In case you missed it, after a bunch of trade rumors and rumblings on Friday but not activity through the front part of the day Saturday, the bomb dropped on Saturday afternoon when the Carolina Hurricanes announced that the team had traded Elias Lindholm and Noah Hanifin to the Calgary Flames for Dougie Hamilton, Micheal Ferland and prospect Adam Fox.
Part one of this two-part series covered the trade itself.
And on the 2018 NHL Draft itself which fell into the background Saturday afternoon, Canes and Coffee compiled a reading list on #2 overall draft pick Andrei Svechnikov.
Part two has a quick update on multiple other things that follow from Saturday’s trade.
Update on Adam Fox
In doing a few check ins, Adam Fox who is the blue line prospect included in the detail is an interesting situation. The positive is that he is a much higher-end prospect than his third-round draft pedigree would indicate. When one reads articles about him, he sounds like Jake Bean on offensive steroids which is saying something since Bean is a higher-end offensive blue line prospect himself. The negative is that apparently the reason he was available is because he was not going to sign with the Flames. So when you net it out, Fox represents a high risk, high reward addition to the trade. The burning question is what was keeping him from signing with Calgary and is it something that the Canes can remedy? If he just wants to pick where he goes like a free agent, the Hurricanes might be out of luck. But if instead, he just prefers to stay on the East Coast, did not like something about the Flames organization or something else that the Hurricanes can address, he could prove to be a significant addition to the deal.
The next shoe trade-wise
As I said on Twitter shortly after the deal was announced, this trade strongly suggests that Justin Faulk could be the next to go. Dougie Hamilton is a right shot, top 4 defenseman who fits pretty much where Faulk sits on the depth chart right now. With Brett Pesce in tow already, one of Faulk or Hamilton becomes a pricey $6 million third pairing defenseman. What the Hurricanes still need in my opinion is one more capable top 4 defenseman who is left shot. If you couple that with Haydn Fleury and Trevor van Riemsdyk on the third pairing, the team projects to be sounder on the blue line in 2018-19. That in itself is significant, but even more significant could be providing a better situation for a starting goalie (PLEASE already!) to finally emerge. With right shot defenseman being scarce, there should be at least a few trade options for Faulk. He has a no-trade clause which kicks in on Sunday, so I think the odds are reasonably high that he is traded by then.
Culture change in process?
Many, including myself, have talked about the need for a change in attitude, culture and/or whatever else you want to call it. Though it is hard to say exactly what it was, those who watched the Hurricanes 2017-18 season unfold know unmistakably that something at the core of the team was horribly broken.
I think the activity so far is interesting so far in that regard. I do think that changing coaches and putting in place a proven leader whose strength will hopefully be the people side of things more than the Xs and Os could have a sizable effect. But past that is interesting at least so far. The team has already parted ways with a few players in Hanifin, Lindholm and Kruger. And a couple more could leave via free agency. But to me, I think culture and and locker start and mostly end with the leadership. Bringing in an entirely new bottom half of the roster to led the same way by the same top players and captains I think misses the significance of leadership. So while I do think new blood can help with the needed reset and transition, I still think any kind of shakeup that completely misses the leadership both sends a bad message and more importantly runs the risk of doing “Groundhog’s Day.” Per my comments above, my expectation is that Faulk will be traded which would be a step in the direction of changing out at least part of the leadership team. And Skinner’s name continues to make the rounds in the trade mills. Nonetheless, I am watching closely to see that there is actually transition at the leadership level too.
More succinctly, is it possible to effect a true culture change by changing a high volume of lesser players without touching leadership? I am skeptical.
Levels of top 4
In my Twitter comments immediately after the deal was announced, I Tweeted the following:
4/? Two questions emerge…1st question…Is Hamilton capable of anchoring/leading a 1st or 2nd pairing in which is the leader and his partner is maybe the lesser player?
— Canes and Coffee (@CanesandCoffee) June 23, 2018
This comment and additional details in part one raised some questions and interesting conversation.
Fans regularly refer to players by line or defense pairing. We regularly use terminology like second pairing, top 4, third pairing, #4/#5 defenseman, etc. Such terminology is helpful in terms of figuring out what role/level a player is capable of playing at. But to determine success requires another level of detail. All ‘top 4’ defensemen and/or situations are not alike.
