NHL Rumor Mill – June 13, 2017

by | Jun 13, 2017 | Rumors | 66 comments

Has Scott Hartnell played his final season with the Columbus Blue Jackets?

Updates on Marc-Andre Fleury and Brent Seabrook plus latest on the Blue Jackets and Rangers in your NHL rumor mill.

SPORTSNET: With Pittsburgh Penguins goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury agreeing to waive his no-movement clause, Emily Sadler lists the Vegas Golden Knights, Calgary Flames, Winnipeg Jets, Philadelphia Flyers and New York Islanders as possible destinations.

While Vegas seems the logical choice as they can select him in the expansion draft, Sadler notes the Golden Knights could flip him to another club in need of a starting goaltender. She points out the Flames were linked to Fleury in the rumor mill throughout this season.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: It’ll be interesting to see how the Golden Knights play this. Fleury also has a modified no-trade clause listing 18 preferred trade destinations. They could keep him for themselves or trade him to one of those other clubs for a draft pick, prospect or promising young NHL player. 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH: Aaron Portzline reports the Blue Jackets didn’t ask left wing Scott Hartnell to waive his no-movement clause for the upcoming expansion draft. He speculates this could mean the Jackets have a deal in place with the Golden Knights, ” one that would not require general manager Jarmo Kekalainen to shuffle his protected list and pull back a promising young player such as forward Josh Anderson.”

Portzline also suggests the Jackets could buy out the remaining two years of Hartnell’s contract, citing sources saying the winger was told at season’s end he was unlikely to return with the club next season. Neither Kekalainen or Hartnell were available for comments.

SPORTSNET 960: Elliotte Friedman also wonders if the Blue Jackets have a deal in place with the Golden Knights for David Clarkson. That move could net Vegas a first-round pick “and maybe a prospect or two.”

SPECTOR’S NOTE: The Jackets need to both protect a good young player such as Anderson and clear up some salary-cap space for next season. I believe they do something to address those issues before the roster freeze at 3 pm ET on Saturday. Perhaps we’ll see a scenario whereby Clarkson and a draft pick/prospect gets dealt to the Golden Knights and Hartnell is bought out. 

NEW YORK POST: While the New York Rangers didn’t ask defensemen Dan Girardi and Marc Staal to waive their no-movement clauses for the upcoming expansion draft, Larry Brooks believes their futures are hardly settled. Both carry contracts with cap hits in excess of $5 million and it’s possible one or both could be bought out this summer, though that move comes with steep penalties.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: Girardi has been rumored as the most likely buyout candidate




  1. Pittsburgh news reported maf waived nmc only for Vegas? Can that happen? And once picked does his ntc follow him?

    • MAF has stated several times that he wants to play for a contender, I’m pretty sure that there’s already an agreement in place that Vegas claims him and then trades him to another team. Seriously doubt that he stays in Vegas by what’s being reported. Of course some of the possible destinations for him like Calgary or Winnipeg i would hardly call them contenders.

      • You know something Gary I would have to agree that generally speaking Calgary and Winnipeg are not contenders, but how many people were thinking Nashville was a contender? A true starting goalie on either one of those teams could make a real difference. Not saying they would win a Cup but it would definitely increase their chances.

      • Numerous people & experts did. I had Nashville winning the central to start the year. I should have looked at their schedule before the season started as it was brutal out of the gate.

        I had a solid playoff pool run across the board, in box pools, draft pools & bracket pools, all my teams were littered with Nashville players & in several they got snapped up faster than I could draft them. I didn’t have them going to the cup but conference final before the playoffs started. I had Anaheim advancing to the cup.

        Few teams in the NHL can ice 4 lines like Nashville & what few can don’t have Nashville’s top 4 D & a goalie that can stand on his head for long stretches. If not for the loss of Johansen & Fiala what might have been? Does Pittsburgh win the cup if they lose Crosby?

