A brief history of the Carolina Hurricanes goalie position
A significant part of the Hurricanes struggles in recent years has been the team’s inability to get league average or better goaltending. Be it because of the team in front of him or his own play, Cam Ward just could not seem to find his way into the top half of the league in terms of basic goalie stats. The Cam Ward/Eddie Lack duo did not work for two years. And finally a big bet on Scott Darling failed miserably. This past summer, the team entered the off-season hoping for a rebound from Darling and also with one spot to fill after Ward’s departure. Rather than a few higher-end options, the team signed Petr Mrazek to a one-year, ‘prove it’ type deal. But ironically, the Hurricanes goaltending pivoted not based on a Darling rebound or Mrazek surge. Darling started the season injure and Mrazek struggled out of the gate. The Hurricanes goaltending play instead pivoted based on the steady and calming play of waiver wire acquisition Curtis McElhinney who stabilized the position while the team struggled to get its feet under it in the first half of the season. Next, Mrazek’s game rounded into form. Suddenly and just in time, the Hurricanes had not one but two goalies playing well. The Hurricanes second half surge up into the playoffs featured numerous positives, but I think it is fair to say that the team would not have made the playoffs without the improved goalie play.
That positive ending to the 2018-19 season might suggest that the goalie position would be more set heading into off-season. But with both Mrazek and McElhinney scheduled to become free agents on July 1, that is not the case. The Hurricanes are heading into the 2019 NHL Draft weekend with only Alex Nedeljkovic certain to be available to fill the crease at the NHL level.
The latest reports out of Raleigh suggest that both Mrazek and McElhinney are likely to test free agency starting on July which could mean that the Hurricanes start the 2019-20 season with two different goalies than the successful 2018-19 season.
Today’s Daily Cup of Joe shares my thoughts on the current situation with my comments from Twitter this afternoon as the outline.
Deep dive on current state of Carolina Hurricanes goalie situation
3/? First and foremost, June 19 is not a time to make any kind of conclusive evaluation of #Canes 2019-20 goalie situation. The game of musical chairs starts in earnest on July 1 when a few decent options officially become available on the free agent market. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
With the 2019 NHL Draft and the start of NHL free agency still in front of us, it is way too early to make any kind of judgment on the Carolina Hurricanes goalie situation. Mrazek and McElhinney are both good possibilities coming off generally strong seasons, but there are other options that could work too.
4/? As for Mrazek, I like him as a short-term option for the right price which matches both short-term and (flexible) long-term role. Ideally, I think team sees him as medium-term 1A/1B type who can be half of a tandem for 2-3 years at an appropriate price for that.
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
The big question with Mrazek is what role the team sees for him. The Hurricanes must balance a couple different goals. First is to return to the playoffs in 2019-20. That goal suggests having as much proven talent in the position as possible. Second is to try to get Alex Nedeljkovic into the mix to see if he is ready to take the next step and at least be a capable backup or even jump quickly into the starter’s role. Third is sort of a mix of those two signing a goalie who is capable of being the primary guy in net short-term but also maintaining the team’s flexibility to shift to Nedeljkovic if he proves ready at some point.
So per my Tweet, I think the team sees Mrazek as a capable half of a tandem and also wants to have the option to cut ties and shift to Nedeljkovic in a couple years.
5/? So math-wise, that means 2-3 years at $3-4M per year, ideally in the middle or lower end of that. If Mrazek is looking for 4-5-year commitment on higher end of that or true #1 salary >$4M, that becomes risky and not a great fit. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
So if I am right that the Hurricanes view Mrazek as half of a 1A/1B tandem and prefer short-term to leave a possible opening for Nedeljkovic, that would suggest 2-3 years at a yearly salary salary of $3-4 million. If Mrazek and/or his agent instead think of Mrazek as now being worthy of being a true #1 for an extended period of time, that would suggest 4-5 years and possibly a salary in the $4-5 million range. That is the potential gap right now on the high end.
6/? In terms of his 2018-19 season and debating whether maybe he is worth closer to a true #1 salary…Really what he had was half of a great season at a true #1 level and half of a season of adjusting/'meh' at best. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
The ‘we must sign Mrazek’ contingent is enamored with what Mrazek did in the second half of the season and willing to bet on that level of play into the future. But the reality is that Mrazek’s 2018-19 season was a mixed bag. Down the stretch, Mrazek found a higher gear and was every bit of a solid #1 goalie. But he struggled out of the gate and was ‘meh’ other than that in the first half of the season. Remember that it was McElhinney not Mrazek that stepped up when the team desperately needed help from the goaltending. So while Mrazek deserves credit for how he finished the 2018-19 season, committing to him long-term relies on a small 40ish-game sample size. Furthermore, looking at a broader sample size in prior years shows a similar pattern of mixed results for Mrazek. Committing for five years at a #1-ish salary is a risky gamble that has the potential to go very badly.
