BrindamoursNose
Registered User
- Oct 14, 2008
- 20,152
- 14,275
He can't. Needs to play a certain amount of games to be eligible for expansion draft exposure.
What is Ivan Provorov
- Thread starter Dabest
- Start date
He can't. Needs to play a certain amount of games to be eligible for expansion draft exposure.
- Sep 28, 2014
- 76,850
- 123,502
We don't need MacDonald to meet that requirement unless we plan on using our 3rd D protection slot on Brandon Manning; which I strongly doubt.
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
Because one is a 19 year old rookie and the other a defensively awful
sarcasm sophomore. I get why Hakstok wouldn't pair them yet. And it appears he wants to give Provorov the hard minutes. But I think the level of hockey IQ on a Provorov-Ghost pairing, perhaps in the near future when the coach feels comfortable with it, would be amazing. I think they'd fit together quite well in terms of complimentary skill sets but sterling brain power. I feel like they'd just kill it in the possession game....and the scoring game....and the everything game.
FLYguy3911
Sanheim Lover
- Oct 19, 2006
- 53,264
- 86,770
Don't think it's going to happen. Hak doesn't trust Ghost defensively unfortunately. Being tagged as a poor defender is a tough label to shake for a young defenseman.
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
I know. It's just a pipe dream, but it'd be beautiful.
Ghost reads plays just as well or better than anyone not named Provorov on this team. With his instincts and skating and stick work, I think he'd be interesting if tried out on the PK. But Hakstol will use Streit on the PK instead if needed....who is slow and makes poor defensive reads and isn't any tougher. Ghost very much has that stigma about him, and it bums me out.
Lindberg
Bennyflyers16 get a life
- Oct 5, 2013
- 7,159
- 7,865
Yet somehow Hak qualifies MacDonald as solid in all three zones. I'm not sold on the ideology that Hak is a good coach. Personally I'm baffled by the idea that MacDonald can play the PK while a guy like Ghost can't.
Juicy Pop
BONK
We don't need him but it's good to have an insurance policy in the case that Manning goes down with a catastrophic injury that makes him ineligible.
FLYguy3911
Sanheim Lover
- Oct 19, 2006
- 53,264
- 86,770
I get the sense Sanheim does as well. The unfortunate part is they can make the right play 99 times out of 100 and that one time they mess up people will go "See! Terrible defender!"
I definitely think Ghost would do just fine on the PK, but I'd rather MacDonald stand in front of shots on the PK than Ghost. Let him save his energy for the PP. What really gets me though is he'll staple Ghost to the bench for the last 5-7 minutes of a game when they have a 1 goal lead. Hell he doesn't even give him shifts late tie games. It's crazy. He has some limitations, yes, but he's not a bad defender at all. I don't know what Hak sees in AMac that he doesn't see in Ghost, other than the fact he's a veteran. AMac can play against top lines. He can play late in games. Why can't Ghost?
Last edited:
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
Sanheim's size will be an important factor in the minutes he'll get versus Ghost. It would actually surprise me a little if Sanheim doesn't get more of a 2-way role and PK time.
Ruck Over
When the revolution comes, pants will do you no gd
It feels weird to type this, but... Manning is playing himself into that 3rd protection spot, as unlikely as that seems, and the largest crystal of salt ever. MacDonald is also close to meeting that magic number, 16 more games this season.
It's important in order to be able to expose MacDonald just for the sake of flexibility. In the same way we also have an extra forward spot that can be used on a "better" player than our current options, there are other teams with players that are "better" and will be exposed. Can make for interesting trade partners.
Optionality, short and sweet.
Tripod
I hate this team
In no way should we waste a protection spot on Manning IMO. Make a trade for an upgrade to protect. Hopefully Hextall is able to do that along with finding that #3 C we need.
That's what I want for X-Mas.
That's what I want for X-Mas.
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
Ruck Over
When the revolution comes, pants will do you no gd
Yes, it would be a waste. But who else on the roster (today) needs protecting? Gudas-yes, Provorov-no, Streit-no, Schultz-no, MDZ-no, Ghost-yes, Manning-no, MacDonald-no. So, the free agents to be, 2 are def gone, 1 may be here. If re-signed before the ED, MDZ is most likely the third protect, but that's not a given.
Blah blah blah- we know that, but keep playing MacDonald so he can be the exposed D-man. Stranger things have happened, we might get lucky, Vegas might like his contract as a start-up club. Who knows?
Tripod
I hate this team
The McPhee interview I saw indicated they won't touch AMac.
