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

Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Yeah. He did wonders for our PP on the first unit.

 

That's on the coaches as much as anything else imo; he should have never been on the first PP unit in the first place.  Like I said, if going forward I thought we'd get the same Faulk as last year, I'd have kept him in the low  to mid $4m range max (with no consideration of a NTC).  But that ship clearly sailed once we signed Gardiner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

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.

I mostly agree with this. With 5 top four D someone has to go. Faulk is likely because of the expiring contract and it appears we won't (probable shoudn't ) meet his ask for a new contract.I appreciate Faulks game a lot more than many here but he isn't perfect. With out current D makeup we should be able to at least maintain our blue line.

 

If Faulk is traded you have to replace his PK time and his big minutes. He also doesn't shy away from hits and can is always among the top hitters on the team.

 

I believe he will be traded but I'm not going to beat up his game. He is a legitimate top 4,, right shot. puck moving Dman who eats big minutes and can play big at times.

Share this post


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

This org gave Faulk his chance to go gracefully

 

Why should he? So many times I have seen a post or heard the excuse when it is a player we like and negotiations get tough say, well that's the business side of hockey. Faulk has an expiring contract, a no trade and coming up on what should be his best years. Maybe his last years for a big paycheck. He has shown by entering negotiations with the Ducks that he is apparently willing to waive his no trade for the right terms. Maybe he has inflated his worth, he won't be the first or last player to do that. At the end of the season he can choose his own destiny. I'm not saying we shouldn't trade him, just the opposite given the circumstances. But I don't blame him for making sure the next deal is the deal he wants. I expect if a team will take him without an extension being negotiated he will approve it but a team may not give back what the team wants without a negotiated extension.

This is the business side of hockey being played out

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to painfully agree with OBXer here (not that it's painful to agree with OBXer :D, but the point itself is painful). Even if he did not have a NTC, Faulk has every right in the world to refuse to sign a deal with a team he doesn't want to play for OR for a deal he doesn't think is fair. The player's right, after surviving this brutal league long enough to make it to UFA is to go to UFA if he wants. As to refusing the trade without a deal, I don't blame him for that either. I blame JR for giving him the NTC. Why go to a likely bottom dwellar team from this glorious bunch of jerks for one lousy year? Move yourself clear across the country, leave the only team you've ever known, just to lose for a year before UFA. Further, if Anaheim struggles the way we expect, it could seriously lower Faulk's UFA value. Also Faulk, who played his very best under Brind'Amour could struggle in a new system, new coach, in his contract year, lowering his value and potentially costing him millions of dollars.

 

Even if Faulk didn't have the NTC, we would not be getting Kase for a Faulk one year rental (he could still refuse to sign an extension in Anaheim). It is really disappointing that we thought we were getting a guy with first line upside in Kase, and now, who knows? But it's really not fair to blame Faulk for not giving it up for an organization that has been openly trying (and openly failing) to trade him since the Truman administration, or really even without that.

 

I will say this again. Better to have Faulk than to trade him for Pu. If he can return a first rounder, especially of a poor team, I'd pull that trigger, but that's the future I'd want. Teams almost never trade their elite prospects). Otherwise, I'd keep him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its almost never bad to have a guy on a contract year.  Trade him, sure, but not for Pu.  I'd rather have his best for a year than Pu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friedman’s comments seem to imply that a Justin Faulk trade to the Anaheim Ducks is dead because he wasn’t able to get a contract extension from the Ducks that he liked enough.

 

Elliot Friedman being quoted by "James".

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone please explain this to me:

 

Friedman adds that the Hurricanes are interested in Honka if they are able to trade Justin Faulk.

 

 

Outside of trying to corner the market on D men? And we drafted his brother...

Share this post


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

Someone please explain this to me:

 

Friedman adds that the Hurricanes are interested in Honka if they are able to trade Justin Faulk.

 

 

Outside of trying to corner the market on D men? 

Canes are opening a Used Dman lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on Honka:

 

We drafted his brother Anttoni last year with our later third round pick and Julius was a substantially more prized prospect. Julius was the next D man selected in 2014 after Fleury, at #14. Julius is 5'10" 176. Thinking Ryan Murphy only an inch and 10 lbs smaller. 

