Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

[cane-addict-1]

... and I'd be okay with either of those scenarios (please don't let it be Darling. If we got a stud starter I could maybe tolerate him as a backup. Thats about it. And I still wouldn't like it. But if the guy came back and blew us away next year, what a story!)

[KJUNKANE]

8 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

Throwing term or big money at either doesn’t make sense. Some team, like Philadelphia, might be dumb enough to throw 20+ million to Mrazek over 4 years.

 

May not make sense, but if both are gone in my opinion, that will be devastating no matter who replaces them. 

 

As to your comment, legend, it was my understanding that the reason we presently have not bought out or made some type of move in Darling's case is some type of stipulation that a team must have 3 goals on their payroll? Don't understand that but that's what I'd read.

[Canesfanforever]

I just thought of something that is insane  , but yet plausible .   So we all know  Jeff Skinner signed his big money contract and  same goes for EK   .    There is a way out for both of those teams  on ridding themselves of either player   next the future  but that would mean  either a stupid gm  takes on a big contract  so that the sabres or sharks   can fix the mess they are going to be in years from now .     come 2021  is when Seattle  enters the fray  and  it is possible that seattle could  go after  skinner or karlsson   if lets say  either team chose not to protect  them .   Obviously the winning formula  is to have reasonable contracts with great spread sheets  for future   pick up's so that a team can keep who they want  and not have a over all suffer to their cap situation .   It can be possible for a team like Seattle to  swoop in  and take  a player if  a team feels  a need to let them go .   I know im reading too much in the ole crystal ball  but i  think it's possible that  skinner or  karlsson or any other later regretful big signing   like that is a way out because of  a new team  taking on those terms .  

[KJUNKANE]

In other good news, Flyers sign Hayes, so there's that?

[gocanes0506]

Just now, KJUNKANE said:

In other good news, Flyers sign Hayes, so there's that?

To a bad contract too.  They why of trying to win is not smart.  Its Red Wings level.

[top-shelf-1]

1 hour ago, KJUNKANE said:

May not make sense, but if both are gone in my opinion, that will be devastating no matter who replaces them.

If recent history is any indication, they were gone the moment they decided to test the market. With the (inexplicable) exception of PDG, guys who have done so recently, or even balked at our best offer, are dead to us (i.e., Lindholm, Noah).

 

I don't see it as devastating. For years owners have been talking tough, backing down, and ultimately rolling over. I'm glad we have one who places a priority on building something and seeing it through. Thanks for your service, and don't let the door hit you in the @$$, McE and Petr...

[KJUNKANE]

6 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

If recent history is any indication, they were gone the moment they decided to test the market. With the (inexplicable) exception of PDG, guys who have done so recently, or even balked at our best offer, are dead to us (i.e., Lindholm, Noah).

 

I don't see it as devastating. For years owners have been talking tough, backing down, and ultimately rolling over. I'm glad we have one who places a priority on building something and seeing it through. Thanks for your service, and don't let the door hit you in the @$$, McE and Petr...

I hope you're right top, but who pray tell will we replace them with, Bob (no way)? What concerns me is that both seemed to fit, now we'd have to get guys in, if they go, with whom the team has not meshed. And on top of that, we've got no goalie coach who might attract some goalie on the market. Any way you cut it, I don't see this as a positive development, unless their agents are just posturing or media is over blowing the situation?

[bluedevil58]

9m a year for 8 years for Skinner?  Yikes!

[remkin]

It's too early to panic. But I for one am less than thrilled that we didn't lock up either goalie. Hey, if we have a bigger move up our sleeves then fine, it might work out just great. But we've struggled to get even league average goaltending for a decade. Attempts with Lack and Darling, and many other names. Despite everything else that went right last year, if we had the goaltending of any of previous years we would have been having the same discussions about picking around #12 that we usually have. 

 

I hope their's a plan. There is simply no way that plan can be Darling, That would be like bringing HWSNBN back as the answer. 

 

I get not wanting to overpay people, but el cheapo is not a plan either. 

 

I just hope we have a bigger plan and hardballing Mrazek was because there is a plan B. As promising as half of Ned's year was, he is totally unproven in the NHL. 

