Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Goaltending Options
#21
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)Moe Szyslak Wrote: Spector says Gus has been waived.  Thank God.

That's a start.

Where do you see that? Its not on his twitter.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#22
(2017-01-09, 11:49 AM)Pouzar Wrote: McElhinney would be a solid pick up.

I worry about going to 49 contracts but its likely a risk we have to take at this point.

You cannot worry about that period. When you need a player you need a player and we need a backup goalie.

Mcelhinney would be a good pick up.

Colorado needs a goalie LOL

I think a few teams probably do, lets hope he makes it to us.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#23
(2017-01-09, 12:24 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)Moe Szyslak Wrote: Spector says Gus has been waived.  Thank God.

That's a start.

Where do you see that?  Its not on his twitter.

Sportsnet is reporting it like 20 minutes ago
Reply
Thanks given by:
#24
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 11:49 AM)Pouzar Wrote: McElhinney would be a solid pick up.

I worry about going to 49 contracts but its likely a risk we have to take at this point.

You cannot worry about that period. When you need a player you need a player and we need a backup goalie.

Mcelhinney would be a good pick up.

Colorado needs a goalie LOL

I think a few teams probably do, lets hope he makes it to us.

Yes, you can worry about that and you have to. GMs don't manage and don't make moves in a vacuum.

You is the same logic that would dictate we trade JP for Hanzal because he's a player we need and currently better than JP.

I'm not saying don't look to improve the tending situation, I'm saying the implication of just adding a contract is a factor - it could lead to looking internally (Ellis or Brossoit) to replace Gus as opposed to adding a contract.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#25
   
Reply
Thanks given by:
#26
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:24 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)Moe Szyslak Wrote: Spector says Gus has been waived.  Thank God.

That's a start.

Where do you see that?  Its not on his twitter.

Sportsnet is reporting it like 20 minutes ago

Yes, Oilers official twitter account also indicated Gus on waivers.

My guess is we'll see Ellis or Brossoit recalled. They may put in a claim for Curtis McElhinney as well - may or may not get him.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#27
(2017-01-09, 12:31 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:24 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)Moe Szyslak Wrote: Spector says Gus has been waived.  Thank God.

That's a start.

Where do you see that?  Its not on his twitter.

Sportsnet is reporting it like 20 minutes ago

Yes, Oilers official twitter account also indicated Gus on waivers.

My guess is we'll see Ellis or Brossoit recalled.   They may put in a claim for Curtis McElhinney as well - may or may not get him.

I hope it's the latter. 

I'd rather see Ellis and LB in Bakersfield.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#28
(2017-01-09, 12:28 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 11:49 AM)Pouzar Wrote: McElhinney would be a solid pick up.

I worry about going to 49 contracts but its likely a risk we have to take at this point.

You cannot worry about that period. When you need a player you need a player and we need a backup goalie.

Mcelhinney would be a good pick up.

Colorado needs a goalie LOL

I think a few teams probably do, lets hope he makes it to us.

Yes, you can worry about that and you have to.  GMs don't manage and don't make moves in a vacuum.  

You is the same logic that would dictate we trade JP for Hanzal because he's a player we need and currently better than JP.

I'm not saying don't look to improve the tending situation, I'm saying the implication of just adding a contract is a factor - it could lead to looking internally (Ellis or Brossoit) to replace Gus as opposed to adding a contract.

Man you are funny.

Who the F said anything about logic in trading JP for Hanzel. ??????  My god Man  LMAO!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#29
(2017-01-09, 12:39 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:28 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 11:49 AM)Pouzar Wrote: McElhinney would be a solid pick up.

I worry about going to 49 contracts but its likely a risk we have to take at this point.

You cannot worry about that period. When you need a player you need a player and we need a backup goalie.

Mcelhinney would be a good pick up.

Colorado needs a goalie LOL

I think a few teams probably do, lets hope he makes it to us.

Yes, you can worry about that and you have to.  GMs don't manage and don't make moves in a vacuum.  

You is the same logic that would dictate we trade JP for Hanzal because he's a player we need and currently better than JP.

I'm not saying don't look to improve the tending situation, I'm saying the implication of just adding a contract is a factor - it could lead to looking internally (Ellis or Brossoit) to replace Gus as opposed to adding a contract.

Man you are funny.

Who the F said anything about logic in trading JP for Hanzel. ??????  My god Man  LMAO!

Nobody said that but its the same logic that you are using - which is, we need a back-up tender and the 50 contract factor is irrelevant even if it would have the impact of quashing a potential deal to improve the team at the deadline.

Its the logic that you do whatever you can to improve now irrespective of future consequences - i.e. trading JP for Hanzal or Jagr. It improves our team now and would fill a hole - it also would have negative implications in the future.

