On Monday night, it was announced that the Carolina Hurricanes had traded Calvin de Haan and AHL level prospect Aleksi Saarela to the Chicago Blackhawks for goalie Anton Forsberg and defenseman Gustav Forsling.
I offered my Twitter-sized thoughts shortly after the deal the was announced and will add a layer or two of detail to them below.
First and foremost a financial move
1/? More than anything this is a financial restructuring deal. At some point, team needed to cut some salary on blue line. #TakeWarning https://t.co/yNcd5AM8vR
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 25, 2019
The crux of this deal is making a move to take a step toward restructuring the team’s salary costs. My best guess has always been that the original plan last summer was to trade both Justin Faulk and Jeff Skinner last summer. The moves to add both Calvin de Haan and Dougie Hamilton in my opinion presupposed that Faulk would eventually be dealt. When that did not happen because the market just was not there, the Hurricanes entered the season with five top 4 defensemen and salaries to match. For the 2018-19 season it worked. The team did not yet need extra salary cap space, as it was barely above the salary cap minimum, and the depth proved to be a positive.
But longer term, the math will not work. Raises for Sebastian Aho and Teuvo Teravainen will take the Hurricanes’ salary up a notch. The team still needs to add at least one goalie and might not get off as cheap as last summer. There are additional players who will be up for new contracts in the next couple years. And just maybe the team will add a scoring forward to the mix to balance the lineup. At some point the Hurricanes would ideally need to cut some salary from the blue line and that happened on Monday.
Finally, $4.55 million per year for three years for a player who has now had major shoulder surgery in consecutive off-seasons is very risky. I de Haan was a free agent this summer and required a three-year contract for $4.55 million, would the Hurricanes sign him? Or would they pass because of the injury risk? I think that is an interesting question to ask for a player who actually garnered a return, albeit a modest one.
So more than who went which direction, this deal for the Hurricanes was about cost restructuring.
2/? Trading Calvin de Haan, cuts blue line costs and likely makes room to re-sign Justin Faulk. Gustav Forsling back fills with inexpensive depth in form of a player who will audition on power play. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 25, 2019
As noted above, the biggest thing is cutting costs for the blue line. Rumors and rumblings in the media suggest that this could be used to re-sign Justin Faulk who reportedly had contract discussions with the team during the weekend.
Gustav Forsling as depth with a needed skill set
In Chicago, Gustav Forsling was a depth defenseman. He will serve a similar role with the Hurricanes likely to compete for a third pairing slot or otherwise serve as a #7 defenseman. Forsling is a restricted free agent whose new contract will be more suited for a third pairing role than de Haan’s $4.55 million. In addition, Forsling brings a skill set that could also be a boost. As a defenseman whose skill set leans toward skill and skating, he could pair nicely with Trevor van Riemsdyk and add a puck-moving component to the third pairing. Forsling also offers another option for trying to improve the power play for the 2019-20 season. So though Forsling is not so much intended to be a direct replacement for what de Haan brought, he does back fill that slot in the lineup.
Anton Forsberg as #3 goalie type depth
3/? Anton Forsberg adds goalie depth with NHL experience. Ideally, additional transactions bump him to #3 and team can quietly sneak him down to NHL to have a plan B behind Nedeljkovic who has NHL experience. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 25, 2019
Goalie Anton Forsberg is also as a depth type addition. I do not see him as a replacement for Petr Mrazek or an intended 1A or 1B in the Hurricanes lineup. Rather, I think the hope is that he can be quietly slipped to the AHL to give the Hurricanes a #3 goalie who has NHL experience. The negative with Forsberg is that he is 26 years old and has never really established himself as a regular NHL netminder. But along the way, he has accumulate 45 games of NHL experience. If the Hurricanes do decide to go with inexperienced Alex Nedeljkovic as one of the two NHL goalies to start the year, having a #3 in the AHL who is capable of stepping into the NHL adds a layer of insurance. Nedeljkovic did all that could be asked of him in the AHL in the 2018-19 season to earn NHL ice time, but just like with any rookie goalie, he is an unknown and therefore a risk at the NHL level for 2019-20. So if the Hurricanes can get him to the AHL, he represents a third goalie option.
