Fleury to Calgary...

[Jpripper88]

Wait, what?

Of course a first round draft choice - no matter when you get it - or high-end prospect is better than what Calgary was offering us for Fleury.

It is true that by not dumping his $5.75 million annual salary, we don't have as much cap flexibility now as we would have had we gifted Fleury to the Flames.

However, it is also true that we now can sustain underperformance or injury in goal and that would not have happened had we traded him for a second round pick. Also, we still have a very good trade chip in our pockets and that would not of been the case had we given "the New 29er" to Calgary.

I think it is a really good sign that we set a price and if anyone meets it, great. Then you make the very painful decision - and it is a painful decision - to trade away arguably the best goaltender in the franchise's 50 year history. However, dumping such a valuable asset to create cap space is a really foolish and shortsighted way to conduct business. That is an excellent way to help expedite the closing of our championship window.

We need to get something back for him beyond cap room and a marginal draft choice or prospect.

As to your other point, I would rather have a first round pick next year than a second round pick this year.



They weren't being offered much now either so it's best to fold for now and bide your time. I'm telling you they will get at a minimum that exact same deal at the trade deadline next year so it makes no sense to rush this. Have you seen the free-agent market? It's not exactly a who's who's list of the best players in the NHL. Stamkos aside, it's a pretty modest collection of talent.

Except it wasn't just a 2nd round pick. It was AT LEAST a 2nd and 3rd and likely a prospect, plus salary relief. And that 2nd round pick was 35 a year before a pick you are theorizing would likely be somewhere around 25 (if it was a cup challenging team). Also, we would get no salary relief or flexibility to add immediate talent because any of those teams would have to send salary back our way. That likely means a contract we definitely don't want or a decent player on ok terms who lessens the package they would offer and thus the potential benefit in the deal.

I'd absolutely take a 2016 pick #35, 2017/18 3rd (and likely a prospect), and cap flexibility now than a pick around #25 in 2017 and probably take on a contract (and yes, Niemi or Lehtonen for 2017-18 would certainly count) we don't want. The 2017 #25 pick is marginally better than the picks this year from Calgary, based on previous historical draft trades and that is without considering the time and flexibility value or the (overwhelming) likelihood of having to take on a contract we don't want at the deadline.

 

[Jpripper88]

I think you misunderstood my point. I never seriously advocated them leaving Murray unprotected.

My point is Pittsburgh is not without leverage here and anyone suggesting otherwise does not know what the hell they're talking about.

Pittsburgh still has about nine months to make the same dumb trade that people are criticizing them for not making this past weekend.

I say let's take our time and see what shakes out between now and then? I think the potential risk on our end is very, very low and the potential upside is comparatively high.

You said:

"I would rather lose Murray to Las Vegas in the expansion draft think give away Fleury for what Calgary was offering. "

That is a quote. That is ridiculous.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

I think you misunderstood my point. I never seriously advocated them leaving Murray unprotected.

My point is Pittsburgh is not without leverage here and anyone suggesting otherwise does not know what the hell they're talking about.

Pittsburgh still has about nine months to make the same dumb trade that people are criticizing them for not making this past weekend.

I say let's take our time and see what shakes out between now and then? I think the potential risk on our end is very, very low and the potential upside is comparatively high.

Of course I didn't miss your point Dr.

 

[PhPanther1]

soooo, in case some of you have not been paying attention to the top sources in the nhl (dreger, mckenzie, lebrun) have all said that rutherford was NOT actively shopping Fleury around. He did take calls on Fleury, but was not making outreach to teams trying to dump Fleury. So to think Rutherford feels the need to dump Fleury for cap space....which we do not currently need....is not correct. He has a full 12 months to decide what to do with the goaltenders in the 17/18 season. They also grabbed the #1 goaltending prospect in this draft (their evaluation), so if they choose to trade Murray and roll with Jarry/Fleury for the next 3 years, they have the future covered. After a year of criticizm, pappy has really knocked it out of the park.

 

[Swervin27]

We got Flower's best years and we are replacing him with someone with 10 more year window at 1/10th the cost.. Absolute no brainer decision..

