Expansion Draft

[habs1952 0]

Nice to have that cleared up.

[kinot-2 0]

How come we can only pick one? Asking for a friend. 

[maas_art 0]

10 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

How come we can only pick one? Asking for a friend. 

The poll is a question based on the idea we protect the 10 players the OP listed. So that would only leave one spot. So for the basis of this thread, thats the question. 

 

Conversely, i think you can make an argument that we would protect, say, Chiarot over Fleury- not to mention the fact that players may be traded etc - so you could certainly switch that list around a little. imho no-brainers are: Kotkaniemi, Gallagher, Toffoli, Anderson, Drouin, Weber, Petry & Price. Thats 5 forwards, 2D and 1G.  The rest will depend on a number of things (contracts, trades etc).  Some almost certainly will be protected (Lehkonen, Chiarot) but others may well be traded, or left without contracts (Tatar, Danault, Armia). So it is going to be interesting to see how MB plays this.

The more I look at the Anderson trade, the more i like it - he will be, on paper, one of the most appealing options for Seattle in goal and would stop us from losing anyone in our long term plans for nothing. 

[dreegking 0]

7 hours ago, maas_art said:

The poll is a question based on the idea we protect the 10 players the OP listed. So that would only leave one spot. So for the basis of this thread, thats the question. 

 

Conversely, i think you can make an argument that we would protect, say, Chiarot over Fleury- not to mention the fact that players may be traded etc - so you could certainly switch that list around a little. imho no-brainers are: Kotkaniemi, Gallagher, Toffoli, Anderson, Drouin, Weber, Petry & Price. Thats 5 forwards, 2D and 1G.  The rest will depend on a number of things (contracts, trades etc).  Some almost certainly will be protected (Lehkonen, Chiarot) but others may well be traded, or left without contracts (Tatar, Danault, Armia). So it is going to be interesting to see how MB plays this.

The more I look at the Anderson trade, the more i like it - he will be, on paper, one of the most appealing options for Seattle in goal and would stop us from losing anyone in our long term plans for nothing. 

I think we are fooling ourselves if we think there will not be a number of appealing and very viable options for Vegas as goaltender choices. 

[maas_art 0]

17 minutes ago, dreegking said:

I think we are fooling ourselves if we think there will not be a number of appealing and very viable options for Vegas as goaltender choices. 

That are 31 year old potential starters who cost $2.8m and are under contract for 2 more years?   Who exactly?  Sure there will be expensive guys available, unproven young players, or guys who are 35+ but there are very very few - if any - that will tick off as many 'pro' boxes as Allen will. 

[claremont 0]

23 hours ago, dreegking said:

I think we are fooling ourselves if we think there will not be a number of appealing and very viable options for Vegas as goaltender choices. 

23 hours ago, maas_art said:

That are 31 year old potential starters who cost $2.8m and are under contract for 2 more years?   Who exactly?  Sure there will be expensive guys available, unproven young players, or guys who are 35+ but there are very very few - if any - that will tick off as many 'pro' boxes as Allen will. 

Carey has been the backbone of this team for like forever. I see Jake as great insurance against a Price injury, and to provide him rest especially for this upcoming season where there has to be a plethora of back to back games. Perhaps it could be short term until Primeau is ready but I’m ok with not losing Allen to the Kraken or possibly losing him or even having a future tradeable asset - not a big gaffe or mistake imo. I’m sure the Kraken can be incented to take Byron or Allen depending on our depth and who performs better, with draft choices tossed in. Francis could build a good stockpile of draft choices by taking players he might not otherwise take 

[dreegking 0]

On 12/3/2020 at 6:15 PM, maas_art said:

That are 31 year old potential starters who cost $2.8m and are under contract for 2 more years?   Who exactly?  Sure there will be expensive guys available, unproven young players, or guys who are 35+ but there are very very few - if any - that will tick off as many 'pro' boxes as Allen will. 