For whatever reason, the team was not high on Aleksi Saarela
4/? I do not think team was every high on Aleksi Saarela. He is bit one-dimensional but could be interesting if he finds way onto line across from Patrick Kane in a receive/finish role. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 25, 2019
The other part of the deal from the Hurricanes side was including AHL-level prospect Aleksi Saarela. Saarela is an AHL sniper who, for whatever reason, never seemed to fit into the Hurricanes NHL plans. Per my assessment from prospect camp last summer, he is a bit of a one-dimensional player who has an NHL level shot and the potential to score at the NHL level, but whose game is not particularly well-rounded. The way I described it last summer was that he was dangerous in scoring situations but was virtually invisible for stretches in between. So despite scoring an impressive 30 goals in 69 games in the AHL in 2018-19, he only got a chance in the NHL for a single game in the playoffs when the Hurricanes forward corps were decimated by injuries. But as noted in the second half of the Twitter post, if by chance Saarela finds his way into the lineup and across from Patrick Kane, he has an NHL caliber shot and could potentially excel in such a receive/shoot type role with an elite playmaker on his line.
The other shoe(s) to drop
#5/? The other shoe to drop (potentially) and add context that supports this deal more would be if @NHLCanes were clearing salary to add a higher-end forward. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 25, 2019
As noted at the outset, the primary motivation for this move was the financials. The question though is what the Hurricanes are saving salary for. Does this just pave the way to re-sign Justin Faulk? Are the savings needed just to keep the team’s salary controlled even Aho and Teravainen’s new contracts plus adding a goalie? Or is it possible that these transaction paves the way for the Hurricanes to add a higher-end scoring forward at a higher-end price? The last option would be most exciting and would most fit the ‘part of a bigger plan’ explanation for a move that traded away a capable defenseman for two depth players.
#6/? So the partner to this deal would be re-signing Justin Faulk and/or adding a higher-end goalie or forward with higher-end cost. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 25, 2019
The other less likely wild card is that the Hurricanes somehow land a higher cost goalie to replace Mrazek and McElhinney.
Side note #1: Backwards timing if the team does intend to re-sign Justin Faulk?
One thing that does not make a ton of sense is trading de Haan prior to re-signing Faulk (assuming that will happen) because team just gave up leverage and ability to hint that trading him was an option in negotiations. #TakeWarning
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 25, 2019
If Justin Faulk wants to stay with the Hurricanes, the team would gain some amount of leverage for that situation. That leverage would be boosted by the fact that the team still had four top 4 defensemen under contract even without Faulk. That would suggest that the team could easily trade Faulk and still be set on the blue line. Now with the departure of de Haan, that is less true which could give Faulk a bit of an upper hand in contract negotiations.
Side note #2: Paired with the Patrick Marleau deal
Though the two deals are not directly linked, I think it is somewhat interesting to think of this trade paired with Saturday’s acquisition of Patrick Marleau. If the Hurricanes buy out Marleau as expected, the total cash cost will be $3.8 million. So the subtraction of de Haan’s salary with the addition of Forsling’s salary and assuming that Forsberg plays in the AHL on a two-way deal makes for about the same amount of total cost. But the Hurricanes also netted a first-round draft pick from the first deal.
Side note #3: NOT needed to add another goalie in order to buy out Scott Darling
I have seen a few people suggest that the Hurricanes need to sign a goalie from outside in order to have a goalie on the roster to be able to buy out Scott Darling. With 2018-19 player contracts good until June 30, that should not be the case. Though they are headed toward free agency, both Petr Mrazek and Curtis McElhinney (in addition to the AHLers) are under contract and make it possible to buy Scott Darling out (as long as there are no other problems with injuries).
