You realize 75% of the roster is contracts other teams wanted to unload....
- ImThatGuy

Again, im talking about bogo, ennis, moulson, gaborik, dustin brown type contacts

blah blah blah
- homiedclown

You realize 95% of the roster is contracts other teams wanted to unload....
- ImThatGuy

Disagree.

I wouldn't give it any more than 40%.

Clarkson
Grabovski
Garrison
Emelin
Fleury, but I'd argue he's a highly tradable asset.
Reinhart (LOL EDM)
Sbisa - VAN got lucky here
R Smith
Stoner
Thorburn

Mostly everyone here, the teams paid to get rid of, with the exception of Emelin, Sbisa and Reinhart.

Correct he wanted carrier not the goalie. got a 6th out of it for doing nothing.
- rinaldo

I think you're giving Mcphee too much credit.

Look what he got for taking Fleury

Look what he got for taking Thorburn

The guy bungled the whole thing IMO. I get that he didn't want to alienate his team by taking too hard a line, but he got steamrolled imo

Correct he wanted carrier not the goalie. got a 6th out of it for doing nothing.
- rinaldo

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Disagree.

I wouldn't give it any more than 40%.

Clarkson
Grabovski
Garrison
Emelin
Fleury, but I'd argue he's a highly tradable asset.
Reinhart (LOL EDM)
Sbisa - VAN got lucky here
R Smith
Stoner
Thorburn

Mostly everyone here, the teams paid to get rid of, with the exception of Emelin, Sbisa and Reinhart.
- TheSabresTaco

Fleury is going to be the face of that team for the first few years. As weird as it may seem, he does bring 3 Stanley Cups with him (yes, I know Murray had a large part in that as well, but you can't discredit that Fleury helped them get to all 3).

number of draft picks for Vegas the next 4 years:

2017;
1st- 3 (#6, 13, & 15 overall)
2nd- 2
3rd- 1 (maybe 2)
4th- 2
5th- 2
6th- 2

2018:
3rd- 1 (maybe 2)
4th- 2

2019:
2nd- 3
3rd- 2

2020:
2nd- 2

GMGM got a nice stockpile last night for this franchise. Building from within your organization. sure they could have taken some high profile guys instead of taking some of these deals, but he's gotta play ball with all 30 Gm's. George now has assets that other teams could be interested in (Neal, Methot, Marchessault, Theodore).

Fleury is going to be the face of that team for the first few years. As weird as it may seem, he does bring 3 Stanley Cups with him (yes, I know Murray had a large part in that as well, but you can't discredit that Fleury helped them get to all 3).
- HonkFortheGoose

Lundqvist or Quick is a face of a franchise. Fleury is a middle of the road starter and a big reason the Pens couldn't get a cup til Murray showed up

yeah cause that makes sense.
- TheSabresTaco

then if he wanted the goalie why didn't he take him in your opinion?

Fleury is going to be the face of that team for the first few years. As weird as it may seem, he does bring 3 Stanley Cups with him (yes, I know Murray had a large part in that as well, but you can't discredit that Fleury helped them get to all 3).
- HonkFortheGoose

For sure. I've always wondered why he wasn't traded before his shipping off to Vegas. Me thinks he wouldn't waive for anyone else. I bet he knew about the prospects of Vegas for a long time. And I'm certain the Pens wanted to treat him right. He seems to deserve it, based on everything you hear about the guy

Lundqvist or Quick is a face of a franchise. Fleury is a middle of the road starter and a big reason the Pens couldn't get a cup til Murray showed up
- jcragcrumple

On an established team, I agree. But that's not the case here.

And Fleury won a Cup before Murray was ever even drafted (and had been to the finals the year before).

then if he wanted the goalie why didn't he take him in your opinion?
- rinaldo

Well I'm sure he didn't want Thorburn either, but he took him

Your opinion. Some of us have the opposite. Agree to disagree.
- HonkFortheGoose

then please explain in your opinion then why he didn't take the goalie then if he wanted him?

Well I'm sure he didn't want Thorburn either, but he took him
- jcragcrumple

that's irrevelevent to what I asked you.

he wanted to move up and get a 3rd for taking him.

then if he wanted the goalie why didn't he take him in your opinion?
- rinaldo

This is likely how their reported conversation went:

GM: I'm taking Ullmark
JB: No
GM: You going to pay me to take someone else?
JB: I'm not giving away my high picks
GM: mk.. well, I'm not taking your high priced players
JB: Well, then, who would you like in place of Ullmark?
GM: Carrier and a pick.
JB: Seems like a fair trade. I can give you a low pick and Carrier for Ullmark.
GM: Shake-sies?
JB: Shake-sies.