Yes. Attractive for sure. It’s 2.9 for 2 more years in each of the next couple after this. Enticing. But I still believe a number of others will be equally attractive. But he will be attractive, for sure, as you say.  

[BigTed3 0]

With their off-season additions, the Habs are given themselves a problem with respect to the upcoming ED... in goal, Price's NMC guarantee he's protected. On D, Petry's contract does the same. Weber will almost certainly be protected despite his contract and that leaves one spot for Mete, Chiarot, Edmundson, Kulak, or Fleury (with Juulsen already being gone). At this point, it actually probably doesn't hurt us too much to lose one of them, as we'll be retaining the rest of the group in addition to Romanov. Enticing Seattle to grab a D man over Allen or a forward might actually help us. My choice would be to protect Kulak and as a 2nd choice Fleury. I think the Habs will protect Chiarot though.

Up front is where it gets more dicey. Gallagher has a NMC, so he's protected. I think it's a guarantee they protect Anderson, Drouin, Kotkaniemi, and Toffoli. Suzuki is safe, as are prospects Poehling and Ylonen. So that leaves two more spots for Lehkonen, Armia, Tatar, Danault, Byron, and Evans. Byron is clearly expendable if he's still here. Armia also won't be protected even if he's re-signed. Tatar and Danault are heading to UFA status too but I think the Habs won't chance losing Danault even if he's not signed. The only other option would be to trade his rights prior to the ED if they don't think they can get a deal done. The last spot, and hardest decision, will likely come down to Lehkonen vs. Evans. Evans has really emerged this year and if there's any uncertainty about Danault coming back, I don't think the Habs can afford to lose Evans too. So I think he gets the nod for that last spot.

It would mean that in my mock here, the Habs are leaving exposed Allen, Lindgren, McNiven, Chiarot, Edmundson, Mete, Fleury, Tatar (UFA), Armia (UFA), Lehkonen, and Byron as notables. With those players available, I'd stack the odds of being chosen as Lehkonen 40%, Chiarot 25%, Allen 20%, Mete 10%, Fleury 5%. Who would you choose from that group if those were your options? And yes, we can argue that Kulak is less likely to be selected than Chiarot if we swapped those two, but IMO Kulak brings more value on a cheaper contract and frankly I'd rather lose Chiarot and his cap space than lose Lehkonen or Evans, so if exposing Chiarot accomplishes that, so be it.

[claremont 0]

47 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

With their off-season additions, the Habs are given themselves a problem with respect to the upcoming ED... in goal, Price's NMC guarantee he's protected. On D, Petry's contract does the same. Weber will almost certainly be protected despite his contract and that leaves one spot for Mete, Chiarot, Edmundson, Kulak, or Fleury (with Juulsen already being gone). At this point, it actually probably doesn't hurt us too much to lose one of them, as we'll be retaining the rest of the group in addition to Romanov. Enticing Seattle to grab a D man over Allen or a forward might actually help us. My choice would be to protect Kulak and as a 2nd choice Fleury. I think the Habs will protect Chiarot though.

Up front is where it gets more dicey. Gallagher has a NMC, so he's protected. I think it's a guarantee they protect Anderson, Drouin, Kotkaniemi, and Toffoli. Suzuki is safe, as are prospects Poehling and Ylonen. So that leaves two more spots for Lehkonen, Armia, Tatar, Danault, Byron, and Evans. Byron is clearly expendable if he's still here. Armia also won't be protected even if he's re-signed. Tatar and Danault are heading to UFA status too but I think the Habs won't chance losing Danault even if he's not signed. The only other option would be to trade his rights prior to the ED if they don't think they can get a deal done. The last spot, and hardest decision, will likely come down to Lehkonen vs. Evans. Evans has really emerged this year and if there's any uncertainty about Danault coming back, I don't think the Habs can afford to lose Evans too. So I think he gets the nod for that last spot.