Side note #4: Calvin de Haan and the sad people part of the story
Past all of the bits and bites of analyzing trades for what they mean on the ice is the people part of the story. In that regard, this deal is a sad one. De Haan is a class individual, great teammate and even a fan favorite after only one year in a Hurricanes uniform. Except when playing the Hurricanes, I will root for de Haan to do well just like nearly unanimously every other Hurricanes fan.
What say you Canes fans?
1) What do you think of the deal and trading Calvin de Haan with a prospect in Aleksi Saarela and netting only two depth players in return?
2) Would you interpret this to mean that the team will re-sign Justin Faulk?
3) Do you buy the argument that this savings is earmarked for another addition to follow soon? If so, what do you think the team is targeting (if not just Faulk) with the budget room that it just created?
Go Canes!
1. Don’t like it.
2. Not sure.
3. It’s not popular to suggest that TD is anything but awesome and generous round here, so no comment. I sure hope the team will not go into next season after downgrading, which is what they’ve done so far.
Just absolutely piss poor for the Canes. Unless an absolute top tier FA is being brought in here that’s gonna be an F grade from me. I’ve got confidence in this front office at least having a planned and reasoned approach so I am assuming something big must be on the way, but I’m worried that the big thing is just gonna be a monster contract for Aho. Well deserved, but still a clear and obvious downgrade going into next year.
1) if we netted 2 depth players I don’t like it. However I think Forsberg comes in and competes for the goalie jobs. At the AHL level his save percentage is 5 pts higher than Ned. At the NHL level, his numbers were significantly better than Wards in Chicago. Add in his NHL experience and he at least competes. Between he and Ned, one should be ready next year to contribute at the NHL level.
Saying goodbye to da Haan is tough. Great team mate, dependable, and an interesting nice guy. He has unfortunately had shoulder surgeries two summers in a row, which makes him high risk for the duration of his contract.
Saraala is fun to watch snipe but he reminded me a bit of the Skinner downside. He seems to wait around for the perfect pass and shot while the other guys do all of the work. Not all of the time – like Skinner he is capable on the boards – but he just disappears sometimes. If he rounds out his game we could come to regret the loss.
2) with Sellgren, Bean, and Fleury all pushing for NHL ice time on the left side, at least one will be ready. But yes I think we re-sign Faulk now, while still listening to offers.
3) while the financial element is important, taking on Marleau financially puzzled me. From draft pick value charts, a late first rounder isn’t much better statistically than a second or third rounder, and we traded down twice in the second round this year. Maybe a Suzuki type falls again next year and maybe not. I hope we are clearing space for the right trade or free agent signing but the Marleau deal gives me pause to that potential strategy.
Unless we sign Pavelski and that is enough to keep Marleau around…
This year the Toronto first round pick would have been 22nd, a better position than the Canes had at 28th. The assumption Toronto has a better season next year is an assumption. They do have roster problems on defense that need to be resolved. Further, that first is valuable trade currency, we need to see what happens with it before totally discounting the asset. Looking back, the opposite argument, that a first is much better than a second, was an argument used to complain about the Skinner trade. Individual moves made this summer are best looked at context on Oct. 1st as part of a bigger plan. On this trade the consecutive seasons with season ending shoulder surgery make the exit of DeHaan much more sensible than my first reaction to the trade. However I must admit I was still holding out hope that Calvin would be the catalyst for Lehner coming to Raleigh.
I think the chances the Canes sign another goalie with mental health issues is slim.
I would be ok with Lehner. However, there was mention of Varlamov and while the charges were thrown out, his past is more of a concern in the MeToo era.
My take — too early to jump conclusions. This deal does what Matt says above. deHaan was an awesome part of the blueline, gave his all, but he is injured and won’t likely be playing until late Fall. His salary is off the books and we have 3 or 4 AHLers in addition to Forsling who will be chomping at the bit for 3rd pairing time at a cheaper cost.