I actually think that is where the Hurricanes got into trouble the past few years. Faulk and Sekera had chemistry, and though I am not sure either was the pure form of a top pairing defenseman, the pair played at something at least close to that level. And that duo really did not have a stronger partner who carried/led the pairing. They both played well and seemed to fit well in terms of complementary skill sets, chemistry and being on the same page. While I do think that Faulk’s game has declined significantly on the defensive side of the puck, I think part of his regression was likely due to the fact that he was pressed into a situation where he often needed to be the driver of his pairing and maybe just was not capable or ready. Hanifin is interesting in that regard too. His game clearly has a ways to go defensively, but I wonder if he was playing regularly with a really good #3 defenseman if he would look much better defensively because of it. The effect was huge when Hanifin went from playing next to a revolving door of borderline NHL defensemen in 2016-17 to the steadying presence of Trevor van Riemsdyk in 2017-18.
But getting back to the hear and now of Dougie Hamilton, he was very clearly a top 4 defenseman in Calgary. And in 2017-18, he benefited from the stability of logging the vast majority of his ice time with Mark Giordano who is a solid veteran and a pretty good defenseman in his own right. Indications are that Hamilton was actually the stronger of the two which is encouraging. The questions are to what degree his success depended on Giordano and also to what degree he is capable of playing with a lesser partner and making the pairing successful.
Is Hamilton so good that he can anchor a second pairing as a strong #3 even if his partner (Haydn Fleury?) is more of a #4/#5 defenseman?
Or does Hamilton need at least an equal partner and some chemistry to be successful in a top 4 role?
Or (doubtful) is it possible he really just is a #4 whose level of play is boosted by being in a good situation?
All indications from statistics and reports is that Hamilton is easily in the higher end of this range, but just like I said with Scott Darling last summer, I would not underestimate the ‘transition risk’ that comes with any player joining a new team and stepping into a new role.
The museum thing
Before the ink was even dry on the trade announcement, Calgary’s front office seemingly took to the media to chuck Dougie Hamilton under the bus. Specifics seem to be vague but apparently there was an incident that he passed on an informal team even to instead visit a museum by himself. That seems to be the most direct piece of evidence that is suggesting that the Flames wanted Hamilton gone because of locker room issues.
My thinking is that this is actually something to keep an eye on. On any team, there is a need to sometimes put the team above yourself, participate in stuff even if it is not your preference and generally be part of the group. So whether one wants to participate or not, some are more or less required.
But there are a couple of other angles to this. First is that way things have gone down, it very much smells like Calgary’s brass lacking class, so who knows what exactly their motive is. Second is that there is a balance to being a team but also allowing individuals to be themselves even if it does not fit into a mold. I view it as a captain’s job to help a player strike a right balance between being free to be an individual but still being attached to the group even if not in as deep of a way as others.
Becoming more difficult to play against
One of the legitimate raps on Hurricanes teams of late has been that they just are not tough to play against. The team has been light on sandpaper, grit, physical play and whatever else you want to put into the category of difficult to play against. Today’s NHL does not have a need for old school enforcers who fight well but can barely play the game. But within the boundaries of the rules and in the form of a player who can skate and play, there is an advantage for being difficult to play against. The Hurricanes lacked that, and it was something that new owner Tom Dundon picked up on and commented on quickly. So this summer, the Hurricanes have added two players in Jordan Martinook and Micheal Ferland who dial up that element of the game.
Interesting to watch Lindholm and Hanifin in a favorable situation
First, let me say that I wish both Elias Lindholm and Noah Hanifin the best in their career except when they play the Hurricanes. Both have been classy members of the Hurricanes organization and leave on good terms as people.
As players, the next steps for both could be really interesting. Elias Lindholm could potentially slot onto a first line with Sean Monahan and Johnny Gaudreau. As a 23-year old now with five years of NHL experience a decent balanced game, one cannot find much better of a situation for Lindholm to finally break out. By the same token, if he still looks like a 40-45-point player with that duo, even more so it could be time to just admit that Lindholm has peaked as a good depth forward. Hanifin’s situation is a bit less certain.
Similarly, if Hanifin slots into the top 4 next to Travis Hamonic, it would represent another attempt to break into the top 4 and stick there.
What say you Canes fans?
1) How optimistic are you that Adam Fox’ refusal to sign with Calgary is something that the Hurricanes could solve and net a high-end prospect in the process?