It would mean that in my mock here, the Habs are leaving exposed Allen, Lindgren, McNiven, Chiarot, Edmundson, Mete, Fleury, Tatar (UFA), Armia (UFA), Lehkonen, and Byron as notables. With those players available, I'd stack the odds of being chosen as Lehkonen 40%, Chiarot 25%, Allen 20%, Mete 10%, Fleury 5%. Who would you choose from that group if those were your options? And yes, we can argue that Kulak is less likely to be selected than Chiarot if we swapped those two, but IMO Kulak brings more value on a cheaper contract and frankly I'd rather lose Chiarot and his cap space than lose Lehkonen or Evans, so if exposing Chiarot accomplishes that, so be it.

Interesting analysis - In theory MB should be subscribing to BAP theory and not need. I agree with you on Armia - at RW our top 3 and BAP for the future are Gally - protected, Anderson, and Caufield, so makes no sense to resign Armia before F/A and protect him. At LW even though Toffoli can play both wings, these would seem to be Drouin and Toffoli and I suspect we have a good chance of resigning Tatar in F/A so why protect another 4th line LW, so add KK and a I reconcile to your top 6. On forwards there is a good competition developing for those 2 spots with or without Danault risk of F/A. The competition for a Centre spot is being won by Evans at present. If Poehling gets in some games and can prove he is close to Evans, do we lose much by not protecting Evans?  Poehling (cheaper, and is exempt from protection), may also be 4th line LW for Lehkonen or Byron if one of those is claimed. Based on presently demonstrated who is the better player, the remaining two spots for forwards is totally dependent on Resign and protect Danault if only at reasonable term. If Danault is resigned, Lehkonen is the better player for me over Evans. If Danault is not resigned then it is Lehkonen and Evans for those 2 spots. 

On Defense - Similar comparison on the BAP theory - Petry NMC, but one could argue in terms of CAP room for the money maybe Weber may not be the BAP per $ so why protect him? I suspect thought that we protect the captain, which locks up 2 RD (even though I am arguing BAP you have to balance some positional need). Based on demonstrated play to date, Kulak is the BAP per $ at LD, so that's my third. I'll have to see more of Edmundson as he adapts to the habs system to determine if he is better than Chiarot. Romanov makes Mete & Fleury expendable. If they could get a 2nd rounder for Mete at some point in the season, it could be worthwhile based on what is in our pipeline on D, but he is injury insurance vs. all the rumours out there of teams inquiring about him.

So who do the Kraken Draft from Montreal if it is BAP per $, I would probably argue it is likely to be Jake Alle, but I'll view some other mocks and do one on capfriendly's simulator

[BigTed3 0]

38 minutes ago, claremont said:

Interesting analysis - In theory MB should be subscribing to BAP theory and not need. I agree with you on Armia - at RW our top 3 and BAP for the future are Gally - protected, Anderson, and Caufield, so makes no sense to resign Armia before F/A and protect him. At LW even though Toffoli can play both wings, these would seem to be Drouin and Toffoli and I suspect we have a good chance of resigning Tatar in F/A so why protect another 4th line LW, so add KK and a I reconcile to your top 6. On forwards there is a good competition developing for those 2 spots with or without Danault risk of F/A. The competition for a Centre spot is being won by Evans at present. If Poehling gets in some games and can prove he is close to Evans, do we lose much by not protecting Evans?  Poehling (cheaper, and is exempt from protection), may also be 4th line LW for Lehkonen or Byron if one of those is claimed. Based on presently demonstrated who is the better player, the remaining two spots for forwards is totally dependent on Resign and protect Danault if only at reasonable term. If Danault is resigned, Lehkonen is the better player for me over Evans. If Danault is not resigned then it is Lehkonen and Evans for those 2 spots. 

