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

Eric Staal Poll

The Eric Staal Poll  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you THINK will end up happenign with Eric Staal?

    • Re-signs with Canes before the deadline.
      7
    • Traded before the deadline, not to return
      15
    • Plays out the year, goes Free Agent, not to return
      8
    • Plays out the year but still re-signs here after deadline/offseason
      1
    • Rented and returns: traded, goes UFA, re-signs back here.
      6
  2. 2. What do you WANT to see happen with Eric Staal?

    • Re-signs before the deadline, stays with team
      2
    • Traded before the deadline, not to return
      15
    • Traded as rental, returns offseason to new deal
      17
    • Plays out the year, does not return (added after 17 votes)
      3
    • Plays out the year, no trade, signs back later (added after 17 votes)
      0


Recommended Posts

Here's a summary from that TSN poll I linked above.  It's interesting to see how much different the much broader general public perception is than that of us Cane fans..



  • He'll stay. He's a lifer - that's too much to walk away from.


    35%




  • It's complicated for sure. We'll see how they do in the playoff race.


    27%




  • With this much talk about it a move is a done deal.


    24%




  • He's got a lot of control in the process. Nice spot to be in.


    14%



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My second post on this in just one week.

 

Only Eric can make the decision he will allow a trade.  The logic "we must get something in return if we lose him" is a fallacy.  It's like saying we need to return the gas in the car when we get to the destination even though it was used getting there.  That's the contract he has and its binding.

 

So to simplify:

1)  ERIC ONLY can decide to stay until the end of this year.  IF he does we get nothing if he goes to another team this summer due to his contract expiring.  See how I did that?  Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing.  So regardless of what we "wish" we get ... you guessed it we get NOTHING.  We are powerless in this regard due to his NTC.  So saying "we have to get something" is a waste of air frankly.  While we are at its, lets just say "we must get the next Gretzky" for Eric if he leaves after staying to the end of the season - while we are at its lets put a lotto ticket on that too.  :rolleyes:

 

2)  IF ERIC approves of a trade, we will get something in return, a pick, a player, or the saved salary for not paying him to the end of the year.  IF ERIC approves of a trade - ITS IMPOSSIBLE not to get "something."  See how I did that again?

 

So to wrap it up:

We get nothing if that's ERIC's choice.

We get something if that's ERIC's choice.

 

Both are guaranteed as possible outcomes.  Only one WILL be the outcome unless he is a Hurricane next year.

 

 

 

 

+1.  Letting him walk for nothing in and of itself makes no sense.

Edited by one-timer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the knowledge that E has a NTC is so universally recognized around here that no one feels the need to structure all discussions about Es future around it.  Of course E could veto any trade. 

 

But to me, the fact that he said he'd waive his NTC (combined with the rarity of pending UFAs actually vetoing all trades) makes our "get something back for E" discussions much less ridiculous than you seem to find them OneTimer. 

 

The Canes do have options among which they'll have to choose. Specifically, they can keep E or try to trade him.  E can veto any trade. So in talking about the Canes options, would you feel better if we phrased it as "what the Canes should try to do" instead of "what the Canes should do"?  Again, to me the "try" is so implicit it doesn't need to be articulated.  But if it makes you feel better, I'm sure no one would have a problem with you inserting it. :)

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EStaal has said he wouldn't block a trade (mentioned again above). If RF and ES can not agree on terms going forward, and RF tells ES that the team is moving on, then ES hurts his own value by not accepting a trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cant see the team keeping him. 9 million to spend elsewhere or keep a guy who is not a bad player, but not a game changer. Even at 6 million its not a good investment... Trade or let him walk still nets a lot of money to spend wiser...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cant see the team keeping him. 9 million to spend elsewhere or keep a guy who is not a bad player, but not a game changer. Even at 6 million its not a good investment... Trade or let him walk still nets a lot of money to spend wiser...

At $9M, I'm right there with you. At $6M for say 3 years(NTC the first 2 years, no NTC the last year...face it folks, it's going to happen if he does re-sign), I don't think that's horrible value. While I'm ready to turn the page on the Staal era, I don't want this team to be the Oilers. Freeing up money is great if there is a way to better use it. RF is going to have to convince the right players to come here and that's easier said than done.

