Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Vegas quickly becoming a team I can easily hate I see

I think them waiving their clauses just means they're exposed in the draft, not that they necessarily will be selected by Vegas.

Posted

xxx - Shipachyov - xxx

xxx - xxx - xxx

xxx - xxx - xxx

xxx - xxx - xxx

 

xxx - xxx

Phaneuf - xxx

xxx - xxx

 

Fleury

xxx

 

This team is already going to be better than the Canucks, has better goaltending than the Flames, and has a better defense than the Sabres, and has a better center spine than the division winning Canadiens. Look out Pacific Division  :flirt:

Posted

xxx - Shipachyov - xxx

xxx - xxx - xxx

xxx - xxx - xxx

xxx - xxx - xxx

 

xxx - xxx

Phaneuf - xxx

xxx - xxx

 

Fleury

xxx

 

This team is already going to be better than the Canucks, has better goaltending than the Flames, and has a better defense than the Sabres, and has a better center spine than the division winning Canadiens. Look out Pacific Division  :flirt:

Better defense? lol not yet... give them a week  :ph34r:

Posted (edited)

I'm pretty intrigued by Vegas. I've never seen an expansion team before.

 

Youngster ;) .  I remember the expansion 1970 Sabres (was a 9 year old).  I get your point, though.  Hearing all the behind-the-scenes stuff is fascinating.  And the salary cap era really adds another dimension of creativity.  In JBOT I trust (until I see what coach he hires). 

Edited by Tondas
Posted

No movement clauses are kind of a joke. Look at the Phaneuf instance. When a team asks a player to waive their NMC, that puts the player in a really difficult position. Can the guy really refuse, knowing their team doesn't want them?

Posted (edited)

I'm just joshin haha

 

I think it might play out where Vegas is a bit too not-terrible to get a top 3 or 4 draft lottery slot though.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they finish at 25th +- 2 spots. They'll have a roster of NHL players (which is better than some teams), but they're all going to be players that are 2nd-3rd line and 2nd pair D at best. OK, but who is going to score goals and who will match up against top lines?

 

No movement clauses are kind of a joke. Look at the Phaneuf instance. When a team asks a player to waive their NMC, that puts the player in a really difficult position. Can the guy really refuse, knowing their team doesn't want them?

Depends, right? Some players would be fine with the question, reject it, and go back to work.

Edited by MattPie
Posted

I think Vegas is more conscious of their future than a lot of people are giving them credit for.

They won't pick the team that gives then the best chance to win this fall.

They will pick a team that gives them the best package of assets to set them up for ten years of success.

 

That means picking players because of the promise of picks, or that they can flip for picks.

And, yes, it will mean an element of tanking.

 

I can't see any way, however, that McPhee will hand Gallant a worse team than the one Tim Murray gave Ted Nolan.

Posted

MAF has a modified No Trade List with a total of 12 Teams listed.

 

Per David Pagotta of the 4th Period the only known team of the 12 on the list is Buffalo

Thank god. 

Posted

I'm just joshin haha

 

I think it might play out where Vegas is a bit too not-terrible to get a top 3 or 4 draft lottery slot though. 

that's why I said give them a week lol

Posted (edited)

MAF has a modified No Trade List with a total of 12 Teams listed.

 

Per David Pagotta of the 4th Period the only known team of the 12 on the list is Buffalo

 

Thank God.

 

EDIT: LOL, Liger beats me to it.

Edited by dudacek
Posted

I think Vegas is more conscious of their future than a lot of people are giving them credit for.

They won't pick the team that gives then the best chance to win this fall.

They will pick a team that gives them the best package of assets to set them up for ten years of success.

That means picking players because of the promise of picks, or that they can flip for picks.

And, yes, it will mean an element of tanking.

I can't see any way, however, that McPhee will hand Gallant a worse team than the one Tim Murray gave Ted Nolan.

Likely a ton of truth in this.

Posted

No movement clauses are kind of a joke. Look at the Phaneuf instance. When a team asks a player to waive their NMC, that puts the player in a really difficult position. Can the guy really refuse, knowing their team doesn't want them?

Just because a team asks a player to waive clause doesn't mean they don't want him. They could just be betting that Vegas won't take that player and by waiving NMC the team can protect someone else.

Posted

Just because a team asks a player to waive clause doesn't mean they don't want him. They could just be betting that Vegas won't take that player and by waiving NMC the team can protect someone else.

The inference there from the player can easily be that the team is more willing to lose him, than someone or everyone else they protected. Unless they have a deal in place with Vegas or an insistence from Vegas that Phaneuf won't be selected, they run the risk of him being taken. That they'd be willing to risk it for you and not others could be seen as a slight on your abilities.

 

I'm not saying this is the case even half the time, but there's no doubt it can lead to players being put in a tough place by being asked to relinquish a bargained for agreeement.

 

And not all players would be offended by it. Of course, it would depend on the player.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...