 

Honka did put up big numbers in the AHL, with 59 points in 50 games his third AHL year, and 152 points in 191 AHL games. 

 

Then came the NHL and the numbers dried up. 2 goals, 13 points in 87 games over 3 seasons of partial action. That's 2 more goals than Fleury :)

 

Now 87 NHL games is not enough to fully judge an NHL D man. So in theory, if we had to give up say a second rounder, taking a shot at a guy who put up sooo many points in Juniors and the AHL, makes sense by itself. And I guess having a full NHL defense in Charlotte would be nice. But I'm assuming we'd have to play him or waive him.....

 

OK thinking this out, we are less than thrilled with McKeown for some reason and Bean and Priskie need more AHL time, and Forsling was never a serious part of the DeHaan trade (couldn't we have gotten a first rounder for DeHaan?), and we trade Faulk...but what about Fleury? TVR? 

 

Slavin/Pesce/Hamilton/Gardiner/TVR/Honka? Fleury out? I guess if TVR isn't fully ready to start, but....

 

Do we trade Fleury for Honka? 

 

:blink:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the bottom line on the Honka thing is that it suggests we are still furiously trying to move Faulk. As usual. 

Share this post


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

I will say this again. Better to have Faulk than to trade him for Pu. If he can return a first rounder, especially of a poor team, I'd pull that trigger, but that's the future I'd want. Teams almost never trade their elite prospects). Otherwise, I'd keep him. 

 

 

Especially in his contract year - he should bring 110% for a better payday next summer, plus his trade value isn't at its highest due to the contract.  I just wonder what happens with this glut of defensemen if he isn't traded.  I think it's a given at this point that he and the Canes aren't on the same page going forward, so the focus has to be on players who are here for more than the next season.  No matter who gets put on the 3rd-line, if everyone stays then the team is paying someone $4M+ to play on the 3rd-line, which is pricey for a team that actually has a payroll this season.  Before Gardiner, it was easy to say let Faulk play out his contract, but now i feel something has to happen.

Share this post


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

 

Especially in his contract year - he should bring 110% for a better payday next summer, plus his trade value isn't at its highest due to the contract.  I just wonder what happens with this glut of defensemen if he isn't traded.  I think it's a given at this point that he and the Canes aren't on the same page going forward, so the focus has to be on players who are here for more than the next season.  No matter who gets put on the 3rd-line, if everyone stays then the team is paying someone $4M+ to play on the 3rd-line, which is pricey for a team that actually has a payroll this season.  Before Gardiner, it was easy to say let Faulk play out his contract, but now i feel something has to happen.

I think that paying the D this much is more of a long term theoretical thing. Every situation is different. While it certainly handcuffs us from making any other move this year, there is nothing inherently wrong with paying the 5th D man that money in the short term. In our case we have a lot of skilled forwards on pretty good deals for this year. In the long term it will usually matter as we would need that space to switch to more skilled forwards being paid. 

 

But the log jam is a real issue to me. Yes, isn't it nice to have so many good D men that NHL ready guys are forced to prove their the very best in the AHL. But in addition to the issue of losing guys on waivers, is the issue of losing value as guys don't see NHL time, and the issue of honest, earned frustration for first round picks and guys like Priskie who chose to come here before we kept piling on D men. 

 

I tend to look longer term sometimes. And guys like Fleury, Bean, Priskie, McKeown only have any decent trade value if they play well in the NHL. So letting them all back up in the minors will inevitably spoil that value. If say Fleury and McKeown could come in and take the place of TVR and Faulk, we could get return on TVR and Faulk, then let Fleury and McKeown get some NHL games, and eventually trade them and bring up Bean and Priskie. Or trade a Gardiner or Hamilton or.....for value. Just letting those guys languish in the AHL has an opportunity cost for the team's long term success. Also, they are the future cheap options if the cap becomes a problem down the line. 

 

I think this year's team can absolutely rock with Faulk on the bottom pair, so long as he's off the PP (which is not a given). But it will give us no return on Faulk and block our long term asset development. When that's all factored in, the best thing is getting something for Faulk. A first rounder from a mediocre team or better would work for me. I only keep Faulk if we can't get that. But if we can, I do it.

Share this post


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

Why should he?

