Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes

LakeLivin

Full Member
  • Content Count

    6,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by LakeLivin

  1. I haven't heard anything other than new "whites". Funny you should mention the sightless eye on the whites, as it happens to be a pet peeve of mine. The silver outer edge blends into the white jersey, making the eye look even smaller than it is. To me it looks downright wimpy compared to almost every other crest in the league.
  2. If I get real creative I'm sure I could come up with a scenario, but it would be way out there, lol.
  3. Well, Staal could waive his NMC and let us make him available to Seattle, but what are the odds of him doing that? I guess the fact that Francis has become Seattle's GM puts it above zero, but probably not by much. Not 100% positive, but I think MA Fleury waived his NMC in order to go to Vegas.
  4. You also said "I'm pretty sure Staal will not waive so no real need to protect him anyways " The point is, he has to be protected, i.e. he's going take up one of the Canes 7 forward exemption spots. Because as you and everyone else note, the chances of him waiving are negligible.
  5. I'm sure that issue was not lost on the Committee when it came to using Necas last season.
  6. Nice article on the Canes moves so far this summer: https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/no-big-splash-but-the-hurricanes-effective-summer-sets-stage-for-success-next-season Here's an interesting excerpt; I had no idea how well Mrazek stacked up in some of these stats last season. "Of the 43 goaltenders who played at least 1,500 minutes at 5-on-5 last season, Mrazek ranked ninth in save percentage (.931), sixth in high-danger save percentage (.863) and 10th in goals saved above average per 60 minutes (.31)."
  7. I don't think Necas will need to be protected. The rule states that all first and second year players are exempt from selection and Necas will have just completed his second year in June of 2021. In the Vegas 2017 draft, Slavin and Pesce had just completed their 2nd year and they were exempt.
  8. It's official: RF hired as Seattle's GM. https://twitter.com/PR_NHL/status/1151903469915254784
  9. Not a realistic option from a monetary perspective (real dollars as well as cap). If Toronto is having trouble coming to terms with Marner, can you imagine what his contract negotiations with the Canes front office would be like, lol? And If the Canes didn't tire of the negotiations and trade him before he even signed, anything that he would sign would likely be a slap in the face to Aho and Turbo. And hamstring the Canes negotiating position when Svech comes up for renewal.
  10. I kinda like the process where both sides provide a number and the arbitrator is required to pick one or the other, whichever is closest to his assessment of "fair". That greatly reduces gaming your ask.
  11. Canes at risk of being grabbed if they're not kept with the big club: McKeown (young RH d-man, gotta believe he'd be snapped up in a heartbeat) Forsling (I don't have a feel for his desirability other than we thought him worth trading for and he's a d-man who's still only 23yo) Bishop (McKegg was signed to a one-way by Rags; Bishop is 4 years younger and for some reason I see his desirability as similar) Forsberg (any NHL team need a back up goalie?) Carrick (probably safe) Lintuniemi (probably safe) Wallmark and Fleury are both non-exempt, but I see them as already being penciled in. I'm sticking with my prediction that The Committee has more trades up it's collective sleeve.
  12. Ok, someone on another board pointed me to the relevant language regarding waivers and it looks like all otherwise waiver eligible Canes will be up for grabs if the Canes don't keep them with the big club. From the CBA : ARTICLE 13 WAIVERS AND LOANS OF PLAYERS TO MINOR LEAGUE CLUBS 13.1 A Club shall not dispose of the services of any Player in which it has a proprietary interest by Loan to a club of another league without first having complied with the provisions of this Article. The Waivers that are recognized by this Agreement are Regular Waivers and Unconditional Waivers. 13.2 The "Playing Season Waiver Period" shall begin on the twelfth (12th ) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club's Playing Season. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the rights to the services of a Player may be Loaned to a club of another league, upon fulfillment of the following conditions, except when elsewhere expressly prohibited: (a) Regular Waivers were requested and cleared during the Playing Season Waiver Period;
  13. Could well be. Another factor might have been an overemphasis on long term perspective with too little regard for the short term. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you sacrifice the long term for the immediate, I just don't think it can be an absolute.. Of course, it's easy for me to sit on my couch and speculate on things RF did wrong, lol.
  14. But we did have a number of people that complained about the process as it was getting us there. Just saying, lol.