7/? That mixed season from Mrazek makes me like him more as 1A/1B option but not willing to pony up $ and risk for more than that or for more than 2-3 years.
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
8/? So I land at 2 years for $7.5M or maybe 3 years at $10M for Mrazek which fits into being half of a 1A/1B.
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
Balancing Mrazek’s strong finish with his track record that has been up and down has two impacts on my maximum for a next contract for Mrazek. First, I lean toward shorter rather than longer. My ideal contract would be two years, and regardless of salary, I am not sure I would stretch past three seasons. And at 1a/1b money, I land at $3.75 million per year for two years or $3.33 million per year for three years.
9/? If Mrazek wants 4-5 year term or #1 type money, I actually am fine with going another direction.
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
And in making sound long-term decisions, I would stick to my guns if I was leading this negotiation.
10/? Nedeljkovic needs NHL starts, but with a goal of returning into the playoffs, no way do you enter 2019-20 expecting him to be #1. Get him some NHL ice time and a chance to win starting job when he earns it not because team desperately needs it. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
I think sometimes people try to 'crystal ball' things too much with young goalies. Get Ned some starts. If he plays well, get him more starts. If he continues to play well, that grows to become a starter's role without having to place a random bet on whether he is ready or not.
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
After a tough first year adjusting to professional play at the AHL level, Alex Nedeljkovic has made good step-wise progress in the past two seasons. His 2017-18 was better, but as much as anything he was boosted by a good team. But in 2018-19 Nedeljkovic seemed to turn the corner and had a phenomenal season. Based on that, the time is now to start getting Nedeljkovic NHL ice time to see if he can successfully transition into an NHL role. But to say that Nedeljkovic needs NHL ice time is not the same as saying that the team should plan to have him in a certain role for the 2019-20 season. As noted in the Tweet above, rather than making an assessment and a bet on a rookie goalie, I think much better is to just give him ice time and let him earn more from there.
11/? McElhinney decision is unrelated to Mrazek. He is not a #1 at this stage of his career. Signing him would be a choice to have a proven #2 and pushing Nedeljkovic to AHL level with hope of some NHL starts.
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
Think McElhinney is in tough spot. I wouldnt' count on him for more than 25ish games which makes him a poor fit with pushing Nedeljkovic to NHL. Think he only works if willing to push Ned back to AHL (ideally looking to pick spots injury-related or other to get him NHL ice time).
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
The other player in the mix coming out of the 2018-19 season is Curtis McElhinney. I fully believe that if the Canes had not claimed McElhinney off of waivers that it would have dug too deep of a hole in the first half of the season and missed the playoffs. It was McElhinney not Mrazek who stabilized things when the team was struggling early in the season.
McElhinney’s strong play might suggest that he should be brought back, but the need to work Nedeljkovic into the mix complicates things.
Though I like McElhinney as a backup and possibly as a 1B who gets a lighter work load, I do not see him as a good partner for Nedeljkovic. The team needs a partner who can shoulder the majority of the work if Nedeljkovic does not hit the ground running at the NHL level. With Nedeljkovic still able to go back and forth from the AHL without needing to clear waivers, I outlined a scenario that saw the team bring back both goalies and yet still get Nedeljkovic into the mix. But that could be complicated and there is not a likely outcome.
12/? An interesting wild card assertion is that @NHLCanes goaltending improvement was a story of the blue line not a story of the goalies. That is not completely an either/or proposition, but I do think there is good story that 'good enough' might be enough at goalie position.
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
The biggest question for me right now is to what degree the team’s 2018-19 success in net was a result of the goalies versus the improved veteran blue line. To be honest, I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I do think that Mrazek and McElhinney played well. The duo stole some games where the defense really was not very good and just generally played well once both goalies started clicking. But on the other hand, I do think the Hurricanes defense was significantly improved. The forechecking system had stretches where they hemmed teams in their own end and without much chance to score. So I think that the credit would be shared nearly equally between the goalies and the team defense.