      • Could say the same bout tanger. I think injuries about equaled out

      • Chrisms. It wasn’t about injures & the loss of to Pittsburgh specifically but Steven’s comment about Nashville. I know a ton of people that I read, listen to, or follow that had Nashville as a contender before the season started. Why wouldn’t you? This roster; Nashville’s, has all the ingredients of a cup contender. They are 1 quality center short but they make up for that in overall roster depth & a top 4 D that can be reviled by only 4 other teams in the NHL, Anh, Min, StL; at least until Shattenkirk was traded but Edmundson had a coming out party following that trade, & Was. There are a few others close to these 4 but not quite in the same class or a couple more if not for injuries; Winnipeg losing Myers all year, that are right there as well.

      • I disagree Winnipeg is a steady goalie away from being a playoff team and the same for Calgary……

        MAF better not end up in Philadelphia….:(

      • What contender needs a goalie?

    • My understanding is that MAF can set the terms of waiving his NMC. The team can arrange trade destinations and present them to him and he can decide from them, and/or agree to waive his NMC for the purpose of being exposed in the expansion draft. In other words the ball is very much still in MAF’s court.

      • The ball is not in MAF’s court at all. He already waived for the ED so there is no power there. He can be traded to 18 teams (by Pit or Vegas) without him having any additional say in the matter, so very little power there.

    • I believe that the NHL is allowing a special circumstance for expansion, where players can waive for the draft only, without giving up their NMC.

      Fleury can still then be traded to any team on his trade list, so it basically sounds like he is giving Pittsburgh assurances with the hopes that Pittsburgh will do right by him.

      With the story breaking that Fleury already shook on waiving his NMC in February, it really shows how bad he wanted to stay. He likely did that so he could be part of one last run, rather than being traded at the deadline. Then he follows through and does what’s best for the team. Ultimate team first guy.

      • Danny not sure that’s true, if you read the morning news part and as mentioned on here a few times Phaneauf waived his nmc to allow for the trade from Toronto to Ottawa but yet Ottawa had to ask him to waive it for the expansion draft. This would seem to say that Dion still control it for the length of his contract. But then again Phaneuf may have negotiated that in, saying he will only allow the trade if Ottawa agrees to include the nmc. Spit balling here, I guess it comes down to the language of the individual contract.

      • Exactly. It is easy to include a survival clause in contracts.

      • I think typically players with a NMC who have moved have not waived their NMC, but in fact had some modified NTC as part of the NMC, so they basically just have to update the trade list in order to be traded with the NMC intact. Also, players can waive the NMC for a specific circumstance while retaining their NMC if the new team signs an addendum to the contract saying they will honour it (usually a player would make this a condition).

        With the expansion draft I was initially under the impression that a player had to void their NMC, as they would need to agree to waive it before Vegas would have had to make that player their selection, meaning Vegas would not be forced to sign the addendum to carry it forward.

        So for Fleury, he waived for Vegas only, but can be traded as part of his M-NTC without waiving it for those teams. I would guess that maybe he would get to retain his NMC that way. If not, he is really putting his career in Rutherford’s hands if being selected by Vegas could mean he doesn’t retain his NMC. I mean Vegas could sign the addendum, but if they are selecting Fleury to trade again, and Fleury can no longer block the selection, Vegas would rather the NMC get nullified for their purposes.

        So I still don’t know if Vegas selects Fleury if that will void his NMC, but I am now guess that it doesn’t. I could be wrong, as the process has been in discussion throughout the year without all of the details made clear at all points, or I could just have misunderstood the process from the beginning.

      • When Phaneuf was dealt to Ottawa he had a list of no-go destinations that did NOT include Ottawa as he felt that that was unnecessary since any chance of a deal between Ottawa and Toronto was remote at best – details that were put into the contract long before Lamoriello arrived on the scene. So the NMC clause did not apply in that instance – at least in terms of his being required to waive same.

      • I should clarify that by saying the list of 10 teams Dion would agree to be traded to included Ottawa for the reason cited above.