2) Do you agree that Justin Faulk is suddenly even more likely to be dealt this week before his no-trade clause kicks in?
3) Where do you think Dougie Hamilton fits in terms of being able to drive success for a top 4 pairing?
Go Canes!
Not sure why Fox didn’t want to sign with Calgary but the first indication of our chances will be if he shows up to prospect camp. Think I read in an article that he said he was coming. Let’s hope so & hope he has a good one. He should have another great year at Harvard being a junior. I think if we have a good season & make the playoffs with our young guys getting noticed, he will sign with us to join the fun.
If he does indeed have a NTC starting July 1, then I think he will definitely be moved before then. No one is trading us their #1 goalie so I hope we can agree to a deal with the top UFA goalie this week & trade Faulk for a top 2 center or another top 4 dman. If Skinny is traded then we can get whatever we need that Faulk didn’t bring in.
Haven’t seen Dougie play that often so hard to judge what level he can hold but he definitely has the offense that Hanifin & Faulk were lacking last year. Have always heard good things about his play so I would guess he can hold the #3 spot without help. Let’s hope so.
Our team will be so much different in many ways: coaching, scoring, physicality, and hopefully winning. The next week will tell us a lot.
Go Canes !!
The Fox situation is an interesting one. Is it possible the kid actually wants his degree? A degree from Harvard is a pretty powerful thing. The allure of getting your degree and being able to sign with any team you want is pretty strong. He’s half way there. I would encourage my kid to do the same.
Exactly. He’ll have a degree from Harvard and can then sign anywhere. Not a bad situation to be in. But I hope he signs with us (but ultimately gets his degree).
As I said in the other post here’s to hoping that Fox and Drury become best friends next year and Carolina becomes a desirable team.
I think the fact that he agreed to come to prospect camp, and per NCAA rules, has to pay his own way is a good sign.
Happy to see Fox come to camp.
Must also comment that I was disappointed in the Drury pick. Lots of intangibles, but the tangibles aren’t so impressive. I thought it was a reach. Not sure it happens without that last name.
1) I mentioned in the other thread that I don’t think Fox signs. In all honesty, Will Butcher’s life prior to the NHL sure seems more fun than Jake Bean’s. And Butcher is making better money.
2) I posted yesterday that I think it could be Faulk or Pesce. I don’t want it to be Pesce, but I wanted Skinner traded before Lindholm. There seems to be a sense that undoing RF’s work is needed and RF signed both the Faulk and Pesce contracts.
3) The Hamilton stories fascinate me. If his failing really was going to a museum instead of a group event: 1) I really like him; 2) hockey culture is pretty sad. However, since Hamilton was also traded out of Boston, I tend to think “going to a museum” might be a euphemism for just not being a team player. Seriously, if Calgary thought Hamilton would help them win a Cup they would get him annual passes to every museum in the two countries. I wouldn’t go so far as to question the class of Calgary’s brass (we do live in a glass house); my guess is that Hamilton does in fact have some culture issues. There have been quite a few fans proposing Hamilton trades on other sites for a while now, which make me think he is viewed much like we view Faulk or Skinner.
The museum thing is pretty odd. Odd that it’s actually a story making the rounds. To me there is more meat to the story that Hamilton was angry when Calgary traded his brother. Even the Canadian press has noticed the “off-ice smear campaign against Hamilton.”
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-nhl-draft-weekends-winners-losers/
Hamilton should be excited to leave Calgary considering all that.
What is this? Character assassination based upon what? Who had “culture issues”? What are culture issues? Are culture issues things like I don’t like some of the players on our team? Heck, probably every player in the league has “culture issues.” Or is it I don’t like how this team is performing or is being coached or how I am being coached? You will find these “culture issues” in every clubhouse IMO. The way you minimize “culture issues” is by WINNING! Culture issues thrive on every losing team. The Canes have been the poster boys for losing due to having lousy players and/or management (including coaching). Continuous losing is the very definition of a “culture issue.” We have changed the management (including the coaching) which had to come first. Now we are in the process of changing the players. The culture can’t get any worse than it was so I see everything as a positive until shown it to be otherwise on the ice. The more change the better…so…let’s get on with moving Faulk for Marner and Sparks….or whatever you can dream up (and I have seen some good ones) and not look back. Ct, it’s not the time for caution or trepidation…it’s time to clean house and let’s see what’s on the other side of the mountain.