But the answer to this question is significant. If it is true that the success was driven by the blue line, maybe there is not a huge need to get the best goalie available. Perhaps any decent goalie would be capable in the current situation. That scenario would suggest that the need to get a specific goalie is not justified. But if one leans toward giving Mrazek and McElhinney more of the credit, then letting both depart could be a recipe for a setback in the 2019-20 season.
13/? Short summary…Too early to assess #Canes goalie situation for 2019-20. Despite Mrazek's success, I think there could be valid (role/cost) reason for not signing him yet. There are other options come July 1 and/or trade market. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 19, 2019
I will save it for another article, but there are a decent number of other options available via free agency or trade that should be in the game of goalie musical chairs that starts in earnest on July 1 when free agency opens.
What say you Canes fans?
1) To what degree do you credit the Hurricanes success in net to the team’s defense versus the goalies themselves? How would you split 100 percent of the credit between the two?
2) What are your thoughts on re-signing Petr Mrazek? To what degree is he in a different category priority-wise? What are your maximums for term and salary per year?
3) What are your thoughts for where Curtis McElhinney and Alex Nedeljkovic could fit into the equation?
4) For those looking ahead, what options do you see past Mrazek and McElhinney?
Go Canes!
1. Neither M or M were great, but both were solid – I would give 70% of the credit to the goalies over the general D.
2. Mrazek was a gift he delivered himself. He wanted the opportunity to prove he was a legit #1 goalie. He proved himself as legit, but not elite (that would have been asking a lot).
I have no clue what he is looking for but any hockey player is going to look for stability – for term. That only makes sense. And Petr offered himself up cheap to get the payday. I have no idea what he is looking for, and I have no idea what the Canes are willing to do for him – but apparently there is a big difference.
It will be interesting to see which team pays what for him – are there teams that will sign him to be their putative top goalie – that is what he is after. Free agency can be very rewarding but it not always is. There are only 30 other #1 goalie spots besides the Canes and most are solidly taken by others.
3. Mac is gone. Someone will pick him up on a 2-year $1M+ contract as a backup. And it will probably be closer to home for him.
Waddell has now said that Ned will get the chance to compete for a job on the Canes. It strikes me that the Canes have not really bought into Ned as the goalie of the future. I have heard people in CLT say that the thought is he is too small to play goalie in the NHL. I think the organization will do what it can to hedge it’s bets on Ned. He is going to have to luck his way into NHL ice time, much the way Binnington did with the Blues.
4. There is a long list of UFAs, and there will be a lot goalies on the waiver wire. I don’t know the names well enough but I could see us picking up another reclamation project, like Mrazek, but probably not at the same cost/term as a UFA.
Bales movement to Buffalo felt like a harbinger of the movement of Mrazek to Buffalo. Without any evidence to support my hypothesis, the Sabres may have let “slip” the price and term they are willing to offer Mrazek and that is more generous in both than the best offer the Canes consider prudent. (Maybe the outcome with Skinner makes the Slugs feel they can improve with our rejects again.) Recency bias for Petr tends to make one over value him compared to his last 4 years body of work.
Interestingly the playing styles of Ned and Petr seem very alike. (Both tend goal like their hair is on fire.) Conceptually I like the idea of McElhinney being a mentor to Ned, but agree with the comments by Matt regarding Curtis’ shortcomings for that pairing.
The success of both Mrazek and McElhinney here last year should make Raleigh look like a good destination for goalies looking to improve on their career stats. That bodes well if the committee choses to spin the wheel of fortune on 2 new goal tenders next season. Cam Talbot anyone?
Bales got a promotion as a full assistant coach in Buffalo, which is why he understandably left.
I guess the question is why the Hurricanes did not just promote him if they thought he was a significant part of 2018-19’s goalie success. I do not know the exact #s, but I am guessing the difference is what $100,000 or $150,000?
Fair question, but aren’t there only so many assist coach positions? Or is it up to the team?
To date Tom Dundon does not pay anyone market rates but players.
I cannot see the team spending money on two veteran goaltenders as we did last year with Mrazek and Mac (both came at bargain bin prices and we likely won’t see that again). I know all the talk is about free agency, but I think trade is the route the team ultimately takes.
Ned has earned his chance for at least the 1B. So unless preseason dictates otherwise, I’d expect Ned to start as a 1B. Which means the team needs a 1A (capable starter, capable mentor). I still like Quick for this reason as he still has a few good years to carry the load when needed and has proven to be a great example to another American goalie in LA.
