Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off Season Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

With the way Brind'Amour raves about Jordan top, I don't see this at all.

I agree, I'm just saying in terms of contracts without which we could re-up others. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 8:44 PM, top-shelf-1 said:

I could totally see us moving Faulk to free some room for Willy and McKeown, a right shot.

 

Not picking at your opinion at all, but Roland McKeown, what a mystery.

 

Seems like he's never going to get a shot at playing here, much like Pots?

 

Then the team goes out and gets Forsling.

 

I'm pretty much writing off McKeown, even more so as a plug for Justin Faulk, especially after getting rid of deHaan's salary

Share this post


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

Not picking at your opinion at all, but Roland McKeown, what a mystery.

 

Seems like he's never going to get a shot at playing here, much like Pots?

 

Then the team goes out and gets Forsling.

 

I'm pretty much writing off McKeown, even more so as a plug for Justin Faulk, especially after getting rid of deHaan's salary

 

 

I'm considerably more-impressed with McKeown than Fleury but i'm with you - seems he's never going to get a shot with the Canes.  Darned if i can figure out why.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm considerably more-impressed with McKeown than Fleury but i'm with you - seems he's never going to get a shot with the Canes.  Darned if i can figure out why.

 

8 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

Not picking at your opinion at all, but Roland McKeown, what a mystery.

 

It is a mystery. You'd think the organizational goal is to have a leadership core at AHL level that wins and can shift to the NHL. Seems like a smart thing to do. McK's been a leader down there and now they've won it all. If that's the plan, you'd think Bean, Geekie and Necas would be next in line for leadership roles in CLT, and McK would "graduate." 

 

Coastal, we'll never agree on Justin, but at least we both know where we stand :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

I'm considerably more-impressed with McKeown than Fleury but i'm with you - seems he's never going to get a shot with the Canes.  Darned if i can figure out why.

McKeown is a steady defender, always on the plus side of +/-, and seems like the perfect budget candidate to man the right side of the 3rd defensive line.  I have been saying this for close to a year.  While TVR's contract is not big, somewhere in the $2-2.5M range, I don't see that much fall off moving his contract and moving McKeown in.  That money could make the difference this year sorting out a decent JW deal plus the remaining RFAs.  Next year Marleau's hit will be off the books, but in the short run something needs to give, and TVR's deal is one option, with Reimer's being the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like to see them hang onto TVR.  When the inevitable injury happens, who else is ready for top 4 responsibility? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I really liked Faulk's playoffs, and have always seen more from him than most everybody.

 

He's still here.

I've never thought he was as useless as most here.  I guess every team needs a whipping boy, and he's been around a while.  Gotta have somebody to shove under the bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question with Faulk, aside from his one year left contract, is: can we expect the Faulk of last year to be the Faulk we get? I would think that whatever one's previous opinions of Faulk, most can agree that he improved his game last year. Personally, I think it was transformative. When Faulk first got here his first year was a bit mixed, but then for the next two, to my eye he actually played pretty good defense most of the time, especially for a very young D man. But then (just my opinion) something happened, maybe the quest for offense, maybe the coaching and lack of D depth allowing it, who knows, but Faulk regressed defensively, and this went on for a long time. Again IMO 4 long seasons: 2014-2018. 

 

He has always been a confident puck mover, especially in the back two zones (I don't see elite PP QB playmaking), and we need that. We need to get the puck out and up the ice, it's a big part of the game and Justin is very good at that IMO. He's also got a big shot, especially on the PP. 

 

But last year, his D game tightened up A LOT. He stuck with guys, he was not beaten cleanly often, even the other parts of his game seemed better. I don't know if this was Brind'Amour, or our new D coach, or if Faulk just got to work in the offseason, or what, but he was very solid last year. That is a guy I would be fine with us signing and keeping. But will we see that guy, or the other guy in the future? 

 

That's the risk, IMO, of signing him to a longer deal, especially if he gets a NTC. I don't know the answer, but seeing more of him this year before signing him would help, and I'd pay him a bit more if we could limit or rid ourselves of the NTC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to the podcast with Adam Gold. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but there were a few good points made in almost an hour. One was the McKeown is beyond ready. His Calder playoffs were nearly flawless at a high level, and is hugely positive plus on his plus-minus is just one indication of his overall positive effect. 

 

The question in my mind is balancing the effect of bringing too many relatively inexperienced (at NHL level) D men in, too fast, vs. missing out on cheaper, effective players as well as future really good players (Bean) as they start to have to clear waivers. In my mind, there is also the potential advantage of getting a return on the more established guys in a trade. Who can be replaced? How big would the drop-off be?

 

I personally think we should tag 3 guys to make sure we have at least that much veteran presence, and ideally 4 guys. Then bring up at least 2 guys. 

 

In my opinion the 3 guys ideally would be Slavin, Pesce, Hamilton. And the swing guy would be Faulk. 

 

I don't think we'd get much for him, but in this scenario, if Faulk stays, then TVR could be moved. I'd rather keep him, but at some point, IMO, we need to see McKeown, Fleury and eventually Bean at least. 

 

I will admit that I think moving Faulk, the Faulk of last season especially, would lead to a step back on the back end. I don't see McKeown or Fleury as able to move the puck in the D and neutral zone nearly as well as Faulk does, and that is a significant part of our game. Faulk with one year left probably doesn't return much in a trade either. I'd like to sign Faulk with no NTC, even if we pay him well, and then evaluate what to do with him, but we don't have the cap space for that at the moment. 

 

I wonder what the return would be on TVR. I like the player. I really do. But if we are to get our future guys up here, something more has to give. 

Share this post


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

 

Probably futures because we don't need anymore bottom-6 depth guys.

