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

Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, KJUNKANE said:

What I'm contemplating for this conundrum would be to hold on to Faulk to allow preseason to shake out for other teams and see if we might get at that point, some callers when others' defenses start to take shape. That way, there may be a bit more urgency from others to solidify their ranks, and add to Faulk's value. At present, the atmosphere is somewhat subdued until pieces and apparent weaknesses become more apparent?

 

Only thing is, what about a knock-on effect if say Faulk temporarily occupies a roster spot at the beginning of the season? Fleury, Forsling, and McKeown are all subject to being claimed off of waivers if they're not on the Canes roster (I'm sure Fleury would be gone in a heartbeat and I think there's a good chance the other 2 would be picked up as well).  I think we're already in a position where we've got too many D assets we can't protect and will likely move some.  But if we're going to eventually move Faulk, ,might doing it before the season starts mean we get to hold onto a player like McKeown and at least test him out at the NHL level?.

 

The longer into the preseason you go the shorter the window to make a trade before the season starts (if that's actually a concern).

Share this post


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

Fleury, Forsling, and McKeown are all subject to being claimed off of waivers if they're not on the Canes roster

 

I'm pretty sure as long as they are not on the roster after training camp they can be sent down without waiver exposure before the season starts. I'm not sure about Fluery since he is a roster player. The waiver concern comes into play if they start the season or are called up to the big club. Then they would need to be exposed to waivers to be sent back down

Share this post


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

 

I'm pretty sure as long as they are not on the roster after training camp they can be sent down without waiver exposure before the season starts. I'm not sure about Fluery since he is a roster player. The waiver concern comes into play if they start the season or are called up to the big club. Then they would need to be exposed to waivers to be sent back down

 

On 7/18/2019 at 12:58 PM, LakeLivin said:

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;

 

I don't know OB.  That last clause I enlarged seems to imply that you can't hide a player by assigning them before the season starts.  I'd love to be wrong on this, but that would run counter to the reason for the rule in the first place (not allowing a deep team to bury an otherwise NHL ready player)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we get a cant turn down offer of futures (better than Skinner’s) or a chance to package to upgrade the top 6, I say TVR should be the odd man out.

 

Allow TVR to show his health in pre-season and trade him. Anaheim would be the likely destination.  

 

We roll into the season with arguably the best defense in hockey.

slavin-Hamilton

Gardiner-Pesce

Fleury-Faulk

 

Faulk is one heck of an insurance policy in case of injury and could be moved at the deadline.  We’d be able 1.5 million under the cap after the moves.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

We roll into the season with arguably the best defense in hockey.

slavin-Hamilton

Gardiner-Pesce

Fleury-Faulk

 

 

Move Pesce to his off side (where he seems more-comfortable) and replace Fleury with McKeown and it would be even better.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

Move Pesce to his off side (where he seems more-comfortable) and replace Fleury with McKeown and it would be even better.

McK is good but not Fleury good.  Pesce was good on his offside but Gardiner needs a solid defensive partner.

Share this post


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

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.

 

I think that is the  key. You would need to assign the player to the AHL 12 days before the start of the season. It is still problematic for us as we will need to make that decision. McKeown looks ready but I don't see where he fits, at least at the start of the season. He does have a chance to grab a spot in training camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gocanes0506 said:

McK is good but not Fleury good.  Pesce was good on his offside but Gardiner needs a solid defensive partner.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the first part - i saw too many games last season where McK played circles around Fleury.  I want to see good things from Fleury, but it's a struggle sometimes.  I still think Didier and JWesley were better options, but i'm just this old hippie in the stands - the committee obviously didn't see what i saw in those two.  I definitely agree with you on a solid defensive partner for Gardiner, though.

Share this post


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

 

I think that is the  key. You would need to assign the player to the AHL 12 days before the start of the season. It is still problematic for us as we will need to make that decision. McKeown looks ready but I don't see where he fits, at least at the start of the season. He does have a chance to grab a spot in training camp.

 

But section 13.2 (a) specifies that being exposed to waivers during the Playing Season Waiver Period is a requirement for a non-waiver-exempt player to be assigned.  That seems to close the loophole that would allow us to avoid exposing our young d-men by assigning them before the Playing Season Waiver Period commences.  

 

Again, I hope I'm wrong. Have we got any attorneys on here that want to weigh in on the interpretation?  If not, we might get a pretty good idea by what happens preseason. I think 12 days prior to the start of the season is after only 1 or 2 of the Canes preseason games.  So if that loophole exists, in order to use it the Canes would need to send McKeown, Forsling, or Fleury down to Charlotte without really giving them a fair shot at making the team. [although, I think we deal some of those kids before we get to that point]

Share this post


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

Unless we get a cant turn down offer of futures (better than Skinner’s) or a chance to package to upgrade the top 6, I say TVR should be the odd man out.

 

Allow TVR to show his health in pre-season and trade him. Anaheim would be the likely destination.  

 

We roll into the season with arguably the best defense in hockey.

slavin-Hamilton

Gardiner-Pesce

Fleury-Faulk

 

Faulk is one heck of an insurance policy in case of injury and could be moved at the deadline.  We’d be able 1.5 million under the cap after the moves.

