Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off Season Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Bonivan said:

"Good" message for possible UFAs: once you get injured we ship you somewhere else. I know just business, nothing personal, but I also do not think there is a line of UFAs/there agents waiting outside of DW office.

We've been talking a D trade with Chicago since last summer. Clearly they preferred reliability (CDH) over poorly timed pinches (you know who).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kyrule said:

I have to think that the start of teams being able to talk to FA’s is playing a part in this, and that there is mutual interest somewhere.

Agree. You don't make moves like we did for Marleau, trying to get Priskie, and now this without a larger overall plan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Fleury or Bean can take his place, that 4.55 million should be going elsewhere.

Plus we wouldn't have him in the lineup until December, so essentially we'd be paying him that for half a season. This is a savvy move by a team determined to ice the lineup it intends to ice all year in order to build trust between its pairings.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been making the point about all of the money tied up on D for a while now. But that's a down the road, near the cap problem. We are so far below the cap that it's hard to see how this move was needed so fast that we took this amount of return. People act like that contract is so egregious. Maybe it's a bit high, but that's a good D man. And while he didn't have Ferland's thump, he was on the high end of the team in hits, so there's that for people who want physical. 

 

It kills me how we are so budget conscious on here. I get that good salary management can put us in a good spot, but el cheapo doesn't work either. When I look at our total D assets, and the idea of trading D for O and DeHaan was part of that. Now we've moved that for prospects. People better like Fleury because those who didn't should be nervous since he's now #3 on the LHD depth chart. 

 

I think TD did not want to pay DeHaan not to play. That's the salary part. If we traded Faulk, Pesce, or even Dougie, that would have lessened the D salary thing. DeHaan is underrated. 

 

I hope that our scouts see more upside in these prospects than they've shown so far, but mainly, I hope clearing salary is also part of a big splash in UFA or maybe part of a cap relief trade #2. Because no, on it's face this trade does not make sense to me. Suddenly this cap floor team needs to trade DeHaan because that massive $4 million contract is killing us? No. Has to be part of a bigger plan. (I will say that a lot of time it's not, but that's how I see it still).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll see how it all plays out soon enough, hopefully it's for the top 6 (really top 3) forward we desperately need but I could just as easily see this move being done to free up internal budget and sweeten the Aho/Mrazek offers to get them done.

Edited by legend-1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really having a hard time understanding this one, but the questionable moves last off season brought us the the ECF so I will just wait and see. 

 

Maybe this is part of the Marleau trade.  We just freed up the cash to buy him out so it could be looked at as CDH for a 1st?

 

The PP has to be better.  We don't really have a PP QB on our blue line.  Maybe this move is intended to make room for Jake Bean?

 

We've had some pretty favorable trades with Chicago over the years.  Maybe this is one of those unofficial "future considerations" moves?

 

Maybe something is happening in FA that will make this all make sense? 

 

I still don't see this one yet, but just throwing out some possible motives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think the Canes could be gearing up for an offer sheet given the acquisition of the extra 1st rounder in the Marleau deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough one to figure out at the moment. Signing a guy to a 4 year contract and then dumping him after 1 year is a tough one. Did we expect more from CDH for 4 mil? Was CDH signed thinking Faulk was going to be moved? Did TD and DW not want to pay salary for 3 months not knowing how he'd respond after surgery. From the financial perspective we gained a few mil that can be used for Aho/Petr signings and going after a Scoring forward. I dont see the org spending 10-11 mil on a seven year contract (Panarin) but we better make a splash on another forward. Saving a few mil just to offset Aho's ask is not what I think TD or DW has in mind. I certainly hope not, there has to be more......right?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy who wrote the Canes Country piece also noted my experience with these deals that we think are step one of a multi step plan: they usually aren't. But this one just seems like it has to be, so I await the revelation of the full plan.

