Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
AWACSooner

The great E Staal Has Been Traded Thread

Recommended Posts

I'm not so sure the 15 mil would be RF's to play with. PK could always adjust his internal budget.Remember PK is still looking for a major partner regarding ownership. 15 mil or a portion of that deduction would be more attractive to a potential owner.

The NHL cap is likely to increase $3 million, so PK cutting our self-imposed one is less likely. Even if he does, you make my argument for letting these guys walk even stronger. If they go and PK pulls back on the reins, I'd rather have whatever percentage of $15 million remains in the roster budget than the percentage of that $15 million minus their new salaries, if both re-up.

 

The best case? Both play great, we make the dance, the new potential here encourages them to take hometown discounts, our roster for next season is mostly set - and PK "saves" the difference between their current deals and their new ones. But let's make them earn it, and ensure they are excited about staying here. And if we're not solidly in contention by the TD, sayonara.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL cap is likely to increase $3 million, so PK cutting our self-imposed one is less likely. Even if he does, you make my argument for letting these guys walk even stronger. If they go and PK pulls back on the reins, I'd rather have whatever percentage of $15 million remains in the roster budget than the percentage of that $15 million minus their new salaries, if both re-up.

 

The best case? Both play great, we make the dance, the new potential here encourages them to take hometown discounts, our roster for next season is mostly set - and PK "saves" the difference between their current deals and their new ones. But let's make them earn it, and ensure they are excited about staying here. And if we're not solidly in contention by the TD, sayonara.

No arguments here, I just wouldn't count on all of 15 mil going into RF's purse. PK typically doesn't spend to the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No arguments here, I just wouldn't count on all of 15 mil going into RF's purse. PK typically doesn't spend to the cap.

None here either, but you get my point, right? If PK hasn't spent to the cap this year and the cap goes up $3 mil next year, he's less likely to drop his self-imposed cap further. But if he does, I'd rather have x percent of $15 million than of well less than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can say it, and I do. He didn't show up until mid-December. Typical Eric.

 

If we were paying him for half-seasons, that might be fine. But we're paying him for the full year - and then some.

I thought he looked great from the beginning, just couldn't score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He looked like all the things you say he didn't, at least to my eye; lazy, disinterested. And very slow. Frankly, I think he was pouting because he was put on the wing, and wherever he plays he's been the same defensive liability he's always been. 

 

He definitely looks more involved and interested now - nearly (nearly) dynamic. No question about it. But to this point he has seldom been a factor in wins, and that trend that has continued for a few years now. 

 

If he can get excited about this team's future and play like it night in and night out at the right price ($6 max, no NTC), I'd keep him. But I really don't think we can know that without making him play out his contract. Sending him to a contender IF we are one makes no sense to me.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None here either, but you get my point, right? If PK hasn't spent to the cap this year and the cap goes up $3 mil next year, he's less likely to drop his self-imposed cap further. But if he does, I'd rather have x percent of $15 million than of well less than that.

I understand your point, I just don't think PK would use all of the 15 mil to infuse back into the organization. A good portion of it, probably, but many fans believe we will have 15 mil to play with if both walk. I don't think that is the case. I'm not the owner or the GM,thank god,just speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think his effort was there for most of the season. He wasn't skating or using his size at all. The last few months he has been very engaged,skating well and using his size and strength to own the puck. Just haven't seen that all season regardless of scoring or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he looked great from the beginning, just couldn't score.

 

Anybody have a picture of Fernando? " You look marvelous" . Looks are deceiving.

Edited by winger52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody have a picture of Fernando? " You look marvelous" . Looks are deceiving.

 

My favorite Fernando quote:

 

"Darling, when I look into your eyes I see a reflection of myself. And I look maavelous."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more time that passes the more I'm starting to think the only way E stays with the Canes is on a 1 year bridge deal.  And that's only if we're still in contention at the deadline.  