 

[Jpripper88]

soooo, in case some of you have not been paying attention to the top sources in the nhl (dreger, mckenzie, lebrun) have all said that rutherford was NOT actively shopping Fleury around. He did take calls on Fleury, but was not making outreach to teams trying to dump Fleury. So to think Rutherford feels the need to dump Fleury for cap space....which we do not currently need....is not correct. He has a full 12 months to decide what to do with the goaltenders in the 17/18 season. They also grabbed the #1 goaltending prospect in this draft (their evaluation), so if they choose to trade Murray and roll with Jarry/Fleury for the next 3 years, they have the future covered. After a year of criticizm, pappy has really knocked it out of the park.

Don't need cap space? They only have about $2M to fill out the roster, so things are pretty darn tight. Especially since we definitely need at least 1 D.

 

[wbrpanther]

Doc, It is like when Gordie Howe died, and all the Canadian media was fawning all over him on the NHL Network. I heard almost to a man all of them talk about 'the big 3" of Howe, Gretzky and Orr. Huh? I even heard one guy talk about the next level of Messier and Lemieux. I am sorry, for as great a player Mark Messier was, he was not fit to tie Mario's skates.

It is just this myopic Anglo Canadian/Original Six crap.

Lemieux was at the top of any level. PERIOD.

 

[PhPanther1]

Don't need cap space? They only have about $2M to fill out the roster, so things are pretty darn tight. Especially since we definitely need at least 1 D.

The forward unit is complete.
They can dump Fehr to save 2 million and let Sundqvist play 4th line center.
LOTS of talk of trading Cole and signing Lovejoy with that money so they can have Lovejoy/Pouliot as the 5/6 pairing.

What do they need this additional cap space for?

 

[Jpripper88]

The forward unit is complete.
They can dump Fehr to save 2 million and let Sundqvist play 4th line center.
LOTS of talk of trading Cole and signing Lovejoy with that money so they can have Lovejoy/Pouliot as the 5/6 pairing.

What do they need this additional cap space for?

The forward unit is complete? Why would you dump Fehr and then who do you replace him with for less than $2M? Sundqvist already has to play 4th line C. Cole makes $2.1M and Lovejoy is likely to get more than that, but even if he doesn't, they will save no money on that transaction. The Pens will need at least 1 more experienced and capable F with their current group. If they send out Fehr, they will need a more expensive player than just a depth W because that player will need to be flexible enough to play C. They absolutely need a #6 or 7 D, even if they are trusting Pouliot. That $2M is gone in an instant with just those 2 signings without them even getting good options.

 

[PhPanther1]

Sheary - Crosby - Hornqvist
Kunitz - Malkin - Rust
Hagelin - Bonino - Kessel
Wilson - Sundqvist - Kuhnhackl
Conner

Forward unit is complete without Fehr which saves you 2 million on top of the estimated 2 that exists today. Guys like Jake Guentzel and Sprong if not hurt would be pushing Sheary for his ice time this year. We have 0 need this year for anybody on offense even after you dump Fehr.

 

[Swervin27]

Sheary - Crosby - Hornqvist
Kunitz - Malkin - Rust
Hagelin - Bonino - Kessel
Wilson - Sundqvist - Kuhnhackl
Conner

Forward unit is complete without Fehr which saves you 2 million on top of the estimated 2 that exists today. Guys like Jake Guentzel and Sprong if not hurt would be pushing Sheary for his ice time this year. We have 0 need this year for anybody on offense even after you dump Fehr.

Kunitz is retiring.. Please tell me that Kunitz is retiring. I can't take another year of him. Please kunni, go out on top. For all of our sakes.

 

[PhPanther1]

Kunitz is retiring.. Please tell me that Kunitz is retiring. I can't take another year of him. Please kunni, go out on top. For all of our sakes.

Haha. You and I both wish. I would love to see that 3.85 come off the books so we could go after an Andrew Ladd, Mikkel Boedker or Michael Grabner (speeeed).

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Kunitz is retiring.. Please tell me that Kunitz is retiring. I can't take another year of him. Please kunni, go out on top. For all of our sakes.

He did play well in the playoffs , to be fair.

 

[Swervin27]

He did play well in the playoffs , to be fair.

