dekedangle_rpfanon | #24 – Not Sure If Serious or Playing Dumba

This is the twenty-fourth post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means.
9. No discussing trolling, individual trolls, or their efforts.

Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to The Mod Post.

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Canes re-sign Cam Ward for 2 years, $3.3M a year with a limited NTC.

Meanwhile, Flyers are buying out Umberger.

Why @ the Hurricanes? You could probably get Reimer for only a little more (assuming he takes about 4 or 4.5 mil). And the NTC is bizarre for a sub-.915 goaltender.

Hopefully for their fans this means they're not going to overpay for EStaal too.

NA

And not even just Reimer but there are goalies who might get traded because of contract and expansion stuff like one of the Tampa or Anaheim guys (but maybe they don't want to deal with Andersen again).

AYRT

If Tampa deals anyone, it's probably Bishop, and he's going to be a 6 mil+ guy (I see him getting what Quick has at the least, which is 5.8 mil), so I can see why they would be hesitant about going that route. There are still better options than Cam Ward (who was at a .909 on the year). Jhonas Enroth, who will probably be available too, had a .917 or .918 for the year and he's probably going to want about what they gave Ward.

It's so weird to me just because the Canes have made so many other GOOD decisions.

Because Nedeljkovic should be ready by the time Ward's contract is up, and free agency likely requires more term.

This seems obvious expansion draft bait to me. Because you have to offer up a goalie in the expansion draft, and there are rules about players being under contract for the 2017-18 and how much salary you offer up and how many games played they have, as well. Maybe Carolina can't meet the salary rules otherwise.

Maybe I'm not following your point, but this puts him in a position where the Hurricanes would have to choose whether or not to protect him, so they could, I guess, be forcing him into the draft? Rather than having him be a free agent. Or the could have just... not signed him. You're not required to protect anyone, there are just limits on who you can protect, and, idk, maybe the players would side eye a team that didnt max it's protection claims? But whatever, it's not any more or less business than any other trade decision.

na

Yeah, but the point is they would choose not to protect him when the time comes (if the AYRT's theory is correct). If they found a really solid duo they trusted completely going forward, they wouldn't be able to protect them both when the time came.

ayrt - color me even more confused.

So here

This seems obvious expansion draft bait to me. Because you have to offer up a goalie in the expansion draft,

My point is, if we're going whyyyy canes: They don't "have to offer a goalie" in the sense that I'm using it. It is, of course math, that if they have two+ goalies who meet the criteria that they can only protect one (and who the hell knows what's up with AHL/prospects at this point) but in the hypothetical where they didn't have those goalies under those contracts, it's not like the NHL will say "you, Hurricanes must sign a goalie meeting X criteria so that you can offer one to the draft gods."

But I will say on rereading AIRT, again, they seem to be mostly talking about the amount of cap that must be exposed, rather than roster positions, in which case I have no problem with the suggestion that cam was signed to be part of that pool, and that's where "bait" comes from.

You're wrong, though. The teams are literally required to offer a goalie. Not in a mathematical you-can-only-protect-one-sense, but in an "every team is required to have a goalie available that the expansion team could draft" sense.

Is that really so? Honest question, because all I've read so far was that teams could only protect one goalie, nothing about them needing to have one available for the new team to pick?

ayrt

I mean... you're using a lot more hypotheticals than there are? We can, in fact, know that their AHL pool isn't great and aren't protected by ELCs, and a new team isn't going to want a goalie fresh from the CHL/NCAA. It's not if they have two goalies who meet the criteria, they will. The NHL aren't forcing the Canes to make their goalie seem appetizing nor making the Knights to snatch Ward, but if they can make a piece they don't necessarily want or need in the long term look more appetizing than Hanifin or Aho or Faulk, whoever, that's a smart move.

ayrt - thank you, sincerely, for trying to explain, but I came into this not caring at all about the Canes and just trying to figure out why someone thought this goalie contract would be good for the draft. I will fully admit that I'm just not gonna get it, and I'm gonna go do something else now.

The rules require teams to expose a goalie who is signed for the 2017-18 season. This gives them a goalie to expose they won't mind losing.

Okay I've just missed that in what I've read, then.

http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

This looks like fun. We should have a mock expansion draft on meme. Each team gets a different nonny (or team of nonnies, if necessary) to say who they're protecting and then meme tries to build the best team from whose left.

I'm still not seeing where general manager came up with the goalie thing, but okay. It's not in either of their source articles.

Da

It is a math thing, though. They're allowed two configurations for protection and only allowed to protect one in both. General forums just spells it out.

The thing I'm not sure of with this is how they're doing the exemptions. Like is it programmed as if the draft was this summer (stats as is) or is it a list of who will be exempt regardless of playtime in 2016-17?

It's a fun exercise though.

Yeah, looking at this, I know a couple of my guys who are exempt on this but have ELCs burn out right in time for the expansion draft (because of course they do) and those rookies are going to eat up most of our protection.

Ugh, this means the Canucks are going to have to figure something out too.

#24 – Not Sure If Serious or Playing Dumba

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition