|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 22, 2008 2:35:00 GMT -5
Does anyone think there should be some sort of compensation to the loser of the Ray Emery fiasco? Nothing big, just a goalie above 80 so one team doesn't get absolutely fucked out of a goalie?
The only reason I am bringing this up is because this probably won't be solved until just before the end of free agency or after it ends, which would leave one of the teams without a goalie, which both need, because both think they are getting Emery and don't make any other bids on goalies.
If either or both were to offer another contract to a different goalie, and then end up getting Emery, they could be in cap trouble, and because of the rule stating you cannot trade or get rid of a newly signed free agent until they play 15 games for you, this could cost one of the teams their best player.
Just thought it would be good thing for either team, so they don't get screwed and left with nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 22, 2008 2:42:56 GMT -5
I am conflicted. In one way, something should be done, but in another, NJ was given the chance to concede, simplify things, and just move on, and he elected not so. So I don't know if I am comfortable just handing him a goalie.
Although slightly different circumstances, I generally feel the same with Tampa. He has been after more goalies since the fiasco began, even though people started using that against him. I think he is doing ok on his own, and probably doesn't need gifts.
That being said, the guy who does get emery should be allowed to withdraw all goalie bids. That can be the exception we make for these guys. Hows that sound?
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Nov 22, 2008 3:22:56 GMT -5
EDM, there is no 15 game rule for FAs, they can be traded just like anyone else.
I like Anaheim's suggestion btw.
|
|
|
Post by jmcook on Nov 22, 2008 10:37:56 GMT -5
We had a 15 game rule in Pro to stop poeple from bidding on guys they don't need. I also agree with Anaheim
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 22, 2008 11:39:19 GMT -5
Oh, my bad. I thought that rule was brought over here too, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by jmcook on Nov 22, 2008 11:45:14 GMT -5
I think it should be here myself. But it doesn't matter. The deeper the roster the more the injuries. Go nuts
|
|