Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
sleekfeeder

Trade: W Nino Niederreiter for C Victor Rask (no joke)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, realmdrakkar said:

 

 

No matter who or what he's traded for, the team regresses 2 to 3 years?

Absolutely... 🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can sign Ferland to an extension, we technically could have that grit player who goes to the net every time on each line. (Ferland, Nino, Martinook, McGinn)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, realmdrakkar said:

 

 

No matter who or what he's traded for, the team regresses 2 to 3 years?

In the past 9 periods and 57 seconds he was on the ice for about 1.5 periods. The team played very well with or without him. He is injured quite a bit and doesnt seem to have an affinity to stay or go meaning he is going to want his money (whatever that is) if it out of line (as judge by the committee) then he can go on down the road. I would like for him to stay and if he doesnt I thank him for his time here, he certainly was part of changing the teams attitude, but I just dont see him as being critical to the future, they dont seem to miss much when he is out.

Share this post


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

You did watch the game last night, right? Now I am the 1st to admit that I had great reservations on trading Ferland, but seeing that and a few games before, I'm seeing teamwide toughness coming around and with NN in the fold, I am no longer deeply entrenched in the "No Trade Ferland Movement", particularly if he is just lukewarm for staying?

 

That's great.  So with Ferland we know we needed another top 6 forward.  Now that we have thay we should trade away a top 6 thus making us need another top 6 forward.   Makes total sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, realmdrakkar said:

 

 

No matter who or what he's traded for, the team regresses 2 to 3 years?

 

Yes because we then traded Lindy for diddly squat.   Or maybe the fairy tale known as Fox right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that Ferland epitomizes the type of player that Rod Brind'Amour wants on this team, and I personally love to see play. For many weeks now I have been in his camp to retain him as I reasoned that his value far exceeded the numbers he's put up, though they are a huge bonus, but in my mind, Ferland's presence "facilitated" a level of relaxation from concern for liberties in which an opposing player might engage to throw both Aho and TT off their game, comparable to the concept that "the whole is better than the parts". Now, last night might be an illusion to me, lightening in a bottle or any other euphemism one might want to apply, but truly I couldn't believe some of the hits I was seeing all over the ice? Further, and although Ferland is undoubtedly the heaviest hitter on the team, IF RB has finally gotten thru to the team mentality and changed the "candy cane" way of playing, I just doubt that trading Ferland will set this team back 2-3 years. Would I love to have him as one more heavy hitter, ABSOLUTELY, but if he's determined to explore the UFA market, AND his demands do not fit in with this team's projection of his value, than what do you do? Paint yourself into a corner and see him walk for zip, trade him as a rental and try to get him back, or vastly exceed what you judge him to be worth? Let me hasten to add about that latter, I do not, nor have I ever bought this hearsay that there is a "vast difference" in his demands and the Canes' offers, because I just do not think we have factual information on that?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bluedevil58 said:

 

That's great.  So with Ferland we know we needed another top 6 forward.  Now that we have thay we should trade away a top 6 thus making us need another top 6 forward.   Makes total sense.

So bd58, again you oversimplify. You do know he is a UFA, right? As such, he is steering his ship. Never did I once say that he will not be a loss, but the debate is raging as to what do we do to retain him? Should he choose to leave, no matter what we would offer, than his leaving is inevitable, even if we offer $8 mil for 8 years (overexaggeration to make a point), but the point is, as in another thread, where does one go with that offer? So, should you not be able to meet his or his agent's demands, than you are left with "the hole" you point out as well as not even getting a Pu like player? So again, do we KEEP HIM AT ANY COST, or wish him well and be thankful for his time here?

Share this post


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

So bd58, again you oversimplify. You do know he is a UFA, right? As such, he is steering his ship. Never did I once say that he will not be a loss, but the debate is raging as to what do we do to retain him? Should he choose to leave, no matter what we would offer, than his leaving is inevitable, even if we offer $8 mil for 8 years (overexaggeration to make a point), but the point is, as in another thread, where does one go with that offer? So, should you not be able to meet his or his agent's demands, than you are left with "the hole" you point out as well as not even getting a Pu like player? So again, do we KEEP HIM AT ANY COST, or wish him well and be thankful for his time here?

 

I get the impression there is a 200K to 500K/Yr disparity.  If so, then that is laughable.   If he doesn't want to resign here well then that is fake news IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bluedevil58 said:

 

I get the impression there is a 200K to 500K/Yr disparity.  If so, then that is laughable.   If he doesn't want to resign here well then that is fake news IMO.