The team also needs a veteran on a two-way contract for 3rd string duty if needed (Tokarski comes to mind, but also maybe someone like Condon) who can split duty with Helvig in CLT and have NHL experience if called up.
I think the “next man up” in the Charlotte net is Callum Booth, not Jeremy Helvig.
A toss up perhaps. Booth played 7 games for CLT then got loaned to another ECHL team after Darling/Tokarski came on board. He seemed odd man out from that point.
Whereas Helvig won 27 games for our ECHL team. They both probably share time in CLT with another veteran goalie next year, but tea leaves suggest Helvig may have the inside starters role.
We’ll see…my bet is that Booth is in Charlotte the majority of the year but it is really a good problem to have.
This is spot on: “looking at a broader sample size in prior years shows a similar pattern of mixed results for Mrazek. Committing for five years at a #1-ish salary is a risky gamble that has the potential to go very badly.”
The Canes really are in a tough spot. Personally, I’d be willing to overpay slightly on salary, but the danger is term, especially with Ned in the pipeline.
I think the D was a factor in improved goaltending, but I didn’t think it was worlds better than last season.
I agree with the main point that we should be patient because there will be more options after July 1, however, it’s hard to feel anything other than goaltending is the greatest unknown at this point.
I appreciate your struggle over how much credit to give this year to the improved blue line / team defense for our better goaltending, which makes me wonder why you think we can afford to risk trading Faulk (which weakens the defense) without pursuing a more established goaltender. I have trouble squaring those two statements, which is why I would err on keeping Faulk for now.
Maybe we have a bigger plan for someone like JQuick who can groom Ned in a way Mac can’t. That would certainty lessen the risk for trading Faulk but at a greater expense in payroll or traded assets.
My bottom line: there are other options but, as we can all agree when it comes to goalies, they all seem to be crap shoots. I would hate to see the team revert to our prior mean in Net next season.
Doing everything to preserve a fertile environment for a less-than-premium goaltending option (by maintaining or even improving our stout defense) is another reason why I’m reluctant to trade defense for more offense this off-season.
I believe we have a real opportunity to force TOR’s hand (or someone else) by Offer Sheeting one of their RFA’s – or threaten that to initiate a trade for a targeted player we want that includes prospects rather than all picks.
I am perplexed by the 2 points of view on Faulk. Some feel he is virtually irreplaceable, too valuable to trade. Others feel has little value on the trade market. One of the two has to be wrong.
Not necessarily – as a trade chip Faulk is a one-year rental. One-year rentals do not next great returns no matter the quality of the player. Don’t expect a top-6 forward with term.
I am also of mixed mind on Faulk. We all have seen him play very well in his own end and we’ve all also seen him manufacture brain fart after brain fart. He can be very good; he’s also got an offensive flair that seems to have disappeared somewhat these last couple of years.
His bounce-back season was more a result of his improved mobility and therefore defense. Package him with another asset and he’s a valuable trade piece. Get the sense that his improved defense can be augmented by a return to his lost offense, then he’s somebody you’d consider extending.
Regardless, he’s an asset that has some value and we seem to be in need of another scorer. He’s the best part of any deal we’d want to make because he’s of that mixed value.
1) 50/50
2) Give him what he wants.
3) Both are essential.
4) who knows?
While you guys worry about stats, I realize that this game is populated by flesh and blood men.
Too often I read on this site that these players are professionals. Professionals, it is said, do not concern themselves with money, personalities, and physical pain. So, bringing in a highly paid elite player to the mix won’t upset the apple cart, because these guys are professionals. What does that mean? Does it mean that because they are professionals they no longer have feelings of insecurity, fear, envy and anger? What planet are you from?
These men on this team love each other. They trust each other. They love and trust their coaches.
I know. To some of you such human terms don’t compute. It is annoying to be forced to look up from your computer screens long enough to look at the actual men who play this game. They play it for money and pride. Each man is unique in his physiological makeup.
But I digress.
We have three arguably NHL calibre goalkeepers. There will be several goalkeepers available soon via trade or UFA acquisition. What should we do?
The team loves and trusts our keepers. A dramatic change could upset chemistry. A delicate balance. Don’t worry,you fancy stat fanalysts. I am not talking to you. Go ahead and bury your faces and minds back in your computer screens.
