Not for 3 years. You are not offering a meaningful contributor. A few ok lottery tickets. For a cup team I'd rather have 1 year of goalie insurance and lose him in the expansion draft than a 2nd round pick. We would prefer to resign schultz than have wideman. And nothing you are offering is better than schultz.
- sditulli

I'm not a Wideman fan but if you actually believe Shultz is better... dear god, seek help...

I mean you are basically saying that you wouldn't even take 2 seconds if Wideman was left out? You could turn the cap space into a contributor! It's just as valuable in my opinion. You're silly to think otherwise!
- The-O-G

to summarize everything on pens thinking.

a) 2 2nds and no wideman contract probably isn't enough. Add a B-Prospect gets interesting
b) It doesn't appear the Pens have cap difficulties next year. Cap issues appear the following year (Murray comes off ELC is the big one, but Bonino/daley are ufa too). so we can't exactly use cap space next year since we have to pay Murray the following year and some other guys
c) Schultz actually looks like a good fit in Pittsburgh with their style. Daley is a good 2nd pairing guy in pittsburgh but a zero in Chicago. Some guys fit certain systems.
d) It doesn't appear that Fleury will need protected (But they haven't been 100% transparent...but the talk seems to be a guy needs a full NTC/NMC to be a force protect)
e) Pens will lose something of value in the expansion draft. Likely something worth1 2nd round pick or more. So 2 2nds don't move the needle much when if we do not have fleury we will lose a different asset in the draft. Fleury as a 1 year rental at a price of a 2nd is good asset management for the pens.

to summarize everything on pens thinking.

a) 2 2nds and no wideman contract probably isn't enough. Add a B-Prospect gets interesting
b) It doesn't appear the Pens have cap difficulties next year. Cap issues appear the following year (Murray comes off ELC is the big one, but Bonino/daley are ufa too). so we can't exactly use cap space next year since we have to pay Murray the following year and some other guys
c) Schultz actually looks like a good fit in Pittsburgh with their style. Daley is a good 2nd pairing guy in pittsburgh but a zero in Chicago. Some guys fit certain systems.
d) It doesn't appear that Fleury will need protected (But they haven't been 100% transparent...but the talk seems to be a guy needs a full NTC/NMC to be a force protect)
e) Pens will lose something of value in the expansion draft. Likely something worth1 2nd round pick or more. So 2 2nds don't move the needle much when if we do not have fleury we will lose a different asset in the draft. Fleury as a 1 year rental at a price of a 2nd is good asset management for the pens.
- sditulli

to be clear this is the pens thinking? or your thinking?

Expansion doesn't effecdt Fleury's value. It means theres one more team in the league needing a goalie. Penguins can afford his cap hit this year and are able to expose him in the expansion draft. They really have no reason to trade him unless the deal brings value there way. Fleury is valuable to Pittsburgh. Maybe Murray tears a groin next year and Pittsburgh still has a top 10 netminder. There cup run next year is still possible.

so basically any fleury deal has to be a fair trade.
- sditulli

Yes, yes it does. Read up on supply and demand, it does not work in the Pens favour when it comes to the goalie market.

You say you'd rather keep MAF for 1 year of insurance than take a 2nd rounder. That could be a valid point but it seems a little short-sighted to me. A team with aging superstars and next to nothing coming up in their prospect system should be looking to restock the system whenever they can.

It's very possible that the Pens wait until the last possible moment (TDL 2017) to deal Fluery, but I wouldn't put money on his value increasing over that time. Ask Vancouver what it's like having two legit starters battle for minutes.

My buddy went golfing with Monahan last week, and Sean seemed convinced that MAF would be coming over during the off-season.

Makes me think that this was put out as a viable option when BT inquired about Murray and was turned down.

Yes, yes it does. Read up on supply and demand, it does not work in the Pens favour when it comes to the goalie market.

You say you'd rather keep MAF for 1 year of insurance than take a 2nd rounder. That could be a valid point but it seems a little short-sighted to me. A team with aging superstars and next to nothing coming up in their prospect system should be looking to restock the system whenever they can.

It's very possible that the Pens wait until the last possible moment (TDL 2017) to deal Fluery, but I wouldn't put money on his value increasing over that time. Ask Vancouver what it's like having two legit starters battle for minutes.
- Saskabush

Then acquire a different goalie. Pens have 15 months to trade fleury or expose him in expansion draft. Lots of good reasons to keep him such as injury or a sophomore slump from murray. Pens won't trade him for less than a fair return.

FWIW I think theres zero percent chance fleury gets exposed unless the offers are really bad. I don't think Pittsburgh would be comfortable making a well-liked guy like fleiry play on a very bad team

Marc Andre Fleury is completely effected by the expansion draft. Or more importantly Matt Murray is with it looking like teams can only protect 1 goaltender.