      • Here is what capfriendly.com has posted about NMC’s in the FAQ’s.
        The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
        This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player’s agent)
        If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
        If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

        So if the acquiring team signs the addendum then the NMC stays in tacked, so this is what Ottawa must have done. If the acquiring team doesn’t sign the addendum than the player can decide if they still want to move to that team or not.

      • These rules will be CBA related not at the discretion of the team or player. Unfortunately the NHL doesn’t see the need to make this information clear. The CBA in it’s entirety can be found on the NHLPA website if anyone is so inclined as to try & figure it out.

        This waiving of NMC’s as of 5PM ET yesterday was agreeing to waive for the purposes of the expansion draft. The NHL & NHPLA cut a few side deals leading up to expansion. Primarily what clauses would or wouldn’t require a player being protected. NMC’s were, NTC’s weren’t.

      • I’ve been under the impression it works like this:
        NMC always stays intact no matter what.
        If you wave your NTC to get traded – it’s gone.
        Maybe thats completly wrong but that has been my understanding for years 🙂

        But if NMC can get nullified if a trade is done before it comes into effect as per agreement on signed deal with previous team – how about Subban? He got traded just before his full NMC/NTC should kick in – is he without any protection now? That would make it a better trade for Nash.

    • I’m confused about something. LV cannot “flip’ him to another team w/out him agreeing to it. His NMC is still in place. His contract doesn’t change. He has to agree to waive again! And he can say no, I want to play here. I’m not going to Calgary.

      • His NMC is only for waivers and minors. Fleury also have a M-NTC allowing a trade to any of 18 teams.

  2. Striker,

    yeah, that is what I am thinking as well. There has to be some agreement in place, as I can’t see the current rules being in place for the expansion draft. Obviously the deadline isn’t normal, but my guess is that there is an allowance to carry forward the NMC if selected. Vegas wouldn’t consent to this of their own accord as it actually hurts them, so it’s likely a deal between the NHL and PA.

    • Capfriendly would have pulled this data from the CBA. Kevjam nailed that for us. Rules will be set under CBA & it appears player or team can choose if it will be honored at point of trade or movement. Many NMC’s only cover the minors & their NTC’s control their trade rights. This is all legal goop but rules will exist & if like most things the NHL does with rules very convoluted; CBA, & subjective; game it self.

  3. The buyout window opens June 15th, any player bought out needs to be waived 1st; the waiver period is 24 hours, so to clear that contract before teams are required to submit their protected lists at 5PM ET on June 17th I assume we should see numerous players put on waivers 1st thing Thursday morning. The odd wrinkly here is the uncertainty over the cap with the NHLPA holding all the cards there. Can they decide on the escalator % before the expansion draft?

    With teams protected lists going in Friday at 5PM ET, it is going to be interesting to see how situations play out with Bieksa, Beauchemin, Hartnell, Pominville, Enstrom, etc. Players with NMC’s but who’s deals are problematic for the expansion draft with their respective teams. We don’t know if any of the players other than Hartnell; he wasn’t apparently, was asked to waive their NMC’s for expansion.

    The next 2 & a 1/2 weeks are going to be pretty exciting for hockey fans like us. Let’s get this party started.

    • It’s going to be an interesting mess. I don’t think players with NMCs have to be placed on waivers to be bought out, or moreover I don’t think they can be placed on waivers, so we may not hear as much about them until they are bought out.

      The draft should also be a good watch this year. Soft draft, teams scrambling after expansion, flat cap, could make for some interesting scenarios.

      • This is definitely going to be the most exciting offseason in recent memory. Just hope I haven’t got my expectations to high.

        A player with a MNC can reject the waiver process and move right to the buyout process.

      • You can’t buy a player out with out placing them on waivers. NMC’s don’t protect you from being waived for the purposes of a buyout.

    • The other dynamic that has to fall into place before the expansion draft is teams need to meet the exposure requirements. 2 forwards & 1 Dman under contract having played 40 games last season or 70 over the last 2. Anh unless Bieksa waives doesn’t meet this requirement currently. Goalies don’t need to be signed but qualified. Was doesn’t currently meet this requirement currently.

