even if MAF would be willing to go to Vegas--why would he waive? He can be bought out and then sign in Vegas--in effect giving him more money than he would get in the trade scenerio. He really has no incentive to help out Pitts, even if it means he gets traded during the season. The NHL is a business and it will be treated as such by everyone except the fans.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Not at all, what i'm arguing is Pens fans acting like they are doing Vegas a favor...when in reality, they are just trying to keep there own choices. If you think the best options for Vegas is to take Fleury...they will...oh wait, that's the problem...they can't.

I don't think anyone is talking about Vegas taking Fleury in the expansion draft, people are talking about trading Fleury to Vegas (which might be possible). Vegas getting Fleury gives them a consistent starting goalie, the fact that the Penguins benefit from moving him as well doesn't change that.

If MAF's contract says he can name 12 out of 30 teams where he cannot go--then a trade to Vegas isn't possible without his consent. The contract will be read to include only the 30 existing teams and if there is a team added by the NHL, it is not contemplated in his contract and therefore not part of the discussion either way. If it just says 12 teams without mentioning 30 overall or similar language, then the interpretation gets more difficult--but I don't think the NHL or player's union would help out the Pens at the expense of a player.

Vegas may not have been eligible to be put on NTCs for this year because they weren't a team yet. When Vegas does enter the league, the NTCs for this year will still be in effect, so it's entirely possible that he can be traded there. His NTC says he can make a 12 team list of teams that he can't go to, I haven't heard if Vegas was eligible to be included on that list. The PA couldn't really do anything about that then, Fleury would be fair game to be traded to Vegas in that case.

 

[Liferleafer]

I don't think anyone is talking about Vegas taking Fleury in the expansion draft, people are talking about trading Fleury to Vegas (which might be possible). Vegas getting Fleury gives them a consistent starting goalie, the fact that the Penguins benefit from moving him as well doesn't change that.

In this scenario, Fleury should be treated as a cap dump. Why? Because iPttsburgh HAS to move him (or buy him out) or they risk losing Murray. So, in all cases of teams HAVING to move a contract, said team has had to pay a premium, such as Chicago adding TT or Toronto taking multiple garbage contracts back for Dion. Not only does this idea not add a premium, it penalizes Vegas by telling them who they MUST take in Pouliot.

 

[Empoleon8771]

In this scenario, Fleury should be treated as a cap dump. Why? Because iPttsburgh HAS to move him (or buy him out) or they risk losing Murray. So, in all cases of teams HAVING to move a contract, said team has had to pay a premium, such as Chicago adding TT or Toronto taking multiple garbage contracts back for Dion. Not only does this idea not add a premium, it penalizes Vegas by telling them who they MUST take in Pouliot.

Well it would be stupid to treat him as a cap dump, the fact that the Penguins have to trade him doesn't mean his value is somehow negative (which is what a cap dump is, negative value player). What's your basis for saying that Fleury should be a cap dump? The only cap dumps in recent memory are guys who either aren't playing in the NHL anymore or guys with abortions of contracts. The fact that the Penguins have to move Fleury doesn't put him in a category with either of those. Did the Jackets have to treat Nash as a cap dump when he demanded a trade and had to move him?

Until Fleury gets a career ending injury or he turns into 2012 playoff form in the regular season, the idea of him being a cap dump is totally baseless. If the Penguins offered Fleury to Vegas for a 7th round pick, they'd take it instantly. The fact that the Penguins have to move him is irrelevant to the fact that he's not even close to cap dump territory.

 

[KIRK]

Can someone explain to me why Fleury is going to waive his partial NTC to be traded anywhere after the trade deadline?

Allan Walsh is his agent. His NTC almost assuredly has been constructed to list all but 1 or 2 possible destinations, and they'd probably be teams like Isles and Flyers (for anyone who doesn't follow, eliminate teams with starters who won't trade for him to eliminate about half of the leagues teams, then cross out 12 of the maybe 14-15 teams that even in some slightly conceivable way might trade for him).

If he refuses to waive, then the Pens either have to pay Vegas a monster bribe not to pick Murray OR buyout Fleury.

