Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, remkin said:

I have to circle back to the DeHaan return on trade. I do get that the move freed up cap space. I guess one can intellectually apply that cap space in diffent directions. It allowed us to buy Toronto's first round pick and still sign Dzingle and so forth. But the trade itself is still one of the most questionable moves the committee has made to me. 

 

I still maintain that at the time the committee was panicking about the possibility of the music ending and having no goalie chair to sit in and needed something, anything that could help in goal. It's this kind of move that makes me still wonder how much luck is involved vs genius with some moves. If we move on from Forsberg or waive him and lose him, then the trade becomes DeHaaan for Forsling (and we gave them Saarlea). 

 

Losing Adam Fox after saying he was 99% here, getting Pu for Skinner, and the DeHaan trade stand out as questionable to me. 

 

BTW this does not mean I'm overall down on the committee. I gave them and A for crying out loud. So far things have turned out pretty well even on most of the questionable moves, and there's always Rask for Nino to bring the shine back. But no one gets them all right, and the DeHaan deal still seems a bit shakey to me. I guess time will tell.

 

 

Admittedly i am (and was from the start) unsure about the deHaan trade as well.  I know i can look this up but i'm too lazy to at the moment - who did we get first, Forsberg or Reimer?  If Reimer wasn't here yet then i guess i can see the cupboard was looking a little thin after losing McElhinney.  DeHaan & Saarela for Forsling, though - that's Skinner for Pu level trading there, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arbitrator’s decision is binding and final. However, teams have “Walk-Away Rights” when the player elects arbitration. Teams cannot exercise these rights more than once per year (they can exercise this right twice in a year where three or four arbitration awards have been assessed to their players

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehockeyblawg.com/single-post/2017/07/18/A-Guide-to-NHL-Salary-Arbitration%3f_amp_

Share this post


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

 

 

Gotcha.  Methinks Forsbergs time with the Canes organization is done.  Can't see the Canes taking a risk to pay him $775k to play in Charlotte, especially since there's a chance we might be paying Reimer even more to play there if Ned plays lights out for the Canes.   Seems a shame as I bet Forsberg ends up signing a 2-way deal with another team anyways.

 

55 minutes ago, realmdrakkar said:

 

 

Can he?  I don't fully know how it works but i don't see the benefit to going to arbitration to get the Mac-Daddy deal he wants, only to turn around and sign for what the Canes were willing to give him elsewhere because nobody else is willing to pay him $775 either.

 

The benefit is that it gets Forsberg full UFA status.  But you're right, I don't know how much good that is going to do him as I'll be surprised if another team is willing to offer him anything other than a 2-way deal (which is what the main point of contention had to be, not the NHL salary). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still remaining to do list

 

Justin Williams decision

Saku Maenalanen  unsigned 

Roland McKeown unsigned

Share this post


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

Still remaining to do list

 

Justin Williams decision

Saku Maenalanen  unsigned 

Roland McKeown unsigned

Plus a General Manager MUST be under contract by the end of the month, aka NHL bylaws?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goalies still sort of baffle me. The most important position on the ice, but unless you are a massive upside prospect, or a proven #1, you're not really worth much. 

 

I get Forsberg wanting the one way. He's at a point where he has to play NHL games. His AHL credentials are already good. But who will give him NHL games until he proves more at the NHL level? There are only 31 NHL creases and 62 NHL goalie slots (generally). 

 

Forsberg is an example IMO of the committee not being pure genius all the time. OK, we like Forsberg as a very good NHL prospect. But then he gets a one way deal. Doh. OK we just carry three goalies? Then there are three goalies blocking Ned, and really that doesn't usually work great, and we're also up against the cap. 

 

So we waive him. He's claimed and we get nothing.

 

So we trade him. Suddenly he gets us a 4th round pick and it points out again that we traded Calvin DeHaan for a low level prospect and a 4th rounder. 

 

The only way I see this ending well is that we get away with waiving him. But even then, if we bring him up, we'd have to waive him again.

 

The generous interpretation is that this was an insurance policy that we didn't end up needing. The less generous one is that we panicked and got little to nothing for a very good NHL defenseman.

 

I'm guessing that we could get away with waiving him, and if so, it still could work out well.

 

One question. Even if he were on a two way he might have had to clear waivers. Is that right? If so, it actually makes the deal worse, since we knew when we got him he'd have to clear to go down, but the results of the arbitration much less important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bonivan said:

The arbitrator’s decision is binding and final. However, teams have “Walk-Away Rights” when the player elects arbitration. T

 

 

Maybe not in this case

The Hurricanes were not allowed to walk away from the deal given the relatively low salary that was awarded to Forsberg

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Maybe not in this case

The Hurricanes were not allowed to walk away from the deal given the relatively low salary that was awarded to Forsberg

 

 

Yep that's what I thought I'd read, but was not going to debate it.