      If Bieksa doesn’t agree to waive his NMC, Anh has to trade for Dman that meets this requirement before Friday. Easily achieved, they simply take a warm body Dman back in trade before Friday in the Vatanen trade if necessary.

      • Did the Ducks ask Bieksa to wave his NMC? Haven’t heard anything about this one.

      • Info just starting to trickle out. Apparently not, nor does it sound like they are buying him; Bieksa, out but have worked out a trade with Vegas prior to the expansion draft.

        Can’t wait for this info to start being made public & announced officially.

      • Starting to look like the norm will be deals with Vegas vs other teams. Might be more trade action after the expansion draft then before.

  4. MAF signed the waiver to his NMC last feburary, stating he only accepts Las Vegas. So any trade to another team will happen after the expansion draft-and only if the player consents

    • Pittsburgh can trade him to any of the 18 teams on his M-NTC list today. They can also trade him to any of the rest of the teams today but only if he approves.

  5. I wonder if there will be some bombshell players exposed to waivers that don’t have NMC’s for cap relief?

    Congrats to the Pens but now the fun begins for NHL fans!

    • You would assume there should be a few surprises especially with the NHLPA leaning to a much lower escalator if any. If the cap doesn’t rise by the NHL’s projection; to 76 mil, based on the NHLPA agreeing to the 5% escalator as it has done historically that is a serious issue for 1/2 a dozen NHL teams. Is the NHLPA posturing or are the rumors to be believed?

      It’s a double edged sword. If the NHLPA doesn’t vote for the escalator that limits the UFA market substantially, leads to lower salaries for RFA’s, leads to more player buyouts, etc. Simply not enough money for everyone to spend if the cap rises less than 3 mil.

      The escalator allows teams to spend money not yet earned as it’s based on next years revenue. It’s inflationary & I hope the players vote for zero increase. It will help keep salary escalation in check.

      • I have been saying I hated the inflator from the PAs point of view since it was first added. It doesn’t accomplish much for the players, since the revenue ultimately decides what the pool gets paid out as a whole. It helps some FAs get better deals, but the top guys are still going to get similar deals. McDavid won’t be paid less on his RFA deal because of the lack of an inflator.

        Also, it will mean less escrow for all the players under contract, so it’s like avoiding a pay cut for those players, and there are more of those players than FAs overall.

        The only groups as a whole that a flat cap can be difficult for are GMs tight against the cap, and some tier FAs who will get squeezed into value deals.

        I would imagine some GMs on teams with plenty of cap space will hope that the cap remains flat, as it can create excellent opportunities to pick up value cheaply

      • Actually Danny it’s impact on all but a select few; the McDavid’s & they are very rare, will be felt across the board on all future signings in this cap scernario. In fact I think it will effect even the McDavid’s. Toews & Kane’s contracts are a serious issue for Chi moving forward, as is Kopitar’s in LA. No player should be paid more than Crosby’s 8.7 including McDavid. Crosby’s contract has 8 years remaining at 8.7 mil per.

        The salary escalation we were seeing started to decline with the decline of the Canadian dollar, the single biggest reason the cap is flat as Canadian teams generate the lions share of NHL revenue with the exceptions of NYR & Chi essentially, eliminate those 2 teams from the equation especially NYR & the Canadian teams impact on revenue is beyond extreme.

        Go look at all contract signings since late 2014 they have been in a significant decline, very easy to do on Capfriendly. If not for the Canadian dollar what might players be signing for over the last 2.5 years? We would have still been in a run away cap world & not complaining about players like Staal & Girardi’s contracts which were signed in a run away cap world. An entirely different cap world.

        If the players don’t vote for the escalator all contracts signed this summer will be impacted & it may also effect if teams sign some players to extensions now, specifically those players coming out of ELC’s who have no rights, arbitration, waivers, etc. Some of these teams may choose to wait until those contracts come up next summer to see where the cap is then.

