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

Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

I don't want to get onto the pessimism side of the fence, but here is that side: I think that Kase was the peak of what we could have gotten for Faulk. It would seem that Faulk wouldn't sign with Anaheim, and that killed the deal, though this is just speculation. Continuing with that speculation, since Anaheim was on the NTC, I'm guessing Faulk asked for the moon and Anaheim didn't bite. One of the Cane's guiding principles has always been wanting players that "want to be here". I have to think most teams think that way. Of course it is overstated to a degree, especially with trades, but still, being on a guy's NTC list isn't the best introduction. 

 

Anyways, it's just been so hard to trade Faulk, that the idea of getting a guy like Kase just seemed too good to be true. Maybe it was. Next option: middling prospects, al al the DeHaan for the two Fors and if that doesn't work....Pu. 

 

Overall, the committee really has rocked. But when it comes to converting all of these "riches" on D to something else, we've been fairly inefficient. Just once, I'd like to lose one of these guys on D and get something of value back. 

 

OK. Just have to occasionally throw a little cold water out there. It will all work out fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the committee and Faulk couldn't agree on an extension (maybe not close), they signed Gardiner.  With Hamilton, Pesce, Slavin, and Gardiner signed beyond this year and guys in the system pushing up, it's pretty apparent that Faulk is left without a seat in the locker room when the music stops.  I don't think it's a matter of who wants to be where, I think it's a matter of business and contract management.  Anaheim was probably the best likely return and Faulk had the leverage in this case to make them pay.  I think it will be worked out amicably before too long, even if it's for futures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Anaheim deal appears dead, it looks like futures are the likely best return we get for Faulk. Clearly we can’t keep him after this year, and if we hold onto him past camp, we will almost certainly lose a promising (and cheaper) defenseman to waivers, that we can probably keep into the future on a team friendly contract. Last year, I was steamed at the return for Skinner, especially after he came out of the gate so hot. But in the end, we got two 2nds, made the playoffs without him, and didn’t have to pay $8 million a year to keep him. That deal may have been Rod’s line in the sand that motivated everyone else on the team. I’m not saying we trade Faulk for the same reasons, but like with Skinner, it just seems like it needs to be done.

Share this post


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

But in the end, we got two 2nds, made the playoffs without him, and didn’t have to pay $8 million a year to keep him.

 

9 million per year for 8 years.

 

I know, still hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, someone in the know please tell me what to make of this Fredrik Claesson tryout? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around a Dman PTO, but I suppose he could be useful in Charlotte, and I guess one never knows about a "hidden gem"?

Share this post


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

9 million per year for 8 years.

 

I know, still hard to believe.

Not at all. Buff is in "keeping butts in the seats" mode, and given that Eichel (like his Edmonton "generational talent" counterpart, McJesus) couldn't save the sinking ship on his own--and is about as exciting to watch playing hockey as Al Gore is, giving a speech--they couldn't afford to give up the only guy on the roster capable of electrifying the fan base.

 

There will always be teams that pay for pure scorers. When the rest of the roster is in place, it can work. When it's not, you won't win games--but you can go into the apparel business instead: selling sweaters. Jim Rutherford GMing, 101.

Share this post


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

On another note, someone in the know please tell me what to make of this Fredrik Claesson tryout? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around a Dman PTO, but I suppose he could be useful in Charlotte, and I guess one never knows about a "hidden gem"?

Feels to me (from my admittedly biased POV) like one more statement to Faulk that we're moving on; like a potential old hand to pair with the kids in CLT; and like insurance if an NHL Dman goes down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Feels to me (from my admittedly biased POV) like one more statement to Faulk that we're moving on; like a potential old hand to pair with the kids in CLT; and like insurance if an NHL Dman goes down.

To add to this @KJUNKANE I think we were close enough to a Faulk move we wanted to another experienced NHL defender. That way we would have experience with Faulk traded and TVR out.

 

Rangers fans seem to have a positive opinion on his play as a reliable 3rd pairing guy.

Share this post


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

To add to this @KJUNKANE I think we were close enough to a Faulk move we wanted to another experienced NHL defender. That way we would have experience with Faulk traded and TVR out.

 

Rangers fans seem to have a positive opinion on his play as a reliable 3rd pairing guy.

So, in summary go and top, Faulk is once again throwing a wrench into the works with incrementally small positive strides, BUT STILL SEEMS UNABLE TO HOLD THE BLUE LINE on the power play (or at least that's what drives me craziest about him). I have sworn for some time that he needs glasses because of that?

 

And I'll add one more thing. With the present gluttony of D, where does Waddell go from here?

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


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

So, in summary go and top, Faulk is once again throwing a wrench into the works with incrementally small positive strides, BUT STILL SEEMS UNABLE TO HOLD THE BLUE LINE on the power play (or at least that's what drives me craziest about him). I have sworn for some time that he needs glasses because of that?

 

And I'll add one more thing. With the present gluttony of D, where does Waddell go from here?

Faulk is just doing what any professional in any profession would do in his situation.  If you or I had a 5 year employment contract as a teacher or whatever and after the 4th year the School District wanted to trade your last year to an undesirable school district for a bus, and you had the right of refusal, what would you say?

Signing Gardner was a move made knowing they might not be able to find a fit for Faulk right now.  Maybe it happens at the deadline.  Maybe they trade TVR instead.

Share this post


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

, BUT STILL SEEMS UNABLE TO HOLD THE BLUE LINE on the power play (or at least that's what drives me craziest about him). I have sworn for some time that he needs glasses because of that?