Let’s also not forget how many teams remain cap-strapped and need to deal quality players to make room — this is where I feel the Canes capitalize. It opens up greater ability to extend Faulk (both sides have talked and likely know the dollar figure), but more importantly, more cap space and ability to pay a #1 goalie and #2C. It also provides financial flexibility to add a top 4D if Faulk extension does not pan out.
So just because this deal doesn’t appear attractive, it gives us a #3 goalie in the system and a 7th defenseman as a prelude to greater moves.
3) more. I do believe the brain trust is playing chess, and seeing the end game is crucial for understanding individual moves. Freeing up cap space for a big move at forward is a very reasonable end game. Should we pull that off I like it very much.
This move tells me that Dundon is not going to pay a #5-6 defenseman $4.5M. Since the Canes are a budget team, I understand that. Still, Dundon will pay $2.8M for a low first round pick that may or may not yield a useful player, but will not pay for a #5-6 defenseman? Doesn’t make sense to me, but he probably has some analytics that says it does.
I agree this is little than a financial restructuring of the team. More money is going to be spent on forwards with Aho getting a big raise. Dundon wants to make a profit, so something has to give somewhere else. I don’t think this changes things with Faulk long term. If the Canes can’t get an extension, which I think they wont, they may let Faulk play out his deal or just trade him at the deadline. This looks a lot like the Canes are playing this like a football team where good teams are regularly replacing solid veterans with talented young players. It keeps costs down and allows you to pay your superstars. I’m not sure if it works in hockey, but I think we are going to find out.
My final thought about the deal is the bad look it gives the franchise with other UFAs and their agents. de Haan signed last summer, gave the Canes a solid season, and was immediately sent packing. No UFA wants that. It will hurt the Canes if they intend to pitch any UFAs this summer.
We can see all over the league the issues created by inadequate salary cap management. The decision to not pay the 5-6 defenseman $4.5million/season is as much about prudently staying out of future cap trouble as it is a sign of anything else now. DeHaan has a recurring shoulder problem, which is now another teams problem. As for the effect on UFAs coming here, the Canes are one of 31 teams who trade players before their contract expires, it is a reality for hockey players w/o NTCs. There is no other team to run to instead that would prevent that eventuality.
It’s a bit puzzling, but hopefully in 2 weeks the team picture is clear and it all makes sense. Otherwise, it sure feels like deHaan + Saarela should have netted a bigger return. It’s really hard to judge any single move until the offseason is complete.
1. By itself I hate this deal – it made me ill when I saw the details. All the positive things we said all season about CdH all season – and he is gone just like that. Even with the need for surgery at the end he was still a solid d-man in the playoffs. Maybe his injury is much worse
And I loved Saarela – your impressions with him from preseason does not match the trajectory he took the season. While his all-round game was not yet there he had greatly improved. The best thing about this is that maybe Aleksi will now get a legitimate shot at the NHL – he is not an RBA-style player.
2. I don’t know. Waddell said they have “shelved” talks with Faulk and will wait to see what “transpires”. So I don’t think signing Faulk is the motivator behind this trade. I can see them not extending Faulk but not trading him either and pushing the decision of what to do with him until February this season.
3. I have to think this is about another player, not Faulk. They are two days into the talk period with FAs and I expect they have been talking. I won’t guess who or what role.
I don’t want to think it is TD being cheap.
And Waddell is too smart. This was done with a purpose, even if that purpose hasn’t been realized yet.
But I really liked CdH and Aleksi and I hate to see them out of the organization.
Again, hopefully Aleksi gets his chance with Chicago. That is the only upside I currently see. Hopefully more will be revealed.
Gee whiz, gang! Cut Tommy and Donny a break. Let’s look at things in perspective. We had about $20 million in cap space before the trade. Now we have about $24.5 million. That’s a lot. Right?
Wrong!
Aho will be about $10 million. William’s or his replacement will be another $5 million. Ferland or his replacement will be about another $5 million. McGinn deserves a raise, let’s say $3 million. We need a number 1 goalkeeper and maybe a top 6 scorer? All of a sudden, our cap space is gone.