History tells us that all players are only as good as the game they are playing right now. Yes, past performance can be helpful in predicting the future. But very often the human part of these players will confound those predictions.
Bales’ leaving has had a significant impact on the entire team. Letting one or both of the existing keepers go will have an even bigger impact on the team’s confidence in their backstop.
Investing heavily in a new goalkeeper does not guarantee good results. Let’s be careful.
I don’t understand why the team is letting valuable pieces, like coaches, walk for what is perhaps a 100 grand difference (unless there are other reasons).
I’m not off the “TD is being cheap” bandwagon yet, though I am standing by the exit and ready to jump once we have a plan for next season.
* Still no contract for Aho
* Both goalies are going to free agency over salary
* Lindholm was sent packing because of contract differences
* All the talk of the Canes being a budget team
I am worried about Forslund’s contract. The team just won’t be the same without him and Trip.
If they were let go my interest in this team could start fading.
TD just spent 250 mill on his NFL league, he is not living off social security. I have to believe that he bought a team to turn it into a winner and that if an upgrade is needed he will provide the investment.
Again, I hope I am just wrong about my doubt and I’d happily eat my words when I see the results of the grand plan (next couple of weeks will be telling).
I also think the Carlson and Hayes contracts were ridiculous, especially Hayes. Those teams are going to regret those contracts because of the cap hell they will find themselves in.
So I can’t make grand statements either way unless we know the demands of the players in question.
Humans need to be challenged. We have seen plenty of evidence of players getting too comfortable in Raleigh, Eric Staal’s fitness was reportedly getting pretty bad before he was traded, Semin is the most famous example, you have to keep people motivated to get the best out of them and making sure they are challenged and challenge themselves every day is important to achieve that goal.
It’s a fine line between challinging someone and making them feel underappreciated, and that requires knowing the player in question, but the challenge factor has to be there. We saw it last season where players were benched and we had Checkers players come up to provide a spark. we also saw it the year before with Pesce and Slaven.
Bales left for a promotion of course – a position we did not have open for him.
Accroding to Waddell, they are very close to completing Forsludd’s contract – haven’t heard anything about Tripp though.
I think you are right – term is the issue with both Mac and Mrazek but in Mrazek’s is probably also about serious money (particularly given that $4M+ contract given to a backup – even if he is heir apparent).
Would you pay $4M to the Mrazek we saw last year? Would you commit to him being the putative starter for 4 years by offering him that term. I don’t think the organization wants to make that type of commitment to him and I don’t fault that assessment – it would be such a “Darling” move. 🙂
If they are smart they are planning for future cap and the uncertainty of the new contract – Aho this year and Svech in two.
This is still a budget team – even though the team made a huge amount of money with the playoffs; TD has set his maximum annual personal loss on theto the $10-20M.
But I really think the issue on Mrazek is the level of commitment the team is willing to make to him.
For Aho’s contract – there is both dollars and term; but there is also the matter of how the contract is structured. All the big contracts are structured to provide much of the salary as bonuses – particularly for the seasons that might be affected by the lockout. The notion of paying someone for possibly not playing seems anathema to TD. That is just a guess on my part.
Bales left to get a contract Dundon would never give him or anyone else. Smith left for the same reason. It was about the money.
Forslund is an heir apparent to a full time job with the NHL. Keeping him long term would be great, but the team needs to have a plan B for if and when John moves up in the tv world. To me losing John would be like losing Chuck with a K, worse in the expectation than the reality.
Bales had a pre-existing relationship with Botterill. That’s something that doesn’t get mentioned enough. There’s some thought that he was always destined for Buffalo.
Amen, brother.
1. 60% goalies/40% defense.
2. For all of the reasons above Mrazek is no longer a good fit for the
Canes. Term is probably more of an issue than salary.
3. McElhinney is also no longer a fit for the Canes since he will get a
better deal on the open market (term & salary). Ned has earned his
chance; his success and positive development has directly impacted the
Canes not willing to pony up for Mrazek or McElhinney.
4. Jake Allen could be the solution for us. The Blues would probably retain
some salary since they need to re-sign Binnington; Allen has 2 years
remaining which is a good fit. Allen is capable of being a work-horse
type net-minder and would welcome an opportunity to regain a #1 position
with a new team. Quick is an option but certainly with more risk given
his age, recent injury and contract length. Assuming the Devils sign
Lehner for over $6M per year, would they invest over $10M per year in the
goalie positions? If not, then Greiss could be a good target (1 yr
remaining at $3.3M).
