Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off-Season 2018

Recommended Posts

RALEIGH, NC - Don Waddell, President and General Manager of the National Hockey League's Carolina Hurricanes, today announced that the team has agreed to terms with defenseman Trevor van Riemsdykon a two-year, $4.6 million contract. The deal will pay van Riemsdyk $2.1 million in 2018-19 and $2.5 million in 2019-20.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, you can disregard my last post or check it out, there are some big names on that list. Some of those names will likely be traded.

 

I guess at this stage it is just the player letting the organization know his intentions.

 

Thankfully we avoided arbitration where things can get ugly.

 

Great deal, happy to have TVR back.

 

I was curious about term because I wondered about a guy like Fox. If we had our right side locked up long term I’m not sure he would want to sign here. That really shouldn’t be a factor, and it’s a good problem to have. Plus Fox could be a bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, prohockeyrumors already put up the TVR signing as I was typing before so I guess the site is pretty legitimate in terms of who filed, who didn’t, and who signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

RALEIGH, NC - Don Waddell, President and General Manager of the National Hockey League's Carolina Hurricanes, today announced that the team has agreed to terms with defenseman Trevor van Riemsdykon a two-year, $4.6 million contract. The deal will pay van Riemsdyk $2.1 million in 2018-19 and $2.5 million in 2019-20.

 

That's more what I was thinking would be the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kyrule said:

Well, prohockeyrumors already put up the TVR signing as I was typing before so I guess the site is pretty legitimate in terms of who filed, who didn’t, and who signed.

 

Like that tracker, good find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at other teams  and their Strengths and weaknesses    here is  where I place them . 

 

Penguins  :  they are good on offense and goalie   but weak on defense 

Capitals  :  they are  decent  on  offense good on  goalie and decent on defense

Islanders :  they are decent on offense   and weak on defense and goalie 

Blue jackets  :  they are decent on offense and defense  and great on goalie 

Devils :  they are  decent on offense  , good on defense and good on goalie 

Flyers :  they are decent on  offense weak on defense and decent on goalie 

Rangers:   they are weak on offense  and decent on defense and good on goalie 

Hurricanes :  they are good on offense , good on defense  and weak on goalie 

 

Red Wings :  decent on  offence and   weak on defense  and decent on goalie 

Sabres :   decent on offense  and decent on defense  and weak on goalie 

Maple Leafs :  good on offense  ,  weak on defense and decent on goalie 

Senators :  weak on offense , weak on defense  and decent on goalie 

Canadiens  :  decent on offense weak on defense  and good on goalie 

Bruins : Decent on offence , good on defense and good on goalie 

Lightning :  Good on offense , Good on defense and good on goalie 

Panthers : decent on offense  , good on defense and good on goalie 

 

Blackhawks :  Good on offense , decent on defense  and decent on goalie

Jets :  Decent on offense  ,  good on defense ,  good on goalie 

Predators :  decent on offense .  Good on defense  and good on goalie

Stars :  good on offense  ,  decent on defense  , and decent on goalie 

Blues :  good on offense , decent on defense  , and decent on goalie 

Wild : good on offense  :  weak on defense :   good on goalie 

Avalanche :  Decent on offense  , decent on defense and decent on goalie 

 

Flames : Decent on offense , Decent on defense  . decent on goalie 

Oilers :  Good on offense , decent on defense ,  and  decent on goalie 

Canucks :  Decent  on offense  , Weak on defense , Good on goalie 

Ducks : Decent on offense  ,  decent on defense ,  decent on goalie 

Kings :  Decent on offense , Good on defense  , Good on goalie 

Sharks :  Good on offense ,  Decent on defense , decent on goalie 

Coyotes :  Decent on offense ,  Good on Defense  , Decent on goalie 

Knights : Decent on offense , Decent on defense , Good on goalie  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

That's more what I was thinking would be the price.

 

I was thinking 2x2 would be close.  It's a little more than I thought, but certainly not in the 3x3.5 realm that was being tossed around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

 

I was thinking 2x2 would be close.  It's a little more than I thought, but certainly not in the 3x3.5 realm that was being tossed around.