On Defense - Similar comparison on the BAP theory - Petry NMC, but one could argue in terms of CAP room for the money maybe Weber may not be the BAP per $ so why protect him? I suspect thought that we protect the captain, which locks up 2 RD (even though I am arguing BAP you have to balance some positional need). Based on demonstrated play to date, Kulak is the BAP per $ at LD, so that's my third. I'll have to see more of Edmundson as he adapts to the habs system to determine if he is better than Chiarot. Romanov makes Mete & Fleury expendable. If they could get a 2nd rounder for Mete at some point in the season, it could be worthwhile based on what is in our pipeline on D, but he is injury insurance vs. all the rumours out there of teams inquiring about him.

So who do the Kraken Draft from Montreal if it is BAP per $, I would probably argue it is likely to be Jake Alle, but I'll view some other mocks and do one on capfriendly's simulator

With respect to Danault, I see this only taking two paths... one, the Habs will have a deal signed or feel like one is close, in which case they'll protect him. Or they'll feel like they aren't going to get one done, in which case they probably trade him or his rights prior to the ED. I'm not sure I see a course where they expose him and risk losing him for nothing. I think they know Danault has substantial trade value, so he's not a guy I see them let walk for free.

Past that, I think some of this also comes down to trade value. Weber, despite his age and contract, probably still has decent value in a trade. He instantly helps a playoff-bound team and for that reason, I could see getting a 1st rounder and more in any trade if we really did want to move on from him. I think Seattle would take him because they could build around him as a captain the way Vegas used Fleury for leadership. He legitimizes the team as being more than an expansion team and they'll have tons of cap room, so likely not a deterrent to them to take him. Would it help us to get out from his contract? Maybe. But at the same time, you have to have a replacement lined up and we have very little at RHD in the pipeline for now, with Juulsen having been lost and Brook having been set back. You also have to factor in losing the potential trade return. So if we were going to protect a guy like Mete or Fleury in place of Weber and if we could have gotten a prospect and a 1st for Weber in a separate trade, then in essence we would be retaining Mete/Fleury but losing a 1st/prospect in exchange, and we would all trade Mete or Fleury for that return if we could.

Likewise, I think Lehkonen has trade value and I think Chiarot has trade value and Allen has value. But we can't trade them all away just we're going to lose one. Part of what will factor into who Seattle takes is how it complements what else is available. If there are no goalies elsewhere, then yes, Allen might jump out at them. But needs aside, Lehkonen is probably the best of the guys I left uncovered and even if they don't want him, he's likely easily tradeable for an asset they do want.

[electron58 0]

On 03/12/2020 at 10:20 AM, maas_art said:

The poll is a question based on the idea we protect the 10 players the OP listed. So that would only leave one spot. So for the basis of this thread, thats the question. 

 

Conversely, i think you can make an argument that we would protect, say, Chiarot over Fleury- not to mention the fact that players may be traded etc - so you could certainly switch that list around a little. imho no-brainers are: Kotkaniemi, Gallagher, Toffoli, Anderson, Drouin, Weber, Petry & Price. Thats 5 forwards, 2D and 1G.  The rest will depend on a number of things (contracts, trades etc).  Some almost certainly will be protected (Lehkonen, Chiarot) but others may well be traded, or left without contracts (Tatar, Danault, Armia). So it is going to be interesting to see how MB plays this.

The more I look at the Anderson trade, the more i like it - he will be, on paper, one of the most appealing options for Seattle in goal and would stop us from losing anyone in our long term plans for nothing. 

Switch Lehkonen for Drouin. Very good chance JD doesn't get claimed, and if he does? Valuable cap room achieved.

[maas_art 0]

17 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

With their off-season additions, the Habs are given themselves a problem with respect to the upcoming ED... in goal, Price's NMC guarantee he's protected. On D, Petry's contract does the same. Weber will almost certainly be protected despite his contract and that leaves one spot for Mete, Chiarot, Edmundson, Kulak, or Fleury (with Juulsen already being gone). At this point, it actually probably doesn't hurt us too much to lose one of them, as we'll be retaining the rest of the group in addition to Romanov. Enticing Seattle to grab a D man over Allen or a forward might actually help us. My choice would be to protect Kulak and as a 2nd choice Fleury. I think the Habs will protect Chiarot though.