If the Pens buyout Fleury, then they'll be paying him about 7.7M to go away and choose wherever he wants to sign.

So, who thinks Walsh advises Fleury to force the buyout and who thinks he advises Fleury to waive to go to Vegas?

 

[Liferleafer]

Well it would be stupid to treat him as a cap dump, the fact that the Penguins have to trade him doesn't mean his value is somehow negative (which is what a cap dump is, negative value player). What's your basis for saying that Fleury should be a cap dump? The only cap dumps in recent memory are guys who either aren't playing in the NHL anymore or guys with abortions of contracts. The fact that the Penguins have to move Fleury doesn't put him in a category with either of those. Did the Jackets have to treat Nash as a cap dump when he demanded a trade and had to move him?

Until Fleury gets a career ending injury or he turns into 2012 playoff form in the regular season, the idea of him being a cap dump is totally baseless. If the Penguins offered Fleury to Vegas for a 7th round pick, they'd take it instantly. The fact that the Penguins have to move him is irrelevant to the fact that he's not even close to cap dump territory.

You don't think a GM is going to exploit the fact you have to move him? I didn't mean he was a cap dump in the 'he sucks" kind of way, but you will not get top (or even close to) value because it is known that you HAVE to move him. And to the Nash trade, were the Jackets under the shadow of an expansion draft in which they were going to lose a player they wanted to keep?

 

[Liferleafer]

Can someone explain to me why Fleury is going to waive his partial NTC to be traded anywhere after the trade deadline?

Allan Walsh is his agent. His NTC almost assuredly has been constructed to list all but 1 or 2 possible destinations, and they'd probably be teams like Isles and Flyers (for anyone who doesn't follow, eliminate teams with starters who won't trade for him to eliminate about half of the leagues teams, then cross out 12 of the maybe 14-15 teams that even in some slightly conceivable way might trade for him).

If he refuses to waive, then the Pens either have to pay Vegas a monster bribe not to pick Murray OR buyout Fleury.

If the Pens buyout Fleury, then they'll be paying him about 7.7M to go away and choose wherever he wants to sign.

So, who thinks Walsh advises Fleury to force the buyout and who thinks he advises Fleury to waive to go to Vegas?

Why waive? take the buyout money and sign a shiny new contract elsewhere...double whammy.

 

[Empoleon8771]

You don't think a GM is going to exploit the fact you have to move him? I didn't mean he was a cap dump in the 'he sucks" kind of way, but you will not get top (or even close to) value because it is known that you HAVE to move him.

Yes, I believe a GM will exploit that. No, I don't think that takes Fleury from having actual value into "you add and we'll take him" territory. There's a big difference between Fleury's value taking a hit from the Penguins having to trade him and Fleury's value going into the negatives from the Penguins having to trade him.

And to the Nash trade, were the Jackets under the shadow of an expansion draft in which they were going to lose a player they wanted to keep?

No, but they had a player that was likely going to refuse to report if they didn't trade him and had publicly complained about wanting to be gone.

Why waive? take the buyout money and sign a shiny new contract elsewhere...double whammy.

This is a scenario I can see, but I could see Fleury going against this route if he had a bad season this year. If he has a solid season, that's something I see him pushing for. He'll be able to make $7.7 million or so from Pittsburgh plus getting a nice contract as a UFA.

 

[Liferleafer]

Yes, I believe a GM will exploit that. No, I don't think that takes Fleury from having actual value into "you add and we'll take him" territory. There's a big difference between Fleury's value taking a hit from the Penguins having to trade him and Fleury's value going into the negatives from the Penguins having to trade him.



No, but they had a player that was likely going to refuse to report if they didn't trade him and had publicly complained about wanting to be gone.



This is a scenario I can see, but I could see Fleury going against this route if he had a bad season this year. If he has a solid season, that's something I see him pushing for. He'll be able to make $7.7 million or so from Pittsburgh plus getting a nice contract as a UFA.

They still didn't have to trade him, they could have Trouba/Drouined him. (Let him sit)

And lets be honest, Fleury's 3.25 GA and .905 save% this season don't exactly scream "hey Vegas...take me!!".