How much of a raise is this, $500K or so? I thought it could be a little more, but guess Trevor was okay with that, and it avoided arbitration. I've always equated teams that frequently go the arbitration route as those that signal "El Cheapo". Is that a fair assessment, or does it signal an astuteness I haven't appreciated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, KJUNKANE said:

How much of a raise is this, $500K or so? I thought it could be a little more, but guess Trevor was okay with that, and it avoided arbitration. I've always equated teams that frequently go the arbitration route as those that signal "El Cheapo". Is that a fair assessment, or does it signal an astuteness I haven't appreciated?

 

Since his last deal was 2 years for $1.65M total, I'd say he got a pretty good raise.

Share this post


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

When I look at other teams  and their Strengths and weaknesses    here is  where I place them . 

 

Penguins  :  they are good on offense and goalie   but weak on defense 

Capitals  :  they are  decent  on  offense good on  goalie and decent on defense

Islanders :  they are decent on offense   and weak on defense and goalie 

Blue jackets  :  they are decent on offense and defense  and great on goalie 

Devils :  they are  decent on offense  , good on defense and good on goalie 

Flyers :  they are decent on  offense weak on defense and decent on goalie 

Rangers:   they are weak on offense  and decent on defense and good on goalie 

Hurricanes :  they are good on offense , good on defense  and weak on goalie 

 

Red Wings :  decent on  offence and   weak on defense  and decent on goalie 

Sabres :   decent on offense  and decent on defense  and weak on goalie 

Maple Leafs :  good on offense  ,  weak on defense and decent on goalie 

Senators :  weak on offense , weak on defense  and decent on goalie 

Canadiens  :  decent on offense weak on defense  and good on goalie 

Bruins : Decent on offence , good on defense and good on goalie 

Lightning :  Good on offense , Good on defense and good on goalie 

Panthers : decent on offense  , good on defense and good on goalie 

 

Blackhawks :  Good on offense , decent on defense  and decent on goalie

Jets :  Decent on offense  ,  good on defense ,  good on goalie 

Predators :  decent on offense .  Good on defense  and good on goalie

Stars :  good on offense  ,  decent on defense  , and decent on goalie 

Blues :  good on offense , decent on defense  , and decent on goalie 

Wild : good on offense  :  weak on defense :   good on goalie 

Avalanche :  Decent on offense  , decent on defense and decent on goalie 

 

Flames : Decent on offense , Decent on defense  . decent on goalie 

Oilers :  Good on offense , decent on defense ,  and  decent on goalie 

Canucks :  Decent  on offense  , Weak on defense , Good on goalie 

Ducks : Decent on offense  ,  decent on defense ,  decent on goalie 

Kings :  Decent on offense , Good on defense  , Good on goalie 

Sharks :  Good on offense ,  Decent on defense , decent on goalie 

Coyotes :  Decent on offense ,  Good on Defense  , Decent on goalie 

Knights : Decent on offense , Decent on defense , Good on goalie  

What are the point values for weak,decent,good? The Stanley Cup winners are only decent on offense and defense? Can you imagine if they were good.

Edited by slapshot02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

What are the point values for weak,decent,good? 

And, of course, pointing this out translates to what? IMHO, playing as a team means just that, and negating the weaknesses, playing off the strengths is where the champion comes from. Look no further than the Golden Knights if you want proof of that.

 

On another note, it was reported that Ottawa MAY have completed a trade with Tampa(of course that was then denied). But if so, may we be seeing some movement with Faulk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KJUNKANE said:

And, of course, pointing this out translates to what? IMHO, playing as a team means just that, and negating the weaknesses, playing off the strengths is where the champion comes from. Look no further than the Golden Knights if you want proof of that.

 

On another note, it was reported that Ottawa MAY have completed a trade with Tampa(of course that was then denied). But if so, may we be seeing some movement with Faulk?

