If the Flyers sign a FA this offseason you don't think they would do it knowing full well someone else might be exposed?

Also there is a TDL that they could move a player for picks instead of losing him for nothing. Of course that depends on where the Flyers are in the standings.
- J35Bacher

They'd have to choose which player to protect. Maybe they sign a FA and decide not expose the FA.

Again, the only player they are obligated to protect is Giroux, and maybe Jake (have to check). The others are their choices.

No...I think you are thinking about two different things as if they are the same.

A NMC does not protect a player from being bought out. The first step in a buyout is putting a player on unconditional waivers, which essentially is saying they are going to buy him out, but any team can take him if they want.

So in your hypothetical, that a team claims him. Umberger's NMC allows him to get claimed and then either accept that claim, or say screw it and just take the buyout.

It is completely different than Umberger being put on waivers with the intention of sending him to the AHL...that is not allowed under his NMC, which by the way...it is completely clear at this point that the Flyers had the opportunity to void his NMC, but kept it
- YuenglingJagr

Right. So when he's put on waivers, say Buffalo claims him. At that point, he can decline, in which case the Flyers are forced to but him out...correct?

I know he can't be sent to the AHL.

No...I think you are thinking about two different things as if they are the same.

A NMC does not protect a player from being bought out. The first step in a buyout is putting a player on unconditional waivers, which essentially is saying they are going to buy him out, but any team can take him if they want.

So in your hypothetical, that a team claims him. Umberger's NMC allows him to get claimed and then either accept that claim, or say screw it and just take the buyout.
- YuenglingJagr

Actually, the player with a NMC has to agree to be put on unconditional waivers for the purpose of a buyout, and has 24 hours to decide when approached by the team. If he does not agree to be put on waivers, then he can still be bought out. He can't accept being put on waivers and then not agree to go to the team, as I understand it.

Plenty of options. I'm simply saying that signing a UFA to a multi year deal this off season, adds variables as far as who to protect for the expansion draft.
- MJL

I am not debating that.

But for example if I sign Stamkos to a deal then I know full well I am probably exposing someone like Raffl or Laughton.

I am not debating that.

But for example if I sign Stamkos to a deal then I know full well I am probably exposing someone like Raffl or Laughton.
- J35Bacher

I am not debating that.

But for example if I sign Stamkos to a deal then I know full well I am probably exposing someone like Raffl or Laughton.
- J35Bacher

Yes, you most likely are, but you could theoretically leave Stamkos unprotected. It's their call.

Yes, you most likely are, but you could theoretically leave Stamkos unprotected. It's their call.
- jmatchett383

I have a question.

Both goalies are UFA after this season. Wouldn't it be a smart play to not sign one, leave both unprotected and then resign after the expansion draft? Would Vegas really claim a goalie they might not be able to sign? I am assuming they would want a goalie with term.

Actually, the player with a NMC has to agree to be put on unconditional waivers for the purpose of a buyout, and has 24 hours to decide when approached by the team. If he does not agree to be put on waivers, then he can still be bought out. He can't accept being put on waivers and then not agree to go to the team, as I understand it.
- MJL

Yeah that is true...its been a while since I thought too much about buyouts (RIP Vinny)...the player actually has a choice of skipping waivers and going straight to buyout. in umbergers situation...it would only make him a Flyer for an extra 24 hrs

I have a question.

Both goalies are UFA after this season. Wouldn't it be a smart play to not sign one, leave both unprotected and then resign after the expansion draft? Would Vegas really claim a goalie they might not be able to sign? I am assuming they would want a goalie with term.
- J35Bacher

Stolarz is also eligible for the expansion draft I believe.

I have a question.

Both goalies are UFA after this season. Wouldn't it be a smart play to not sign one, leave both unprotected and then resign after the expansion draft? Would Vegas really claim a goalie they might not be able to sign? I am assuming they would want a goalie with term.
- J35Bacher

I believe that is what the Flyers plan on doing. Choose which one you want to keep, make an agreement in principle, and then sign the extension after the draft.

Of course, if they do resign one, I think the expansion team will have much better goalie options than Stolarz.

Stolarz is also eligible for the expansion draft I believe.
- MJL

I think that was his thought process.

I have a question.

