PDA

View Full Version : Who do we protect in expansion draft



grainbear
01-21-2007, 10:20 AM
Tough decision !

Not in any order-Protected
Banchs, Dietrich, Boychuk, D King, Todd, Fadden, Craige, Kerr, Wright, Bobbee, Leclerc, Maniago, Frederickson, Adamyk,

Depends if they are in AHL or go on to University hockey ?
Kudelka, Randy King , Knudsen, Farmanara, Knudson (Kudelka will be gone for sure )

On the fence
Chorneyko, Giofriddo , Matlock, Versteeg


Young talent we might lose as well
Iwanski, Orfino, Pillar, Murray , Lecuyer, (1990)

Glad we can only lose one !

loudi94
01-21-2007, 10:50 AM
I agree with almost all of your list except Versteeg will be protected. He's going to be a monster back there for us. Imagine him at 19 laying guys out.

I see Kerr being exposed, but not taken.

grainbear
01-21-2007, 05:02 PM
That is why I had Versteeg on the fence, if his foot speed continues to improve I agree that by the end of the season he will be protected. He plays smart defensively and when he takes the shot from the point it can be a rocket, as well as he hits as tough as Kerr. I just at this point in time see Kerr as being faster. Also it will depend on the 19 year old defensemen , how many do we protect with the possiblity of them going to the AHL I wish Versteeg all the best , would love to keep him around

taylor0017
01-21-2007, 09:28 PM
I would not protect Kerr or Knudsen. After the Blazers game (I know it is his first game in a while) I would let Knudesen go. Kerr is not that good. Very slow , makes bad passes all the time. I would protect a younger player and take the chance , or go out and offer Edmonton, Knudsen or Kerr. Our Defence right now is very weak, but I think Kerr or Knudesn would be expanable at season's end. We do have some good young D men in the system. Just my thoughts ....

loudi94
01-21-2007, 11:47 PM
I would not protect Kerr or Knudsen. After the Blazers game (I know it is his first game in a while) I would let Knudesen go. Kerr is not that good. Very slow , makes bad passes all the time. I would protect a younger player and take the chance , or go out and offer Edmonton, Knudsen or Kerr. Our Defence right now is very weak, but I think Kerr or Knudesn would be expanable at season's end. We do have some good young D men in the system. Just my thoughts ....

Based on the Blazer game, I'd let the whole lot of them go. Fortunately there's more games left to play for players to prove their worth..

aaAlta
01-29-2007, 11:24 AM
How does Knudson compare to King. And whos his typical partner? Like is he looking like a top four, or more like an option in the 4 - 5 territory? Does he add to team strength or toughness?

aaAlta
02-04-2007, 07:07 PM
McCallum was on the Canes list since the bantam draft, but is he still? Was a deadly combination with D King when they played together on Meadow Lake. But the Canes will only protect the top roster players. And I dont think Edm can take a 91, so Carter would be safe.

Can anyone give an opinion on how Knudson compares to R King?

ramrod1
02-04-2007, 07:43 PM
is there any site to see who is listed by who?

grainbear
02-04-2007, 10:34 PM
Not sure if he is still listed or not , just know that he was not at our training camp last fall. Which surprised me because I thought he would have made the team if he had attended . I believe he is already listed but it might be Moose Jaw. Also though Carter Ashton , certainly did not look out of place in his 2 appearances with us on the road trip. Any one know how Taylor Pillar is doing in Saskatoon this year as well.

aaAlta
02-04-2007, 11:10 PM
Actually you can tell who was on the Canes protected list by noting who all was at main camp at the beginning of the year. That was pretty much it.

Anyhow, I'd say a non rostered 89 isnt going to be protected from the expansion draft. I'd protect the best three 87's, another seven Fs and four Ds, and both goalies. Something like that.

But I dont think you can expect to see much change on the D corp next year. I'm not convinced Kudelka will move on yet, and so I'd protect him anyhow. I'd also protect Wright, Craige and Bobbee. I'd leave Knudson and R King exposed and if neither get taken then see next camp if either looks like one of the keeper 87s (unless Kudelka comes back, then they might both have to go). So then I think I need to come up with a way to protect both Kerr and Versteeg. That way I'd be feeling 6 deep on D I know are returning. That should be good.

Taylor 0017 - Maybe I'd feel different if I knew who the good young D men are in the pipeline? They traded away Montgomery and McColm. And Fredrickson might not even be eager to come back if most of the above guys return and he still looks like #7 or #8. I'm sure he was pretty disappointed with his ice time this year, as a #8, before being re-assigned. Who do you think the best prospects are on D?