Tommy and Donny are not, thank God, anything like that little boy spendthrift Kyle Dubas. As has been said here, they are playing chess.
Plan ahead.
There will not be a replacement for Ferland. There might not be a replacement for Williams if he doesn’t sign. The Canes will not be anywhere close to the cap. We have to understand that will always be the case unless this team finds a way to generate revenues like the big market teams.
McGinn is a fourth liner, a nice one, but a fourth liner none the less. He might double up to $1.6M, but that is about it. No way I would pay him $3M. Canes can find fourth liners on the scrap heap or in the minors like they did with McKegg and Maenalanen. A budget team can’t pay big money for fourth liners and third pairing d-men. They do have to pay for a goalie and their stars.
I’ve accused Dundon of being cheap, but that has more to do with staff and coaches. As players go he has to stay on a budget if he doesn’t want to lose his shirt every year.
The fun/success of last season makes us forget that the organization got lucky. All of the following needed to happen to make the playoffs, which they did with four days left in the season:
* Aho needed to be a true 1C;
* Mrazek needed to have a bounce back season;
* McElhinney needed to be solid for 10 more games than he had ever played in a single season;
* Teravainen needed to go from a solid winger to one of the top 20 NHL assist leaders;
* Niederreiter needed to join the team as a 45-point player and then produce like a 65-point player;
* Pesce needed to become one of the top 10 LDs in the NHL;
* Wallmark needed to hold his own as a 2C while Staal was injured;
* Staal need to produce at a higher pace than he has in 5 years once he returned from his injury.
If the management team knew all this was going to happen, then they are truly playing three-dimensional chess. But I doubt it. It is apparent that the owner and GM are comfortable making moves—some will be good some will be bad. I have no problem thinking that trading de Haan and Saarela (I agree with tj’s assessment) was bad.
There must be a replacement for Willy as well as a replacement for Ferland. Or were you not watching the Washington series, or either of the others for that matter?
If you think that the intangibles both players bring to the table are not essential to the success of this team, less than, you know nothing of this game. Furthermore, I find your references to players in a scrap heap to be disrespectful of both the game of hockey, as well as the men who play it.
Such disrespect is disgusting to me.
I watched quite closely. The games in which Ferland did not play, or barely played, the Canes went 4-1. The Canes went 4-0 vs. the Islanders with no Ferland. The Canes went 0-4 vs. the Bruins with Ferland.
You still have to make it personal. My mistake for even replying.
Wow! She admits to being wrong.
A banner day!
What is wrong with you? I admitted nothing. I shouldn’t engage with you, but I’m not going to let you bully me either.
Tee hee!
Trading a UFA who came here, gave his all and was a key contributor to the team’s success, was popular with the fans, and is signed at very reasonable 4 X 4.5 milll is a lot more “disgusting” than refering to a place where players get their first or second shot as a “bargain bin” or “scrap heap”.
One is a judgment from the player’s boss, the other is a comment on a fansite the player is unlikely to ever read.
I’m not saying either is particularly disgusting, though I don’t like the former.
And just because the player started out on a “scrap heap” (e.g. 7th rounder, unsigned player, player out of a job after a down year) doesn’t mean he’s a scrap player, it just means that’s where the player was discovered.
Again, this is a business, if the savings from this deal are invested in upgrades and if at the end of the offseason we feel the team is at least as competitive as the team we iced last year, all will be well.
I don’t particularly like the last two moves in isolation.
Wasting money on Marleau makes little sense to me (it would if the price tag really is under a million, but it could be anywhere between that and 6 million, no one seems to know who pays the bonuses). There is a big difference in my mind between a top 15 first round pick and a second rounder, but a lot less difference when the pick is in the lower first round. There typically seem to be about a dozen excellent prospecs every year, after that the pool becomes a lot more unpredictable and player evaluations fluctuate wildly.