Money’s part of it, but I imagine having a chance to play/start in the NHL and have a shot at the cup has something to do with it. Sure, Butcher got paid, but he also picked the place he felt he’d have the best chance to succeed. He chose wisely.
If half of that is right, this weekend will be a start to show him this is the place to be. Svech, Necas, Drury, Bean all have a chance to make a positive impression and he’ll get a great opportunity to compare and contrast the 2 organizations. If you think of normal FA stuff, you get a small window to check things out. He’ll have a whole week, at a minimum. Need Rod and company to wow him, too.
Now, if he has his heart set on certain team, ala Jimmy Vessey, then there’s not much you can do. Ask him to be honest about what he wants and if it ain’t here, try to move him along to where he wants.
I do think Hamilton can be a steadying force, especially if paired with Fleury or even Carrick, and he does have many of the same responsibilities that Faulk does. Adding it all up, yes, it does look like another reason why Faulk will be traded by Sunday.
And there is some urgency: I read over the weekend that Skinner has actually used his no-trade to block a few deals otherwise, he would already be gone. I’m not sure GMDW wants to be in that position with another player.
(Sidebar – Given how his contract negotiations are going, maybe it’s TvR and not Faulk that’s traded.)
With most of us slotting Lindholm into a Center role next season, we have become very thin there. Yes, we have great upside in Aho/Necas/Wallmark/Roy but they haven’t even played a combined 25 NHL games at Center; we might have plugged one hole (steady defenseman) but not without opening up a new one. I’m sure the plan is to bring in more experience there – I just hope it’s not by trading within the division.
I saw a single sentence on a suspect Facebook page – did you see anything more substantive than that reference. I looked for one without success.
Also, I have not seen any reference to the state of negotiations with TvR. Lindy was clearly traded because of the distance in negotiations and Hanifin allegedly so as well. Where did you read about TvR?
I think you figure out what you are going to do with Faulk before you sign TvR.
Some comments on Twitter between Lavalette (sp??) and DeCock about Skinner – off a Friedman article. Skinner’s agent may (or may not) have given a list of 5 teams to management. Skinner may (or may not) have turned down a trade because of contract extension. LA was only going to Pacioretty if Pacioretty signed an extension – something they couldn’t come to terms on. One has to expect that is a factor for Skinner as well – but would they take a sweetener in the form of a prospect who provides assurances of term?
2. I would be surprised if Faulk isn’t traded this week before his NTC kicks in. I still like Faulk + Darling to Chicago for Saad + Hossa. I’m picturing Saad, Ferland, McGinn, and Martinook down the left side. We’re not so easy to play against anymore…
Do Skinner to the Avs for Varlamov and a LD. Sign one of Ward, Hutton, Halak, Bernier, and Lehner.
3. My initial impression is that if you make Slavin-Pesce our workhorse line taking the hardest minutes that Hamilton could easily carry a 2nd line with a slightly lesser player. Worst case scenario we do Slavin-Hamilton and have Pesce anchor a second line, albeit with less offensive upside (although I think Pesce has more offense to give).
Say no to Varlamov. Continual injuries and likes to beat up women. No thanks.
I am not a fan – but forgot about the DV issue. Didn’t Roy have the same thing when he was a player – what is it with Av goalies???
Was not aware of that. I did know he was a bit of an injury risk though.
What about a combination of Hutton and Bernier if you could sign both?
I really think Lehner is too much like Darling to feel comfortable there.
I would like a Hutton/Bernier combo for sure. I think (hope) we sign one of those two to be our #1. Don’t have much confidence in any of the other options out there. I could possibly be happy with signing Hutton or Bernier & letting Wardo be the backup. He proved he can handle that role last year plus we should get a hometown discount & he could end his career here. He is an excellent locker room teammate so that would help also.
Solid breakdown of trade, even though it pains the writer to admit the obvious. He mentions Slavin in the article. It could be a good thing to let Hamilton and Slavin try a first pairing in preseason. Two very talented players who might find something in a pairing.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/won-flames-hurricanes-blockbuster-trade/
Adam Fox is frosting as far as this deal goes in my opinion. We will bein a better position to sign him 1) if we make the playoffs, and 2) if he sees a position open for the taking on the Canes NHL roster when he signs. He won’t want a two-way contract. We can set up both those requirements if management feels this guy is as good as his press clippings and is another McAvoy type talent.