Both goalies are UFA after this season. Wouldn't it be a smart play to not sign one, leave both unprotected and then resign after the expansion draft? Would Vegas really claim a goalie they might not be able to sign? I am assuming they would want a goalie with term.
- J35Bacher

No they actually need to expose a goalie with term on his contract...so they need to resign at least ONE goalie. All 4 have only one year left

I believe that is what the Flyers plan on doing. Choose which one you want to keep, make an agreement in principle, and then sign the extension after the draft.

Of course, if they do resign one, I think the expansion team will have much better goalie options than Stolarz.
- jmatchett383

I have a hard time seeing Stolarz claimed. Hell Stolarz could drop on the depth chart this season if there is competition from Lyons. Not sure a expansion team risks a pick on a player like Stolarz from the Flyers

All of the more recent mocks I've seen have Brown surging. I don't think he's a 10th-14th overall pick anymore. If we did somehow move into the top 10 I don't think it would be him I'd have my eyes on.
- hereticpride

I've said this a couple times in the last few days/weeks, but if we're not trading into the top 10 (or, idreally, somewhere in the 5-8 range), Id much rather stand pat. Judging by hextalls comments, he seems to agree with me.

I see very little difference between picks 10-20 for the most part. There's a talent drop off after 10 or 12 and then again somewhere after pick 22 or 23. I see no appreciable difference in player potential unless we're in the top 10, maybe higher. We'll still get a great player at 18 in this draft.

We have lots of high picks this draft. I hope we use every last one.

No they actually need to expose a goalie with term on his contract...so they need to resign at least ONE goalie. All 4 have only one year left
- YuenglingJagr

No they don't.

If they don't protect any goalie they can protect an extra forward.

Not sure how the NHL can force a team to sign a player they might not be interested in signing.

No they actually need to expose a goalie with term on his contract...so they need to resign at least ONE goalie. All 4 have only one year left
- YuenglingJagr

They also have Oulette and Knapp, not sure of their contracts. But fine, sign a guy to a 1-year, 2-way, minimum-salary contract next offseason and expose him.

No they actually need to expose a goalie with term on his contract...so they need to resign at least ONE goalie. All 4 have only one year left
- YuenglingJagr

With your opinion stated in the pens blog about MAF'a value, and perhaps even the cap of Bishop (10th highest in league for goalies) , it makes me wonder if we will move one of our goalies despite our dual goalie success. Especially with Neuvy's low/favorable cap.

I have a hard time seeing Stolarz claimed. Hell Stolarz could drop on the depth chart this season if there is competition from Lyons. Not sure a expansion team risks a pick on a player like Stolarz from the Flyers
- J35Bacher

Okay. So what's the advantage of leaving both goalies as UFAs then?

No they don't.

If they don't protect any goalie they can protect an extra forward.

Not sure how the NHL can force a team to sign a player they might not be interested in signing.
- J35Bacher

He said expose, not protect.

With your opinion stated in the pens blog about MAF'a value, and perhaps even the cap of Bishop (10th highest in league for goalies) , it makes me wonder if we will move one of our goalies despite our dual goalie success. Especially with Neuvy's low/favorable cap.
- arichardson22

Why would they trade a goalie in a terrible goalie market?

With your opinion stated in the pens blog about MAF'a value, and perhaps even the cap of Bishop (10th highest in league for goalies) , it makes me wonder if we will move one of our goalies despite our dual goalie success. Especially with Neuvy's low/favorable cap.
- arichardson22

No, the Flyers are in a completely different situation than Pittsburgh wrt goalies.

No they don't.

If they don't protect any goalie they can protect an extra forward.

Not sure how the NHL can force a team to sign a player they might not be interested in signing.
- J35Bacher

Where do you see this? I havent seen any indication of that

He said expose, not protect.
- jmatchett383

I am sorry.

So they would expose Stolarz then.

Where do you see this? I havent seen any indication of that
- YuenglingJagr

Same. I know you can protect 2 goalies for 2 fewer skaters, but I haven't seen the no goalie one.

They also have Oulette and Knapp, not sure of their contracts. But fine, sign a guy to a 1-year, 2-way, minimum-salary contract next offseason and expose him.
- jmatchett383

Do they have actual NHL contracts?