You know, I fully agree with this, but that's just your and my impressions, and I don't know about you but I've got no insider info? My only point in all this bd58 was that getting NN miraculously lessened the impact of losing Ferland, not that I was advocating a trade. Seeing what I saw last night unfold before my eyes, and the role several lesser heralded players are stepping up into, also causes me to feel that if Ferland goes, we will not be set back 2-3 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bluedevil58 said:

 

I get the impression there is a 200K to 500K/Yr disparity.  If so, then that is laughable.   If he doesn't want to resign here well then that is fake news IMO.

You have a source or just pulling a number out of thin air? Even if it is "only" half a million dollar calling the laughable is in and of itself laughable if any pro sports FO gets labeled as willing to over pay then every agent in the biz becomes well aware of it and now you have to overpay for every salary that comes up. This quickly puts small and medium market teams in trouble and regulates then to where the Canes have been for the last decade. Not good or bad enough to make the playoffs or improve.

They got lucky in the lottery this year but easily could have got their standard middle round pick, where would they be now and going forward without Sevch? It would be great to keep him but he has a number in mind and if its determined it's more then he is worth, well the team really hsnt missed him much on this road swing so thanks and have a good one Mike!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bluedevil58 said:

 

Yes because we then traded Lindy for diddly squat.   Or maybe the fairy tale known as Fox right?

 

 

OK.  I'll get back on the phone with Keith Gretzky and tell him we won't trade Ferland for McDavid/Draisaitl after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bluedevil58 said:

 

I get the impression there is a 200K to 500K/Yr disparity.  If so, then that is laughable.   If he doesn't want to resign here well then that is fake news IMO.

It very well could be only 200-500k disparity a year.  But the part we are missing is we are probably offering 4 years and he wants 6. We go from 200-500k to about 2 million difference to a 12 million difference.  

 

Its like bargaining cost per month of a car instead of the overall sticker price. 

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

It very well could be only 200-500k disparity a year.  But the part we are missing is we are probably offering 4 years and he wants 6. We go from 200-500k to about 2 million difference to a 12 million difference.  

 

Its like bargaining cost per month of a car instead of the overall sticker price. 

Term could very well be the problem, but if it is, I think it's over. I absolutely cannot blame Ferland for wanting as much term has he can get. He has risen up to start scoring at the perfect time and he needs to cash this in to the max, and term is king if I'm him.

 

I like the guy a lot, and think he will keep producing, but he's not like the other discussion of Mark Stone, an elite talent that produces a ppg like a machine. Ferland plays a physically risky and costly game too. 

 

If he thinks he can get, say $5.5 million for 6 years, and we want to give him $5.2 million for 4 years. That is $11 million bucks just for the two extra years. "But maybe he will be worth more in 4 years and can sign a bigger deal." Maybe, but $11 million in the hand is worth a whole lot of cash in the bush. 


Yet we really can't take that long of a risk with this player IMO (particularly if he gets a NTC). Especially if we have bigger plans with a better player. Our issue could be having to pay the likes of Svech and Necas down the line, while also paying Aho, TT, and player X. 

 

We can't really offer long term and he can't really accept shorter term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the sticking point is more likely term than the annual number. At 26, a six-year deal takes Ferland to retirement at 32, if he's ready, which is certainly possible given his style of play. A four-year deal, on the other hand, means he's probably moved in three years, and will then have to deal with this contract shiznit all over again.

 

This is why I'd like to see us offer him a front-loaded deal at 5.8M AAV, max (if we can get him for less, great). That would be a total deal of 34.8 million. Pay him $6M in each of the first four years, and 5.4 the last two--knowing that you'll save around $3M during the coming lockout (assuming it goes half a season). That cuts the real cost to 31.8M, an effective AAV of 5.3.

 

Front-loading the deal at $6M those first four years should make everybody happy: Ferland gets to be the $6M man, the team saves a little more than it otherwise would during the lockout, and the balance due Ferland the last two years is 10.8M. That's an AAV of 5.4, making him more moveable those last two years, while (again,) with the lockout savings factored in, the effective AAV is a quite fair $5.3M per year.  

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be okay with TT money, but I think 4 years max. It’s not like he has 5 or 6 years of sustained 20+ goal scoring, and he’s had concussion issues this year as well. It’s not my money, so we’ll see what TD is willing to do. If Ferland does get traded, it will be interesting to see what he gets in $$$$ and term as a UFA. I would love to keep him, but we can’t afford to be tied down long term with another Rask situation. Tough call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDC, this is why I think we end up not signing him. He can get the term from someone and would be smart to do it, whereas it probably isn't smart for us to do it.