On an established team, I agree. But that's not the case here.

And Fleury won a Cup before Murray was ever even drafted (and had been to the finals the year before).
- HonkFortheGoose

Fleury is so milquetoast stylistically and statistically. That's a pretty boring face of a franchise. It's not a move I would make unless the pick with Fleury was better. The guy has always been overrated

then please explain in your opinion then why he didn't take the goalie then if he wanted him?
- rinaldo

He specifically said at the draft yesterday he was looking at 2 players on our list. He was given the 6th round pick to sway him to go with one guy over the other at the request of Botterill.

and I already explained in a previous post that Ullmark would be preferable over Pickard. I'm not typing it out again. you want to know my reasoning, go back and actually read what I already said once.

that's irreverent to what I asked you.

he wanted to move up and get a 3rd for taking him.
- rinaldo

I'm demonstrating to you that picks, along with players Mcphee didn't want, protects players he does want.

Thorburn + picks = protecting young guys

Cartier + picks = protecting ullmark

number of draft picks for Vegas the next 4 years:

2017;
1st- 3 (#6, 13, & 15 overall)
2nd- 2
3rd- 1 (maybe 2)
4th- 2
5th- 2
6th- 2

2018:
3rd -1 (maybe 2)
4th- 2

2019:
2nd- 3
3rd- 2

2020:
2nd- 2

GMGM got a nice stockpile last night
- Acup2buff

And this is just the start. I guarantee 100% some of the Vegas players will be moved for more picks/prospects/Veterans

This is likely how their reported conversation went:

GM: I'm taking Ullmark
JB: No
GM: You going to pay me to take someone else?
JB: I'm not giving away my high picks
GM: mk.. well, I'm not taking your high priced players
JB: Well, then, who would you like in place of Ullmark?
GM: Carrier and a pick.
JB: Seems like a fair trade. I can give you a low pick and Carrier for Ullmark.
GM: Shake-sies?
JB: Shake-sies.
- TheSabresTaco

$10 says they had no real interest in either Carrier or Ullmark. If hey really had an interest in Ullmark they would have asked for more than a 6th.

I'm extremely comfortable saying that anyone on that exposed list, we wouldn't care to lose. And I can almost guarantee that Carrier would have been protected if a deal to leave him unprotected hadn't been reached. It's clear a deal was reached, based on the pick being sent to Vegas.

That is how I'm 99% sure Ullmark was who we were guarding.

Fleury is so milquetoast stylistically and statistically. That's a pretty boring face of a franchise. It's not a move I would make unless the pick with Fleury was better. The guy has always been overrated
- jcragcrumple

As far as Vegas is concerned, he's a big name. You clearly feel differently about it than I do, which is fine. I just see how taking him makes sense for them, especially when you factor in that they got something (though it's like 3 years from now) for him.

Plus they also had to hit the cap floor, and he helps that as well.

$10 says they had no real interest in either Carrier or Ullmark. If hey really had an interest in Ullmark they would have asked for more than a 6th.
- Slump Buster

Re-read the conversation. There's absolutely no reason to protect Ennis and not Carrier.

He specifically said at the draft yesterday he was looking at 2 players on our list. He was given the 6th round pick to sway him to go with one guy over the other at the request of Botterill.

and I already explained in a previous post that Ullmark would be preferable over Pickard. I'm not typing it out again. you want to know my reasoning, go back and actually read what I already said once.
- HonkFortheGoose

Exactly, they only wanted Ullmark and Carrier.

This is likely how their reported conversation went:

GM: I'm taking Ullmark
JB: No
GM: You going to pay me to take someone else?
JB: I'm not giving away my high picks
GM: mk.. well, I'm not taking your high priced players
JB: Well, then, who would you like in place of Ullmark?
GM: Carrier and a pick.
JB: Seems like a fair trade. I can give you a low pick and Carrier for Ullmark.
GM: Shake-sies?
JB: Shake-sies.
- TheSabresTaco

that's your opinion clearly. If he wanted they goalie that badly he gets more than that or he takes the goalie. Though I am sure your 100% correct on the matter.