 

 

My thoughts exactly. I never understood how many times the puck jumps his stick at the blue line. Drives me up a wall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Faulk is just doing what any professional in any profession would do in his situation.  If you or I had a 5 year employment contract as a teacher or whatever and after the 4th year the School District wanted to trade your last year to an undesirable school district for a bus, and you had the right of refusal, what would you say?

Signing Gardner was a move made knowing they might not be able to find a fit for Faulk right now.  Maybe it happens at the deadline.  Maybe they trade TVR instead.

True bebopper, and while TvR may temporarily solve their immediate problem of Cap space, he isn't the problem? And as much as Faulk showed a glimmer of being that player we need him to be, he appears to still be noticeable, at least to my eyes, as opposed to TvR who plays a more consistent albeit not flashy game? And it's possible that I'm being unfair in my criticisms of Justin, but the solution of the Anaheim trade seemed perfect, now we are left with this quandary still. It also appears that resigning him next year is at an impasse, and I so hated that Skinner conundrum, that I just would rather we not see that type of thing again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the player tryout thing, guys try out with team A, but in addition to that team, they hope that another team sees them in action and comes calling. A guy making our D from a player tryout is next to impossible. 

Share this post


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

He is officially a Cane now.  1 year, 2 Way contract. We are up to 10 experienced, capable roster defenders now with 2 more solid prospects.

 

Want all the defenders

Maybe next to impossible was a bit strong, LOL. But he is on a two-way deal. Still have to think Fleury has the inside track. Then, if TVR can't go, and we trade Faulk, who knows? Forsling, McKeown...

 

I guess we want a guy with NHL game available as we settle things down. Can't argue with adding depth, but I'd like to see McKeown get a shot if we have an opening.

 

Finally, as always, maybe a sign of a trade about to happen? Yeah, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

said Waddell. "This signing helps improve our defensive depth."

 

 

One wonders how deep we can go?

 

 

Share this post


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

Maybe next to impossible was a bit strong, LOL. But he is on a two-way deal. Still have to think Fleury has the inside track. Then, if TVR can't go, and we trade Faulk, who knows? Forsling, McKeown...

 

I guess we want a guy with NHL game available as we settle things down. Can't argue with adding depth, but I'd like to see McKeown get a shot if we have an opening.

 

Finally, as always, maybe a sign of a trade about to happen? Yeah, maybe.

Could also be a sign-and-trade. We can now offer Faulk suitors a full, NHL, left/right #3 pairing. (Where they'd actually play Faulk is their problem.)

 

I'd be curious whether Anaheim had anybody here to watch Claesson skate, but my gut still tells me he's insurance backing up McKeown and Fleury. I doubt the PR side wastes its time putting together the press release if we planned to turn him around.

Share this post


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

My thoughts exactly. I never understood how many times the puck jumps his stick at the blue line. Drives me up a wall.

That.

And the bad pinches.

And the inability to take guys out at the red line.

And the refusal to create shooting lanes on the PP.

And the obsession with (trying to) score on wristers glove shelf. (I do believe Slavin has shelved more pucks there in his three years than Faulk in his career.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Curious. For everyone beating up Faulk why did we try to sign him on an extension? 

Share this post


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

I'm Curious. For everyone beating up Faulk why did we try to sign him on an extension? 

Just a wild guess. We’ve been trying to trade him for 2 years. Our opinion of his value has not been met with agreement from around the league, at least not from teams Faulk can’t block. So we offered him what the market was saying he was worth, which he declined. Also, Rod must value his leadership since he did get an A last year. That’s all I’ve got. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bluedevilcane said:

Just a wild guess. We’ve been trying to trade him for 2 years. Our opinion of his value has not been met with agreement from around the league, at least not from teams Faulk can’t block. So we offered him what the market was saying he was worth, which he declined. Also, Rod must value his leadership since he did get an A last year. That’s all I’ve got. 

yeah but if you are going to trade him you don't offer him an extension. If he isn't part of your future plan you don't offer him an extension. That Faulk may be overvaluing his payday is more than possible and probable the main reason we are attempting to trade him.

Share this post


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

yeah but if you are going to trade him you don't offer him an extension. If he isn't part of your future plan you don't offer him an extension. That Faulk may be overvaluing his payday is more than possible and probable the main reason we are attempting to trade him.

 

I liked the Faulk of last year.  Personally, I'd want to see it repeated at least part of this season before offering him a long term extension, but that's just me.  Regardless, I see no way the Canes could offer him anything close to the $5.3m that Slavin is making.  If Faulk is looking for a raise above his last contract ($4.83m), I just don't see him and the Canes as being a match.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That’s all I’ve got.

And that's exactly right.

 

1 hour ago, OBXer said:

yeah but if you are going to trade him you don't offer him an extension.

Why not? Ever heard of a sign-and-trade? My guess is Faulk wanted a full NTC to protect him from that, in addition to more money than we were willing to pay, and we said no. 

 

I agree with BDC: That's a pretty clear statement by the org: "We want to keep you if you'll accept the value we see in you. If not, your services are no longer needed here, and we'll get the best deal we can." They did, and he nixed that too. I mentioned it last week, but at this point the only thing missing is Erik Cole doing a radio hit job for this to be the exact same situation that the org put Skinner in last summer.

 

I said something else last week: I'd just waive Faulk's sorry *edit*. By refusing to waive his NTC or accept what he's really worth, he is making the possibility of that more and more real. If it happens, Justin, what kind of extension will you accept then? 

 

This org gave Faulk his chance to go gracefully. Now, with each day that passes, the odds of his departure being not so amicable increase.

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...