        Again it’s a double edged sword. I believe the disadvantages of voting down the escalator are greater to the players than the escrow payments which are shared equally by all. That said anything that puts a clamp on salary escalation works for me so I’m hoping the players vote for ZERO. The majority of contracts being signed are long term, 5 years + so the clamp down today carries forward up to 8 years into the future & in the next CBA players will again be giving back more, creating better fiscal policy & the opportunity for all NHL teams to make a profit.

        Again look at this chart. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture for the NHL but it’s evolving. You can’t fix this in years but decades. 2 more lockouts & a US national TV contract in 5 years will have a significant impact.


      • Not escalating salaries has no effect on the money paid to the player pool. In the end increasing the cap only helps players who are current FAs increase their nominal salary, but also increase the amount paid and lost to escrow by the group. It causes nothing but a re-distribution of the revenue shared by the NHLPA, and in the long run does not help the majority of the PA. The salary you receive only really matters in terms of it’s percentage of the cap in the end. So increasing the cap so FAs can get a bigger percentage means that money comes from the group who aren’t re-negotiating salaries in the form of escrow. It’s a shell game to make the PA feel like they have control.

        And while I think many things needs to be addressed in the CBA, the NHLPA cannot be expected that salaries need to be reduced to the point where the bottom teams on that chart are profitable. That makes no sense for their group. While the revenue split will likely need to increase in the NHL’s favour, the players are going to want to see some concessions (better mechanisms to pay players surpluses if they were to occur, more favorable definition of HRR) as well as take some internal steps to fix their balancing issue.

        The average NHL clubs operating net income was just shy of $15M, which is approximately 10% of average annual revenue. Much of the issue is that they have created an environment where teams are forced to spend to a floor that may not be profitable for them, players cannot just negotiate freely with the top teams, but haven’t instituted enough revenue sharing between the teams in the league.

        The players have, and will continue to negotiate with the league as a whole, and the league as a whole is profitable. Any concessions the players make should not be on the basis of how the teams at the bottom of the league are doing, as that is insanely unfair to them.

        As I said, I am not saying the players shouldn’t or won’t end up conceding some share of the revenue in the next round of negotiations, as I think that is what will happen, just that the league better be willing to come with solutions of it’s own that don’t come across as player salaries being the only league issue.

        If I were the league and wanted to negotiate in good faith with the NHLPA, I would also do the work on a better revenue sharing system amoung the teams, more transparent HRR definitions, a better mechanism to ensure players get paid when revenue exceeds projections, and applying this model to a previous year to show that it alleviates a lot of issues. If they take another hard line stance completely on the basis that players salaries need to be reduced until all issues are fixed, we will be headed for a lost season which will slow a lot of the progress made in the past 14 years.

      • Danny.

        I really like how your brain works & how you extrapolate out the information available logically arriving at an educated & reasoned conclusion.

        I agree with almost all of it, if not all. In the next CBA, the players % of revenue is declining, HRR will be improved to include things not currently accounted for, not the least of which is expansion revenue but by the time the next lock out occurs there won’t be another round of expansion for decades probably but a European division is in the NHL’s future eventually. Revenue sharing will improve substantially. The haves will have to share more than they do now with the have nots, a demand the players will make to concede numerous other issues, & UFA status will drop by probably 2 more years, at least 1. The NHL has to give up something.

        1 of the biggest issues that negatively effects the NHLPA is the constant change in players & how they are represented. Not to mention it’s leaders. This plays to the NHL’s benefit as the constant flux means things get missed like expansion revenue. How did that get by the NHLPA! Getting some 1550 voices to agree to anything is challenging. Teams are allowed 50 players under an NHL/AHL/Jr contract with a few exceptions, times that by 31 teams & close to 1550 voting NHLPA members.

        The NHL has 31 teams each gets 1 vote but for most things the NHL & Gary Bettman only need the support of 12 I believe to do what’s best over the league as he & they see it. It makes negotiating far easier.