 

I guess one other option could be to up the $$ so much as to make shorter term seem worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bluedevilcane said:

but we can’t afford to be tied down long term with another Rask situation.

Because Ferland is sure to carve up his hand in the kitchen, too?

 

Just not seeing it. Two totally different players and it's "only" Ferland's second concussion, the first of which resulted from an intentional hit to his head.

Share this post


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

Because Ferland is sure to carve up his hand in the kitchen, too?

 

Just not seeing it. Two totally different players and it's "only" Ferland's second concussion, the first of which resulted from an intentional hit to his head.

A 6 year contract at high dollars. Ferland might earn every dime. Or his 20 goal season in Calgary, and assuming he gets one here this year, might not be the norm. Especially if his physical style of play leads to more concussions or other injuries. I don’t think I said don’t do it. I said I’d like to see us stay at 4 years, and that if he would only sign for longer it would be a tough call. We miraculously unloaded Rask and the remainder of his contract for Nino, which so far looks like the biggest fleecing since Skinner for Pu. Management will have to make a call on handling Ferland, though if you believe the press, the decision is all but made. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A 6 year contract at high dollars. Ferland might earn every dime. Or his 20 goal season in Calgary, and assuming he gets one here this year, might not be the norm. Especially if his physical style of play leads to more concussions or other injuries. I don’t think I said don’t do it. I said I’d like to see us stay at 4 years, and that if he would only sign for longer it would be a tough call. We miraculously unloaded Rask and the remainder of his contract for Nino, which so far looks like the biggest fleecing since Skinner for Pu. Management will have to make a call on handling Ferland, though if you believe the press, the decision is all but made. 

I understand your point, but by that logic, isn't every contract is a risk?

 

I think this board was all but unanimous that Rask was a great signing at 4 million x 6 based on what he'd done and how he was trending up to that point, and he could still be a bargain if the reset works out. Nobody can predict injuries, and letting their potential color your decision making in a sport where they're just a given is failing before you start. This ain't badminton, but even so, the odds are just as good (better, in fact, than expecting a career-ending injury) that the player will be just fine, but for a few missed games, over the course of his deal.

 

I agree that the ship on Ferland looks to have sailed, but my frustration is bigger than this one instance. It's rooted in the fact that every team's management--other than ours--seems to have a clue of what hockey trades are really about: exchanging players which the trading teams see as having leveled off or struggled or demanded too much, trusting that a fresh start/environment/system/coach/org will kick them a little, and negotiating a deal that is fair to both the player and the org (see: Lindholm and Hanifin).

 

Not this org. It welcomes them tentatively, and holds up hoops for them to jump through, telling them to prove that they belong--the implicit promise being that they'll be rewarded when they do. It yaps yaps yaps about grit and grind and playing the right way and playing for each other and blah blah blah--but when a guy comes along and not only meets but exceeds expectations, we complain that he's demanding for too much, and then renege on our end of the bargain. But our trading partners don't. They often pay based on potential alone. Again, see Lindholm and Hanifin--no "proving it" required, they just trusted that these guys are pros and not children who should be treated like children. They watched the tape, saw their potential, and got them signed. And then, they climbed the standings.

 

This speaks to one of two problems: Cheapness or cluelessness. More likely, both.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top, I pretty much agree. Lindholm and Hanifin were young guys with high ceilings, both drafted 5th overall, and Calgary (with the benefit of employing the guy who coached them here) went all in before they ever suited up for the Flames. We should have done the same for Ferland. If we thought enough of him to give up what we did to bring him in, we should have gotten a deal done before the season. Maybe he had already decided to go all the way to UFA before the trade. Our due diligence should have figured that out before we committed so much to get him. I’d bet he could have been signed for a lot less than he is asking now before the season though. Of course, we’ll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From NHL.com:

"Rask, who slumped to 31 points (14 goals, 17 assists) last season after he had 45 points (16 goals, 29 assists) in 2016-17 and 48 points (21 goals, 27 assists) in 2015-16, has one goal and one assist in 10 games for the Wild, averaging 12:11 per game. The Wild are 4-4-2 with Rask, who sustained an unspecified injury on Feb. 12 and has not played since. Minnesota (30-27-6) holds the first wild card from the West."

 

And the most lopsided trade of the year goes to.......

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...