The second trade gave away much more talent than came back. Sure, there are savings, but if the talent is to be upgraded to the pre trade level we either have to get lucky with internal development or pay a much higher price for a comprrable talent on the open market, the answer has to be the former. The trade also sent a very disparaging message about the team to UFAs out there.
DW is a smart hockey guy, I was too critical of him in the past and he’s made a couple of shrude moves, so I remain optimistic that there is a plan for further upgrades and that the team that steps on the ice this fall will be good.
TD’s plan to make money off of this teamand this market could create significant challenges, especially with the salary cap constantly going up and its equalizing effects rapidly disappearing.
Putting a winning product on the ice with the lowest cost possible is a very difficult proposition, it’s easy to put a lousy product on the ice at low cost and hope the fans are forgiving or don’t care, but after a decade of irrelevance that is risky. Last year was great but it also created expectations of continued success. I think a perfect storm would be downgrading too much in cost and quality and landing well outside of the playoffs next year.
I’m not saying it will happen, we only know what we know, and there could b awesome things to come between now and October 3rd, it all remains to be seen.
I think not gowngrading the rost wile allowing an influx of the best Checkers could make for a very interesting year, but we have to have at least 4 top 4 d men, a #1 center, a #2 center and something solid in goal, none of these factors are finalized yet.
Also, I have to say I find the collapse of the AAF bewildering and a little alarming (this is a sports business, like the Canes, so I feel it is relevant):
https://www.sbnation.com/2019/4/3/18293514/aaf-collapse-explained-tom-dundon-charlie-ebersol-bill-polian
First off, this site is general a place where we can all share opinions without any major flare-ups of emotion. I would encourage everyone just to focus on the hockey.
I was initially surprised by this move as most of us probably were and, now that we’ve had time to think more about it, it’s starting to make a little more sense to me. A few comments.
1/ I’m in the camp that thought CdH was a valuable player for us last year and earned every bit of his salary. I’m glad we had him and wish him the best of luck in Chicago. They are getting a solid pro and a good person.
2/ I’m also in the camp that it’s not a particularly good look to trade a player one year into a four year deal when signed as a UFA; that might get in our way as we look to sign other UFA’s in the future. Having said that, CdH didn’t get a NMC/NTC and he knows that it’s a business; it comes with the territory.
3/ I also think that it opens up room for one of Bean, Fleury, McKeown, Sellgren, Carrick, or whoever, to seize a bigger role like Foegele did last year. That kind of opportunity usually brings the best out in someone; we have good options; let’s see what happens. Promoting from within is more of our future than signing UFA’s, so let’s get on with it.
4/ I suspect that our view on CdH was something like this: he was a solid #4/#5 on a reasonable contract before his injury. At this stage of his career, he’s a known commodity and is not likely to become much more than he already is. When he returns, he returns to prior form – at best – but there is significant risk given his history of injury and age that he plays as more of a #5/#6 defenseman. If his play degrades to that or worse, he becomes a very expensive player for his slotting.
5/ Tulsky probably has a model that prices each slot on the team – a #5/#6 D-man, a #7 D-man, a #3 Goalie, and an AHL prospect. If our view of CdH going forward is more of a #5/#6, then we might not have given up as much as we thought given the relative values and salaries of the players involved. Given our view on relative values, the right call might have been to offload the injury-risk of CdH onto another team like CHI. That actually makes sense to me as something that’s reasonable.
All in all, it seems like the package of CdH and Saarela should have fetched more, but how much is an overpaid #5/#6 d-man (if he regresses to that) + a one-dimensional prospect actually worth? A top-6 forward? Not on your life. Maybe it’s worth a #7 d-man and a #3 goalie (with possible upside).
I’m not as confused by the trade as I was last night. I trust our brain trust. We are significantly better than we were when they took over and I like our general direction even if each individual move seems questionable at first blush.
Well said dmilleravid.
The “strong link” theory of hockey shows that (paraphrasing) team success is strongly correlated to star play and not correlated to bottom of the roster play.
Practically speaking, having a player of CDH skill in #6/#7 is unnecessary. Math indicates that the team can be just as good with a lesser player there.