Porkchop
02-04-2007, 11:18 PM
What could happen is an off season trade with Edmonton before the expansion draft. It happens alot.

taylor0017
02-05-2007, 07:25 AM
What I did mean by having some good d men in the system , is that we have Bobbee, Craig , Wright , Fredrickson ....So by giving up Knudsen (who has not impressed me so far) would not be all that bad. Kerr has played better lately. I believe that Kudelka is gone. Randy King I think will be back , fight for one of the overage spots. King and Knudsen are a couple of the players that we could give to Edmonton. We also do have 2 first round bantam picks coming up, which will be huge for the team down the road. So I believe that we will lose King or Knudsen to Edmonton. Just my thoughts

shushu
02-05-2007, 03:25 PM
What I did mean by having some good d men in the system , is that we have Bobbee, Craig , Wright , Fredrickson ....So by giving up Knudsen (who has not impressed me so far) would not be all that bad. Kerr has played better lately. I believe that Kudelka is gone. Randy King I think will be back , fight for one of the overage spots. King and Knudsen are a couple of the players that we could give to Edmonton. We also do have 2 first round bantam picks coming up, which will be huge for the team down the road. So I believe that we will lose King or Knudsen to Edmonton. Just my thoughts

when it come to king he's hands down one of our best d men . if he returns as a 20 next year we will be lucky to have him............................... :thumb:

canes77
02-05-2007, 03:44 PM
shushu i agree...randy king is great on our blue line.....as for the other post about kudelka, didnt he already sign with ottawa? i doubt he will be back next yr as the Sens will likely have him playing in the AHL

Porkchop
02-05-2007, 04:05 PM
Kudelka has indeed signed a pro contract with Ottawa and thus will not be back next year, most likely in the AHL. R. King has been ok, nothing steller and would probably be one of the 20's next year, if that is what management wants.

aaAlta
02-05-2007, 06:05 PM
Ok, you've helped me with my loose ends. So I'd protect almost all the D - Kudelka, Wright, King, Craige, Kerr, Bobbee and Versteeg; and expose Knudson. I'm just not sure you could afford to lose any of those guys, especially if Kudelka doesnt return. And I'm not sure about where Fredrickson or the 91 D prospects are at now. But I guess we have to face that the in season D trades this year didnt really do anything to strengthen that end. The original D corp they started with is what I'd look to take forward.

Then on F I'd protect Boychuk, Fadden, King, Bancks, Farmanara, Dietrich and Chorneyko. And both the goalies. That doesnt mean I dont like Matlock, Gionfriddo, Todd or the 90 F prospects, cause I do. I'd expose them to the risk of being picked, but thankful that Edmonton can only take one.

moon
02-05-2007, 11:22 PM
I would prefer to either trade Leclerc or Maniago or expose Maniago.

I haven't seen enough from Maniago that it would be a huge loss if we lost him and I think it is time to either go with Leclerc as the number one guy or cut him loose and get someone else in. I am not a fan of this having two guys play equally as bad equally amount of the time.

I prefer to keep Leclerc because I think he can turn it around and become a solid starter.

I agree no reason to protect Knudsen. Loosing him would not be that big of a deal at this point. I would also leave Kudelka unprotected as I am sure he will be in the AHL next year.

shushu
02-06-2007, 12:59 AM
I would prefer to either trade Leclerc or Maniago or expose Maniago.

I haven't seen enough from Maniago that it would be a huge loss if we lost him and I think it is time to either go with Leclerc as the number one guy or cut him loose and get someone else in. I am not a fan of this having two guys play equally as bad equally amount of the time.

I prefer to keep Leclerc because I think he can turn it around and become a solid starter.

I agree no reason to protect Knudsen. Loosing him would not be that big of a deal at this point. I would also leave Kudelka unprotected as I am sure he will be in the AHL next year.

manny is the one that stablized this team when the ***** was hitting the fan in that bad skid .he also stoled games for the canes from the tigers and a few other teams we didnt stand a chance,imo manny is the reason justin regained his confidence knowing there was someone else that could step in there when times got bad. that coupled with the recent 3 game win streak in sask. was do in part to mannys in a big way.getting rid of him would be crazy........................

aaAlta
02-06-2007, 01:14 AM
I agree, theres no way I would leave either Leclerc or Maniago exposed. They could be a hot combo for the next couple years. And I think either could have good trade value if you decided to make an adjustment, like to get a younger guy in a year or two out.