Yeah, the Canes should go deep in the playoffs since we got 2 good ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

Yeah, the Canes should go deep in the playoffs since we got 2 good ratings.

Yeah ss02, all in the viewers mind, right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJUNKANE said:

How much of a raise is this, $500K or so? I thought it could be a little more, but guess Trevor was okay with that, and it avoided arbitration. I've always equated teams that frequently go the arbitration route as those that signal "El Cheapo". Is that a fair assessment, or does it signal an astuteness I haven't appreciated?

 

My opinion is you can't apply El-Cheapo to the 5/6 D pairing money.  You are supposed to go as El-Cheapo as you can get away with there in a salary cap environment, whether you put cheaper UFA/RFAs there or rookies. Our overall D spending is definitely not El-Cheapo. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJUNKANE said:

On another note, it was reported that Ottawa MAY have completed a trade with Tampa(of course that was then denied). But if so, may we be seeing some movement with Faulk?

Looks like a 3way in the works still...Sens/Bolts/Rags

 

Once that domino falls, I expect the jilted teams (Stars, Sharks) to come calling on Faulk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AWACSooner said:

Looks like a 3way in the works still...Sens/Bolts/Rags

 

Once that domino falls, I expect the jilted teams (Stars, Sharks) to come calling on Faulk

 

Didn't see this. So it's the rags, not us in that one? Oh well. Faulk to Detroit? (rumor only)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AWACSooner said:

Looks like a 3way in the works still...Sens/Bolts/Rags

 

Once that domino falls, I expect the jilted teams (Stars, Sharks) to come calling on Faulk

 

Hey, mister! This is a family site! :tsktsk:  :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slapshot02 said:

Yeah, the Canes should go deep in the playoffs since we got 2 good ratings.

Not if we are still weak on goalie  .      Also   to answer what I meant about good , decent , and weak    since they can be subjective terms  

 

For decent  I meant that  they have an average NHL caliber  skill   down the stretch   and that the players would  easily slide into any teams  top middle  6 to bottom 6 .

For  good   I meant that  these players are Good enough to be practically on any teams top 6  that these players would not have a hard time finding a home with any team . 

And  For weak I  see these players  either being  bottom 6  /  AHL level talent  . They server their roles  and can still play well enough to be in the NHL but these are the kind of guys  big contracts are hardly ever handed out to unless they have dumb GM's    . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Canesfanforever said:

Not if we are still weak on goalie  .      Also   to answer what I meant about good , decent , and weak    since they can be subjective terms  

 

For decent  I meant that  they have an average NHL caliber  skill   down the stretch   and that the players would  easily slide into any teams  top middle  6 to bottom 6 .

For  good   I meant that  these players are Good enough to be practically on any teams top 6  that these players would not have a hard time finding a home with any team . 

And  For weak I  see these players  either being  bottom 6  /  AHL level talent  . They server their roles  and can still play well enough to be in the NHL but these are the kind of guys  big contracts are hardly ever handed out to unless they have dumb GM's    . 

Team work, Cff, team work trumps this rating system wherever it came from? Makes no difference how good the different parts are, they don't operate in a vacuum, and if all are not on the same page, they implode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AWACSooner said:

Looks like a 3way in the works still...Sens/Bolts/Rags

 

Once that domino falls, I expect the jilted teams (Stars, Sharks) to come calling on Faulk

 

Three way always works. But you always have to be the middle.

Edited by winger52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, slapshot02 said:

What are the point values for weak,decent,good? The Stanley Cup winners are only decent on offense and defense? Can you imagine if they were good.

 

He has Winnipeg as decent on offense when I believe they lead the league in scoring.

Edited by PenaltyKiller17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

He has Winnipeg as good on offense when I believe they lead the league in scoring.

No worries of this replacing the NHL power rankings.The three ratings are weak, decent and good. Very good and excellent are not in the system. No five stars, No A,B,C,D or F.  Just weak....decent.....good. I'd at least give The Jets 4 pucks for their offense.

 Image result for hockey puck images

Edited by slapshot02
  • Like 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...

×
×
  • Create New...