Share this post


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

 

Maybe not in this case

The Hurricanes were not allowed to walk away from the deal given the relatively low salary that was awarded to Forsberg

 

 

Thinking further on this OBXer, I'm wondering if we've got some dichotomy of thoughts here, or possibly it's just me? The point you've made is that because the awarded salary is so low, the Canes cannot "just walk away" from it as is the case with other higher awards (ie several million). However, we aren't bound to having to keep this player are we? I guess that I'm asking clarification on the situation, because we could trade him or send him thru waivers couldn't we?

 

Also, I thought someone else suggested that if he were traded, the trading team could then negotiate a 2 way deal, which also seems not right to me, as I'll bet any team that gets him this year has to abide by the arbitrated award, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that Forsberg doesn't bring back much in a trade, but maybe I'm wrong. We could wait and see how he and Reimer look in camp. If Forsberg looks good and Reimer is average, maybe we can trade Reimer for a bag of pucks. Problem would be a team taking on Reimer's salary, because unless he really rocks (in which case why trade him), we'd probably have to eat some of his salary, which we might not be able to do. I guess we could waive Reimer and send him down if it came to that. 

 

If Forsberg is meh, we could probably get him past waivers. 

 

I guess we see who does what in camp and go from there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have the question open to those who know these things:

 

Did the one-way even matter? Was he eligible to avoid waivers anyway? If not, then it's just a matter of paying him the same amount in the AHL or not. Isn't that always the case, that the two way is about pay, not avoiding waivers? However, in that case it also begs the question of why we traded DeHaan for him if he could not be sent down without risking waivers.

Share this post


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

Did the one-way even matter? Was he eligible to avoid waivers anyway?

 

From what I'm reading he would of had to clear waivers anyway. But it might matter to a team trading for him because the salary is the same for him at both the AHL/NHL level. His salary isn't that much but I could see teams reluctant to pay him that money at the AHL level. As the season wears on he would become more desirable to a team in need as he burns some of his salary. f we lose him on waivers I suppose it would be no worse than if we were able to walk away from the arbitration settlement.

 

I suppose he could fool us and take the crease in Raleigh. He would be a bargain for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

Plus a General Manager MUST be under contract by the end of the month, aka NHL bylaws?

Im so glad you  pointed that out .  I recently read that  from the news and observer  and   it seems  either 2 or 3 things are in play .

1.  It's possible that Dundon wants to wait  till hockey season is a little closer  to do a double singing or triple  singing   for  Waddell , Williams  and a new  Goalie Coach

2.  That  there might be another Canes  training camp fest  thingy  so that fans can come see the players  ( this one is straight up speculation  )

3.  Tom Dundon  could possibly  petition  to have that NHL  bylaw revoked .   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering when we would hear from him. 

 

NHL.com just put up an article about Haula, and how he sees similarities between Canes and Vegas.

 

.

Edited by Kyrule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haula is going to love it here in Carolina .  The system  the canes run  is what i would say is more to Haula's  liking .  Get the puck deep  feed it back door or drop off for a  blue line  shot for a rebound .  He Thrived  really well  with vegas  when those opportunities   happened .   Carolina is all about that style of play .  Im not sure   how much ice time he will get  but if it's anything like what  Nino got  then  Haula  could be a possible 30 +  goal scorer this year for the canes .    

Share this post


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

Thanks Lake.

 

Sorry, I don’t know how to post links from a phone. I’m old.

Press and hold your finger on the text of the link a menu pops up with options.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 1:11 PM, remkin said:

I still have the question open to those who know these things:

 

Did the one-way even matter? Was he eligible to avoid waivers anyway? If not, then it's just a matter of paying him the same amount in the AHL or not. Isn't that always the case, that the two way is about pay, not avoiding waivers? However, in that case it also begs the question of why we traded DeHaan for him if he could not be sent down without risking waivers.

It seems to me that the logic in trading de Haan was to dump salary in an attempt to move $ from the D side of the roster to the O side.  Pretty much every contributor to this board has promoted that notion.  Low and behold, they scored a goal on that play by signing Dzingle with those dollars.  Paying de Haan that kind of money to play on the 3rd D line at the expense of adding a legitimate scorer made no sense.  They have Fleury, Forsling, Bean, and McKeown to battle for that spot, at much less the price.