Share this post


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

Picked up a few mil from this trade, hopefully going to be used for something special. Perhaps the goalie trade is insurance as one report states Mrazek Mac resigning becoming problematic. Just a talking head....let's  see how this unfolds.

 

Considering just days ago Canes management was being lauded as close to brilliant at the draft, especially Day 2, I give them the benefit of the doubt about what their intentions are regarding this trade.  My thoughts are:

1) I was surprised last year when they committed a 4 year deal to another defenseman, when they seeming had Fleury, Bean, and McKeown knocking on the door.  They also extended TVR, and considering they had brought in Hamilton, little made sense.  

2) While de Haan did his job well, he was not the reason for the team's resurgence.  Improved play in goal and toughness up front can take credit for that.

3) The Canes have TWO financial top priorities screaming to be fulfilled: a) sign Aho to an extension, and b) bring back, or bring in, a front line goalie.  Both of these events are going to cost money.  

4) I suspect Aho's extension is costing more than management originally pencilled in.

5) I suspect they are getting closer to resigning Mrazek.

6) Losing the $4.55M for the next 3 years makes the Aho extension and possible Mrazek resigning more palatable.

7) The Canes are more prepared to replace de Haan from within with Bean and Fleury than move forward without a #1 goalie.

8) The deal has nothing to do with cap space.

9) I have no idea why they needed to toss in Saarela.

10) Getting the goalie in return must be about having enough under contract to buy out Darling.

I hope I am right about this.

 

Edited by beboplar
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

10) Getting the goalie in return must be about having enough under contract to buy out Darling.

I hope I am right about this.

Been reading that Forsberg is a RFA goalie, so he can’t count as leverage to buy out Mongo.

Edited by AWACSooner

Share this post


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

Anyone think the Canes could be gearing up for an offer sheet given the acquisition of the extra 1st rounder in the Marleau deal?

The only ones really in a pinch anymore is Meier or Labanc of SJ.  I would bet SJ matches anything for Meier.  Labanc is a possibility. 

 

Point- I guess but TB can match now and sell off everyone else later.

WIN would have a hard time matching offer sheets on both Laine and Connor but we could only offer one. Again they can match both for now and sell off later.

With the Marleau trade- Maple Leafs can match any offer for any player and keep everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

The only ones really in a pinch anymore is Meier or Labanc of SJ.  I would bet SJ matches anything for Meier.  Labanc is a possibility. 

 

Point- I guess but TB can match now and sell off everyone else later.

WIN would have a hard time matching offer sheets on both Laine and Connor but we could only offer one. Again they can match both for now and sell off later.

With the Marleau trade- Maple Leafs can match any offer for any player and keep everyone.

Laine....mmmmmmmmmmmm....yummy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TSN reporting Ken Holland is going after Pete in Edmonton...and we’re making a pitch to Mike Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DeHaan was more important IMO than he's getting credit for. People were very unsettled with Fleury, especially in the playoffs. DeHaan is that typical understated, but essential, smooth, makes the right play, puck moving out of the zone guy. Even if we did decide we could trade him, we should have gotten more back. I have to think his injury plummeted his return.

 

I'm fine with making Fleury show it's his time, and he'll be cheaper, but the return...are we planning on this being our back up goalie? Dropping from McE to his numbers would have missed playoffs last year.

 

Again, I'm still behind the committee, more moves might well make this one fall into place, but they aren't perfect either, and further moves have not yet happened. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AWACSooner said:

TSN reporting Ken Holland is going after Pete in Edmonton...and we’re making a pitch to Mike Smith

I know it's just rumors, but if we sign Smith, we are tempting the fates. I would read that as a team that got lucky with Mrazek now thinks they're the great comeback goalie seers. 

Share this post


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

I know it's just rumors, but if we sign Smith, we are tempting the fates. I would read that as a team that got lucky with Mrazek now thinks they're the great comeback goalie seers. 