I agree.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

He did play well in the playoffs , to be fair.

He played better at the end. A few games you could even say that he played well. But the ratio in the playoffs of bad games to good games clearly came down on the wrong side of the ledger. Way, way on the wrong side of the ledger. Those three or four good games he had towards the end don't make up for two and a half rounds of absolute suck.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

He played better at the end. A few games you could even say that he played well. But the ratio in the playoffs of bad games to good games clearly came down on the wrong side of the ledger. Way, way on the wrong side of the ledger. Those three or four good games he had towards the end don't make up for two and a half rounds of absolute suck.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing.
I hope he hangs them up... He just surprised me a few games . He gave all he had with was left in the tank.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Don't need cap space? They only have about $2M to fill out the roster, so things are pretty darn tight. Especially since we definitely need at least 1 D.

They only have one real position to fill. That is another Dman.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

You said:

"I would rather lose Murray to Las Vegas in the expansion draft think give away Fleury for what Calgary was offering. "

That is a quote. That is ridiculous.

Would you please tell me what my next sentence was in the post you were quoting? I think that may be helpful in providing context to this discussion.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Of course I didn't miss your point Dr.

I think it's very clear that you did. However, you were also obviously not alone.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Except it wasn't just a 2nd round pick. It was AT LEAST a 2nd and 3rd and likely a prospect, plus salary relief. And that 2nd round pick was 35 a year before a pick you are theorizing would likely be somewhere around 25 (if it was a cup challenging team). Also, we would get no salary relief or flexibility to add immediate talent because any of those teams would have to send salary back our way. That likely means a contract we definitely don't want or a decent player on ok terms who lessens the package they would offer and thus the potential benefit in the deal.

I'd absolutely take a 2016 pick #35, 2017/18 3rd (and likely a prospect), and cap flexibility now than a pick around #25 in 2017 and probably take on a contract (and yes, Niemi or Lehtonen for 2017-18 would certainly count) we don't want. The 2017 #25 pick is marginally better than the picks this year from Calgary, based on previous historical draft trades and that is without considering the time and flexibility value or the (overwhelming) likelihood of having to take on a contract we don't want at the deadline.

Now you're the one who is theorizing.

Nobody has any real idea what Calgary offered Pittsburgh for Fleury. All we know is that they did not meet Pittsburgh's terms - otherwise they would've consummated the trade.

We also know what Calgary give up for Elliott – a second round pick in this year's draft and a conditional third round draft choice in next year's draft.

That is a far cry from what you are claiming Calgary offered Pittsburgh for Fleury and the Elliot terms – which are the only terms we can actually go with as fact – were not nearly enough, at least in my view.

Is that enough for a Stanley Cup winning goaltender who is still in his prime and arguably playing better than he ever has in his career? For me the answer is no. Obviously Jim Rutherford (wisely) felt the same way.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

soooo, in case some of you have not been paying attention to the top sources in the nhl (dreger, mckenzie, lebrun) have all said that rutherford was NOT actively shopping Fleury around. He did take calls on Fleury, but was not making outreach to teams trying to dump Fleury. So to think Rutherford feels the need to dump Fleury for cap space....which we do not currently need....is not correct. He has a full 12 months to decide what to do with the goaltenders in the 17/18 season. They also grabbed the #1 goaltending prospect in this draft (their evaluation), so if they choose to trade Murray and roll with Jarry/Fleury for the next 3 years, they have the future covered. After a year of criticizm, pappy has really knocked it out of the park.

This is exactly right!

What if someone bulls them over with an offer for Murray? What if they love this Swedish kid and decide Murray is overrated/expendable? I certainly don't feel that way but Rutherford and the rest of the brain trust just might. Who knows?

This could still go any number of ways. Don't get me wrong, I fully anticipate that they will trade Fleury at some point between now and March. However, I definitely would not have settled for the best offer we could get. That would've been stupid, IMO.

There is absolutely no urgency whatsoever to trade anyone. Anyone telling you otherwise is an imbecile who does not know what he is talking about.

 

[Jpripper88]

Now you're the one who is theorizing.

Nobody has any real idea what Calgary offered Pittsburgh for Fleury. All we know is that they did not meet Pittsburgh's terms - otherwise they would've consummated the trade.