Up front is where it gets more dicey. Gallagher has a NMC, so he's protected. I think it's a guarantee they protect Anderson, Drouin, Kotkaniemi, and Toffoli. Suzuki is safe, as are prospects Poehling and Ylonen. So that leaves two more spots for Lehkonen, Armia, Tatar, Danault, Byron, and Evans. Byron is clearly expendable if he's still here. Armia also won't be protected even if he's re-signed. Tatar and Danault are heading to UFA status too but I think the Habs won't chance losing Danault even if he's not signed. The only other option would be to trade his rights prior to the ED if they don't think they can get a deal done. The last spot, and hardest decision, will likely come down to Lehkonen vs. Evans. Evans has really emerged this year and if there's any uncertainty about Danault coming back, I don't think the Habs can afford to lose Evans too. So I think he gets the nod for that last spot.

It would mean that in my mock here, the Habs are leaving exposed Allen, Lindgren, McNiven, Chiarot, Edmundson, Mete, Fleury, Tatar (UFA), Armia (UFA), Lehkonen, and Byron as notables. With those players available, I'd stack the odds of being chosen as Lehkonen 40%, Chiarot 25%, Allen 20%, Mete 10%, Fleury 5%. Who would you choose from that group if those were your options? And yes, we can argue that Kulak is less likely to be selected than Chiarot if we swapped those two, but IMO Kulak brings more value on a cheaper contract and frankly I'd rather lose Chiarot and his cap space than lose Lehkonen or Evans, so if exposing Chiarot accomplishes that, so be it.

Good analysis.   The x-factor is always "what else is out there" with respect to other teams. In that regard, i think Allen may be their first choice tbh.  He's proven he can be a starter, he looks like he's going to play very well this year and he's on a very reasonable 2 year contract..  I know that every team will expose at least 1 goalie but I think that there are going to be very few available with his pedigree, cost and potential to be a starter.   I could totally see guys like Lekhs, Armia or even Byron being coveted (and claimed) and if Mete is exposed I could also see him having interest but my money is on Allen being scooped up.

 

14 hours ago, electron58 said:

Switch Lehkonen for Drouin. Very good chance JD doesn't get claimed, and if he does? Valuable cap room achieved.

You have to put aside your personal bias.  There's no way on earth that 25 year old Drouin, a guy with a career .62ppg (50 pts a season prorated) doesnt get scooped up. None. 

[claremont 0]

15 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Likewise, I think Lehkonen has trade value and I think Chiarot has trade value and Allen has value. But we can't trade them all away just we're going to lose one. Part of what will factor into who Seattle takes is how it complements what else is available. If there are no goalies elsewhere, then yes, Allen might jump out at them. But needs aside, Lehkonen is probably the best of the guys I left uncovered and even if they don't want him, he's likely easily tradeable for an asset they do want.

Ted - When I look at the goalies unprotected in the draft via a mock etc., I see Anton Kudhobin, Malcom Subban, and it hinges on whether one thinks Vancouver will protect Braden Holtby. The only free agent young goalies that they could bid on to build around would be Jordan Binnington, or Frederik Andersen. I believe that the BAP for the $ will be Jake Allen especially if he has a good season this year with the habs, and assuming Holtby is protected with the Nucks.  I agree it is early and perhaps there are some favours (draft choices etc.) that MB could induce Ron Francis to take someone else.

Edited January 26 by claremont

[ramcharger440 0]

So crazy thought here, what if if we left Price unprotected? not sure if we can as i am not familiar with his contract other than it's cost. if Allen is good we keep him for less money and groom Primeau. Allen is younger by a bit and we will have to replace Price at some point soon as he is not getting younger so we will have to get the young lad into the game soon. with our new found depth and scoring Goaltending is not the be all end all it was before we can win with very good goalies now we don't need a savior in net. just a thought.