 

I was all for keeping Skinner in lieu of the Poo return we got back (subsequent results indicate I was probably wrong, lol).  But there's a potential factor in the Faulk decision that didn't apply to Skinner, and it has to do with the long term.  What if keeping Faulk to start the season means we lose, say, McKeown or Fleury?  Either could turn out to be relatively low cost, long term, high quality, third pair mainstays, with 2nd pair quality level upside.  They're probably not going to be stars, but that type of player has real value, imo. 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't keep Faulk as an insurance policy; a lot would depend on the return.  But I'm factoring the cost of what we might lose as well as what we might gain into the equation.  I suspect that the Canes scouts and analytics guys (and obviously Brindy) will be important voices when the Committee does that calculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really don't know what we could get for Faulk. We don't know what offers the team has declined over the years or recently. It is possible that The Committee and even RF thought Faulk should return a solid top 6 NHL forward, and have held out for that. We may have passed on a first rounder already.

 

Historically teams would give up a first rounder for a deadline rental if that player is good enough and the perceived need strong enough. If a team got Faulk now, they'd get a full year of him plus potential playoffs, and a chance to sign him long term if they wanted him. I don't know that would be enough for a first rounder, but I don't know that it wouldn't. Toronto sold us one for cash. This time of year GM's seem willing to part with them. Get close to the draft and it's like asking for someone's first born. This is the time of year to get first rounders, or really any picks. GM's are focused on icing a good team now, not a pick that might be good 5 years from now. 

 

Faulk played much better last year. The concern about Faulk has always been his D and his outsized minus number. He put a lot of that to rest last year. Another small concern might be the "he hasn't won anything or played a single playoff game." Again, crossed that out last year. So yes, only one year left on the deal, but also a much better player that a team might want to sign long term, which would be lucky for a first rounder to turn into, and he's that now.

 

Skinner was different in some key ways, but the main one was that Skinner had a full NTC, and apparently only approved Buffalo. I'm sure Buffalo knew this. Faulk, I think has a limited NTC. If I'm right about those that could be very big. First, Faulk could still agree to a NTC team if he thought they'd sign him long term. Second there are a lot more teams than one in the mix. 

 

Also, moving Skinner was the face of change. Skinner had flat out coasted many times the previous year, and Brind'Amour felt he could not get the team on board as they watched Skinner play by different rules. So, Skinner HAD to go, had only one year left and pinned us to one team. This is not the case with Faulk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that in the past, we'd take a first rounder for Faulk, but now it would make a lot of sense to me. We are deep everywhere. We really don't need another player, in fact, unless we get a 55 point or better player, who is good in the locker room, and plays both sides of the ice, where would we even put him? Especially if J Williams has designs on a return. And frankly, we don't need more prospects, unless they are grade A prospects, but teams don't tend to trade those guys anyways. 

 

But a first round pick, in one of the deepest drafts in recent history? Add that to the two we already have, and the two second rounders? This is how you get your future stars. This is where the eventual replacements for guys like Staal or Dzingel or Nino will come from. This is how you stay really good for a really long time. 

 

If Faulk does not return a first rounder, then I agree. Keep him. But if he does? Take it. 

Share this post


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

Anyone else seeing Elliot Freidman reporting Faulk possibly being traded to Anaheim? Not sure if that's confirmed?

Rumors flying Ducks are going after Laine too

Share this post


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

Rumors flying Ducks are going after Laine too

Yeah, and Jets may be putting in a bid for Faulk as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read Pierre Lebrun on the Athletic.  Apparently we are actively shopping Faulk and even letting teams contact his agent about signing an extension.  We knew that Faulk was likely the odd-man out when Gardiner was signed. But apparently things are really afoot now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ironman87 said:

Just read Pierre Lebrun on the Athletic.  Apparently we are actively shopping Faulk and even letting teams contact his agent about signing an extension.  We knew that Faulk was likely the odd-man out when Gardiner was signed. But apparently things are really afoot now.

Sounds like we might actually get to find out what the return on Faulk would be. Of course we've been shopped Faulk quite a bit to date, so who knows if we'll get a bite. 

Share this post


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

Sounds like we might actually get to find out what the return on Faulk would be. Of course we've been shopped Faulk quite a bit to date, so who knows if we'll get a bite. 

 

 

Ironic that he just had probably the best season he's ever had, yet his trade value is probably the lowest it's ever been.  I'd love for the Canes to get top cash and prizes for him, but i'm expecting Pu.  Hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

Share this post


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

 

Ironic that he just had probably the best season he's ever had, yet his trade value is probably the lowest it's ever been.  I'd love for the Canes to get top cash and prizes for him, but i'm expecting Pu.  Hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

If I were on the committee, (who knows, maybe they read us), I would not vote to trade Faulk for Pu. IMO we traded Skinner for Pu because he was viewed as a negative to the plan. Old Faulk, I'd agree, but last year's Faulk no. The proof is not only Faulk's play, but the team's play with Faulk on it. Faulk is worth more to us than Pu. I want a first rounder or something better, or just keep him. But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

No idea how reliable any of this stuff is, but thought it might be of interest.

 

 

I think Friedman is pretty dialed in, and Pagnotta says the deal is set, but are waiting on if Faulk will sign an extension. I'm thinking that the other thing says Faulk had Anaheim on his no trade list? He can still agree to waive, but that would be interesting. 

 

If the deal is contingent on him signing and extension, I have to think we get back more than Pu.

Share this post


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

If I were on the committee, (who knows, maybe they read us), I would not vote to trade Faulk for Pu. IMO we traded Skinner for Pu because he was viewed as a negative to the plan. Old Faulk, I'd agree, but last year's Faulk no. The proof is not only Faulk's play, but the team's play with Faulk on it. Faulk is worth more to us than Pu. I want a first rounder or something better, or just keep him. But that's just me.

But we need cap flexibility, that's why I was wo during if we would be willing to ditch Reimer and run with Petr and Ned. Then closer to the Trade deadline, with a healthy TVR we see what we need and get what we can with either Faulk or TVR. 

  • 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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...