We also know what Calgary give up for Elliott – a second round pick in this year's draft and a conditional third round draft choice in next year's draft.

That is a far cry from what you are claiming Calgary offered Pittsburgh for Fleury and the Elliot terms – which are the only terms we can actually go with as fact – were not nearly enough, at least in my view.

Is that enough for a Stanley Cup winning goaltender who is still in his prime and arguably playing better than he ever has in his career? For me the answer is no. Obviously Jim Rutherford (wisely) felt the same way.

No, I am saying they offered the same package and likely made it a little better for Fleury than Elliot.

They only have one real position to fill. That is another Dman.

They absolutely need another D, but I think they need an experienced F who can play C in a pinch or just a C who can play W in spots, especially if Fehr is traded like Ph is suggesting.

But really, any decent D eats up basically all of that money above minimum salary available.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Well, what you presented - as fact, mind you - (The number 35 overall pick, a high third round pick, a prospect, and salary relief) was not just a little better than what they actually gave up for Elliot, it's a lot better.

I am saying that what you are claiming they offered is highly unlikely. However, the truth is we have no idea what they offered for Fleury? We only know that what they offered for him was unsatisfactory to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

What we also know is that what the Flames actually gave up for Brian Elliott was not nearly good enough. It would've been a poor decision by Rutherford and one that would have been rightly panned.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

The bottom line is Pittsburgh does not have any impetus to act rashly here.

Every single reason given in this thread and elsewhere has simply not been sufficient enough to just give away a high-end goaltender.

As I've said repeatedly, Pittsburgh has a full year - or at least nine months - at its disposal to make a similarly bad trade. A hell of a lot can happen in a year – as we all saw firsthand this past season.

And if in a year we find ourselves in this exact same spot, trade and then for a similar price. His value is not going to substantially decline and it could improve.

That is why I say bide your time, really get a good feel for what the market is for the guy, and then make the trade. This is not rocket science.

Also, if someone wants to offer you the moon for Matt Murray, consider that too. That would not be my first choice but it might not be the worst decision if someone thinks they are trading for the next Carey Price and is willing to pay accordingly.

 

[Swervin27]

The bottom line is Pittsburgh does not have any impetus to act rashly here.

Every single reason given in this thread and elsewhere has simply not been sufficient enough to just give away a high-end goaltender.

As I've said repeatedly, Pittsburgh has a full year - or at least nine months - at its disposal to make a similarly bad trade. A hell of a lot can happen in a year – as we all saw firsthand this past season.

And if in a year we find ourselves in this exact same spot, trade and then for a similar price. His value is not going to substantially decline and it could improve.

That is why I say bide your time, really get a good feel for what the market is for the guy, and then make the trade. This is not rocket science.

Also, if someone wants to offer you the moon for Matt Murray, consider that too. That would not be my first choice but it might not be the worst decision if someone thinks they are trading for the next Carey Price and is willing to pay accordingly.

You can't go into a season with two starting goaltenders on roster. You can't send Murray down and you can't have flower on bench. It would have been a slap in the face to flower, at minimum a distraction and at worst, poison in the locker room.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

You can't go into a season with two starting goaltenders on roster. You can't send Murray down and you can't have flower on bench. It would have been a slap in the face to flower, at minimum a distraction and at worst, poison in the locker room.

Yeah you can. You don't want to do this multiple seasons, but I see now law, no rule that prevents this. Again, the Pens have $6.2 million tied up in goaltending next year. That is fairly average across the league. Why and where you don't see "two starting goaltenders" is because usually they are both in their late 20's, early 30's and making $5 million per year. Teams can't afford it, that is the main reason. A solid trade opportunity to make a good deal will come up over the next year. You don't just dump a guy the caliber of Fleury just to dump him.

 

[PhPanther1]

Boston played it pretty well with Tuka Rask and Tim Thomas in 2010/11 after Rask clearly outplayed Thomas in 2009/10.

 

[Jpripper88]

Well, what you presented - as fact, mind you - (The number 35 overall pick, a high third round pick, a prospect, and salary relief) was not just a little better than what they actually gave up for Elliot, it's a lot better.

