Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
LakeLivin

Who would you protect out of these 3?

Who would you protect out of these 3?  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. If it came down to protecting only 1 of these 3 in the ex-draft, who would you choose?

    • Nordstrom
      2
    • Stempniak
      9
    • PDG/ McGinn
      6


Recommended Posts

I really don't care about any of those guys.  The objective is to get better, and consistently better.  But to play along in the hypothetical, of the two guys that qualify for exposure, I'd keep Nordstrom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, Lake, FOR THE RECORD, I don't disagree with yours, or any of a number of posters on the matter that next year (17-18) is a critical year to get into the playoffs. And I obviously recognize the continuum element and/or binary factor to which you refer. To clarify perhaps my confusion, your original proposition "if you had only one protection spot for the expansion draft left, which of these forwards would you use it on", is crystal clear. However your subsequent clarification to which I previously referred, "intended AS MUCH AS ANYTHING to GAUGE this forum's views regarding the importance of next season IN THE CONTEXT of longer term objectives" to me at least does set up, perhaps unintendedly, an either/or question. Sorry for being a contrarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stemp (scores and worked hard all year).  I don't think the others are worth much and can easily be replaced with FA upgrades at very low cost.  

 

If anyone expose Nordstrom. I liked the PK, but HATED how he always backed down when challenged face-to-face.  I think he was even called out, just looked and skated away.  Now even if you get pounded, you just can't take that in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJUNKANE said:

Now, Lake, FOR THE RECORD, I don't disagree with yours, or any of a number of posters on the matter that next year (17-18) is a critical year to get into the playoffs. And I obviously recognize the continuum element and/or binary factor to which you refer. To clarify perhaps my confusion, your original proposition "if you had only one protection spot for the expansion draft left, which of these forwards would you use it on", is crystal clear. However your subsequent clarification to which I previously referred, "intended AS MUCH AS ANYTHING to GAUGE this forum's views regarding the importance of next season IN THE CONTEXT of longer term objectives" to me at least does set up, perhaps unintendedly, an either/or question. Sorry for being a contrarian.

 

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from.  How about if that were modified to read:  "intended as much as anything to gauge this forum's views regarding the importance of next season in the context of longer term objectives with respect to these particular players"?  I wasn't going for anything broader than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

Yeah, no.  My poll, my rules. Now can I suggest:  :on_topic: ?

Sure you can. But if you don't consider the parameters of the topic itself, you really haven't got one, do ya??

 

Just so I understand, Lake, you're essentially asking me to accept that "your rules" for "your poll" are that "the NHL Rules applying to the very specific topic I'm asking people to vote on don't count. Never mind that PDG and McGinn can't be protected, pretend they can be. And that they're the same guy." 

 

Good Times.

 

picture-1.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from.  How about if that were modified to read:  "intended as much as anything to gauge this forum's views regarding the importance of next season in the context of longer term objectives with respect to these particular players"?  I wasn't going for anything broader than that.

Yep, that does it, and thus I'd also agree with several that Stemp, of that list, PROBABLY gives us the best chance to bridge from making playoffs next year as well as to the consistency of annually doing so, AS THE QUARTET PLAYED IN 16-17, but who knows what strides any or none of them make this off season? And now that I seem to have sufficiently clouded your original poll by that last little caveat, haha, I still do not get what this aside discussion is about concerning the need to protect or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Sure you can. But if you don't consider the parameters of the topic itself, you really haven't got one, do ya??

 

Just so I understand, Lake, you're essentially asking me to accept that "your rules" for "your poll" are that "the NHL Rules applying to the very specific topic I'm asking people to vote on don't count. Never mind that PDG and McGinn can't be protected, pretend they can be. And that they're the same guy." 

 

Good Times.

 

picture-1.png 

 

Does the topic say anything about posting pictures? Geez oh pete you're out of line. You know one day your breaking rules in a forum thread and the next day YOU'RE LIVING IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this poll was posted as a little diversion and to have a little fun while we wait for something (anything) to happen. I think we can accept it for that instead of tearing it a part. Can't we?