I'm just making the point that acquisitions cannot just be made in a vacum and their implication in the now and the future need to be factored in.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#30
(2017-01-09, 12:32 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:31 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:24 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:19 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote: That's a start.

Where do you see that?  Its not on his twitter.

Sportsnet is reporting it like 20 minutes ago

Yes, Oilers official twitter account also indicated Gus on waivers.

My guess is we'll see Ellis or Brossoit recalled.   They may put in a claim for Curtis McElhinney as well - may or may not get him.

I hope it's the latter. 

I'd rather see Ellis and LB in Bakersfield.

I think McEilhenney is a solid enough back-up that he's likely worth the risk of adding the extra contract - if only a lesser goalie is available, I'd prefer not to add the contract and look internally in the short term.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#31
(2017-01-09, 12:44 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:32 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:31 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:24 PM)Pouzar Wrote: Where do you see that?  Its not on his twitter.

Sportsnet is reporting it like 20 minutes ago

Yes, Oilers official twitter account also indicated Gus on waivers.

My guess is we'll see Ellis or Brossoit recalled.   They may put in a claim for Curtis McElhinney as well - may or may not get him.

I hope it's the latter. 

I'd rather see Ellis and LB in Bakersfield.

I think McEilhenney is a solid enough back-up that he's likely worth the risk of adding the extra contract - if only a lesser goalie is available, I'd prefer not to add the contract and look internally in the short term.

Internally, we don't need players we are trying to develope riding the pine. It's exactly what everybody is not liking about puljujarvi being in the bigs. A backup on the oilers won't get much ice time.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#32
I heard we won't be making a claim for McElhinney.

What are the rules for having to have a goalie available for the expansion draft? I heard LB doesn't qualify. Could we be looking to trade for a goalie to leave unprotected?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#33
(2017-01-09, 01:19 PM)kango Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:44 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:32 PM)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:31 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 12:25 PM)maclintock Wrote: Sportsnet is reporting it like 20 minutes ago

Yes, Oilers official twitter account also indicated Gus on waivers.

My guess is we'll see Ellis or Brossoit recalled.   They may put in a claim for Curtis McElhinney as well - may or may not get him.

I hope it's the latter. 

I'd rather see Ellis and LB in Bakersfield.

I think McEilhenney is a solid enough back-up that he's likely worth the risk of adding the extra contract - if only a lesser goalie is available, I'd prefer not to add the contract and look internally in the short term.

Internally, we don't need players we are trying to develope riding the pine. It's exactly what everybody is not liking about puljujarvi being in the bigs. A backup on the oilers won't get much ice time.

The could keep LB in Bakersfield and Gus as the backup through the next 6 games and then call up LB to start the back end of the back to back (7 games from now).

Assuming Gus clears, they still have 30 days to send him down - LB could start that 7th game and be called up right before it.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#34
(2017-01-09, 01:34 PM)bfitz77 Wrote: I heard we won't be making a claim for McElhinney.

What are the rules for having to have a goalie available for the expansion draft? I heard LB doesn't qualify. Could we be looking to trade for a goalie to leave unprotected?

I'm fairly certain LB is eligible to be taken by Vegas.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#35
(2017-01-09, 01:45 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 01:34 PM)bfitz77 Wrote: I heard we won't be making a claim for McElhinney.

What are the rules for having to have a goalie available for the expansion draft? I heard LB doesn't qualify. Could we be looking to trade for a goalie to leave unprotected?

I'm fairly certain LB is eligible to be taken by Vegas.

I think the only specific rule regarding tenders is that teams can protect

iii) One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18. If the club elects to make a restricted free agent goaltender available in order to meet this requirement, that goaltender must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the club's protected list.

I don't think there are specific rules on leaving goalies available - could be wrong on this.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#36
Gus cleared waivers - what a shocker!

They have 30 days to assign him - I expect LB to be recalled but Gus to be the back-up for tonight.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#37
Think Toronto claimed Curtis mc
Reply
Thanks given by:
#38
Didn't sound like the Oilers were going to put in a claim for him in any event.

I think they were cognizant of adding another contract and want to see if LB (or Ellis) can roll with the job for the rest of the season before exploring external options.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#39
(2017-01-10, 12:29 PM)kango Wrote: Think Toronto claimed Curtis mc

That is correct.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#40
(2017-01-10, 12:46 PM)Pouzar Wrote: Didn't sound like the Oilers were going to put in a claim for him in any event.

I think they were cognizant of adding another contract and want to see if LB (or Ellis) can roll with the job for the rest of the season before exploring external options.

I think they're going to give LB a chance, if he falters they will pluck another regardless of the number of contracts used.
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)