  15. I still have doubts that we could "hide" players like McKeown, Wallmark, and even Fleury from waivers through roster timing. I just can't find enough specific details spelled out anywhere that definitively resolves the issue in my mind. Bottom line: does every otherwise waiver eligible player on an NHL contract have to go through waivers before being assigned to the AHL, or is there a loophole? I did find a reference that indicates that the waiver process is "reset" at the beginning of a new season's waiver period, which would close the apparent loophole we hope exists. Note that this is from an article published in 2009, before the current CBA was even in effect, but if it was in effect back then I can't see the players giving it up in the current CBA. https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2009/11/26/1174855/waivers-101-a-guide-to-the-nhl __________________________________________________________________________________________ When Do Waivers Operate? The first day of the season which players are subject to waivers is twelve days prior to the start of the regular season, until the last day after the end of the team's season. It should be noted that the league resets all waiver transactions at the beginning of the next season's waiver period. So say that a player was waived and cleared waivers in the previous season, and was not re-called at any point for the remainder of the season. In the current season, that player rejoins the NHL roster and he must clear waivers again to be assigned to an AHL team.
  16. My take is that RFs problem was that he seemed to make his philosophy "absolute". Develop from within and never "lose" an individual trade, even if it might make the team better overall. Presumably he's a very bright guy and hopefully has learned that exceptions are sometimes appropriate.
  17. Yeah, I see McKeown as too valuable to lose without a decent return. And I'm not suggesting trying to strong arm Willy into a discount. But I wouldn't be surprised if he was part of a decision to take a discount if it meant making the team better. I suspect he's been an informal member of the Committee, and is looking at the team structure as part of his decision to play or not. If his decision is to come back, I could see him preferring, say $3.5m for himself plus McGinn to taking $4.5m if it meant losing McGinn. If he comes back it won't be for the money, it will be for a chance to take the team one step further. Just an example, and again, it would need to be his call. But if he does come back, yeah, something probably needs to give, it's just a matter of how much. Ned or Forsberg in place of Reimer as backup could go a long way, but of course comes with it's own risk.
  18. So if that's the case, Canes would need to "send down" anyone they want to avoid exposing to waivers before the 3rd preseason game on Sept. 21 Basically telling them they really don't have an opportunity to compete for an opening night roster spot.
  19. That would make life a lot easier. Sign McKeown (best example), assign him to Charlotte, and no need to worry about losing him unless he gets a non-injury related call up. But I've searched high and low for confirmation that that's the rule (given that it seems to run counter to it's purpose) and haven't been able to find anything specific. I don't suppose you can point me to anything?
  20. That's a good question. And if we're still considering moving Faulk, I'm sure TVR isn't under consideration. Just for the record, I wasn't proposing we deal TVR, just highlighting the issues the Committee is likely considering.
  21. Yeah, you're spot on as to the number of contracts. The problem isn't total contracts (remember a couple of years ago when we were up against the limit?) but only 23 roster spots and more non-waiver exempt players we'd like to keep than that.
  22. Sans trades, cap space is going to be really tight but I see a bigger issue being too many players we want to protect for too few spots. I'd think Reimer would be the primary trade candidate if we could find any takers. Wasn't he basically a trade of contract dumps between the Canes and Panthers? I'd be surprised to see McGinn get a huge contract and he seems like he epitomizes the Canes ethos, so I'd be surprised if he isn't on the team next year. TVR is a proven commodity and relatively cheap, but still a third pair d-man in the final year of his contract. Would the Canes dare make the transition from TVR to McKeown based on what he's shown in the AHL so far and before he's been field tested in the NHL? That would entail some risk, but what's that Gretzky quote about skating not to where the puck is but where it's going to be? I really have no clue as to what the Committee will do, but it should be interesting.
  23. A couple years ago Top and I went round and round about waivers coming out of camp, lol. As I recall, we never found anything in writing that was definitive (everything was open to some interpretation), but my take is similar to Bebo's. Given that the intent of the waiver clause is to "protect" good players from being hidden in the minors by deep teams, I'd bet that everyone is subject to waivers out of camp. If Williams decides to play I could see him taking a big discount in order to keep the roster as strong as possible (with perhaps a wink-wink agreement regarding a role with the team after he retires). If we didn't have to worry about losing players to waivers (McKeown, Wallmark, Forsling?, maybe Bishop?) I could see the team possibly squeezing all of the players we want to sign under the cap. But it still comes down to too many players we can't protect for too few spots.
  24. Given the cap squeeze we're looking at this season if Willy comes back, I wonder if the difference between $850k for Fleury this year and whatever he would have needed for a multi year contract might have been desirable to the committee.as well? We'll have to re-sign several players next year, but Marleau's $6.25 hit does go away.
  25. Could be, but that 1 year bridge deal could well be of Fleury's choosing. Rather than commit to a cheap multi-year deal he might have opted to bet on himself with a 1 year show-me deal, especially since losing his waiver exemption means that he'll be with the Canes full time this year. .
×
×
  • Create New...