But in the meantime the whole team looks like a pretty good group to go with as they gain experience and power up over the next couple of years. Plus get some contributing 90 Fs and C Ashton going into the mix.

moon
02-06-2007, 02:58 AM
I agree, theres no way I would leave either Leclerc or Maniago exposed. They could be a hot combo for the next couple years. And I think either could have good trade value if you decided to make an adjustment, like to get a younger guy in a year or two out.

But in the meantime the whole team looks like a pretty good group to go with as they gain experience and power up over the next couple of years. Plus get some contributing 90 Fs and C Ashton going into the mix.

I am not saying that Maniago sucks. Just that I do not like going with two mediocore goalies. I think it will work for the rest of this season but for this team to be successful next year and the year after they need to strerngthen their goaltending by either having the confidence to go with Leclerc or get someone else in.

To me having Maniago as a back-up a losing a quality guy in the draft is a waste of assets. I think trading him is much better than losing him, but just don't liek the idea of another year of Maniago/Leclerc platoon.

shushu
02-06-2007, 11:03 AM
Ok, you've helped me with my loose ends. So I'd protect almost all the D - Kudelka, Wright, King, Craige, Kerr, Bobbee and Versteeg; and expose Knudson. I'm just not sure you could afford to lose any of those guys, especially if Kudelka doesnt return. And I'm not sure about where Fredrickson or the 91 D prospects are at now. But I guess we have to face that the in season D trades this year didnt really do anything to strengthen that end. The original D corp they started with is what I'd look to take forward.

Then on F I'd protect Boychuk, Fadden, King, Bancks, Farmanara, Dietrich and Chorneyko. And both the goalies. That doesnt mean I dont like Matlock, Gionfriddo, Todd or the 90 F prospects, cause I do. I'd expose them to the risk of being picked, but thankful that Edmonton can only take one.

choneyko is more than likely added to the disposable list, roy has stated many times that he's growing his own crop of dmen which means the average forwards are on the chopping block.

aaAlta
02-06-2007, 12:27 PM
I guess when you say chopping block, you really mean just exposed to the expansion; and only one at risk at that. So if you exposed Chorneyko, I guess you could protect what you thought was your best 90 forward. Sounds good.

But as far as Roy growing his own D crop, I dunno. I think that all of todays D corp were listed by Stocker/McEwan, except maybe Versteeg. I hope all goes well forward, but I dont think the tinkering on D that was done this year improved the roster or the pipeline much. (Other than bringing Versteeg in.).

Do you think Roy wants to make bigger changes back there still? Or do you think this is a group we can mostly go with as they power up over the next couple years?

grainbear
02-06-2007, 09:14 PM
Not saying any of these are listed by the Canes but lets look and see who is available that was at our main training camp last year . Not traded and by year born and not presently on the team . No 91 are shown as they are protected

Mikel Wiest 90 Kieran Milan 89
Adam Stewart 90 Karre Odegarde 90
Patrick Klatt 90 Cale Wright 90
Rob Gunderson 90 Ryan Nagel 90
Reese Campbell 88 Rylan McDonnell 90
Kevin Fallon 88 Mattew Jansen 90
Max Ross 90 Taylor Pillar 90
Josh Wiest 88 Brad Anderson 90
Daniel Iwanski 90 Sam Huston 88
Mitch Maxwell 90 Colin Frederickson 90
Rustin Murray 90 Scott Jackson 88
Dexter Hamilton 88 Kevin Deagle 90
Justin Besplug 90 Braeden Adamyk 90
Darcy Osmond 90 Steven Murray 90
Craig Orfino 90 (did not attend camp but shown as prospect on web site)

shushu
02-07-2007, 12:17 AM
I guess when you say chopping block, you really mean just exposed to the expansion; and only one at risk at that. So if you exposed Chorneyko, I guess you could protect what you thought was your best 90 forward. Sounds good.

But as far as Roy growing his own D crop, I dunno. I think that all of todays D corp were listed by Stocker/McEwan, except maybe Versteeg. I hope all goes well forward, but I dont think the tinkering on D that was done this year improved the roster or the pipeline much. (Other than bringing Versteeg in.).

Do you think Roy wants to make bigger changes back there still? Or do you think this is a group we can mostly go with as they power up over the next couple years?
i think we are talking about the latter half .the way i see roy, he is a gm that does'nt want to give anything away at a cost. when i said growing a crop of his own, i mean letting the existing group of d men mature into solid players without having to trade away young talent to get that . that is what this team has been lacking for years. with the resources this team has now coupled with the the depth of it upcomming youth and two 1st round pick to boot the future look very bright imo. the only problem was people expected result almost emmediately, yours truly included.lol

grainbear
02-07-2007, 06:52 AM
While listening to our Gm interview last night in Kootenay, he stated that Panchysan who left the team earlier because he wanted to be closer to home is now prepared to come and play in Lethbridge next year. Now leaves us with another defensemen to decide who to protect. Myself , I leave him exposed for the outcoming expansion draft.

aaAlta
02-07-2007, 11:57 AM
I agree with shushu saying that they have decent guys to go with. Let them power up over the next couple of years. It could be good.