 

(Top, please ignore the following. I don't want your head to explode!) :omg:

Oh, and if that happens I'm not completely against him retaining the C if Peters think it's appropriate.  That would be less than ideal and I understand why some here would be strongly opposed to it.  But as of right now it seems to me like we haven't got anyone else that clearly fits the role (maybe Faulk in a year or 2, but not now imo).  And it's likely that the only way E is around next year is if we continue our recent success through the rest of the season.  My point isn't that E should retain the C if he stays, rather I think Peters has to ask the question: how would Es less than ideal candidacy stack up against others less than ideal candidacies?  I'd be fine with 3 A's instead, it all comes down how Peters can optimize the issue internally.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more time that passes the more I'm starting to think the only way E stays with the Canes is on a 1 year bridge deal.  And that's only if we're still in contention at the deadline.  

 

(Top, please ignore the following. I don't want your head to explode!) :omg:

Oh, and if that happens I'm not completely against him retaining the C if Peters think it's appropriate.  That would be less than ideal and I understand why some here would be strongly opposed to it.  But as of right now it seems to me like we haven't got anyone else that clearly fits the role (maybe Faulk in a year or 2, but not now imo).  And it's likely that the only way E is around next year is if we continue our recent success through the rest of the season.  My point isn't that E should retain the C if he stays, rather I think Peters has to ask the question: how would Es less than ideal candidacy stack up against others less than ideal candidacies?  I'd be fine with 3 A's instead, it all comes down how Peters can optimize the issue internally.         

Oh nooooooooo! I reaaaaaaaad it!

 

Actually I've never believed that stripping the C is tenable. It's the third big issue with E (along with salary and NTC), and I think that if he stays he keeps the C, because I don't think a former C GM is going to embarrass him.

 

I'm also in the camp that feels Faulk isn't quite ready (maybe you have me confused with someone else here; from what's been posted, some seem to think he should already have it, but I'm squarely in the "he needs another couple years" camp) and feel that, unless we can keep Versteeg or maybe Jordan, we've got no one else who is ready. (Wisnewski maybe?)

 

So your proposal of a bridge deal achieves what I've been pushing the last couple of pages: Keep E if we're in a playoff spot, forcing him to perform for the remainder of his current deal. Guaranteeing him only another year forces him to push himself next year, too. (What we should have done with Semin, just game-to-game! :lol:

 

The question is whether Eric and his agent are willing to talk about anything less than a multi-year extension, and my guess is no--thus my notion that RF seek a promise that E will hear and either nix or agree to our best offer after the season's final buzzer. If he nixes it we turn him loose, and given the circumstances (specifically that HE said he wants to stay), I'm fine with him reneging on that (from a PR point of view) and with us putting his millions toward other acquisitions. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: This was written before Top posted, so is not considering that.

 

The idea of a one year deal is an appealing thought, but seems very unlikely that Eric would go for it. This is a violent game, injuries happen. Players want three things: money, term and NTC's (ie control).

 

Now, if you want to talk controversial, one way to get the one year deal might be to overpay for that one year, in exchange for control and an agreement that some sort of arbitration formula that factors in the last 2 years and next year into a mutually agreed upon salary range after that.

 

ie: We offer him one year at $7.5 million (maybe more). No NTC. While this is a big overpayment, it gives us the rest of this year to make a run, and we hold the cards to trade him at any point we want, even if we have to eat some of his salary for one year or part of one. Even if he gets traded he is overpaid again and can hit UFA the following year.

 

This gives us a ton of options, and assures Eric one more year of big payday no matter what happens.

 

From our end we would now hold the cards and if we are willing to eat some of next year's salary, we can trade Eric at any point from the moment the ink is dry to next year's trade deadline. Heck I'd even tell him. "We will overpay you for one year. We are buying the right to trade you if it doesn't work. Or if we simply want do go a different direction" Sometimes flexibility and control trump short term cash.

 

There are so many scenarios:

 

1. We make the playoffs. Short run. Maybe trade Eric just ahead of the draft. Think of the return then. Long run. We keep him and go for it again next year.

 

2. We fall out way before the deadline. We consider trading him but only for a haul, knowing that if we don't make a deal there will be chances before the draft and during the season to still move him.

 

3. We miss the playoffs entirely. We trade him before the draft. We give him another "until T day" run, but this time there is no NTC. We keep him and are able to make other moves to bring in a big time winger, add in AHO, PDG keeps improving, McGinn, etc.

 

As outlandish as it may sound. It could easily pay off in the long run to trade salary for control.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . .

I'm also in the camp that feels Faulk isn't quite ready (maybe you have me confused with someone else here; from what's been posted, some seem to think he should already have it, but I'm squarely in the "he needs another couple years" camp) and feel that, unless we can keep Versteeg or maybe Jordan, we've got no one else who is ready. (Wisnewski maybe?)

. . .

 

The question is whether Eric and his agent are willing to talk about anything less than a multi-year extension, and my guess is no--thus my notion that RF seek a promise that E will hear and either nix or agree to our best offer after the season's final buzzer. If he nixes it we turn him loose, and given the circumstances (specifically that HE said he wants to stay), I'm fine with him reneging on that (from a PR point of view) and with us putting his millions toward other acquisitions. 

 

 

EDIT: This was written before Top posted, so is not considering that.

 

The idea of a one year deal is an appealing thought, but seems very unlikely that Eric would go for it. This is a violent game, injuries happen. Players want three things: money, term and NTC's.

 

Now, if you want to talk controversial, one way to get the one year deal might be to overpay for that one year, in exchange for control and an agreement that some sort of arbitration formula that factors in the last 2 years and next year into a mutually agreed upon salary range after that.

 

. . .

 

 

Top, nah, the only part of my post directed specifically at you was the warning to avoid me mentioning the possibility of E retaining the C.  I did have the apparently mistaken notion that you'd be strongly opposed to that.

 

I'm not saying a 1 year bridge deal is likely, only that I'm starting to think it's the only way I can see E signing with the Canes instead of testing free agency. His performance this year just doesn't allow the Canes to give him a big, long term contract and he and his agent must recognize that even though they'll initially try negotiating otherwise.  So if he really wants to stay in Raleigh this seems like the only way to make it happen.  Rem, you're right about wanting term, especially at 31yo, so for E to feel strongly enough to consider a bridge deal I'd think the primary motivation would be family (wife and kids much moreso than J).  I'd think a secondary requirement  would be a strong belief that the franchise has turned a corner and that the environment is going to be conducive to his bouncing back to earlier form.  But that's not going to do it on it's own, it would be very much secondary to family imo.

 

All speculation on my part, of course,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why add a bit to the cash part might, and I emphasis might, open the possibility.

 

If players generally want cash, term and control. And we are removing term and control, we could add cash.

 

That said, the idea from Eric's point of view of taking a one year deal is probably still a no. It is just too much of the organization saying, "Sure, we want you here. For the moment at least." There is often a negative connotation to the one year deal. That's the deal you give guys you don't believe in. Also, a one year deal really puts it on the player to PROVE themselves. But Eric seems to be a declining player. If I'm Eric, I want to get one more relatively big payday while I can still trade on reputation, and the notion that I am a first line center. One more 50 point year, would squash that chance, while anything short of a 70 point year, won't add to it.

 

Eric probably gets at least 5 years at $6.5 million from someone, maybe more. Player and agent look at that as $32.5 million pretty locked in. Vs $8 million for one year during which injuries or under-performance can and do happen.

 

It's an interesting idea, and from our point of view I'd do it. But I tend to doubt Eric takes it. Pure speculation from me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why a one year deal for E would be appealing.  For RF and the franchise it is one more year of uncertainty and time spent in negotiations. For E he has already admitted that the uncertainty had been distracting at times and a one year extension would double down on the emotional toll. For the team it is another year of distraction wondering what direction the team takes. For fans it is another year of debate, should he stay or should he go.

 

I don't know how the E situation will be settled but IMO it needs to be settled and the sooner the better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO RF and BP need to just get their heads around the notion that any Playoff run is led by youthful defense moving the puck and no Eric on the top line.  The core is the J. Staal line, Skinner, Rask and Lindholm.  That's your lineup to achieve the objective.

 

Is that viable?  I think yes.  Eric is an asset, but the magic over the last 1 1/2 months hasn't come from him.  Not unusual to ask everyone for that little more since your Captain is not around.

 

If they're cool with that, then whatever suitable deal they offer (if any) keeps Eric.  If not, and maybe they're already resigned to this, move him for future prospects and go with the guys mentioned.

 

One year deal is only a last resort if BP doesn't want to mess with the team's chemistry.  IMO he's better off asking everyone to step up since their Captain has been moved.  I think that outcome will be a positive one out from under Eric's shadow.

