Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off-Season Talk 2017

Recommended Posts

I don't think the bargain bin deal we got with Lack will happen this time, it'll be at least 4 mil a year. I can see the years going either way, maybe Darling would like a 2 year deal so he can bail if we continue to suck? Maybe he doesn't want to move anymore and wants a longer deal? I dunno, I can see the years fluctuating but not the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it comes in at $4 million/year, we are paying him to be a #1, but in the bottom 1/3 of #1's.

 

The risk would be that the small sample size issue rears it's head, and Darling is not really a #1. Then we are badly overpaying a back up.

The upside is that if he plays at the level he has to date, then $4 million/year is a bargain. The #15 paid goalie right now makes $6.7 million/year.

To date, in limited starts, Darling has easily been a top 10 goalie.

 

So long as Darling is a legit #1, even if he's average, it's a fair deal or even a bargain. Further, this is the time, if ever there was one, to risk overpayment to potentially solve this problem.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, remkin said:

I just think if Darling will sign for $4 million/5 years, especially if he waives the NTC, we are golden. Do it. Move onto that forward we need. What are playoffs worth? Do it.

 

Darling would probably jump on that offer but we don't know where RF will draw the line in this contract negotiation. Personally, I think that is way too much money and too long of a commitment. A more realistic and safer approach for both parties would be $1.5-$2.0 million for 2 years and then throw money and years at him if he still deserves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Whaler1 said:

 

Darling would probably jump on that offer but we don't know where RF will draw the line in this contract negotiation. Personally, I think that is way too much money and too long of a commitment. A more realistic and safer approach for both parties would be $1.5-$2.0 million for 2 years and then throw money and years at him if he still deserves it.

 

I don't disagree that if Francis can sign him cheaper it would be great. But Darling his hitting UFA. $1.5 -$2.0 million is really more back up money. Heck Eddie Lack is getting $2.5 million. The #30 paid goalie makes $3 million right now, and Darling is signing for the future.

 

Francis has to convince Darling not to go to the open market, where bidding will push his deal up.

 

I do agree that there is risk with the small sample size, but in order to coax him to not go UFA, I'm thinking at bare minimum $3.5 million and at least 4 years, but my guess is it will take $4.5 million and 5 years to get it done. I very well could be wrong, but then again, it could take more. The going rate for an average #1 goalie is really closer to $5 million/year. I get that Darling has not proven himself a #1 and that should bring it down, but then again, in UFA salaries go up.

Edited by remkin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JUst saw the news, came straight here without reading any reactions. All I got to say is...

 

Woooooooooooo(Freakin')Hoooooooooooooo!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, surfzone365 said:

That Chicago-team dream is fulfilled and done, time to look to the next dream.  Let's hope it is to help rebuild a team.

 

There are two beauty parts of this move: (1) It gives Darling incentive to show the Hawks they made the wrong choice, and (2) it puts whichever guy we keep as the backup on notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think RF goes big $ short term for Darling.  RF just doesn't seem to do long term.  I'm thinking 2-3yrs at 5mil a year.  Thats big $ for Darling and its makes sense to stay short term since he hasn't proven himself.  Not sure even the open market wants to give an unproven guy 5plus years on a big contract.  what a disaster it would be if he under performs and you buy it out on year 2 or 3.  

If at the end of year two Darling is everthing we hoped he would be than give him a big extension. i would think he would understand he is basically going to get paid big to tryout as our number one for a couple years.  Not sure any teams out there are more desperate than us for a goalie so this will probably be his best offer. .  

Edited by danimal-ch1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as long as Cam has a good attitude about being the back up than you keep him. Give him a chance to retire in Carolina as a 30something year old back up.  He might be completely ok with that rather than moving to a new team at this point in his career.  He could really end up being the best back up we ever had, low pressure job, he might take it well and be thankful to still be here.  He seems like that kind of guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, remkin said:

Francis has to convince Darling not to go to the open market, where bidding will push his deal up.

I'm quite confident RF has been told "whatever it takes" on this. That doesn't mean he'll be stupid about it, but - rules be damned - I think he already knows what it will take, and as others have pointed out, just having this horse in the barn until July 1 strengthens his bargaining position with other teams until then and shows (me at least) that he is determined to get a deal done before he turns UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, danimal-ch1 said:

Give him a chance to retire in Carolina as a 30something year old back up.

Cam has had 10 years of absolute bliss on our dime already. It's time to move on. I love Cam to pieces and appreciate his service. But I don't want a backup who feels no pressure when he steps in. I want one who does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, danimal-ch1 said:

I think RF goes big $ short term for Darling.  RF just doesn't seem to do long term.  I'm thinking 2-3yrs at 5mil a year.  Thats big $ for Darling and its makes sense to stay short term since he hasn't proven himself.  Not sure even the open market wants to give an unproven guy 5plus years on a big contract.  what a disaster it would be if he under performs and you buy it out on year 2 or 3.  

If at the end of year two Darling is everthing we hoped he would be than give him a big extension. i would think he would understand he is basically going to get paid big to tryout as our number one for a couple years.  Not sure any teams out there are more desperate than us for a goalie so this will probably be his best offer. .  