Never said he should. I agree it's a business decision and he was free to make it. I'm just saying the last time a player did this, he got a tongue lashing from a (supposed) Ambassador, and I don't put it past the org to eventually go there if it feels it must shake him loose.

Share this post


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

Even if he did not have a NTC, Faulk has every right in the world to refuse to sign a deal with a team he doesn't want to play for OR for a deal he doesn't think is fair

True, but he wouldn't have been able to refuse the trade itself without the NTC. Now if the other team wanted the extension doe as a condition of the deal, then yeah, it dies. But absent the NTC or the receiving team being unwilling to do the deal without the extension, Faulk is likely already a Duck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

True, but he wouldn't have been able to refuse the trade itself without the NTC. Now if the other team wanted the extension doe as a condition of the deal, then yeah, it dies. But absent the NTC or the receiving team being unwilling to do the deal without the extension, Faulk is likely already a Duck.

I just doubt we'd have gotten Kase for one year of Faulk. I guess there could have been a contingency offer, I'd take their first rounder, but rebuilding teams that expect to be bad don't usually give those up, especially for one year of Faulk. My guess is that the extension was required to get the return we wanted (ie Kase) and the deal would have died without it anyways. I'm just guessing though. 

 

I'm bummed though because that would have been a good deal for us. 

Share this post


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

Um correct me if  im wrong but  is it not allowed for 18 years olds to compete in the ahl ?  Unless  the plan is to keep  Suzuki on the canes roster  all season long .  Or did they Change the ruling for  18 year olds being allowed to compete  ?  he wont turn 19 until   next year in may . 

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


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

Um correct me if  im wrong but  is it not allowed for 18 years olds to compete in the ahl ?  Unless  the plan is to keep  Suzuki on the canes roster  all season long .  Or did they Change the ruling for  18 year olds being allowed to compete  ?  he wont turn 19 until   next year in may . 

He can either play in the NHL or be returned to his Junior team. Bean played in the WHL for two years after we signed him.

Share this post


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

Um correct me if  im wrong but  is it not allowed for 18 years olds to compete in the ahl ?  Unless  the plan is to keep  Suzuki on the canes roster  all season long .  Or did they Change the ruling for  18 year olds being allowed to compete  ?  he wont turn 19 until   next year in may . 

its usually the standard to have your 1st rounder on contract.  No excuse to lose their rights.

 

He'll go back to juniors for 2 more years until he is 20 and then the AHL.  

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


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

I just doubt we'd have gotten Kase for one year of Faulk.

Well if the Ducks' GM's tirade about Dundon leaking it is any indication, it was happening. With three concussions I could see a team deciding to cut bait.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

He can either play in the NHL or be returned to his Junior team. Bean played in the WHL for two years after we signed him.

Okay, then correct me if I'm wrong top, as I believe this is 1/2 correct? 18 and 19 year olds, playing in the Canadian leagues when drafted (I presume), do have to either play in the NHL or go back to juniors, right? But Cff is partially correct in that those from the European or Russian leagues (anywhere I'd guess other than Canadian) can go to the AHL if not kept on the NHL roster, no matter their age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Well if the Ducks' GM's tirade about Dundon leaking it is any indication, it was happening. With three concussions I could see a team deciding to cut bait.

Yep, I'd guess that factoring in those 3 concussions would make this possible?

Share this post


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

Okay, then correct me if I'm wrong top, as I believe this is 1/2 correct? 18 and 19 year olds, playing in the Canadian leagues when drafted (I presume), do have to either play in the NHL or go back to juniors, right? But Cff is partially correct in that those from the European or Russian leagues (anywhere I'd guess other than Canadian) can go to the AHL if not kept on the NHL roster, no matter their age?

anyone who's rights were drafted from Canadian Junior leagues must be on the NHL roster or return to Juniors until they are 20. After the season they turn 20 is complete, they may join the AHL. It doenst matter if their nationality is American, Canadian, or European.  

 

Anyone drafted from Europe teams must have the transfer sgreement to be brought to North America.  There isnt an age restriction on them joining the AHL.  Kouk and Necas joined Charlotte 1 year after drafting.  

 

The signing of Suzuki is just from a standard of signing a 1st rounder.  We signed Bean and Gauthier after they were drafted.  

Edited by gocanes0506
  • 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...