Thorny Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) I'm assuming we'll move him at the deadline to a contender, unless that contender is us. I feel like he would a potential candidate to be resigned at fair value, if he plays well. But I guess we'll see. Edited June 25, 2016 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 The quote was something like he didn't think he had any NMCs to protect. Then we all took it and ran with the idea that Bogo's NMC doesn't kick in until 7/1/17. Then there were some suggestions to the contrary. If it's 7/1/17 then we have nothing to worry about because the expansion draft would be before then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 If it's 7/1/17 then we have nothing to worry about because the expansion draft would be before then. Right, but no one seems to know the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregkash Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Okay I just looked it up. "A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age)" Bogo has been in the league since 2008. I believe his NMC is in full effect this year. That said, maybe it doesn't kick in until after, without contract details we just don't know. Edit Phrased Poorly Edited June 25, 2016 by gregkash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) This makes the expansion draft interesting with Kulikov, Risto, McCabe and Bogo. I'm going to think Bogo is the one they expose of those four if they're all here. Kulikov's a UFA after this season, so he would have to be resigned prior to the draft. Edited June 25, 2016 by Lanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 If it's 7/1/17 then we have nothing to worry about because the expansion draft would be before then. If players have a NMC for the coming season after the expansion draft, wouldn't that mean he has to be protected? Or is it only players that have one currently in effect at time of draft, that extends into the next season? Could his be the answer to all the riddles?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Okay I just looked it up. "A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age)" Bogo has been in the league since 2008. I believe his NMC is in full effect this year. Edit Phrased Poorly All that tells is is that it's *possible*, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Kulikov's a UFA after this season, so he would have to be resigned prior to the draft. Not technically. The new team can still pick players with expiring contracts. If players have a NMC for the coming season after the expansion draft, wouldn't that mean he has to be protected? Or is it only players that have one currently in effect at time of draft, that extends into the next season? Could his be the answer to all the riddles?!?! It's only those in effect now that extend into the next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Okay I just looked it up. "A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age)"[/size] Bogo has been in the league since 2008. I believe his NMC is in full effect this year. That said, maybe it doesn't kick in until after, without contract details we just don't know.[/size] Edit Phrased Poorly[/size] Right. He MIGHT have it kicking in as soon as it's available to him, or maybe not. There is also the question as to whether the Sabres accepted in writing the deal between Bogosian & the Jets. Conflicting reports are out there w/ no solid info indicating which are necessarily correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Not technically. The new team can still pick players with expiring contracts. It's only those in effect now that extend into the next season. So IF his clause doesn't kick in until the 17-18 season, we wouldn't have to protect him. Maybe that solves it. Just gotta find out when it kicks in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 So IF his clause doesn't kick in until the 17-18 season, we wouldn't have to protect him. Maybe that solves it. Just gotta find out when it kicks in. Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Kulikov's a UFA after this season, so he would have to be resigned prior to the draft. Or maybe we let him reach UFA with the understanding that we sign him on the first day of free agency and we can protect someone else. Vegas isn't likely to use an expansion pick on a guy that can literally walk away a week or two later. If he has a great year and we don't want to risk losing him we can extend him before the trade deadline, protect him, and expose someone else on defense. Edited June 25, 2016 by Drunkard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Who's saying that? Fans or "experts"? GR guys. I guess that answers your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 a bit surprised about this trade but I guess the asking price for Fowler was to high. McCabe - Risto Kulikov - Bogo Gorges - Nelson Franson Guess we'll roll out like that for now ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Kulikov will be playing with Risto. (Not per any sources, just obvious) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Kulikov will be playing with Risto. (Not per any sources, just obvious)That would be my guess. He's a solid defender, and wasn't pricey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBillsFan Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 I'm not sure if I really like this trade. Pysyk is solid d-man and I think we got taken on this deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHAAAUGHT!!! Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Several things played into this and I believe it's a good trade because of them even if Pysyk ends up being a better player. 1. Move up in the Draft to get your guy. 2. Swapping a Right Hander for a Left Hander 3. This about finding someone to play with Risto, not necessarily who the best player is. Kulikov fits better than Pysyk/Gorges/Bogo/McCabe 4. This leaves the D pairings at Risto/Kulikov, Bogo/McCabe, Gorges/whoever wins this position. That isn't bad. 5. Kulikov is on an expiring contract. Why is this good? Options. If we do sign Stamkos we might be like Guhle is now ready, we don't need Kulikov, let him go, save the cap. Expansion draft we can only cover so many defensemen and we HAVE to protect BOGO because of his NMC. Pysyk was likely lost anyway. Get something for him. 6. The extra pick means nothing, we have too many picks and not enough contracts. They're sweeteners. I 100% agree on all 6 points. Pysyk is a good player, and will be a good player for years, but Kulikov is a better fit for this team this year, and gives us options down the road (re-sign, trade deadline bait, let walk for cap space, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 This trade is Kulikov for Pysyk, straight up. It's a matter of who you prefer. Several teams were after Kulikov so if you like him this was a good price to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 I'm not sure if I really like this trade. Pysyk is solid d-man and I think we got taken on this deal.Why do you think we got taken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 I'm not sure if I really like this trade. Pysyk is solid d-man and I think we got taken on this deal. Do you know anything about the player we acquired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Kulikov was on the market but became available because of Yandle. We gave up a 3rd pairing Dman for a guy who played 23+ minutes for the Panthers in the playoffs, plays the left side (a need) and will most likely get top 2 pairing minutes for us. A little pricey$ but we have a year to decide if he fits in or not. Good skater, good on the puck, still young. The 3rd we gave up was the bottom of the picks we had if I'm not mistaken and is as much a payback for moving up to 33 from 38 as it was for the Dman trade aspect. This may be a deal where both Dmen needed a change of scenery to show what put them in the NHL to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 So, does this mean no Fowler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 This trade is Kulikov for Pysyk, straight up. It's a matter of who you prefer. Several teams were after Kulikov so if you like him this was a good price to pay. It also moved us up in the second, which may not have happened without the swap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Kulikov was on the market but became available because of Yandle. We gave up a 3rd pairing Dman for a guy who played 23+ minutes for the Panthers in the playoffs, plays the left side (a need) and will most likely get top 2 pairing minutes for us. A little pricey$ but we have a year to decide if he fits in or not. Good skater, good on the puck, still young. The 3rd we gave up was the bottom of the picks we had if I'm not mistaken and is as much a payback for moving up to 33 from 38 as it was for the Dman trade aspect. This may be a deal where both Dmen needed a change of scenery to show what put them in the NHL to begin with. Nice summation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.