[maas_art 0]

1 hour ago, ramcharger440 said:

So crazy thought here, what if if we left Price unprotected? not sure if we can as i am not familiar with his contract other than it's cost. if Allen is good we keep him for less money and groom Primeau. Allen is younger by a bit and we will have to replace Price at some point soon as he is not getting younger so we will have to get the young lad into the game soon. with our new found depth and scoring Goaltending is not the be all end all it was before we can win with very good goalies now we don't need a savior in net. just a thought.

MB wouldnt but no, its not an option.  NMC means Price must be protected (same with petry).  Those 2 players are protected - unless you got one of them to agree to waive their NMC like Fleury did for Vegas. 

[dreegking 0]

Not happening. Nor should it. Nor should pondering it be in this realm. 

[dreegking 0]

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

Good analysis.   The x-factor is always "what else is out there" with respect to other teams. In that regard, i think Allen may be their first choice tbh.  He's proven he can be a starter, he looks like he's going to play very well this year and he's on a very reasonable 2 year contract..  I know that every team will expose at least 1 goalie but I think that there are going to be very few available with his pedigree, cost and potential to be a starter.   I could totally see guys like Lekhs, Armia or even Byron being coveted (and claimed) and if Mete is exposed I could also see him having interest but my money is on Allen being scooped up.

 

You have to put aside your personal bias.  There's no way on earth that 25 year old Drouin, a guy with a career .62ppg (50 pts a season prorated) doesnt get scooped up. None. 

It’s highly possible he would not. Sorry. It’s not like his two way game is great. He’s not good along the boards. In fact deficient. He’s not amazing on the power play. Nor a penalty killer. His contract is not cheap. And there will be so many good players available. He will be one of many. 

Edited January 26 by dreegking

[maas_art 0]

14 minutes ago, dreegking said:

It’s highly possible he would not. Sorry. It’s not like his two way game is great. He’s not good along the boards. In fact deficient. He’s not amazing on the power play. Nor a penalty killer. His contract is not cheap. And there will be so many good players available. He will be one of many. 

Haha. ok.  You keep thinking that.  its moot, wont happen but there's zero, ZERO chance he doesnt get picked over the other guys we will have available. 

[jennifer_rocket 0]

Drouin would get snapped up immediately if he was left unprotected. And it would be a really bad move by Bergevin if he allowed that to happen.

[electron58 0]

7 hours ago, maas_art said:

 

You have to put aside your personal bias.  There's no way on earth that 25 year old Drouin, a guy with a career .62ppg (50 pts a season prorated) doesnt get scooped up. None. 

Then we get the cap room. And, if he is as valuable as you believe, then get what you can via trade. His stats don't impress me. 

[BigTed3 0]

9 hours ago, claremont said:

Ted - When I look at the goalies unprotected in the draft via a mock etc., I see Anton Kudhobin, Malcom Subban, and it hinges on whether one thinks Vancouver will protect Braden Holtby. The only free agent young goalies that they could bid on to build around would be Jordan Binnington, or Frederik Andersen. I believe that the BAP for the $ will be Jake Allen especially if he has a good season this year with the habs, and assuming Holtby is protected with the Nucks.  I agree it is early and perhaps there are some favours (draft choices etc.) that MB could induce Ron Francis to take someone else.

I still think there are other options out there for Seattle. They could sign a UFA. They could trade for a goalie. They could bargain one away from another team in exchange for taking a specific player in the draft. And there could be teams that do what Pittsburgh did with Fleury in the Vegas ED where they choose to expose a veteran on a bigger contract. Some of the things that could play out...

- Columbus has Korpisalo and Merzlikins. One will be available.

- I wonder if the Isles might leave Varlamov exposed.