I am saying that what you are claiming they offered is highly unlikely. However, the truth is we have no idea what they offered for Fleury? We only know that what they offered for him was unsatisfactory to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

What we also know is that what the Flames actually gave up for Brian Elliott was not nearly good enough. It would've been a poor decision by Rutherford and one that would have been rightly panned.

I didn't present the deal as fact. We know they made an offer. We know (as much as we can) that offer involved the #35 pick. We know what they gave for Elliot. The only difference in the rumor mill is the prospect. Otherwise it is the same deal. It might have been even better. We just know Rutherford wanted #6 and Calgary rebuffed at that, once they were the only option. Obviously Fleury is a much better goalie and is signed for 3 years, instead of 1.

 

[Swervin27]

Yeah you can. You don't want to do this multiple seasons, but I see now law, no rule that prevents this. Again, the Pens have $6.2 million tied up in goaltending next year. That is fairly average across the league. Why and where you don't see "two starting goaltenders" is because usually they are both in their late 20's, early 30's and making $5 million per year. Teams can't afford it, that is the main reason. A solid trade opportunity to make a good deal will come up over the next year. You don't just dump a guy the caliber of Fleury just to dump him.

you want to watch a pouting Flower on the bench 82 times next year with daily stories of beat writers asking coach about the issue til he explodes? Actually, now that I write it, it does sound kind of entertaining, in a roller coaster goes off the tracks and kills people kind of way.. BTW, Flower's wife is kind of hot.. She was in a commercial for something..

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I didn't present the deal as fact. We know they made an offer. We know (as much as we can) that offer involved the #35 pick. We know what they gave for Elliot. The only difference in the rumor mill is the prospect. Otherwise it is the same deal. It might have been even better. We just know Rutherford wanted #6 and Calgary rebuffed at that, once they were the only option. Obviously Fleury is a much better goalie and is signed for 3 years, instead of 1.

No, in addition to the prospect (which makes a difference in and of itself - especially depending on who it is) we are also talking about a conditional pick vs. a high third round choice in this year's draft and alleged salary relief. That's a completely different deal then what Calgary actually surrendered to land Brian Elliot.

By the way, Brad Treliving did a very good job there. I think that was a relatively small price to pay for a pretty good goaltender.

Also, we don't know that Pittsburgh demanded the No. 6 overall pick. Maybe that was Pittsburgh's starting position but they really had their eye on a higher end prospect and the No. 35 pick? That may have worked as well.

Who knows? I just know that we definitely needed to get more than what Anaheim just got for Frederik Anderson. Fleury is there way more accomplished goaltender and he is still in his prime. You don't just give those guys away to create salary-cap space so that you can go out and land second and third tier free agents.

Look, we can go round and round on this all day. For me the bottom line is the offer was not good enough and I agree with Rutherford's decision to bide his time and wait to see what else materializes.

Again, I am very confident in saying that he will be able to make a comparable deal to this one any time in the next year.

You obviously disagree and that's fine too. Who knows, you may be right. I'm not a fortuneteller. Pittsburgh may end up having to surrender Fleury for less than Calgary offered us this past weekend. That's entirely possible. I just don't think it's very likely.

Also, just so nobody is confused, because there appears to be some lingering confusion out there; there is a 0.0 % chance of the Penguins losing Matt Murray to Las Vegas for nothing.

I will repeat for emphasis, there is no scenario in which Pittsburgh will lose Matt Murray to Las Vegas in the expansion draft that does not also involve flying monkeys.

Fretting over it like it's an actual possibility is ridiculous and a bit like fretting over the notion that they are going to ask Crosby to waive his NMC so they can protect Eric Fehr. It makes no sense whatsoever to worry about it for even a second.

 

[Jpripper88]

No, in addition to the prospect (which makes a difference in and of itself - especially depending on who it is) we are also talking about a conditional pick vs. a high third round choice in this year's draft and alleged salary relief. That's a completely different deal then what Calgary actually surrendered to land Brian Elliot.

By the way, Brad Treliving did a very good job there. I think that was a relatively small price to pay for a pretty good goaltender.