If Justin Faulk is to be traded, then it should be this week based on his REPORTED contract situation. It is rather funny that up to now no one mentioned his no trade clause situation, so I am reluctant to base anything on it until Canes management acknowledges its existence. Where will he go? I say to Toronto, but hey it could be virtually anywhere.
Dougie Hamilton will play in the top 4 somewhere and be an improvement over what we put on the ice last year. I’m not into all the internet gossip crap. I look at what the guy has done on the ice. What is there in his performance that has been deficient? Justin Williams has been traded twice and was not even given a contract by his last team. Did that make getting him a bad move? C’mon, let’s enjoy the breath of fresh air that this deal brings and move forward. It’s one thing to discuss whether we made a good deal or not based upon each player’s on ice performance history and the POTENTIAL (which our fans seem to value more than actual performance) of each player. Adding in imagined negatives does no good unless one enjoys conspiracy theories. My bottom line is we have lost for nine years with what we had. How would things get better without making changes? They wouldn’t IMO. So change in itself is a positive IMO. If things don’t work out, what have we lost? Just another season. We already know that would be the result if we had not made any change before next season even started if we looked at things objectively. The players we had last year with all their POTENTIAL led us to a another crashing defeat. We obviously overvalued them and/or misread the ability of the coaching and/or didn’t have the right mix of players who jelled together to be a winner. We changed the coaching and now are in the process of changing the other two components. I say, GOOD!
Note: On the Cap Friendly site they do not list Faulk as having any no trade clause of any type.
1. I really think Fox is going to go the post-college FA route and I don’t blame him. It isn’t just getting a Harvard degree, although it is always to get a degree from the “Stanford of the East” – 😀 – he gets to enjoy playing the game in college knowing that he is going to get a great-paying job when he graduates. Unlike other sports, there is no real incentive for a top-end college hockey player to leave college when FA beckons in 4 years.
2. I read the same about Faulk’s NTC over the weekend (until it is in place, RedRyder, it won’t show up at these sites). So, yes, I think he is gone by the end of the week.
3. I have no reservations about Hamilton – regardless of his trade history and the comments from Calgary management. He is a top-4 RHD who will pick up the point on the PP. He is a step up from Faulk.
===========
Your comments on culture change puzzled me – maybe I need to re-read them. But if Skinner and Faulk are both traded, that is 2/3 of our assigned leadership from last season. Moreso, individual players with attitude issues are a problem for the team regardless of where they play.
If the trades and FA signings work out the way I am thinking they will, we will have close to a 50% turnover from last season.
50% roster change = culture change. True?
Thanks for the heads up on the Faulk contract situation.
After doing some more research I don’t think Faulk does have a NTC.
CapFriendly has Slavin’s M-NTC listed beginning in the 21-22 season but as mentioned before nothing is listed for Faulk…
July 1st it kicks in.
Why wouldn’t it be listed like Slavin’s then?
Can you confirm from an official source?
McKenzie from TSN was my source. He has been wrong before.
If you think trading Skinner and/or Faulk will better this team, then so be it. I don’t have any argument with you because my point is we lost with what we had and the continuous losing creates the need for culture change. Culture change occurs when you change management and/or players. So any players that are traded will facilitate this culture change and I will not be critical of any movement involving current Canes players. But, if we move players and bring in new one’s, my point is let’s not bring the new players in and immediately start assigning culture issues to them. They are coming into a new environment to create a new winning environment here. Let’s let their on ice performance with the Canes dictate what any issues they may have. Let’s not dream issues up. In sum, you and I have no disagreement I don’t think. For example, personally, I don’t like the idea of trading Skinner. But if we do, I’m going to get behind the move, support it, and not start worrying about why did Washington trade us Ovechkin (I can dream can’t I), or what is wrong with him, etc. I am going to support the move and judge the player based upon what he does in a Canes uniform on the ice. In the here and now before we get to see the on ice results, I am going to concentrate on are we better off with the new players than we were with the old. My immediate answer for the trades we have made is “yes” because we did nothing but lose with the old and IMO the new players are better than the one’s we traded to get them. You and I might disagree on that, but hey, your opinion is at least as good as mine if not better (I’ll guarantee you it isn’t any worse as my track record speaks for itself…it stinks). I enjoy all of the contributors comments on this site and hope everyone keeps up the good work including Matt. Never take any of my comments as criticism. They are either my opinion on something or a suggestion of another way to look at things. I don’t know enough or more than anyone else on this site to allow me to be critical.