MAF has a modified No Trade Clause (which probably mean that if asked he must submit a list of teams that he will or will not go to) and a No Movement Clause.

Because of the No Movement Clause it means that Pittsburgh cannot leave him exposed to the expansion draft. They must use their single goalie protection on him. This in turn means that they will have to leave Matt Murray unprotected. As a result, because of the caliber of the player, it is extremely likely that they will lose Murray for nothing.

Their only recourse is to trade one of these goalies, and all signs point to it being MAF that would be the one to be traded. Under normal circumstances he would bring back a large return, but trading partners will quickly recognize the bind that the Penguins are in here and they will not get top scale offers.

I'm not saying that the player isn't worth a bigger offer, but the reality is that the Penguins will have to trade him (or trade Murray) before an expansion draft, or they will risk losing Murray for nothing. It has nothing to do with cap space, or the skill of the player. It is now a case of get something less than desirable (not as good of return or eat a bad contract) or lose the kid all together. Fleury's NMC is now forcing the Penguin's hand.

This is exactly what the Flames will face if they acquire a top level goaltender this off season, and Gilles has an outstanding season and looks to become al that is hoped of him. They can only protect 1, and it the newly acquired goaltender has a NMC then it forces the Flames hand.

That is why I still think that the Reimer option is the better course of action. He will not cost large resources to trade for that I really don't think the Flames should be giving up at this stage. And he provides expansion draft flexibility. I also believe that, while not a superstar, Reimer is a much better goalie than he is perceived to be now that he is out of the Toronto cess pool. His San Jose numbers were very good. Having better defence in front of him makes all the difference.

Expansion doesn't effecdt Fleury's value. It means theres one more team in the league needing a goalie. Penguins can afford his cap hit this year and are able to expose him in the expansion draft. They really have no reason to trade him unless the deal brings value there way. Fleury is valuable to Pittsburgh. Maybe Murray tears a groin next year and Pittsburgh still has a top 10 netminder. There cup run next year is still possible.

so basically any fleury deal has to be a fair trade.
- sditulli

Expansion does effect his value. The protective conditions available to teams means they can only protect 1 goalie. So if all teams with 2 good goalies wait until next summer to try to move a goalie, the value goes way down because, likely only a 2-3 teams might be looking.

And I'm pretty sure, as things have been said so far, MAF will mandatorily have to be protected, thus exposing Murray

And if it works that MAF doesn't have to be protected, I don't get why you'd be happier letting him go for nothing. I get that you would like him for another PO run, but then just acquire a guy u don't mind losing for nothing.

Expansion does effect his value. The protective conditions available to teams means they can only protect 1 goalie. So if all teams with 2 good goalies wait until next summer to try to move a goalie, the value goes way down because, likely only a 2-3 teams might be looking.

And I'm pretty sure, as things have been said so far, MAF will mandatorily have to be protected, thus exposing Murray

And if it works that MAF doesn't have to be protected, I don't get why you'd be happier letting him go for nothing. I get that you would like him for another PO run, but then just acquire a guy u don't mind losing for nothing.
- TandA4Flames

A) everything points to MAF not being protected. Pens boards have looked into extensively
B) every team is losing something for nothing. Derrick Pouliot or schultz are likely guys picked for us. Either that or a 3rd line forward. I wouldn't trade Pouliot for 2 2nd round picks.

A) everything points to MAF not being protected. Pens boards have looked into extensively
B) every team is losing something for nothing. Derrick Pouliot or schultz are likely guys picked for us. Either that or a 3rd line forward. I wouldn't trade Pouliot for 2 2nd round picks.
- sditulli

If you guys resign Schultz, I have strong faith that by mid season next year, you'll be begging for the expansion club to take him. He may fit PIT's system better, but he's terrible. So soft, unengaging a food not overly good in the hockey IQ dept.

to summarize everything on pens thinking.

a) 2 2nds and no wideman contract probably isn't enough. Add a B-Prospect gets interesting
b) It doesn't appear the Pens have cap difficulties next year. Cap issues appear the following year (Murray comes off ELC is the big one, but Bonino/daley are ufa too). so we can't exactly use cap space next year since we have to pay Murray the following year and some other guys
c) Schultz actually looks like a good fit in Pittsburgh with their style. Daley is a good 2nd pairing guy in pittsburgh but a zero in Chicago. Some guys fit certain systems.
d) It doesn't appear that Fleury will need protected (But they haven't been 100% transparent...but the talk seems to be a guy needs a full NTC/NMC to be a force protect)
e) Pens will lose something of value in the expansion draft. Likely something worth1 2nd round pick or more. So 2 2nds don't move the needle much when if we do not have fleury we will lose a different asset in the draft. Fleury as a 1 year rental at a price of a 2nd is good asset management for the pens.
- sditulli