I still support trading him at the deadline whether he returns or not. I do not see this team being in a playoff spot at that time. It's a nice idea, but the die has been cast.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At $9M, I'm right there with you. At $6M for say 3 years(NTC the first 2 years, no NTC the last year...face it folks, it's going to happen if he does re-sign), I don't think that's horrible value. While I'm ready to turn the page on the Staal era, I don't want this team to be the Oilers. Freeing up money is great if there is a way to better use it. RF is going to have to convince the right players to come here and that's easier said than done.

I still support trading him at the deadline whether he returns or not. I do not see this team being in a playoff spot at that time. It's a nice idea, but the die has been cast.

 

I'm not so sure about that on the NTC front now that RF is running the show.  I could see RF taking a stance that the only NTCs the Canes offer from here on out are modified ones.  Say letting a player veto maybe 8-10 teams.  If RF implements that as a firm policy for the entire franchise going forward I could see it being easier for E to accept than if it stays the same as in the past, i.e., all options available and negotiated on a player to player basis.

 

I still see the playoffs as a bit of a longshot but I'm not quite ready to write off this team chances just yet. Tonight's game could heavily influence that perspective if we have a poor showing.  I need to see that the last game was a blip on the Canes recent string of strong play.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the playoffs as a longshot but I'm not quite ready to write off this team chances just yet.

I'm not saying it's a done deal...but, it's a done deal.

Canes are 3 pts out - that doesn't seem like a lot.

Canes have 5 teams between them and a playoff spot - ouch.

Canes are trailing teams that have a combined 6 games in hand - ouch.

Canes have 35 games to play, and need 50 pts to get to the 98 that it took last year - double ouch.

Canes pretty much need 3 out of every 4 points from here to game 82 to make it in. What has anybody seen that makes them see a scenario where the Canes play .750 hockey over 3 months? Canes were really "good" in December and scored 17 pts in 14 games for a .607 month.

Sorry to be...

Debbie+Downer.png

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's a done deal...but, it's a done deal.

Canes are 3 pts out - that doesn't seem like a lot.

Canes have 5 teams between them and a playoff spot - ouch.

Canes are trailing teams that have a combined 6 games in hand - ouch.

Canes have 35 games to play, and need 50 pts to get to the 98 that it took last year - double ouch.

Canes pretty much need 3 out of every 4 points from here to game 82 to make it in. What has anybody seen that makes them see a scenario where the Canes play .750 hockey over 3 months?

 

 

Full agreement here.  The past month and a half has been fun, but once again they dug themselves too deep a hole pre-December.  .750 hockey the rest of the way may do it, but they also need to make sure none of the other .250 comes against the 'leapfrog' teams.  They can't go losing 5-0 to the Jimmy Rutherfords.

 

But i'm in agreement with Lake on the NTC.  You're probably right that it's what it would take to re-sign ES, but i think if RF makes that offer, it tells the rest of the league that he plays the NTC game.  I think it best he avoids it consistently from the get-go, even if it means ES finishes his career in greener pastures and the Hurricanes face an extra season or two trying to find a replacement 1C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at this list for NTC's across the league. The Canes are not the only team with this issue.

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html

I too hope that a limited NTC is the result IF EStaal is re-signed. I just think it's realistic that he will get some kind of protection if he signs for the dollar amount he will be offered here. If he goes on the open market, all bets are off.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's a done deal...but, it's a done deal.

Canes are 3 pts out - that doesn't seem like a lot.

Canes have 5 teams between them and a playoff spot - ouch.

Canes are trailing teams that have a combined 6 games in hand - ouch.

Canes have 35 games to play, and need 50 pts to get to the 98 that it took last year - double ouch.

Canes pretty much need 3 out of every 4 points from here to game 82 to make it in. What has anybody seen that makes them see a scenario where the Canes play .750 hockey over 3 months?

Sorry to be...

Debbie+Downer.png

 

I don't see it taking 98 points this year.  Looking a bit further back:

 

year         points

14-15          98

13-14          93

12-13          94 (pace)

11-12          92

10-11          93

09-10          88

 

Sure, you're talking different alignments, but it's still pretty much the top 8 teams qualify.

 

Why such a high number last year?  I suspect lack of balance might have been a contributing factor. Look at the very bottom of the Conference.  Last year the bottom 3 teams ended up with 54, 68, and 71 points.  This year the bottom 3 are on a pace for 66, 73, and 76. 