Also, we don't know that Pittsburgh demanded the No. 6 overall pick. Maybe that was Pittsburgh's starting position but they really had their eye on a higher end prospect and the No. 35 pick? That may have worked as well.

Who knows? I just know that we definitely needed to get more than what Anaheim just got for Frederik Anderson. Fleury is there way more accomplished goaltender and he is still in his prime. You don't just give those guys away to create salary-cap space so that you can go out and land second and third tier free agents.

Look, we can go round and round on this all day. For me the bottom line is the offer was not good enough and I agree with Rutherford's decision to bide his time and wait to see what else materializes.

Again, I am very confident in saying that he will be able to make a comparable deal to this one any time in the next year.

You obviously disagree and that's fine too. Who knows, you may be right. I'm not a fortuneteller. Pittsburgh may end up having to surrender Fleury for less than Calgary offered us this past weekend. That's entirely possible. I just don't think it's very likely.

Also, just so nobody is confused, because there appears to be some lingering confusion out there; there is a 0.0 % chance of the Penguins losing Matt Murray to Las Vegas for nothing.

I will repeat for emphasis, there is no scenario in which Pittsburgh will lose Matt Murray to Las Vegas in the expansion draft that does not also involve flying monkeys.

I said 2017 or 2018 for the 3rd, soooo...

The conditional pick was predicated completely on signing Elliott next year. Fleury is already signed for 2 more years. Also, there was absolutely significant salary relief, unless one of their better players like Brodie was offered and in that case it would have been silly to say no.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Again, none of this makes any sense and we are beginning to spin our wheels.

Help me out here. Was Pittsburgh providing the significant salary relief or was Calgary?

I ask that because it is my understanding that according to the CBA, you can only provide salary relief on a player that's actually being traded. In other words, Calgary cannot just give us cash like Los Angeles did to Edmonton when they traded for Gretzky back in 1988. Those types of transactions are no longer permitted. Also, according to the CBA, teams can only retain up to 50% of the player's actual contract.

If Calgary was going to give us a prospect, especially a mid-level prospect, how much salary relief could they actually provide? None of those guys makes any money and the "significant salary relief" they would be able to offer would max out in the six figures - and probably not even the high six figures - which means it is not significant at all and therefore likely false.

Also, there is no reason to invoke a current NHL player into the discussion like TJ Brodie. First of all, Brodie led the Flames in TOI in the 2015 playoffs (27 minutes per game). They are not trading that guy.

Also, the talk was a prospect – which implies that it is not a current NHL player and certainly not one who plays 20+ minutes per night - and not even a high-end prospect. Basically, they were talking about enhancing our Wilkes-Barre team.

I am sorry but still no sale and to be frank, it is not even close. It's OK if you disagree with me - plenty do - but I'm not budging because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Jpripper88]

Again, none of this makes any sense and we are beginning to spin our wheels.

Help me out here. Was Pittsburgh providing the significant salary relief or was Calgary?

I ask that because it is my understanding that according to the CBA, you can only provide salary relief on a player that's actually being traded. In other words, Calgary cannot just give us cash like Los Angeles did to Edmonton when they traded for Gretzky back in 1988. Those types of transactions are no longer permitted. Also, according to the CBA, teams can only retain up to 50% of the player's actual contract.

If Calgary was going to give us a prospect, especially a mid-level prospect, how much salary relief could they actually provide? None of those guys makes any money and the "significant salary relief" they would be able to offer would max out in the six figures - and probably not even the high six figures - which means it is not significant at all and therefore likely false.

Also, there is no reason to invoke a current NHL player into the discussion like TJ Brodie. First of all, Brodie led the Flames in TOI in the 2015 playoffs (27 minutes per game). They are not trading that guy.

Also, the talk was a prospect – which implies that it is not a current NHL player and certainly not one who plays 20+ minutes per night - and not even a high-end prospect. Basically, they were talking about enhancing our Wilkes-Barre team.

I am sorry but still no sale and to be frank, it is not even close. It's OK if you disagree with me - plenty do - but I'm not budging because it doesn't make any sense.