 

At this point I'm trusting there is a plan B more than this board's frugality. At some point we have to spend, and at some point we have to give to get. It is still early though, so I'm still assuming we'll do both. 

[slapshot02]

11 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

I think we can move on from any Ehlers trade.  Sounds to me like they wanted Pesce and we said no thanks......dialtone.  I could be wrong.

If it was Pesce I say no as well. If we could swing Fleury + + hell ya. Granted Ehlers is LW but beside us needing more fire power we also need insurance in case William's walks. Ehlers contract is enticing.

[gocanes0506]

1 minute ago, remkin said:

It's too early to panic. But I for one am less than thrilled that we didn't lock up either goalie. Hey, if we have a bigger move up our sleeves then fine, it might work out just great. But we've struggled to get even league average goaltending for a decade. Attempts with Lack and Darling, and many other names. Despite everything else that went right last year, if we had the goaltending of any of previous years we would have been having the same discussions about picking around #12 that we usually have. 

 

I hope their's a plan. There is simply no way that plan can be Darling, That would be like bringing HWSNBN back as the answer. 

 

I get not wanting to overpay people, but el cheapo is not a plan either. 

 

I just hope we have a bigger plan and hardballing Mrazek was because there is a plan B. As promising as half of Ned's year was, he is totally unproven in the NHL. 

 

At this point I'm trusting there is a plan B more than this board's frugality. At some point we have to spend, and at some point we have to give to get. It is still early though, so I'm still assuming we'll do both. 

Adam Gold is saying Mrazek wants #1 money. He isn’t a true number 1. He only played in 40 regular season games. On top of that he has just as many bottom 10 stats seasons as top 15.  Huge risk giving him number one numbers.

 

McE is 36.  Giving him fringe starter money on more than one year is dumb.  On top of that he has appeared in 28+ games just 4 times in his career.  We don’t know if he can handle 30 games again.

[iceman11]

Eventually, the Canes need to pay somebody.  And I don’t want to hear about budget and all that BS, when the owner of the team had plenty of money to waste on the AFL a few months ago.  

 

Seriously, the Canes don’t want to pay anybody.  You can’t keep moving forward trading everyone who needs a contract.  That Calgary trade is going to look really bad in the next few years.

 

The team built a nice foundation last year.   Please don’t regress this year.  The East is going to be tough next year.  Canes need to add some pieces to the roster.

[cc]

2 minutes ago, iceman11 said:

Eventually, the Canes need to pay somebody.  And I don’t want to hear about budget and all that BS, when the owner of the team had plenty of money to waste on the AFL a few months ago.  

 

Seriously, the Canes don’t want to pay anybody.  You can’t keep moving forward trading everyone who needs a contract.  That Calgary trade is going to look really bad in the next few years.

 

The team built a nice foundation last year.   Please don’t regress this year.  The East is going to be tough next year.  Canes need to add some pieces to the roster.

Step back from the edge.

[KJUNKANE]

28 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

Adam Gold is saying Mrazek wants #1 money. He isn’t a true number 1. He only played in 40 regular season games. On top of that he has just as many bottom 10 stats seasons as top 15.  Huge risk giving him number one numbers.

 

McE is 36.  Giving him fringe starter money on more than one year is dumb.  On top of that he has appeared in 28+ games just 4 times in his career.  We don’t know if he can handle 30 games again.

I concede these very good points gocanes, but after a taste of a year in which the goalie question took a back seat, I pray there's a plan B as rem calls it as I surely don't think Ned is ready for a full NHL season, and God help us if Darling comes back?

 

Let me add that if M & M leave, I hope DW is formulating a plan to move up in the draft and pick up Spencer Knight?

Edited June 19 by KJUNKANE

[super_dave_1]

Darling will now be referred to as AHWSNBN

 

Also He Who Shall Not Be Named

 

 

[remkin]

49 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

Adam Gold is saying Mrazek wants #1 money. He isn’t a true number 1. He only played in 40 regular season games. On top of that he has just as many bottom 10 stats seasons as top 15.  Huge risk giving him number one numbers.

 

McE is 36.  Giving him fringe starter money on more than one year is dumb.  On top of that he has appeared in 28+ games just 4 times in his career.  We don’t know if he can handle 30 games again.