  6. I like to think that hockey players for the most part are different than other sports’ athletes. I would say the majority aren’t just in it for the money – look at what MAF did with and really for the Penguins in regards to the NMC. It can be argued that if MAF didn’t agree to waive, he would have been traded at the deadline and you would have had a situation where Jarry was leading the charge into and during the first couple of round of the playoffs. Who knows if Pittsburgh would have been where they are today if MAF said no?

    With that being said, my thought is this. Take a guy like Hartnell whose best playing days are behind him but could probably still get one last contract from another team if on the open market. I know the reports are that he was never asked to waive, but why would he if he was? Force CBJ’s hand to buy you out due to expansion reasons. Get paid $1.25M from CBJ for the next 4 years and go out and sign with another team. At the end of the day, it’s a business right?

    • I don’t think this had anything to do with MAF not being traded. Rutherford was very clear as to his plan with MAF all year & a good thing as who knows what would have happened had MAF not been there to play when Murray couldn’t.

      Rutherford held all the cards & still had 2 aces in the hole. Buying MAF out or trading him to 1 of the 18 teams on his trade list if necessary before expansion. When MAF agreed to waive or not is inconsequential, what difference does it make or made?

      It’s possible MAF is still traded before Friday. MAF is a proud player & he should be. He’s 1 of the best goalies to ever play the game, still has years of playing at a very high level but he wants to play not watch Murray play. Going to Vegas guarantee’s him being a starter & mentoring the young goalies Vegas selects in the expansion draft. He also becomes a solid trade asset for them over the remaining term of his contract.

      There is also the possibility that even if exposed Vegas doesn’t select him but chooses 1 of the other players exposed by Pitts. Not saying it will happen but it’s possible. Or as Scott or was it Steven? implied as fact, Vegas is being paid to select MAF in some way with a deal already in place. Another asset or assets being included for them to avoid selecting Cole or other.

      • I don’t agree that it was inconsequential when he agreed to waive. There was a reason he was asked in February if that report is correct, and I do think it would have an impact on the Pens decision heading into the playoffs.

        I also think Fleury would have agreed to be assured an opportunity for a repeat run. I mean he knows he is likely moving at some point, but by taking the pressure off Rutherford by agreeing to waive his NMC, he gets to stay, since trading Fleury at the deadline was unlikely to improve their run this year.

        Maybe Rutherford would have gambled and kept him anyway, but I wouldn’t call the timing or decision inconsequential, as I think he may have been enticed by a good offer if he didn’t have an easier solution

      • I’ve been thinking this too, Vegas could easily pick Cole ahead of MAF. Cole did his reputation no harm during the cup run.
        As far as trade value goes, MAF may get you a first in a trade but Cole is guaranteed to get a first at the TDL.
        This all depends on how the Vegas roster is shaping up and if they want to win more games now. As it stands now they could easily select Grubauer, Pickard , Ward, Korpisalo, Howard, Rannata or Reimer.
        Ward and Pickard are the best players form their respective teams. They could easily prefer the Cole + Grubauer combo over MAF and Shmidt.

      • From what I have read LV intends to make MAF their franchise player and use him to help sell the team, not flip him. He’s a former first overall pick, multiple time Allstar, and 3 time cup winner. Plus the girls love him. I think it’s all about marketing for LV and cap space for the Penguins. It’s win win. The idea Pittsburgh has to include a pick or prospect is absurd.

      • The Was player loss is a tough 1 & like you suggest with other scenario’s it may depend on the whole picture. Schmidt’s play when Alzner went down caught many by surprise, myself included. I had no idea he had that skill set.

        That said Grubauer is my favorite goalie potentially available; even ahead of MAF, & so many Dman can be had across the board that I see Vegas taking Grubauer if Washington doesn’t trade him prior over Schultz but they might be able to leverage this situation against Was to secure more.

        This is my goalie treo in Vegas next season based on what we know today which is virtually nothing. MAF & Grubauer as NHL goalies. Korpisalo in the minors as he’s still waiver eligible.