 

J Staal is a professional, and I don't expect his game to suffer.  The guy has been rock solid since last December when he came back from injury.  He's now in the right role of shutdown center.  That role even worked last year when he had Gerbe and Dwyer on his flank as 2nd liners.  No comparison to his current wingers.

Edited by Manwolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea, and from our point of view I'd do it. But I tend to doubt Eric takes it. Pure speculation from me too.

I agree. Great thought, maybe worth a shot, but I think it gets nixed by the Staal camp, whereas a simple promise to talk to us first at the end of the year keeps him playing hard in the now and maybe earns him enough term in whatever we offer (four years?) that he gives us the HTD (hometown discount - or, if I'm being cynical, hockey-transmitted disease).

 

For the team it is another year of distraction wondering what direction the team takes. 

 

I don't know how the E situation will be settled but IMO it needs to be settled and the sooner the better. 

I think this really nails it. The bottom line is that the team is already being led by its youth.

 

The biggest part of the Eric problem, if he stays, is the Captaincy. I know Rem and others think he can be rented and come back not as the captain, and I guess that could happen. But I'm viscerally opposed to giving him a chance to add another ring with somebody else when this team - "his" team, where he "wants to stay and be a part of the solution" - is flirting with the playoffs. And then welcoming him back to boot? Really? I'm just not put togeter that way. I think you turn the page and don't look back.

 

I get OBX's desire to resolve this sooner rather than later, but I think this is how it plays out:

 

- As long as we continue closing in on a wild-card slot, Eric is on the roster.

- If we clearly drop out of contention between now and the TD, he's gone.

- If we're solidly in a wild-card slot by the TD, he plays out his current deal, extension or no, and whatever happens when the season ends, happens.

 

OR, it's announced one hour before game time today in Pittsburgh that E, Gerbs and (Michael) Jordan will be reporting to the Pens locker room, and Malkin will be reporting to ours, and bringing along a full waiver of his no-movement clause. (Hey, a fella can dream, can't he?)  

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO RF and BP need to just get their heads around the notion that any Playoff run is led by youthful defense moving the puck and no Eric on the top line.  The core is the J. Staal line, Skinner, Rask and Lindholm.  That's your lineup to achieve the objective.

 

Is that viable?  I think yes.  Eric is an asset, but the magic over the last 1 1/2 months hasn't come from him.  Not unusual to ask everyone for that little more since your Captain is not around.

 

If they're cool with that, then whatever suitable deal they offer (if any) keeps Eric.  If not, and maybe they're already resigned to this, move him for future prospects and go with the guys mentioned.

 

One year deal is only a last resort if BP doesn't want to mess with the team's chemistry.  IMO he's better off asking everyone to step up since their Captain has been moved.  I think that outcome will be a positive one out from under Eric's shadow.

 

J Staal is a professional, and I don't expect his game to suffer.  The guy has been rock solid since last December when he came back from injury.  He's now in the right role of shutdown center.  That role even worked last year when he had Gerbe and Dwyer on his flank as 2nd liners.  No comparison to his current wingers.

Great post, Manwolf. I can see this scenario playing out, too.

 

shorter: WhoTF knows ??  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of these things could happen. From a fanatical Cane's fan point of view this has all the intrigue of Making of a Murderer. Not that Eric is in any way like Steve Avery, (actually polar opposites), just that there seems to be a lot of ways it could play out, and no one knows for sure how it will end (or who did the crime).

 

OK, a bit of a stretch, but it really could go a few different ways, and the longer we are around the cut line, the harder it is to predict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportsnet

 

Sportsnet’s Damien Cox discussed Eric Staal's  situation in Carolina, saying that he's been in a kind of limbo waiting to see if his time with the Hurricanes is finally up. Staal is a UFA at the end of this season. His agent will reportedly have a meeting with Hurricanes brass some time next week.

 

 

Not that we will be privy to the conversation but maybe some info will leak out. At least they will be talking again instead of the wait and see approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO RF and BP need to just get their heads around the notion that any Playoff run is led by youthful defense moving the puck and no Eric on the top line.  The core is the J. Staal line, Skinner, Rask and Lindholm.  That's your lineup to achieve the objective.

 

Is that viable?  I think yes.  Eric is an asset, but the magic over the last 1 1/2 months hasn't come from him.  Not unusual to ask everyone for that little more since your Captain is not around.