RR – you and I have been known to disagree, but it has never been personal and I won’t take it that way. If something sounds personal from me most likely it is because I typed it badly! LOL!
Other than the trade/no-trade on Skinner I pretty much agree with your post. I like that we got two Flames in the trade – they know each other so it is not like one stranger entering a new locker room. Hamilton is a hockey player – if there were issues in Calgary or Boston, he has a clean slate now and a couple of top hockey players who get it – Williams and Staal. I think he will fit in really well.
Losing breeds a culture that accepts losing – and players do so on different ways. You could see frustration on some players (Williams, Staal) and almost acceptance or confusion in others. Breezy is right with his marriage analogy. Some times two good people prove not to be right. And the team adds by the subtraction of a player (or set of players) because the energy and focus of the locker room changes.
I am not entirely sure if that is the case with Skinner (or Faulk) but management’s continuing interest in trading him suggests he is not part of the long-term plans here regardless of whether he wants to move this season or not.
raleightj, I just hope you, dmilleravid, ctcaniac, breezy, poerless, live_free, fogger, virtus, jm97, less than…, 1rhino, Asheville…, and all the others keep writing. I primarily come to this site everyday to read what you guys have to say, not to say something myself. I know that’s hard to believe when you see some of my rambling posts, but it is true. You all along with Matt make this site the best hockey site for me. By the way, where is puckgod? I would be interested in his input, however short and sweet, about what’s going on with the Canes. Puckgod, if you are out there, get on the stick and let’s hear from you.
I think culture issues are more than issues with individual players. It´s about a dynamic that develops in a group of two or more people. You can have great friends that start out happily married and end up getting a bitter divorce. Both people are great but something unhealthy developed between them that they couldn’t fix. Same with bands or teams. Sure, there are players that may play key roles in the situation but replacing those players may not fix the problem. It may take some counselling or a change of approach, or sometimes just a fresh start. I’m on the new team, new season, let’s give the players a chance bandwagon.
I think the next major decision the team makes is what to do about Darling.
I think it’s either keep him or trade him back to Chicago. I don’t see buy outs or trades to other teams likely.
If he is traded I’m on the Faulk for Saad bandwagon.
If he is kept, the Canes need to go out and sign a backup with experience, I’ve advocated Lenner. I’m not a fan of Varlamov, personal issues aside (and what he does in his personal life is none of my business) he’s very prone to injuries.
The next priority is finding a center an deciding what to do with TVR or Faulk.
Faulk as a third pairing powerplay specialist defenseman may actually turn out to be great. Lesser match ups, let him gain his mojo back. Sure, he’s overpaid, but so is Rask. The players salary are something that can’t be fixed and should not affect where in the lineup they play.
If we can’t trade Faulk for an asset that helps elsewhere, let him get back to scoring goals and give him lesser defensive responsibilities, because that should fix his and the team’s plus minus.
The team must add one high end center, RoR is the best possibility. Maybe TVR for RoR (if Faulk can’t be traded) is something, or TVR and Skinner to Buf for Lenner and RoR (the Lenner addition is virtual padding and only gives Canes a priority to negotiate a deal with him before UFA).
I’ not a fan of trading Skinner, but this team needs a center and you have to give up something good to get something good.
The other option is keeping Skinner and TVR and trading Faulk to Tor for a young center prospect and Sparks, as I’ve listed elsewhere.
Finally, there’s the Oilers.
I suspect the deal that will take place is something nobody predicted, probably with none of the aforementioned teams.
Breezy, a lot of good observations and some good ideas about alternative scenarios.
The “museum thing” is a laugher. If DH was dumped for not attending an optional event, then it was not an optional event. It was a mandatory event misrepresented as an optional event. This can only happen with incompetent leadership and DH is lucky to be out. If it is true of course.
In summary it is possible that Fox wouldn’t sign with Calgary for a personal reason but that seems unlikely. It is more likely he is following the Will Butcher model. Some team that thought he was undersized will pay 3x what they would have paid him as a third round selection (Butcher was a fifth round selection).
2). Much more likely Daulk will be traded – this week.