- Nashville likely protects Suaros and they have Askarov coming up the pipeline. So Rinne, if he doesn't retire, could be a veteran plug for a year if Seattle wants to obtain a developmental goalie. Or maybe Nashville feels like Askarov will be ready quickly and they trade Suaros.

- Likewise, I wonder if Florida turns the reigns over the Spencer Knight sooner rather than later and so despite his bad contract, maybe Bobrovsky is another option for Seattle. Maybe Seattle agrees to take Bob in a trade if Florida retains salary and if Seattle gets something else in the deal to sweeten it.

- The Rangers could probably be persuaded to trade Georgiev since they seem to be going with Shesterkin. Again, it could be the case that the Rangers agree to expose Georgiev in exchange for not losing someone else.

- Pittsburgh will have to expose one of Tristan Jarry or Casey DeSmith.

- Vegas isn't in the draft but maybe they'd be open to trading MAF.

 

I'm not saying Allen isn't a good option for Seattle, just that they have other options too and I could just as easily see them drafting Merzlikins and trading for Georgiev for example and riding that tandem. They could choose to do that if it landed them a different player like Lehkonen or Chiarot from us. All depends on what some of these other teams have available.

 

[electron58 0]

On 1/26/2021 at 1:15 PM, jennifer_rocket said:

Drouin would get snapped up immediately if he was left unprotected. And it would be a really bad move by Bergevin if he allowed that to happen.

Huge cap savings. Then we can sign Tatar.

[dreegking 0]

Exactly. 

[BigTed3 0]

With the information we've garnered so far from this season, this would be my updated protected list:

- Forward (7): Drouin, Gallagher, Kotkaniemi, Toffoli, Anderson, Lehkonen, Evans

- Defence (3): Petry, Kulak, Fleury

- Goalie (1): Price

Habs have no choice but to protect Gallagher, Petry, and Price because of NMC. The back end has become a lot simpler because of how badly Weber and Chiarot have played this year. If Seattle wants them, take them. If they want Edmundson, so be it. There are enough players to replace him style-wise. We can't afford to lose Petry or Kulak and Fleury has the most potential of the rest. Up front, the only question is whether to protect a UFA. I don't see Seattle claiming an unsigned Armia and at present I'll take my chances that Tatar and Danault are no longer top options with their salary demands likely being what they are. May as well protect guys with a future here.

All of this also means we have space to be able to acquire another D man to slot in in place of Fleury.

[claremont 0]

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

With the information we've garnered so far from this season, this would be my updated protected list:

- Forward (7): Drouin, Gallagher, Kotkaniemi, Toffoli, Anderson, Lehkonen, Evans

- Defence (3): Petry, Kulak, Fleury

- Goalie (1): Price

Habs have no choice but to protect Gallagher, Petry, and Price because of NMC. The back end has become a lot simpler because of how badly Weber and Chiarot have played this year. If Seattle wants them, take them. If they want Edmundson, so be it. There are enough players to replace him style-wise. We can't afford to lose Petry or Kulak and Fleury has the most potential of the rest. Up front, the only question is whether to protect a UFA. I don't see Seattle claiming an unsigned Armia and at present I'll take my chances that Tatar and Danault are no longer top options with their salary demands likely being what they are. May as well protect guys with a future here.

All of this also means we have space to be able to acquire another D man to slot in in place of Fleury.

That's not a bad strategy. Kulak has reasonable value in terms of cap room but Seattle should have a plethora of cap room. I suspect for Edmundson's perceived value of leadership, plus/minus and despite a lack of foot speed, plus MB's ego of thinking he picked up a solid D man, that he will inevitably be protected. I believe Fleury will not be protected. If I am Seattle, then Allen, Byron, Chiarot and Mete have far better value than the unproven Fleury. Fleury may not even qualify this year as he needs 13 games to be eligible for protection (unless the rules changed), so we would be better off keeping him in the minors for this year if that exempts him. Your forwards list is correct. Evans has utility value to us.