In any event, Tokarski needs to be signed for depth.
Tokarski will likely scour the NHL for a one way contract as a backup. Al least he should before going back to anywhere as an AHLer. Note: Tokarski was on loan from another NHL team and has never been contracted to the Canes.
I don’t think Petr has proven himself as a No. 1. I think he can be but would like to see another year so I would only offer a 2 year deal. The market may for force it to 3 years like with Grubaur and Hutton last year.
We will see what other teams think in 10 days. Lehner is in the same boat.
Varlamov is a possibility and is a 1a.
BTW, The Sabres have their goalie tandem set.
Is Booth not considered an option for the future? He had a excellent playoff in the ECHL.
One thing is for certain. The Metro division is only getting stronger. The Canes need to maintain progress while taking additional steps towards a top 3 divisional finish. This is why I feel we might see a surprise or two. I trust DW/TD/RBA to do the right thing.
1st – w/o knowledge of the negotiations, money-years, etc it’s hard to discuss the issue! That said…I’d be willing to consider keeping /signing Mac, Ned, and Petr, and let them compete in camp for the two NHL positions. In addition Tokarski, who I think is a free agent, probably should be signed, or at least invited to training camp for insurance, in Raleigh AND Charlotte!
Guys like Quick etc might be the best solution, though??!!
I think Mrazek will get to the open market and find that he isn’t worth what he thinks he is. If someone wants to give Mrazek 5 years after having a good half season, let them at it. I still think he comes back with a 3 year deal eventually.
I have zero interest in Quick. Entering his mid-30s, declining play, injuries, and a significant contract. Pass.
Guys like Varlamov and Talbot seem the most likely targets if Mrazek goes elsewhere. Who the Canes can hire as a goalie coach may play a role in the decision as well.
If you know anyone who works for the Canes ask them if Dundon pays. He doesn’t. Players, yes. If he has to. Coaches, staff, etc…no way.
Off topic but a fun read at this point in time. https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2019/06/increased-interest-in-carolina-defenders-as-draft-approaches.html
I’m sure there is interest in Pesce and Slavin. Good players, low salaries. I’m not so sure Faulk will generate that much interest. If you believe what Pierre LeBrun is saying there are several right handed d-men that could be on the trade block. Buyers market.
https://theathletic.com/1037217/2019/06/19/lebrun-notebook-right-handed-defencemen-on-the-move-and-trade-and-free-agency-rumblings/
He doesn’t even mention Faulk.
Pierre is hockey insider specializing on Canadian teams for the Canadian market. It is likely you and I know more about the Vancouver Canucks than he knows about the Carolina Hurricanes.
My point was there are several good defensemen in a similar position as Faulk. Makes it more of a buyers market. Might not get as much for Faulk in a trade.
Perry LeBrun just tweeted this. https://twitter.com/PierreVLeBrun/status/1141810339891146752?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Just a quick history lesson. You are probably aware of this already but our beloved Canes started the 2005-06 season with a starting goalkeeper, Martin Gerber, who had been a backup goalkeeper for his entire career. This was to be his first opportunity to be a starter. His backup was an untested rookie, Cam Ward. They didn’t do badly.
I’m not in the Quick camp either.
I’d rather bet on Mrazek for the same term and money as Quick’s remaining contract, due to Quick’s injuries and seemingly declining play.
It’s stupid to underpay the staff. That’s like losing a house you are interested in because the owner refuses to include the fridge for free.
The other goalie options sound reasonable. I’d imagine that Ned is going to be part of the tandem, he is affordable.
Two unrelated pieces of gossip from Eklund, I think he randomly invents rumors:
1. Teams are considering offer sheeting Aho.
2. The Canes are talking to the Leafs about Kapaenen for Hamilton swap.
The former, I doubt it. The latter, I am not the biggest Hamilton fan but that would be one heck of a bad trade unless the canes have more defense stuff up their sleeves. Faukl for Kapenin maybe. Either way, I don’t put too much stock in it.
Eklund is entertaining, but I doubt much of his stuff is any more than stuff he and some guys talk about while drinking beer. There hasn’t been an offer sheet since 2013. Pretty unlikely. As far as TO goes I thought they were trying to get better on defense? Why would they want another offensive defenseman that isn’t so great making decisions in his own zone?
LeBrun was the first to talk about the TOR-CAR connection. A little more credence there.