3) Time will be the ultimate arbiter, but I believe RBA will have DH having fun and playing at the top of his game no matter where he slots in. He will be our Premier right side D by the end of the season regardless of pairings.
I find it strange that teams that sign a player on a college ELC do not get to keep the rights to that player for one year past the player’s graduation.
For the ELC to have real meaning, the team that drafed or traded for the player’s rights should have first dips on that player when the player leaves the college system.
A college kid that has been drafted should not have the choice of dropping out of college to play hockey or finish the degree and sign with whoever he wants.
This is a bit like the U.S. immigration policy that encourages the smartest people from around the world to study at U.S. college and then near immediately kicks them back out again, only to take the knowledge and ideas back to their home country. Enough political commentary.
On a totally unrelated note, Brooks Orpic was bought outby Col, as expected. Should the Canes sign him?
You don’t like freedom do you lol? What’s wrong with kids finding loopholes to choose where they play? America!
We don’t “sign” the college player – we just have the draft rights. If a player wants (Faulk, Hanifin) he can leave school and sign an ELC. I have no issue with a player deciding to finish school and gaining free agency. It is one of the risks a team takes when it drafts a college player – and the team has a couple of years to convince the player to sign.
Don’t know all the rules with college guys but if Fox knew that he wanted to follow the “Will Butcher” path, why wouldn’t he just not go into the draft & wait until he graduated from college then sign as a UFA ??
Just curious if that is even possible & why more kids aren’t doing it that way ??
I don’t think you have an option to not go into the draft. The NHL as a league decides if they want to draft you. The player decides if he wants to sign the contract.
Teams also draft college kids and then abandon them because they no longer think they are NHL caliber. It’s good that there is a path for kids to control their destiny AND get a degree. Most NHL players will need another job when they are done playing. Getting your degree is a big deal.
Breezy, I agree that a drafted player should have the option to finish college, with the team that drafted him retaining rights after graduation. They don’t have to sign him, but they can.
With a starting salary of 600 grand and most players signing for 3 to 4 times that I don’t buy the “the poor guy has to finish college so he has enough money to survive life after hockey) argument.
But I think the current system is unfair to the player, because the team will pressure him to drop out of college and go pro before finishing his degree, and to the team that is forced to pressure the player to go pro in order not to lose him to free agency.
I see a system where the team has the players rights for 1 year after graduation and can either sign him or trade his rights to another team during that period. If the player waits out the year he becomes a UFA and can start his career anywhere he likes. I think that is a balanced system that does not short change either the player or the team.
The player has to approve the trade.
The money just isn’t that much unless you play for ten years or more. Let’s say you play 5 years and make $5M. Half of that goes to the tax man and agents, so now you are down to $2.5M. These guys aren’t going to live in a $100,000 house and drive a used Taurus. That money won’t last that long unless you have a job post NHL. A lot of these kids will never make that money. Just a few years making $800K- $1M. Some will never make it past the AHL. Having a college degree makes a big difference. It’s worth staying for and a kid shouldn’t be penalized for it. Let them go UFA. Give yourself the best chance to succeed by picking the team that actually needs you.
Breezy, I totally agree with your prediction; “…the deal that will take place is something nobody predicted, probably with none of the aforementioned teams.”
In a recent interview, Waddell said that he wants to address the rest of our needs, but in order to accomplish that, we must have a trade partner. Hmmm!
Anyway. I have read all of the posts here and in other places regarding our recent trade. I have pondered all of the opinions of those who would second guess the trade (I am among those).
Here is what I think of the players coming to us:
Dougie. Calgary management as well as certain members of the media would have us believe that he is a locker room problem.
Let’s see about that. “He went to a museum instead of a team event.” Then we have “….a young player who has been traded three times.”
He has not been traded three times. We will be the third team he has played for in his 7 year career. He was drafted by the Bruins (9th overall in 2011). In 2015, he was a cap casualty withem and they traded him to Calgary for a 1st and 2 seconds. Calgary sent him to us in the second trade of his career.