 

When I did projections 6 days ago based on actual results so far I got the two WC teams qualifying with 91.3 and 91.5 points.  I'm projecting that 93 points would get us in this year.  The last 10 games we've gone 5-2-3 (a 0.65 pace).  0.65 times the 70 possible points we've got left gives us 45.5, or a total of 93.5.  Like I said, it's still a long shot, but I don't see it as being a done deal just yet. 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could happen, and I want the team to keep pushing. RF has to look at the big picture and play the odds. At Lake's goal of 93 pts, it still requires the team playing .657 hockey for the remainder of the season.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full agreement here.  The past month and a half has been fun, but once again they dug themselves too deep a hole pre-December.  .750 hockey the rest of the way may do it, but they also need to make sure none of the other .250 comes against the 'leapfrog' teams.  They can't go losing 5-0 to the Jimmy Rutherfords.

 

But i'm in agreement with Lake on the NTC.  You're probably right that it's what it would take to re-sign ES, but i think if RF makes that offer, it tells the rest of the league that he plays the NTC game.  I think it best he avoids it consistently from the get-go, even if it means ES finishes his career in greener pastures and the Hurricanes face an extra season or two trying to find a replacement 1C.

 

I don't think that's a realistic option for a team like the Canes. Keep in mind that we still may shop on the open market, especially if we free up Es salary. And there are certain current Canes we're going to want to re-sign when their contracts are up. What relatively high profile UFA might want to come here if he at least isn't sure that he might not end up in Buffalo, Columbus, or Edmonton? I could see RF maybe selling a limited NTC policy, but not a universal no-NTC policy.   

 

Look at this list for NTC's across the league. The Canes are not the only team with this issue.

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html

I too hope that a limited NTC is the result IF EStaal is re-signed. I just think it's realistic that he will get some kind of protection if he signs for the dollar amount he will be offered here. If he goes on the open market, all bets are off.

 

Yeah, I completely agree.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could happen, and I want the team to keep pushing. RF has to look at the big picture and play the odds. At Lake's goal of 93 pts, it still requires the team playing .657 hockey for the remainder of the season.

 

I've got it at 0.643 hockey the rest of the way, but your point is still valid. :)  

 

We need 45 points to get to 93. Here's what that looks like as far as our remaining 35 games:

 

22-12-1

21-11-3

20-10-5

19 -9 -7

18 -8 -9

17- 7-11

 

I'd call that tough but not necessarily unrealistic.

 

edit: and it's entirely possible that 92 points (or even 91) might qualify.  I wouldn't count on it, but if it comes down to that extra point making a difference to the Canes, well, then we'd have had quite an exciting ride the rest of the way. :thumbsup:

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93 points historically makes it, last year was an outlier, probably due to the unethical tank-job several teams used.  The Hockey Gods took note and will be dispensing retribution over the next few decades.

 

Our purity will be rewarded, just not this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The math doesn't look good and we need Lack to respond big time. No idea how long we will be without Ward,I think we need to see Alt at some point. February is a huge month with a lot of Eastern Conference play for all teams in the hunt. Jersey has 11 games in the East, Pitts/Phil with 10 games,Phil with 5 straight games on the road.Boston has 9 games in the East with 6 straight games on the road.Montreal/Carolina/Ottawa/ all have 8 games in the East. A streak by Carolina  is required with some help of the other contenders knocking each other off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On NTC's, I dislike them as much as anyone. That said, it is very hard to have a team with none of them. The Islanders are about the only one, who have only Boychuk on one that he brought with him on trade.

 

But the trend is very very clear, which is limited NTC's. Winnepeg, Washington, Toronto, Dallas, all have all but one guy on limited NTC's. Then a long list of teams with all but 2 guys on limited or no NTC's. We have 3 and Skinner to be 4, on FULL NTCs.

 

Looking at the list of players with full NTC's currently, they are either older players who locked them up years ago, or true superstars: Kane, Toews, Backstrom, etc. We should be very stingy with full NTC's and try not to give them.

 

So w/ Eric? Personally I'd try to hold out for no NTC. But the league trend is limiting them, so really limit it. 5 team veto, must provide list each year. Something like that. Now that assumes we can make the numbers and other issues work and that we really want to keep him, but on the NTC, we might have to give something.

 

The Raleigh issue is valid too. We are a small market with lower appeal to UFA's. We probably have to have at least a few limited NTC's to compete.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On NTC's, I dislike them as much as anyone. That said, it is very hard to have a team with none of them. The Islanders are about the only one, who have only Boychuk on one that he brought with him on trade.