This more or less.  Because of the issues Tulsky identified in his analysis on goalies (the highlighting is mine):

 

  • Variability is a reason to be cautious about identifying a goalie as superior. This is where teams can get into trouble: an average goalie can have a good year early in his career as a result of natural variability. The mistake some teams seem to make is in misreading him as a superior goalie on the rise and signing him to a big-money deal, only to find out later that they have overpaid for an average goalie. It is possible that scouts can detect star goalies earlier and more reliably than stats can, but several recent goalie contracts suggest that their projections are prone to significant error as well. The truth appears to be that if just a few tenths of a percent separate decent from great, we need we need to see multiple years to get that refined an understanding of a goaltender's skill.
  • Because top players seem to be able to command long-term deals these days, this may be a risk that teams have to accept if they want to land a top goalie, but it should be a risk they take knowingly. In essence, this argument means that teams that are building should focus on goalies on short-term contracts and hope to develop a goalie from within, that they should spend big money for an upper-tier goalie only if their prospects don't pan out and they find themselves with a team that is capable of competing for a championship in the near term.
  • Teams should be extremely cautious about signing a goalie who does not have a track record of several years at the desired performance level
  • Teams should also understand that long-term deals carry a unique risk of the goalie being rendered obsolete by new and improved goalies hitting the market in the coming years. 

 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that overpaying in money is better than term. The question is what Darling will take vs. what he thinks he can get on the open market vs. his willingness to bet on himself.

 

3 years at $5 million per, vs. 5 years at $4 million: one is worth $15 million, one worth $20 million. With the shorter deal he is betting that his play will warrant at least another 2 year $4 million deal or more. Most guys want the guaranteed term. Things happen: injuries, bad play, etc. and if he slips to back up, the salary plummets to $1.5 million/year range.

 

Just not sure he'll take the shorter term. If he would, I agree with overpaying to keep the term down.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that at 28 he feels like he's paid his dues, has been amazingly consistent, and deserves to be signed as the presumptive #1. I'd be fine with $4 million the first two years, and then $5 million in each of the next three with a modified NTC effective at the start of his third season.

 

There is zero question he's been better than either of our current two, so we should bring him in at more than either is making, and incentivize him to succeed/contribute long-term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, don't know if others have noticed, but he was born in Newport News. While raised in IL, maybe he's still got some family out here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's sign Darling before we argue over which of our present 2 goaltenders we keep. And if/when Darling is signed, I think who leaves may be a function more of whom we can trade and how much salary we retain. Who knows, we may already have a deal with Vegas to take one of them. RF was clear there would be a new goalie at the end of season presser, but he strikes me as being too careful not to have a plan in place to unload one $3 million contract before making this deal. Maybe Chicago is even committed to taking one of our guys with us retaining 50% salary if Darling signs. I would still prefer keeping Cam, but not by a lot. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

But I don't want a backup who feels no pressure when he steps in.

 

I'm less worried about Cam's attitude than Peter's infatuation with him. I want whoever we get to have a fair chance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we thought enough of Darling to give up a 3rd just for negotiating rights, I can't see RF blowing it by cheaping out on a contract offer. The starting point should be "more than either of the guys we have now" that didn't get the job done. I guess Darling could pull a Vesey, but he has a lot less leverage than Vesey did. There are only 31 starting goalie jobs available next year, and at least 20 of them are already nailed down. Then there's Bishop and MAF lurking, not to mention guys like Grubauer that teams in the playoffs will be looking to move before Vegas snatches them for nothing. If Darling does not sign here, I don't think it will be about money. And if he doesn't sign, with all the expected goalie movement before Vegas announces their picks, he may regret it. Let's hope he wants to be here and we get him signed quick.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, winger52 said:

MAF stays with the Pens. Murray is exposed and taken by the Knights.

I don't care where MAF winds up, provided it's not here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MinJaBen said:

I'm less worried about Cam's attitude than Peter's infatuation with him. I want whoever we get to have a fair chance.

I think Peters was more pissed at Laco than infatuated with Cam. I get that Eddie was hurt, but still, the guy got a total of five starts before he was concussed on November 21. I think BP put too much importance on Eddie's early-season drubbings in Philly, and at home versus Jersey and Anaheim, after he started well (the OT loss in Vancouver and the win in Calgary). 

 

That's understandable because we really needed wins, but it seems there was more at play. Whether it was too much time on his phone or he complained about the few chances he was getting and BP didn't like it, something put Eddie in Peters' doghouse. I'm not sure BP's all that crazy about Leights, either, given the call-ups of Neids and Alt in January. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

I think Peters was more pissed at Laco than infatuated with Cam. I get that Eddie was hurt, but still, the guy got a total of five starts before he was concussed on November 21. I think BP put too much importance on Eddie's early-season drubbings in Philly, and at home versus Jersey and Anaheim, after he started well (the OT loss in Vancouver and the win in Calgary). 

 

That's understandable because we really needed wins, but it seems there was more at play. Whether it was too much time on his phone or he complained about the few chances he was getting and BP didn't like it, something put Eddie in Peters' doghouse. I'm not sure BP's all that crazy about Leights, either, given the call-ups of Neids and Alt in January. 

 

 

The grammar nazi in me thanks you for putting the apostrophe in the right place.  The hockey fan in me agrees with the rest of your post.  With Leights i think it may have been more a matter of keeping him in Charlotte to help with the yutes than anything else, but the biased Leights fan in me was simply happy to see him get the ice time with the Hurricanes that he got.

Edited by realmdrakkar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...