I don’t know that I believe that completely, but it is what the models say.
Where substitution needs to be an upgrade is in the top part of the roster. Top 4 defense, 1G, top 6 forwards. The remaining players have to be competent – and upgrades can’t hurt – but most important is to improve the top “strongest links.”
At least that is what the models say. Throw in the salary cap and the picture clarifies. Strong link theory can guide the spending of limited capital.
dmiller and asheville. I love a good strong link discussion, in fact dmiller was the first person to get me investigating the idea related to hockey.
There are two things I would say is that are applicable in regards to the Canes defense. 1) Strong-link is most influential when one of the players on the ice is noticeably better than the competition; 2) The Canes were able to ice three excellent LDs so the opposition seldom had a significant strong-link advantage by having one elite winger. Any advantage the opponents gained by icing Ovi or MacKinnon was lessened by the high skill level of Pesce/Slavin/de Haan.
Breezy. I really enjoyed the article. It gave me pause too. I just read an article in the Athletic. Apparently, Tommy is suing the AAF for his $70 million, claiming that he was mislead. A man named Reggie Fowler (presently under indictment for bank fraud) was involved in the alleged misrepresentation. Another man named Robert Vartech is suing AAF for 50% ownership he claims he had from Ebersol that was unknown to Dundon. We will likely never know everything about this.
Uncertainty can lead the mind towards seeking connective reasoning. The uncertainty in this case for the Canes are several key positions which remain to be filled, along with RFA’s yet to be signed. Trading a 5D who just signed last year can put some over the edge. So it’s natural for folks to wander towards (Dundon is cheap, AAF, subprime loans, feelings of “here we go again”, how will anyone sign here in the future?). But I don’t believe those assumptions have any context to what is truly happening. I also don’t think it’s time to jump off the ledge.
The RFA/UFA period has barely kicked off, a trade or two remains high, and we have a decent amount of cap space to improve the team by gaining a top 6 forward or two, a starting goaltender and using analytics to our advantage in whomever the team picks up. It’s refreshing to have a management group who collectively buys into big decisions and appears to always be in discussions with other teams. If you think the Canes are crazy, look at other teams, especially those who mismanage contracts and over the cap.
It’ll be okay. There is just more work to be done.
when I first herd this I was massively pissed. De Hann Is a top for D and a really good one. The last thing I wanted was to mess with a really good D group with chemistry. But we did. A salary dump. I understand the preparing for the future but we are 20M below the salary cap. And then to top top it off we trade away a sniper when we need scoring. He is still young and could develop his game yet. What really set me off is we get back a bottom tier D man when we already have those who are probably better. We then pick up a goalie who is AHL material. If we wanted to dump salary couldn’t we do better then this. Maybe we just don’t qualify them since they are RFAs.
I waited to late today until commenting because I was fuming. I will go read what others say.
I truly hope loosing De Hann does not bite us in the A…. I understand the injury.
The reason I stay sane is because the collective brain trust has done very well. Maybe they are getting ready for a UFA. I have question their moves before only to realize they were pretty smart. So I will reserve judgment but I am not a happy camper at the moment.
Hey, on the Marleau trade I herd someone say rather then TML covering part of his salary that they may have given us the signing bonus to pay him. I am sure they would not publicize that but it may not be 4M for a late first round pick. I do not want to start a rumor, it is something I saw which made sense.
So I did confirm that the Hurricanes are on the hook for the full amount of the signing bonus and also 2/3 of the salary, so that total is $3.8 million.
As far as the Maple Leafs somehow fronting some of that money, it is not clear if there is some esoteric loophole that would allow that. Could it be as simple as including the $3 million payment which is due in early July in payroll a week early? Who knows.
As far as the competition goes, best for the Hurricanes would be that the team did receive some part of the signing bonus from Toronto but only the two teams know. In that scenario, other teams do not get a read on how much the Canes/Eric Tulsky value a mid/late-round draft pick.
