Connor Hellebuyck

[Yonald]

Ya it's a tough one. The fleury owner in my league wants Murray and he owns Helle so there may be a deal to be made. The jets should be a good team in a few years with all their youth

[BreadManPanarin]

Ya it's a tough one. The fleury owner in my league wants Murray and he owns Helle so there may be a deal to be made. The jets should be a good team in a few years with all their youth

That's a tough choice to make between Murray and Helle, in light of how well Murray is playing. I think I would lean towards Helle because it seems quite likely that Murray will end up going to an expansion team when the time comes. Pittsburgh can only protect one goalie and they will be required to protect Fleury due to his NMC. Winnipeg's situation is looking pretty good going forward, and I doubt that an expansion team will be super competitive for the first few years.

[Goldendelicious]

That's a tough choice to make between Murray and Helle, in light of how well Murray is playing. I think I would lean towards Helle because it seems quite likely that Murray will end up going to an expansion team when the time comes. Pittsburgh can only protect one goalie and they will be required to protect Fleury due to his NMC. Winnipeg's situation is looking pretty good going forward, and I doubt that an expansion team will be super competitive for the first few years.

Is that the case? Players who have only played two seasons in the NHL are exempt from needing protection in the expansion draft. So when you look at McDavid for example (and that rookie class) he doesn't need to be one of the X players listed as protected as he falls into a different category. So Murray will only play in his second season next year (didn't play in 2014/15) but will have his final year on his ELC completed. I haven't heard about the rules explaining this circumstance.

[BreadManPanarin]

Is that the case? Players who have only played two seasons in the NHL are exempt from needing protection in the expansion draft. So when you look at McDavid for example (and that rookie class) he doesn't need to be one of the X players listed as protected as he falls into a different category. So Murray will only play in his second season next year (didn't play in 2014/15) but will have his final year on his ELC completed. I haven't heard about the rules explaining this circumstance.

I do not believe that any definitive answer has been given on the 2 year player issue yet. Maybe I am wrong. If this does indeed end up being the case then Murray owners are even worse off because he will likely be stuck behind Fleury for three more years. In that case it presents an even stronger case for Hellebuyck over Murray.

I have been operating under the assumption that the Hawks will need to protect Panarin as one of their 7 forwards. I hope that the 2 year player thing ends up true because that would give us the flexibility to protect one more forward in Panarin's place.

[gooding74]

Murray's value is really up in the air next season. Now that he seems like the real deal, I think there's a chance that they shop Fleury. I can't see how Dallas wouldn't be interested. Maybe even Calgary.

Both Murray and Hellebuyck are unknowns next season. Best case scenario, both could end up starting a lot of games next season. Worst case scenario, both could be spending most of their time in the AHL. But if I had to predict which goalie will start more games, I'd go with Hellebuyck.

[BreadManPanarin]

Murray's value is really up in the air next season. Now that he seems like the real deal, I think there's a chance that they shop Fleury. I can't see how Dallas wouldn't be interested. Maybe even Calgary.

Both Murray and Hellebuyck are unknowns next season. Best case scenario, both could end up starting a lot of games next season. Worst case scenario, both could be spending most of their time in the AHL. But if I had to predict which goalie will start more games, I'd go with Hellebuyck.

I agree with everything you said here. Fleury has a limited no trade clause (can submit a list of 12 teams he will not accept trade to). Obviously this makes it more difficult for Pitt to move him, but certainly not impossible. If Fleury really doesn't want to be moved he would name the top 12 most goalie-needy teams as his no trade list. Are there more than 12 teams that need a goalie enough to trade for him?

[BreadManPanarin]

List of teams who have clear starter(s) under contract for a while and thus would not likely trade for a goalie:
Ducks - Anderson/Gibson
Coyotes - Smith (5.6 mil/year through 2018-19, UFA 2019-20)
Bruins - Rask
Hawks - Crawford
Jackets - Bobrovsky
Avalanche - Varlamov
Stars - Niemi and Lehtonen both have multiple years left on decent sized contracts. $4.5mil/year for Niemi and $6mil/year for Lehtonen.
Red Wings - Mrazek, Howard
Oilers - Cam Talbot
Panthers - Luongo
Kings - Quick
Wild - Dubnyk
Canadiens - Price
Devils - Schneider
Preds - Rinne
Rangers - Lundqvist
Sharks - Jones
Blues - Elliott/Allen
Lightning - Bishop/Vasilevskiy
Capitals - Holtby

List of teams who are reasonably likely to want to trade for a goalie in the near future:
Sabres - Chad Johnson UFA 2016-17
Hurricanes - Cam Ward UFA 2016-17, Eddie Lack UFA 2017-18
Flames - Jonas Hiller and Kari Ramo UFA 2016-17
Flyers - Mason and Neuvirth UFA 2017-18
Leafs - Bernier UFA 2017-18
Canucks - Miller and Markstrom UFA 2017-18
Jets - Hellebuyck RFA 2017-18, Pavalec UFA 2017-18
Senators - Anderson UFA 2018-19

Looking at these lists I think that Fleury could probably pretty easily prohibit a trade from materializing if he wanted to stay with Pitt for the remainder of his contract. He just needs to put Sabres, Hurricanes, Flames, Flyers, Leafs, Canucks, Jets, Senators on his list for sure, and then probably round out the remaining 4 spots with Coyotes, Stars, Oilers, Wild just to be safe.

[Crazy Joe Davola]

Just for clarification of the expansion rules.. yes players with NMC must be protected and also there has been no scenarios where two goaltenders would be eligible for protection..

Ipso facto, this year's draft could be the home of many many big trades with a focus on goaltenders as teams with two studly ones will know the chance of losing one is so great the following summer and the closer we get to that time, the less likely teams will want to pony up for one, knowing they have their opposing GM over a barrel.

Regarding Hellebuyck vs Murray.. I think both are legit players. The real deal if you will. I obviously like Hellebuyck more for the clear path to unquestioned starter in Winnipeg. Pavalec is far easier to usurp than MAF.

Both are great owns for the long term, but neither should be relied upon for serious production next year. That's not to say that one or both couldn't come in, steal a job and be the man, but its less than likely..especially for Murray.

[BreadManPanarin]

Just for clarification of the expansion rules.. yes players with NMC must be protected and also there has been no scenarios where two goaltenders would be eligible for protection..

So even in the case of a goalie who has been in NHL for 2 years or less, that would not allow a team to keep 2 goalies? I think that is the question that GoldenDelicious had, which I could not answer.

And wow Crazy Joe, your team is STACKED. Good work.

[Crazy Joe Davola]

So even in the case of a goalie who has been in NHL for 2 years or less, that would not allow a team to keep 2 goalies? I think that is the question that GoldenDelicious had, which I could not answer.

And wow Crazy Joe, your team is STACKED. Good work.

Hey thanks, shame I got ousted in the semis this year to a red hot underdog. Story of my life!

Regarding the goaltenders with less than two years experience.. I think we'll all have to wait to see what the official ruling is, but I have heard that there will be no scenario where a team can protect more than one NHL goalie. The case of Murray may be unique, but I know the Penguins will be very concerned having both on their roster heading into an expansion scenario.

[Eskimo Brother]

Short term = Hellebucyk
Long term = Murray...though only very slightly

I would second this. I think it could be as early as 2017/18 that we see Murray as the better option if he gets traded.