But in my opinion Panchyson is just a distraction now. No disrespect to Pancheyson, whos a capable player. Does the basic job without much fuss. Added at a time of trouble to prop up or push a part of the D depth. But to play him they had to take down someone elses ice time, which can limit those developments. Then he pulls out. If I were Bobbee, Versteeg, or especially Fredrickson, talk of bringing him back would bother me. But I guess you just come and compete and the top 6 should play.

Porkchop
02-07-2007, 12:06 PM
No way would I protect a player that quit on the team (ice time reasons) and forced the gm to scramble at the trade deadline to add depth. What would be the thoughts in the dressing room. I guess he at least did it a few days before the deadline. This team needs warriors not babies.

taylor0017
02-07-2007, 12:25 PM
I agree , I would not protect anyone who quits ..send them away

aaAlta
02-07-2007, 12:43 PM
No Panchyson wouldnt be protected. I'm surprised Roy would even bring up his possible return. Looking back it looks like a wasted move. No harm in trying I guess, but lets move on.

grainbear
02-07-2007, 07:07 PM
If fact it might be a good idea to leave him exposed and hope that Edmonton picks him up as an older d man with experience, just keep him on your 50 man protected list so that no one else slots him in and then leave him avalilable after you protect your 16 in the expansion draft.

canes77
02-07-2007, 08:09 PM
i thought i saw/read somewhere that either 15 or 16 yr olds couldnt be exposed in the expansion draft, or something to this nature...although i havnt seen any of you in this thread mention this...anyone know something about this or am i completely way off? :D thanks

grainbear
02-07-2007, 10:11 PM
The players picked in last years bantam draft are protected, that is why in my list earlier I did not show any 1991 players drafted or who attended our camp. Anyone not on the 16 who is from 1990 or older is wide open . Edmonton will participate in the draft this year of the 1992

moon
02-08-2007, 11:28 AM
No way would I protect a player that quit on the team (ice time reasons) and forced the gm to scramble at the trade deadline to add depth. What would be the thoughts in the dressing room. I guess he at least did it a few days before the deadline. This team needs warriors not babies.

Is this officially why he left? I wasn't around Lethbridge during the trade deadline so I missed why him and Werenka left the team.

I am just wondering if this was reported as why he left or just an assumption by you.

Also why did Werenka leave?

grainbear
02-08-2007, 10:57 PM
After tonights game , we need a transfusion. Perhaps we can draft a heart specialist in the bantam draft . This was after the first period, the worst effort I have seen this year. It was like oh well we lost this one. We need to have some leadership come from Vantuch, Kudelka, Knudson, and Randy King. Its too bad we can,t send them down to Junior B and bring up some other players like the pros. Kris Hogg said it all good teams play 60 minutes we play 20 or 40 minutes and yes we won some games on the road but we still let in 4 or 5 goals. We are the worst defensive team in the leaque with the exception of Portland and there better be 23 players who go home tonight and give their heads a shake. Almost a sell out again and by the end of the game if we had 1000 fans left the must of had too many bubble pops to realize this disgraceful performance.

Porkchop
02-09-2007, 12:27 PM
Did you notice the hockey structure to the Ice game? Did they constantly get out numbered in their own end or have brutal line changes to create odd man rushes? No, all five players have defensive duties. Their team plays as a solid five man unit not a run and gun individualism game. Kootenay is a very well coached team that is getting better as the season goes on. Can you say that about this Canes team? The Canes have talent but talent needs to work smart/together and understand the simple principles of the hockey game. I said this earlier in the season, can a "hockey team" that wants to play a ringette no responsibilites style game beat a well coached five man hockey unit.
Defense first, offense second hockey would sure help.

aaAlta
02-09-2007, 04:29 PM
I agree. Especially the part about defence being a 5 skater responsibility. Its often one of the late or high guys that gets you. And odd man rushes can be reduced if Fs are really quick to switch with pinching D.

But more than anything its just keeping the intensity up. I remember trying to get a handle on what was the problem really was in October. And couldnt quite put my finger on it. Till I saw the difference in the first couple turnaround wins. And to me it looked like mostly intensity, from everyone, together.