        I think Vegas will get Korpisalo, another asset; Hartnell+, maybe even another asset if they take Clarkson; according to XM91 yesterday, the insurance in the NHL has in place pays 80% of an injured players contract if eligable, if Vegas avoids selecting 1 of their 4 Dman & take Clarkson. If Columbus gets Hartnell & Clarkson off the books in their entirety, all cap issues for them vanish & with Bobrovsky & Forsberg, losing Korpisalo isn’t the end of the world. Although this was all just made up in my head. Ha-ha!

        What the hell is Calgary doing in net? They don’t have a protector yet?

      • Deeeeee. I agree. Although Vegas could leverage the situation, they may have already, this may have all been cooked up back in February allowing Pit to retain MAF for this playoff run to the cup.

        As either Scott or Steven expressed months ago; I can’t remember which, it was 1 of those friends of my brothers cousins sisters inside info jobs, a deal between these 2 teams already exists. Rumors? Sure, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t necessarily true.

        What if McPhee says to Rutheford we aren’t selecting MAF but another player? Not saying this will play out but Cole has to be appealing as well. Then Pit doesn’t have the protection issue to resolve they get to keep Murray but they lose Cole & still have cap issues & are looking at having to replace even more lost D. Although there top 4 are set. Letang, Schultz, Maatta & Dumoulin. Nothing wrong with that top 4.

        It always surprises me people say Pit has a questionable D, when Letang’s out it hurts but losing your #1 D hurts any team. Maatta & Dumoulin are kids & even Schultz hasn’t hit my threshold for fully developed at the NHL level. 400 regular season games. He has 344 under his belt & will be 27 in July just entering his prime for Dman.

  7. Can’t wait for actual deals to start trickling in!

    • For a second lets consider the possibility that each team says ‘to hell with it, no trades, take who you need to.’

      • I believe – to my surprise if it’s true – that that is exactly what Dorion has decided. If Phaneuf agrees he and his $7 mil 4-years-to-go deal will be there for the picking as will Ryan and his $7 mil deal. So McPhee has a choice – take on one of those expensive deals – or opt for someone else. And while it’s fine to say he will take a Phaneuf and then trade him somewhere else for a litany of prospects/picks – that’s easier said than done for a 32 y/o with a $7 mil cap hit for 4 more years. I have heard in recent days from several pundits that there is no way McPhee goes down that dubious road and while some in here may disagree – just remember, they do that for a living – and aren’t a bunch of armchair QBs.

      • The first team I thought of was Minny when you said that Taz. They have to line up multiple deals in order to not lose a good player for nothing, especially on D.
        They can only take back players you don’t have to protect. If they make multiple deals for pros with only 2 years experience, or draft picks their chances of winning now drop considerably. What if they can’t line up all the deals they want? Trade a good player for futures, and still lose a good player for nothing?
        I really doubt this happens, but perhaps they just accept they are losing a Brodin or Scandella for nothing and move on? A few domino’s have to fall for Minny in a short period of time and they kind of need to have them all lined up before they pull the trigger on one. While teams are all talking to each other at the same time and your deal could disappear. I am sure the vultures are circling the Wild as we speak.

      • George.

        Well we won’t need to worry about Phaneuf he’s declined to waive his NMC apparently as I assumed he would. Why would he? He worked to acquire those rights in his contract negotiation with Toronto, Ottawa apparently accepted those rights at point of trade. Ottawa was on his preferred NTC list of 10 teams. Ottawa can move Phaneuf just hard to do so before expansion now but not impossible or later to 1 of his current 10 teams acceptable to him.

        I thought you said the other day you felt Ryan would be protected now?

        Every team is going to do what they feel is in their best interests including Vegas. I don’t think a players salary is going to sway them from taking the asset McPhee best feels benefits Vegas’s goals. I would happily select Ryan contract & all if he’s the best player exposed. That said some of the younger players like Cleasson may have more appeal & from a leveraging perspective Ottawa may be willing to pay Vegas to take Ryan or not Cleasson.

        All very interesting & exciting stuff for us arm chair GM’s.