 

But the trend is very very clear, which is limited NTC's. Winnepeg, Washington, Toronto, Dallas, all have all but one guy on limited NTC's. Then a long list of teams with all but 2 guys on limited or no NTC's. We have 3 and Skinner to be 4, on FULL NTCs.

 

Looking at the list of players with full NTC's currently, they are either older players who locked them up years ago, or true superstars: Kane, Toews, Backstrom, etc. We should be very stingy with full NTC's and try not to give them.

 

So w/ Eric? Personally I'd try to hold out for no NTC. But the league trend is limiting them, so really limit it. 5 team veto, must provide list each year. Something like that. Now that assumes we can make the numbers and other issues work and that we really want to keep him, but on the NTC, we might have to give something.

 

The Raleigh issue is valid too. We are a small market with lower appeal to UFA's. We probably have to have at least a few limited NTC's to compete.

The Islanders need to have another one for a half season. Give Eric the chance to play along Tavares. I'll take Kyle Okposo who is a legit right winger who is also a UFA at the end of this year. Oh yeah Islanders need to throw in a draft pick as well .Peters stated he needed to move Lindholm to center soon so here's the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I hear is 9m could be better spent elsewhere. Where would that be? UFA you say? Are you all honestly saying we go into UFA looking for Erics replacement and drastically over paying in the process for a 20 goals scorer at 6 - 7m a year? Argue with me all you want. But we all know that is what is going to happen if we go tat route. ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might not be the right thread for this, but since Rem was bringing up the point about the desirability factor for free agents coming to Raleigh, and the fact that someone asked me this question yesterday and I didn't know the answer, did anyone ever really think about the tax issue?

 

It turns out, these guys probably think a lot about the actual paycheck vs the gross pay when making this decision as well, and a major reason for guys wanting the NTC is in fact, taxes.

 

Interesting report:  http://www.taxpayer.com/media/CTF-HomeIceDisadvantage.pdf

 

If you don't want to read it, the Executive Summary:

 

• In 2013-14 players for the Montreal Canadiens paid the highest taxes with a tax rate of 53.9% and the Calgary Flames paid the lowest team tax rate of 38.2%.

• Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers tied for the lowest jurisdictional tax rate at 38.5% with the Florida, Texas and Tennessee teams close behind at 40.5%.

• The Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers true cap – after tax cap – was a league high of $39.6 million.

• The Montreal Canadiens true cap was a league low of only $29.6 million.

• Having a no trade clause give players the power to avoid being sent to high tax jurisdictions. Jason Spezza’s tax savings by moving from Ottawa to Dallas are $394,732.

• Player’s without no-trade clauses could get a big take home pay cut when traded to a high tax jurisdiction. PA Parenteau will have to pay $349,535 more taxes after moving from Colorado to Montreal.

• 57% of Unrestricted Free Agents who moved teams went to teams with lower taxes.

• Benoit Pouliot will save the most taxes moving from the New York Rangers to the Edmonton Oilers. If he had signed the same deal in New York he would have had to pay $575,752 more in taxes.

 

 

Canes are right in the middle with the 13th lowest tax rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the hosts on XM talk about the tax issue quite a bit, especially with regard to Preds, Panthers and Lightning.

 

One thing to keep in mind is the state/provincial taxes  only apply to home games.  When they hit the road, the visiting state/province demands their cut in various ways.  Makes for a wonderful tax form, no?  But still, makes sense since the majority are home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess a limited NTC would allow a player to at least knock out the worst offenders if that was a big deal to them.

 

Exactly.  I bet that has a lot to do with the "name 8 where I won't go" NTCs.  I had always assumed it had to do more with contenders vs non-contenders or even "I hate that org".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  I bet that has a lot to do with the "name 8 where I won't go" NTCs.  I had always assumed it had to do more with contenders vs non-contenders or even "I hate that org".  

 

I'm guessing each player weighs all of the above a bit differently.  Oh, and let's throw "I hate (or love) that city" into the mix. . . How strong does the Oil franchise have to be in order for someone to want to live in Edmonton?

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the issue of currency value. Nobody wants to go to a Canadian team right now because Canadian dollars are worth 71 cents on the US dollar. Great time for us to visit Canada, though!

Edited by top-shelf-1

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...