Smitty wasn’t terrible...but yah, if he’s our #1, I am VERY worried about our chances next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AWACSooner said:

TSN reporting Ken Holland is going after Pete in Edmonton...and we’re making a pitch to Mike Smith

Our goalie situation is like a used car lot. What lemon still drives?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

DeHaan is that typical understated, but essential, smooth, makes the right play, puck moving out of the zone guy.

That’s why I’m still baffled.  He has great intangibles.  I can remember only half a dozen or so instances last season where I noticed him grossly out of position on a goal...way less than TVR or Faulk.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I heard about this trade last night, I was, indeed, perplexed. I was aware yesterday that De Haan's name was being connected with the Black Hawks, but I assumed we were trying to pry Brandon Saad from the Hawks. I started reading back reviews on Forsberg and Forsling and, by all accounts, both were blue chip prospects a few years ago. Seems they have not lived up to their advance billing. You might recall that both were key trade acquisitions by the Hawks, with a view to becoming important members of their team down the road. Fast forward to today and that has not been the case. Forsling becomes interesting depth though, battling Fleury for the 6 spot, but possibly in the mix for PP time. He was viewed as a potential powerplay QB in the past. Forsberg is solid depth, as well, and you never have enough quality goalies around. I fully expected them to move out someone on the "D' corps and, if we are going to re-up Faulk long term, De Haan is the best and logical choice. Saarela was well down the depth chart, so not a significant loss. So, maybe this starts to make sense, after all.

 

I also think there is more to come. Don W. is not reluctant to make moves (a nice change from Ron Francis) so I fully expect he has something more up his sleeve. There are lots of interesting players available and more will become available as teams sort out their cap issues. We are in an enviable position with cap room and the necessary cash to take advantage of the opportunity.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, beboplar said:

Considering just days ago Canes management was being lauded as close to brilliant at the draft, especially Day 2, I give them the benefit of the doubt about what their intentions are regarding this trade.  My thoughts are:

1) I was surprised last year when they committed a 4 year deal to another defenseman, when they seeming had Fleury, Bean, and McKeown knocking on the door.  They also extended TVR, and considering they had brought in Hamilton, little made sense.  

2) While de Haan did his job well, he was not the reason for the team's resurgence.  Improved play in goal and toughness up front can take credit for that.

3) The Canes have TWO financial top priorities screaming to be fulfilled: a) sign Aho to an extension, and b) bring back, or bring in, a front line goalie.  Both of these events are going to cost money.  

4) I suspect Aho's extension is costing more than management originally pencilled in.

5) I suspect they are getting closer to resigning Mrazek.

6) Losing the $4.55M for the next 3 years makes the Aho extension and possible Mrazek resigning more palatable.

7) The Canes are more prepared to replace de Haan from within with Bean and Fleury than move forward without a #1 goalie.

8) The deal has nothing to do with cap space.

9) I have no idea why they needed to toss in Saarela.

10) Getting the goalie in return must be about having enough under contract to buy out Darling.

I hope I am right about this.

 

I agree with just about everything except number 8. We have no idea what TD's internal cap may be. If he has a limit on what he intends to spend it obviously effects his options on possible trades or UFA's/RFA's. Yeah we are barely at the Cap floor, but who knows what TD's internal budget is. I dont forsee him going to the cap ceiling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, AWACSooner said:

That’s why I’m still baffled.  He has great intangibles.  I can remember only half a dozen or so instances last season where I noticed him grossly out of position on a goal...way less than TVR or Faulk.  

We need seven D who are ready to go on Oct 1. We snuck into the dance this year against all odds, and I have to think that winning early and being at or near the top of the pack is the plan, because that shiz an't gonna happen two years in a row. I really think moving out DeHaan is as simple as that--although I'm still wondering if the Hawks might be willing to take Darling back if we retain some salary. Cheaper than a buy out, and if he's going to come back--big if--his odds for doing it are probably best in Chicago. 

 

Pure speculation.

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...