I don't necessarily disagree, but it will depend on the alternative plan. I'd rather overpay Mrazek to be an average #1 than get back on the sub-par goalie carousel we've ridden to mediocrity for 10 years.

[gocanes0506]

7 minutes ago, remkin said:

I don't necessarily disagree, but it will depend on the alternative plan. I'd rather overpay Mrazek to be an average #1 than get back on the sub-par goalie carousel we've ridden to mediocrity for 10 years.

Even giving him a Darling type contract could put us in a 4 year mediocrity of goaltending. I bet it’s more like 20 million over 4 years.

 

Last 4 seasons in sv% (at least 10 games)

18-19- 22nd

17-18- 56th

16-17- 56th

15-16- 17th

 

last 4 seasons GAA (10+ played)

18-19- 8th

17-18- 49th

16-17- 56th

15-16- 21st

 

I’d give him one more year and at 5 million but not 4+ years at this point.

[realmdrakkar]

11 minutes ago, remkin said:

I don't necessarily disagree, but it will depend on the alternative plan. I'd rather overpay Mrazek to be an average #1 than get back on the sub-par goalie carousel we've ridden to mediocrity for 10 years.

 

 

I tend to agree here.  Given this team's history, if you're going to overpay anybody, these are the guys to overpay - unless they're wanting deals like the ridiculous deal JR gave Ward so many years ago.  The sky isn't falling yet but this team can't go into next season hoping Ned and Darling can replicate M & M's success.  If DW can't resign Mac or Mraz then he needs to find a proven NHL starter to throw on the ice - no more wing and a prayer.

[legend-1]

43 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

Darling will now be referred to as AHWSNBN

 

Also He Who Shall Not Be Named

Can't have too many more of those, these acronym's are even getting wordy.

[remkin]

4 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

Even giving him a Darling type contract could put us in a 4 year mediocrity of goaltending. I bet it’s more like 20 million over 4 years.

 

Last 4 seasons in sv% (at least 10 games)

18-19- 22nd

17-18- 56th

16-17- 56th

15-16- 17th

 

last 4 seasons GAA (10+ played)

18-19- 8th

17-18- 49th

16-17- 56th

15-16- 21st

 

I’d give him one more year and at 5 million but not 4+ years at this point.

But the finish of last year was top half of the league.

 

Again, it all comes down to plan B. If we don't get good goaltending we miss the playoffs. 

[KJUNKANE]

10 minutes ago, realmdrakkar said:

no more wing and a pray

Or goalie and a prayer as the case may be, realm.

[remkin]

I guess it's possible that Mrazek tests the market and doesn't get the big contract and we still get him later at a reduced price. But to roll those dice, we better have another plan.

[LakeLivin]

I was thinking the reason Darling hasn't been bought out yet is that Canes are keeping open the possibility they could do better by retaining salary and including him in a package to a team willing to take a flier on him coming back, but the numbers don't work. Canes would only save if they retained less than $1.18m a year, and no one is going to be willing to take a shot on Darling at $2.37 per for the next 2 years.   So, perhaps posturing for the (apparently ended) Mrazek / Mac negotiations?  Regardless, I'll be gobsmacked if Darling isn't bought out before July 1st.

 

Link to a list of free agent goalies for next season.  I can't see Isles not re-signing Lehner, nor Canes spending for Bob.  Maybe targeting Varlamov?

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents/2020/Sv/all/goalies/ufa&display=weight,height&hide=clauses,position,handed,expiry-status,salary,skater-stats

Edited June 19 by LakeLivin

[gocanes0506]

Darling hasn’t been bought out because we don’t have a 3rd goalie on contract.

[AssistantGM]

Granted, Mrazek had a pretty good year; but during his career he has been inconsistent from year to year. Giving him big $$$ with term could come back to haunt us. He came here on a one year deal to prove he could be a #1, and as well as he played, I'm not sure that the Canes, or any team sees him as a long term #1. Remember, that he flamed out in Detroit (after a great season), and also wasn't good in Philadelphia. And there is no guarantee that Mac can duplicate what he accomplished at this stage in his career. Obviously, we are back at square one for a starting goalie (Ned has earned the backup); but if management is serious about FA or trades, then maybe we come out of this in better shape. Desperate times require desperate measures!!!