The problems he and Calgary had were 3, as I can see them; 1) Dougie’s brother Freddie plays in the NHL. Calgary, not long ago traded to obtain Freddie’s services. This year they put Freddie on waivers and he was claimed by another team. One can only wonder if management sought Dougie’s input before they did it? 2) in the military, it is said that one’s view of how good or bad the military is, is based entirely upon the quality of the commanding officer. When Calgary decided to change coaches, I am sure that Dougie found out via the player’s grapevine who the new coach would be and what kind of coach he would be. Say what we will about Peters, we can all agree that he is not a player’s coach. 3) Calgary is in Canada. Canadians are very passionate hockey fans. All hockey, all the time. Calgary is a relatively small city in the middle of nowhere. Players cannot be anonymous. People stop them on the street to tell them how well they have played or how badly they have played. Maybe Dougie just wanted out of the goldfish bowl. I know that I would.
Michael. I had to dig deeply in this guy. But he is a Native-Canadian. He is a member of the Algonquin tribe. Racism of white Canadians against blacks as well as Native-canadians runs high. Finally, he has an ongoing off-ice problem that he is handling in a very healthy way. It is reported that when it began to cause a problem for him a couple of years ago, he reached out to Flames management for help. They helped him. I have been dealing with the same problem for over 33 years, so I am optimistic about him.
Adam. I know, I know. Will Butcher and all that. I prefer to look at something a little closer to home. Like Calgary, we had a top notch defenseman drafted who wouldn’t sign with us. He kept wanting to play for his college (Michigan) for one more year. Rutherford ran out of patience and traded the rights to Jack Johnson to LA. We got Tim Gleason (D) and Eric Belanger (C). The player who wouldn’t sign with us, signed with LA the next year.
The future can be a friendly place.
Powerless!!!! Bringing the human aspect for the win. I wonder if his and Darling’s similar personal struggles in the past would create an initial bond. One can only hope for a chemistry boost from the trade. I’m fascinated to see how the culture side of this trade pans out.
I didn’t even see Ferland’s culture potential outside of a couple hits until this afternoon. Really gets me more excited about the potential of the trade. The human factor is so important.
Great research. Very insightful.
Amen, fogger.
By the way, Ryan Murphy is an RFA, but it looks like he will be signed to a one year contract with the Wild. Yay!
I never thought we gave him a fair chance.
On another site (HF boards) there is quite a bit of input from Flames’ fans. I don’t think it is sour grapes because they almost all have good things to say about Ferland. The strong consensus is that Hamilton doesn’t seem bothered by not winning. That actually fits in with the museum meme–if you are interested in the accomplishments of ancient civilizations or Nobel-winning scientists, then you probably have a different perspective from the typical athlete who lives and dies with his own accomplishments.
I am ok with that–but I bring it up because many Caniacs think the Canes’ culture problem is about “not hating losing.”
So I am waiting to fully judge this trade. Last season I was thrilled with Darling and Kruger. Neither cost the Canes much and both seemed destined to change the 8-years of futility.
At this point I willingly admit that Hamilton is the best player in the trade. However, as Matt mentions, there are some indications that Hamilton isn’t truly a top pairing guy and may need a stronger partner–so basically a 6’6″ version of Faulk. I also admit that Peters isn’t likely the coach to get more out of either Hanifin or Lindholm.
My conclusion–I will let you know next April if I am as excited as others.
https://www.nhl.com/hurricanes/news/tim-gleason-lead-canes-defensemen-development/c-299269762
Gleason back with the team. He was my favorite player for several years. Very cool.
TVR, McKegg, Wallmark, and Zykov were given qualifying offers today. Curiously, Digiuseppe was not qualified, but they are working on keeping him? How? Why?
How does it work if they don’t qualify him? Why didn’t they qualify him?
Some comments elsewhere indicated if he received a qualifying offer, he’d be able to go to arbitration. This way, by non-qualifying, he can be signed for anything (maybe not that exact word, but the gist of things).
If an RFA is not qualified, they immediately become a UFA and can sign anywhere.
In order to give him a pay cut.
Bingo! Paycut and no arbitration.
https://www.nhl.com/hurricanes/news/canes-sign-phil-di-giuseppe-to-one-year-deal/c-299273928
PDG received a small increase – $750K vs. $725K last season.
My guess as to why they didn’t give him a qualifying offer is that this deal was in the process of being finalized. Alternately, PDG said “uncle” rather than being made a UFA.
A qualifying offer would have allowed him to go to arbitration. I don’t know the details, but a qualifying offer would likely triggered a larger raise than the Canes were willing to give him.
I saw PDG’s cap hit on some website and assumed he made in the $800 range last year. Probably just his signing bonus being spread over his rookie deal.
Means they don’t necessarily want them.