 

If they're cool with that, then whatever suitable deal they offer (if any) keeps Eric.  If not, and maybe they're already resigned to this, move him for future prospects and go with the guys mentioned.

 

One year deal is only a last resort if BP doesn't want to mess with the team's chemistry.  IMO he's better off asking everyone to step up since their Captain has been moved.  I think that outcome will be a positive one out from under Eric's shadow.

 

J Staal is a professional, and I don't expect his game to suffer.  The guy has been rock solid since last December when he came back from injury.  He's now in the right role of shutdown center.  That role even worked last year when he had Gerbe and Dwyer on his flank as 2nd liners.  No comparison to his current wingers.

 

I'm going to pass right now on the issue of what I think RF shoud do if we're legitimately in the playoff hunt around the trade deadline and E is still unsigned. Trying to factor in all of the different issues he'd be facing would just make my head hurt. :dizzy:  

 

But if we are in the thick of the hunt and we trade E for picks & prospects (the most likely scenario) I do have to wonder what that would do to a playoff push.  Sure, you could just ask the rest of the team for a little more each. But at some point you need a minimum level of talent to compete for an NHL playoff spot.  In my eyes the Canes are already thin and probably overacheiving given our talent compared to many of the teams we're competing with. And if that's true I wonder if we might be even more susceptible to the "overslotting domino effect"  than some other teams.

 

Maybe E hasn't been the focus of the magic from a pure scoring perspecitve but there are other things than just points that factor into a teams success imo (puck possession, 2-way play, face-offs) . And when it comes to scoring he has showed signs of life during our resurgence. Over the last 21 games he's put up 5 goals and 14 points. Compare that to our "offensive gold standard" this year, Justin Faulk, who had 6 goals and 14 points during the same span. 

 

Again, I'm not saying we should necessariy keep E for a playoff run at the cost of sacrificing whatever he might bring back as a rental.  But if do we lose him I don't think the Canes are nearly as "robust" as some of the rest of you, either.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm short-sighted or something, but I still can't see any scenario where Staal isn't moved at or before the deadline. 

 

We shall see.

 

Wasn't it Tripp who said getting info out of Ron Francis was like getting blood out of concrete or something to that effect? 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem that Francis plays his cards very close. Watching the rumor mill you hear very little about us. And even with the E. thing it seems to be all from Eric who basically just implies that he doesn't know much more than the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the writing is on the wall in a sublte way.

 

You dont see the captain used in most of the promo's and he is certainly not being put forth as the face of the franchise anymore.  I expect the following:

1) Staal will not be a Hurricane after this year

2) If he is a Hurricane until the end of the season, its because he veto'd a trade or we couldnt find one we wanted.  In my opnion Staals effort the last few weeks looks a lot like someone who is coming to the realization he better make himself worth something to the next "buyer" of his services.  Its this lack of consistent effort at times that's going to hurt him in any contract talks - but thats another converation.

3) Staal will be traded by the deadline regardless of the position we are in with the playoffs.  The GM and the coach seem committed to doing it right.  Getting past one even two rounds of playoffs hardly helps our future like getting something for Staal that stays after he has left would.

 

My 2-cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm short-sighted or something, but I still can't see any scenario where Staal isn't moved at or before the deadline. 

 

We shall see.

 

Wasn't it Tripp who said getting info out of Ron Francis was like getting blood out of concrete or something to that effect? 

 

I think you're most likely right.  When I talked about a 1 year bridge deal it wasn't something I think we should do or something I think is likely.  It was the only way I see E staying. 

 

I do think that the further we get into the season and the closer we get to a playoff spot the harder politically it will be for RF to deal E.  Instead of "harder to deal E" maybe I should say the more flak he'll take if he does deal him.  I can see the general fan base (not the more sophisticated members here) accepting that RF isn't going to be a short term buyer no matter how much we might be in the thick of things.  But say we legitimately move into a playoff spot position and then RF becomes a seller?  Isn't stuff going to hit the fan (not our fans, but the proverbial fan :P)?  And when you think about it, couldn't that be considered a form of management tanking?  IF we continue this trend of improved play and moving up the standings, I think the sooner RF moves E the easier it will be for him.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...