  8. This is for I hate Sidney Crosby Title
    guy……..How you feeling now partner…

    • Ha-ha!. How can anyone not like Crosby? Yeah he wines a little but who cares. Greatest player of his generation & top 3 all time but still under contract for 8 more years. If not for lost games to all those concussions what more might he have already achieved. The added bonus is he’s Canadian.

      I’m not a Penguins fan but happy for Crosby, numerous other players, the team & their employee’s as well as their fans. Right colors, black & gold/yellow for me just wrong team. Ha-ha!

      • Crosby is definitely top ten all-time, but he isn’t top 3. Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux are definitely better and a few more (Howe, Bobby Hull, Yzerman, Richard, etc) are in the argument.

  9. This is for I hate Sidney Crosby title guy on here….HOW YOU FEELING NOW PARTNER !

    • You just graduate from Gloat 101? Enjoy it. Just don’t be surprised that there are many who don’t give a rat’s ass.

      • He has a right to gloat. In all the various pools I go in, box, fantasy, draft, etc. I care little about the money but winning, getting my name on the cup, on our site as champion & the gloating rights associated with such. The trash talk related to such is better than they monies.

        That must be 1 of my narcissist tendencies. Ha-ha!

        Well done black n gold, well earned & well deserved, gloat away, all good here.

      • Gloat sure. Just not in here. That’s not what it’s set up to do.

  10. So apparently Anaheim has a deal in place with Vegas so they didn’t need to ask Bieksa to waive his NMC or buy him out, but will still need to trade a defensemen to another team.

    I wonder if this means something along the lines of Anaheim paid something for Vegas to pass on Manson, but no promises after that. So Vegas gets an asset, but still open to select whoever is left, and Anaheim is left still trading Vatanen?

    Lebrun said they have zero interest in losing Manson, so that seems to make the most sense to me. I was always surprised when Manson was on projected exposed lists, and thought maybe there was a chance that he was mis-valued by many including Anaheim. Not that I thought it made sense, just thought it was curious.

    This is again another type of deal I hadn’t thought of. That is, if Anaheim is paying for protection of an additional player, but not getting guarantees on who Vegas selects.

    • I never had Manson exposed nor available in trade. It has been Vatanen for me going back to the 2015-16 trade deadline. My perception never wavering much to the abuse of many here.

      Curious to see what Anaheim has paid to make this happen. We will know in 8 days or less.

      • Agreed. Fowler, Lindholm and Manson are Anaheim’s clear top 3.

      • If Anaheim goes 7-3-1, then it’s Fowler, Lindholm and Bieksa, what would they give up to make Vegas stay away from Manson and Vatanen ?,They have no first rdr, the TSN article eluded to the fact that the Ducks were going 7-3-1, even at 4-4-1 it’s those 3 and Manson leaving Vatanen and maybe Silferberg available,assuming Getzlaf Perry Kesler Rakell, u think other teams could top whatever Anaheim is offering Vegas to keep away from those players

  11. Tons of respect for his uncanny hockey vision and ability to make everyday NHLers into superstar play off performers. I just hate how good he is….bust mostly my hate comes when he “cries” and cheap shots groins as the “face” of the league. I really hate how good a hockey player he is.

  12. Crosby is actually a pretty clean player particularly when you consider the abuse he has taken in the past. I think the concussion issue makes him a tad meaner and more likely to strike first. I agree about the whining but he is the captain and that role suits him to a T. My argument with the Subban incident is that PK should have punched Sidney about five times rather than just half-heartedly push him away once on his skates. PK needs a mean streak of his own.
    All of the talk about trade prospects and the draft issues simply indicates that it is summer, the Cup final is over and we need to talk about something.

  13. Kevin Klein is leaning towards retirement. Freeing up 2.9 million in cap space. I think this shuts the door on a Girardi or Staal buyout anytime soon.

  14. Bob McKenzie tweeted some clarity on NMC’s. Players can’t be waved on NMC’s but nor do they need to be to be bought out.

    All so confusing.