Agree. Second rounder and prospect type of thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent analysis rem, and I guess the team, particularly the D is at a major crossroad of what I'd call, the plight of our wealth on defense. The D pipeline is about to burst with decent to good defensemen who have been percolating in the AHL long enough to be a benefit to some NHL team/teams, and some decision needs to be made on them and soon. Pesce, Slavin and likely Hamilton > Faulk are the backbone of our defense, and I agree that 1 or 2 of the youngsters need to be integrated for cost containment. I also agree with your's and coastal's analysis of Faulk, but my eyes are jaded I suppose enough to make me cringe every time he loses the puck on the PP. His defense has improved and he is a tremendous puck mover, which is absolutely necessary if we are as focused on SPEED like our recent acquisitions suggest.

 

Not to derail this great discussion, but could someone please give me the factual cost of our buyout of Marleau? I've read in multiple sources, figures anywhere from the $3 to 6 million, but thought some of this was prorated? Also, clarify for me how long we carry this burden, again please. My understanding on the matter is that a team can only engage in 3 buyouts, correct? Presently we have HWCNBN, Marleau and ? for I thought about $10 mil? Marleau is for just this year, MWCNBN is for this and next year and then there's the 1 other I cannot think of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, someone on another board pointed me to the relevant language regarding waivers and it looks like all otherwise waiver eligible Canes will be up for grabs if the Canes don't keep them with the big club.  From the CBA :

 

ARTICLE 13

WAIVERS AND LOANS OF PLAYERS TO MINOR LEAGUE CLUBS

 

13.1 

A Club shall not dispose of the services of any Player in which it has a proprietary interest by Loan to a club of another league without first having complied with the provisions of this Article. The Waivers that are recognized by this Agreement are Regular Waivers and Unconditional Waivers.

 
13.2
The "Playing Season Waiver Period" shall begin on the twelfth (12th ) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club's Playing Season. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the rights to the services of a Player may be Loaned to a club of another league, upon fulfillment of the following conditions, except when elsewhere expressly prohibited:
(a) Regular Waivers were requested and cleared during the Playing Season Waiver Period;
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

Holy hell Brock!  $2.7 million?

I love your intangibles but your point production isn’t worth that much by far!

Share this post


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

 

Not to derail this great discussion, but could someone please give me the factual cost of our buyout of Marleau? I've read in multiple sources, figures anywhere from the $3 to 6 million, but thought some of this was prorated? Also, clarify for me how long we carry this burden, again please. My understanding on the matter is that a team can only engage in 3 buyouts, correct? Presently we have HWCNBN, Marleau and ? for I thought about $10 mil? Marleau is for just this year, MWCNBN is for this and next year and then there's the 1 other I cannot think of?

Cap hit 6.25 because he is 35+

 

cost:

3 million for his signing bonus

then 2/3rds of his remaining 1.25 million salary or 833k. That 833k is split over double the remaining years of his contract. He had one year left so its split into two years or 416k per season.

 

the 2nd year, although paid, doesn’t count against our cap hit like most buyouts because we are charged his full amount this season.

 

end cost 3.866 million, 2019-2020 3.416 million, 20-21 416k

Edited by gocanes0506
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Holy hell Brock!  $2.7 million?

I love your intangibles but your point production isn’t worth that much by far!

Standard arbitration practice of asking for too much to get what you really want.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canes at risk of being grabbed if they're not kept with the big club:

 

McKeown (young RH d-man, gotta believe he'd be snapped up in a heartbeat)

Forsling (I don't have a feel for his desirability other than we thought him worth trading for and he's a d-man who's still only 23yo)

Bishop (McKegg was signed to a one-way by Rags; Bishop is 4 years younger and for some reason I see his desirability as similar)

Forsberg (any NHL team need a back up goalie?)

Carrick (probably safe)

Lintuniemi (probably safe)

 

Wallmark and Fleury are both non-exempt, but I see them as already being penciled in.

 

I'm sticking with my prediction that The Committee has more trades up it's collective sleeve. 

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Holy hell Brock!  $2.7 million?

I love your intangibles but your point production isn’t worth that much by far!

 

34 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

Standard arbitration practice of asking for too much to get what you really want.

 

I kinda like the process where both sides provide a number and the arbitrator is required to pick one or the other, whichever is closest to his assessment of "fair".  That greatly reduces gaming your ask. 

Share this post


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

I kinda like the process where both sides provide a number and the arbitrator is required to pick one or the other, whichever is closest to his assessment of "fair".  That greatly reduces gaming your ask. 

 

I know that's how the NBA does it, not sure about the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, super_dave_1 said:

I've never thought he was as useless as most here.  I guess every team needs a whipping boy, and he's been around a while.  Gotta have somebody to shove under the bus.

Im with you guys. He had a few bad years under Peters then all of the sudden has a damn near great year under RB. Sounds like Peters system was the problem. Without Faulk backing up the goalies a few times the team misses the playoffs. If it were up to me I would keep him and try and resign him. If the negotiations arent going well I may look to trade him but only if the return is good.

Edited by Derailed75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's legit funny how so many people were like  "  i wish this team would spend a little closer to the cap  "   and now that the canes have some  who were for that  are now  having second thoughts .  Can't please everyone ! 

Share this post


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

It's legit funny how so many people were like  "  i wish this team would spend a little closer to the cap  "   and now that the canes have some  who were for that  are now  having second thoughts .  Can't please everyone ! 

 

I might of missed something but I haven't seen anyone wringing their hands over spending to the cap. I will admit it is a rather new experience for many of us long time Canes fans who have grown accustomed to a budget team. I think it is more a curiosity at this point over how the McGinn arbitration works out and the Williams negotiations go. Talk about moving a Dman is legit as we seem to be at a point where if there isn't a path to the NHL for a prospect it may be time to move someone. Then again I could of missed something.

  • 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...