Share this post


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

It seems to me that the logic in trading de Haan was to dump salary in an attempt to move $ from the D side of the roster to the O side.  Pretty much every contributor to this board has promoted that notion.  Low and behold, they scored a goal on that play by signing Dzingle with those dollars.  Paying de Haan that kind of money to play on the 3rd D line at the expense of adding a legitimate scorer made no sense.  They have Fleury, Forsling, Bean, and McKeown to battle for that spot, at much less the price.

I agree that getting cap space turned out to be is the main thing (though not something we've thought much about before around here). But unlike Skinner or say Fox, I don't think that DeHaan had a way to control the trade. So trade his salary for picks and prospects I guess, but it just seems we could have gotten more, especially if we have to waive Forsberg and he gets claimed. I've been expressing the need to make room for our yutes on D for a long time. I don't have a problem with doing it, just again, the return.

 

Maybe we see more in Forsberg and manage to keep him. I still tend to think we needed to make sure we had a serviceable goalie before heading into UFA, but it's just a theory.

 

Forsberg did have good AHL numbers. It could come together for him, and if it does, it will be a much better deal.

 

 

Another question about waivers. Can we send him down before the season starts without having to put him through waivers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, remkin said:

I agree that getting cap space turned out to be is the main thing (though not something we've thought much about before around here). But unlike Skinner or say Fox, I don't think that DeHaan had a way to control the trade. So trade his salary for picks and prospects I guess, but it just seems we could have gotten more, especially if we have to waive Forsberg and he gets claimed. I've been expressing the need to make room for our yutes on D for a long time. I don't have a problem with doing it, just again, the return.

 

Maybe we see more in Forsberg and manage to keep him. I still tend to think we needed to make sure we had a serviceable goalie before heading into UFA, but it's just a theory.

 

Forsberg did have good AHL numbers. It could come together for him, and if it does, it will be a much better deal.

 

 

Another question about waivers. Can we send him down before the season starts without having to put him through waivers? 

 

This has been debated a number of times here, but recently I posted the text from the CBA that indicates you can't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.canescountry.com/platform/amp/2019/8/7/20758093/carolina-hurricanes-justin-williams-retirement-captain-justin-faulk-jordan-staal-rod-brindamour

 

Just a test. 

 

Thanks Legend-1.

 

The NHL articles don’t have a blue link to copy (holding your finger down does nothing), but I’m just using the app. I could probably do a search and find a link.

 

Thanks again, I’ll try linking in the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree that getting cap space turned out to be is the main thing (though not something we've thought much about before around here). But unlike Skinner or say Fox, I don't think that DeHaan had a way to control the trade. So trade his salary for picks and prospects I guess, but it just seems we could have gotten more, especially if we have to waive Forsberg and he gets claimed. I've been expressing the need to make room for our yutes on D for a long time. I don't have a problem with doing it, just again, the return.

 

Maybe we see more in Forsberg and manage to keep him. I still tend to think we needed to make sure we had a serviceable goalie before heading into UFA, but it's just a theory.

 

Forsberg did have good AHL numbers. It could come together for him, and if it does, it will be a much better deal.

 

 

Another question about waivers. Can we send him down before the season starts without having to put him through waivers? 

I don't think that we will ever mix up NHL transactions with the NBA, but as a role model, NBA trades, waivers, free agent signings, are 100% about $ and working within the framework of caps.  1st round draft picks get dumped all the time, odd looking trades are the norm.  The NBA landscape has been taken over by "premier" players packaging themselves with contemporaries to possible destinations.  The players have seemingly taken over management of the contending teams.  I hope nothing like this ever happens in the NHL.  Right now the NHL is a picture of parity, whereupon a team such as the Canes can not be expected to make the playoffs and then ascend to the EC Finals.  

Forsberg's status on the team is somewhat of an after thought.  They will figure it out.  Dzingel's presence, along with Haula's due to Vegas's own cap issues, hopefully will outweigh any of the player compensation inequity you observe the de Haan trade to have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Guys, I need help. Just looking at TSN site listing UFAs remaining, and Marleau is listed as Carolina's. Now I know that Waddell made that infamous deal for him to get a 1st from Toronto, but I thought he moved on to San Jose after that, although there was some snafu there. So what gives, is he or isn't he going to retire back there? And if he does, how does that affect the $$$$ here? Further, I do know we carry what $3.8mil or so from him, but could that change? Finally, if he's receiving salary from us, does he in fact "retire" a Cane?

 

Also see Maroon there???

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...