These ate just more reasons why I don't want BT to trade for Fleury. If he costs at most the 2 late 2nds, I'm ok with it. Anything more and you may as well start looking for a younger cheaper option that can grow with the team, or a stop gap that comes with other assets. PIT's and their fans want to roll the dice, go ahead. There will be plenty of options as the expansion threat pulls closer. If we haven't found what we want by this summer, I'm certain there will be plenty of desperate teams next summer. I would laugh my ass off if the actual rules came out and MAF would have to be protected and Murray then becomes a real threat to be picked up for nothing. At that point a team like CGY could find a REAL bargain.

Nothing happening here, move on.

You got:

Fleury/Murray
Andersen/Gibson
Bishop/Vasillliiiiiieeevsky

Just off the top of my head. you have options. Team will need to make moves with Expansion drafts on the horizon.

A) everything points to MAF not being protected. Pens boards have looked into extensively
B) every team is losing something for nothing. Derrick Pouliot or schultz are likely guys picked for us. Either that or a 3rd line forward. I wouldn't trade Pouliot for 2 2nd round picks.
- sditulli

a. That's all based on speculation from what reporters have heard, we will not know the draft rules for sure until the NHL makes their announcement and the NHLPA signs off on it.

b. You would rather lose MAF for nothing than a 3rd line forward or Jultz? You won't get a 2nd + for most 3rd liners in this league or for Jultz, so even if you think it's an underpayment taking a couple of picks in what is supposed to be a deep draft might be the best option.

c. This is all assuming that there is only 1 team in the draft. There very well could be 2 teams picking, meaning each team would lose 2 players. In that situation you dump any expendable players with value that you cannot protect.

A) everything points to MAF not being protected. Pens boards have looked into extensively
B) every team is losing something for nothing. Derrick Pouliot or schultz are likely guys picked for us. Either that or a 3rd line forward. I wouldn't trade Pouliot for 2 2nd round picks.
- sditulli

You aren't understanding, the expansion draft REQUIRES he be protected. Requires it.

You have 15 months, but his value diminishes after game 1 next season. You will get nothing for him after the season ends and everyone knows it.

You aren't understanding, the expansion draft REQUIRES he be protected. Requires it.

You have 15 months, but his value diminishes after game 1 next season. You will get nothing for him after the season ends and everyone knows it.
- rmull905

So what happens if a team has two goalies with NMCs? Would they both be required to be protected?

So what happens if a team has two goalies with NMCs? Would they both be required to be protected?
- flamminghead

Better question might be, are there any teams in that situation? Highly doubt it and is likely a one off scenario that the NHL would deal with.

Better question might be, are there any teams in that situation? Highly doubt it and is likely a one off scenario that the NHL would deal with.
- rmull905

There aren't any other teams in this situation.

The only other teams with Goalies with a NMC that they would be required to protect are:

Rangers (Lundqvist)
Black Hawks (Crawford)
Bruins (Rask)
Predators (Rinne)
Coyotes (Smith)

But none of those teams would risk losing somebody of Matt Murray's ability because they were forced to protect one of these NMC players. None of them have that choice to make (at least at this point ahead of next season).

Should the expansion draft be announced with the rules as being reported, then the Penguins will have to make the hard choice of trade one of their two tenders for an undervalued trade, or risk losing the younger player for nothing. It sucks, but that is the reality to it all.

There are other teams that will face this with other positions. It will make this coming off season extremely interesting to see how things are handled.

Wow! A rebuilding club should not be handing out 2nd round picks like they are jelly beans! This is right from Sutters management book on how to drive a team into the ground. People on here throwing 2nds out like it was no big deal, when we work so hard to aquire them.
Then throwing in Wideman, who is surely going to get you another 2nd at the tdl! Come on give your heads a shake!
Bt has to explore all his options, but hopefully he has some common sense when it comes to the goalie situation!

Wow! A rebuilding club should not be handing out 2nd round picks like they are jelly beans! This is right from Sutters management book on how to drive a team into the ground. People on here throwing 2nds out like it was no big deal, when we work so hard to aquire them.
Then throwing in Wideman, who is surely going to get you another 2nd at the tdl! Come on give your heads a shake!
Bt has to explore all his options, but hopefully he has some common sense when it comes to the goalie situation!
- K-man25

You could take the money from trading Wideman to sign a free agent for 1 year @ 5.25mil who would also get just as good of an asset back at the TDL. If you are thinking Wideman has value you are wrong haha.

You are also assuming they will be selling at next years TDL....I don't think that's such a sure thing!