 

By the way as far as I can tell leaving McGinn/DiGi  unsigned gives Vegas a 48 hour window to negotiate with them and if signed would count as the Vegas pick. If they are signed they would need to be protected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be the time of the year, because tempers typically get short on here when there's precious little to discuss, by why are we nitpicking over how or what a poster posts, rather than seeing if we understand their point of view?

 

And 2ndly, thank you OBXer for that point of clarification.

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all makes perfect sense to me.  We have a poll, asking which 1 of the 3 you would keep, except there are 4 listed, and 2 of them aren't eligible.

 

Got it.

 

Heck, I even voted.  Stemp, because he hit more touchdowns.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

This all makes perfect sense to me.  We have a poll, asking which 1 of the 3 you would keep, except there are 4 listed, and 2 of them aren't eligible.

 

Got it.

 

Heck, I even voted.  Stemp, because he hit more touchdowns.

 

I'm always gratified to learn when people think things through and make informed decision:facepalm2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

Yep, that does it, and thus I'd also agree with several that Stemp, of that list, PROBABLY gives us the best chance to bridge from making playoffs next year as well as to the consistency of annually doing so, AS THE QUARTET PLAYED IN 16-17, but who knows what strides any or none of them make this off season? And now that I seem to have sufficiently clouded your original poll by that last little caveat, haha, I still do not get what this aside discussion is about concerning the need to protect or not?

 

I could be wrong but I suspect it's more about top being obstinate than anything else. But in case it really does boil down to the actual details of the ex-draft rules, let's clarify the expansion rules/ requirements for forwards (assumes the "7f/3d" option as the "8 skaters" option makes no sense for the Canes.)

 

  • Yutes: first and 2nd year pros are exempt from the expansion draft.  AHL play counts, so while Slavin, Pesce, Hanifin and Aho are automatically exempt, McGinn and PDG are not.

 

  • Exposure Protection: Canes can protect 7 forwards.  Five of those slots are no-brainers (Staal, Skinner, TT, Lindy, Rask).  That means the Canes can only protect 2 of the rest of our forwards. 

 

  • Exposure Requirement: Canes need to expose 2 forwards under contract for '17-'18 with at least either 70 NHL games played over the past 2 seasons or 40 games played this past season.  Right now Stemp and Nordy meet that requirement.  Re-signing any of the following would also make them eligible for this exposure requirement: PDG, McGinn, McClement, and Nesty.

 

Even though McGinn and PDG don't meet our exposure requirement unless they are re-signed, they're still eligible to be taken by Vegas in the ex-draft unless we use a protection slot on them.  

 

After protection lists are turned in and before the actual ex-draft, Vegas also has a 48 hour period to exclusively negotiate with unprotected pending UFAs and RFAs.  If they sign one it counts as their player from the Canes and we're done. 

 

So with regard to the poll: it asks who you would protect if it came down to the given choices.  If RF feels McGinn/PDG are worth protecting he will need to use a protection slot on him (them) regardless of whether they are re-signed or not.  And if he feels that Stemp or Nordy are worth protecting, he can re-sign any of McGinn, PDG, McClement, or Nesty in order to satisfy the  exposure requirements.  Given that all of those are options for the Canes, I stand by the poll as originally presented, nitpicking be dammed. :P 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a different way to look at the unsigned RFA issue as relates to the ex-draft.  Leon Draisaitl and Ryan Johansen are pending RFAs just like McGinn and PDG.  Does anyone think that they need to be re-signed before the protection lists go out Saturday in order for their current teams to protect them?    

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, super_dave_1 said:

This all makes perfect sense to me.  We have a poll, asking which 1 of the 3 you would keep, except there are 4 listed, and 2 of them aren't eligible.

 

Got it.

 

Heck, I even voted.  Stemp, because he hit more touchdowns.

 

I was confused but now I get it.  I voted.

 

Still don't care about any of those guys though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

I was confused but now I get it.  I voted.

 

Still don't care about any of those guys though.

 

Glad I was able to help

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...