We get salary cap room by shipping out $5.75M in salary and not taking back a very small amount, if any, of salary back. This is not a hard concept.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

you want to watch a pouting Flower on the bench 82 times next year with daily stories of beat writers asking coach about the issue til he explodes? Actually, now that I write it, it does sound kind of entertaining, in a roller coaster goes off the tracks and kills people kind of way.. BTW, Flower's wife is kind of hot.. She was in a commercial for something..

First off, no goalie plays 82 games. Secondly, when has Fleury ever pouted? You guys, some of you are making way too much of this.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

We get salary cap room by shipping out $5.75M in salary and not taking back a very small amount, if any, of salary back. This is not a hard concept.

He is also an asset, a chip that can be played in the right circumstance. My god, some patience please.

 

[Swervin27]

First off, no goalie plays 82 games. Secondly, when has Fleury ever pouted? You guys, some of you are making way too much of this.

A pic below, proving my point 100%. In all seriousness, I didn't mean to allude to him being a poor sport, he seems like a classy guy. I just think he would want no part of playing 25 games and I don't think a true goalie platoon system would work. We had two really good goalies who both deserve to be 60 game starter type goalies. that was our dilemma. We had to pick one and we did. No way in hell either one of these guys volunteer for a season long back up goalie status. Not sure why you guys are trying to make this an issue..

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

A pic below, proving my point 100%. In all seriousness, I didn't mean to allude to him being a poor sport, he seems like a classy guy. I just think he would want no part of playing 25 games and I don't think a true goalie platoon system would work. We had two really good goalies who both deserve to be 60 game starter type goalies. that was our dilemma. We had to pick one and we did. No way in hell either one of these guys volunteer for a season long back up goalie status. Not sure why you guys are trying to make this an issue..

It's not that big of a deal as you guys are making it. And it will work itself out.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

We get salary cap room by shipping out $5.75M in salary and not taking back a very small amount, if any, of salary back. This is not a hard concept.

Oh, my apologies. I thought you meant Calgary was providing significant salary cap relief. You were simply advocating a salary dump and selling it by describing it as "significant salary cap relief."

Gotcha.

It still doesn't make any sense to dump such a valuable asset to clear salary cap room for second and third tier free agents but at least I am now clear on what you were advocating.

You wanted that second and likely third round draft choice for arguably the greatest goaltender in our franchise's history who was inarguably playing as well as he has ever played prior to being injured - posting career-bests in save percentage and goals-against and on track to set a new benchmark for wins in a season despite playing on a team that struggled mightily for the first three months.

In other words, as Pittsburgh's team play improved, especially down the stretch, do you think Fleury's numbers were likely to get worse or better? What would his worth be had be backstopped us to a second Stanley Cup? I firmly believe that would've happened had he stayed healthy because the Penguins were rolling by the spring and teams were not getting more than 15–17 shots per game on them – most of which were coming from the perimeter.

I just don't understand where people are coming from here? You are severely underrating this asset. That's the only explanation I can come up with that makes any sense.

The only argument for dumping Fleury now that does actually hold some water is that by keeping him you are inviting a goaltending controversy until one of the two is sent packing. That is absolutely true and that will be an issue. There is no denying that fact.

However, the fact that he is as good as people are insisting Murray is, and likely better – at least at this stage of their respective careers – is also conclusive proof that he is worth a lot more than a second and possibly third round draft choice. At least that's my view and it is obviously the view of the Pittsburgh Penguins as well.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I don't understand the rush. And how they are making such a big deal out of this. I mean, this is a positive, right? Depth is good, right? Quality and affordable depth is good, right? So....I am just shaking my head in frustration, I feel like I am talking to Del.

Yep.. we should be satisfied and happy we have 2 at worst good goal tenders to enter the season.
One a proven quality keeper, and another who demonstrates he can also play well enough on the biggest stage.

Deep breaths, folks. This is a good thing.

 

[Swervin27]

It's definitely a good problem to have. I just don't think it is feasible to expect one of these two to accept a back up role.. I think that they (They being Flower) would say the right things and put on a good front but after a few months, it would just turn into a distraction. He probably sees himself as a top 10 goalie (as he should) and don't think you can expect a top 10 goalie to play backup... The only real option would be to send Murray back down to be starter in Scranton and that's asking a lot too..

Whether or not now is the best time to be a seller is up for debate..