He specifically said that there will be teams that won't be offering very much in expansion. He said you have to treat that like a throw away pick. The worst thing you could do is to take back a player with a high cap hit and term. Just treat it like a wasted pick and pick someone who does not hurt you in the future.
He specifically said that there will be teams that won't be offering very much in expansion. He said you have to treat that like a throw away pick. The worst thing you could do is to take back a player with a high cap hit and term. Just treat it like a wasted pick and pick someone who does not hurt you in the future.
Ruck Over
When the revolution comes, pants will do you no gd
I know that, you know that, everybody knows that. But a guy can still dream.
Point being, currently, the Flyers don't have a third defenseman worth protecting, and MacDonald is the best player for that ED exposure.
Juicy Pop
BONK
Sure, but it depends on what McPhee's definition of 'high term' is given that AMac will only be on the books for two more years after the inaugural season. That doesn't seem like a contract that would hurt a franchise that shouldn't expect to be relevant for at least a few years.
I wouldn't take any comments for granted right now given that he could just be trying to use the media to gain leverage. If you publicly say, "I'm perfectly fine with taking on a low-value asset just to avoid the cap consequences," then you put yourself in a stronger position with teams chomping at the bit for you to give them a bailout.
- Sep 28, 2014
- 76,850
- 123,502
I would have agreed 10 games into the season. Since then he has been the same Manning as last season. Not a player worth protecting if you can help it.
backburner
Registered User
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
Protecting Manning would be beyond stupid. He's been a nice bottom pair guy and has shown he can actually play in the NHL full-time this year. Not taking that away from him. But he will be a 27 year old bottom pairing defenseman with no upside. The Flyers also happen to have buku young defensemen coming up through the system.
Someone has to be taken; an asset will be lost. If it's a 27 year old bottom pairing Brandon Manning, then so be it. It's no great loss. But here's the thing: I see absolutely no way Vegas selects Manning. None. His no upside, his age, his 1 year contract, there already being a bunch of better d men for Vegas to take and a probable shorter supply of quality forwards, of which we have multiple. He's not getting taken, and he will be on the Flyers next year. I'd rather use that 3rd protection slot to acquire a real asset, be it a stealthy trade to protect someone underrated or maybe even to help a team and acquire picks. Look at a team like the Panthers who will lose one of Pysyk/Petrovic or Anaheim with Manson or plenty other options both ways. Using a protection slot on a mediocre player who won't get drafted is a waste of an asset in that protection slot.
Someone has to be taken; an asset will be lost. If it's a 27 year old bottom pairing Brandon Manning, then so be it. It's no great loss. But here's the thing: I see absolutely no way Vegas selects Manning. None. His no upside, his age, his 1 year contract, there already being a bunch of better d men for Vegas to take and a probable shorter supply of quality forwards, of which we have multiple. He's not getting taken, and he will be on the Flyers next year. I'd rather use that 3rd protection slot to acquire a real asset, be it a stealthy trade to protect someone underrated or maybe even to help a team and acquire picks. Look at a team like the Panthers who will lose one of Pysyk/Petrovic or Anaheim with Manson or plenty other options both ways. Using a protection slot on a mediocre player who won't get drafted is a waste of an asset in that protection slot.
Ruck Over
When the revolution comes, pants will do you no gd
Totally missing the point. On the Flyers roster, for defensemen signed into next year, who is the third Flyer protected? There is no good choice, but given the option of protecting Manning, and exposing MacDonald, I'll protect Manning. If by some weird reason Hagg or Morin were available (they aren't, both exempt) I'd protect them over both of Manning and MacDonald.
This was all a drawn out way of saying, play MacDonald 16 more games, he qualifies for ED. Then figure what you want to do with him regarding AHL or pressbox.
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
Curufinwe
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2013
- 55,843
- 42,932
With Vegas having to take 30 guys and only needing to meet a minimum value of $43.8m, there's no reason for them to take any high priced contract unless the player is really good and fairly young. Someone like Killorn, for example.
https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft-faq
- Sep 28, 2014
- 76,850
- 123,502
Hakstol doesnt order them 1-8 in terms of how he views each defensemens quality of play like we do and issue minutes accordingly. He puts together the pairs he thinks will work best. That might include a guy like Provy he considers one of the best 8 and a guy like AMac he considers one of the worst 8. There is a reason he has scratched MacDonald often. He is never going to be a sure thing in this lineup.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - FINGER LAKES RACE 1 - Farmington, NYWagers: 4Staked: $815.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-