Great point. There always can be something else going on that we just don’t know about (and may never know about). I find it amusing when a commentator can find the amount paid for a first “excessive and foolish” and evidence of “cheapness”. If that first and a player(s), get us a top 3 forward it will be money well spent. If it remains in our hands it will be valuable currency in the 2020 draft. If Dubas and Waddell also have a handshake on something still secret that happens in the future better yet.
Great write up Matt.
1 – The trade is what’s needed. Pesce-Faulk pairing works. CDH, as likable as he is, makes the most sense to move. He’s older, has injuries and creates a log jam for prospects trying to move up by returning in Nov/Dec.
The trade return is what’s needed: the best case scenario for Ned is 20 NHL starts, as a third piece, unless he catches fire and stays. Same with our young D – Bean, Fleury have a chance at a roster spot: but it’s not being given away. The trade reinforces Rod’s comment: prospects treat the summer like you’re one month in your development.
2 – Yes, and knowing he’ll get top 4 minutes, he’s more likely to sign. Due to the overlapping style of Bean, Hamilton and Faulk, (and Slav’s ability to do it all), I won’t be surprised with continued evolution.
3 – Rather than guess – I’ll go a different direction: If Faulk is resigned before the CDH trade: what team would part with a goalie to accept CDH? The Canes have no leverage to move CDH if Faulk requires $6mil+. Trade partners know we’re short a top 6 scorer and will demand draft picks to ‘offload’ CDH, like we did for Marleau.
I am of the school that Don Waddell and the committee are “playing chess” while I’m “playing tic-tac-toe”. I am very comfortable whenever any of you take a run at my POV, and never intend to offend any one when I take a different read on yours. Nothing here should ever get personal.
Just a semi-regular reminder not to engage in personal battles. The best part of this site on almost any day is the volume of diverse, all legitimate hockey opinions.
To keep that going and also create a welcoming environment for possible new members of our community, let’s stop with the personal battles.
A review of last season’s proof that Tom Dundon was cheap.
1. The demotion, eventual firing of RF. RF is out of hockey selling real estate. Still a great guy but yet to be pursued by any hockey team for a GM level job.
2. The transfer of DW from his original position in the company to RFs position. After all Waddell personally arranged the move of the Thrashers to Winnipeg by making that team suck all by himself.
3. Internally promoting an unproven ass’t coach to head coach was simply to save money.
4. The decision to not re-contract with Chuck Kaiton for the radio play by play was going to ruin the team. Using John Forslund and Tripp for tv and radio was a sinister way to save money.
5. The team iced to start the year was not an improvement over the previous team, just more of the same, destined to miss the playoffs for yet the 11th time.
Hanifin and Lindhom were traded simply because they asked for too much money. DeHaan’ signing was a resounding “so what”. We needed help up front, not in the 3rd defensive pairing.
5. TDs decision to upgrade the Jumbotron was unnecessary, meant to keep our eyes off the low quality team being iced and a foolish waste of money besides.
6. Not paying Jeff Skinner exactly what asked, while expecting no more from his play on the ice.
7. Allowing rookies to play was cheap, not the best way to develop their talent and discover if their AHL success translated to the NHL.
There are more. We all get things wrong. Because of our passion for the team, our lack of important background information on occurrences, and our tendencies to use our own life experiences to support our assumptions about team operations. One of these must be true, TD is cheap, making it to the final four in the Cup chase was dumb luck, or, TD is prudent in his spending and gets a lot of bang for his buck on the ice.
Right on, brother!
RFA’s we know something about who did not receive qualifying offers (thus becoming UFAs). Josh Wesley (son of Glenn), Ryan Murphy, Phil Di Giuseppe, Martin Frk, and Ty Rattie. Wasn’t there a time we could count on JR or RF to circle back to a least one of these?
FWIW Anton Forsberg had a better SV% than Alex Nedjelvovic (.919% vs .916%) playing for a team (Rockford Icecaps) that was significantly worse than the Charlotte Checkers.