Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

  1. #21
    Legend cmaleski2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wake County v2
    Posts
    6,991
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    DeCock raises an excellent point. Forget about the cap hit, I really don't think that matters to the Canes. The amount of MONEY owed de Haan over the final 3 years of that contract averages out to almost $4.75 million per. That is a good sized chunk of change that the Canes must have decided could be better spent (or better not spent, we are still unsure of how that ends up). I can't argue with that thought process, but I will feel a lot better about it if we really do spend that money in some other way (I'm not counting Aho's big salary increase).
    Last edited by cmaleski2; 06-25-2019 at 12:01 AM.

  2. #22
    Super-Star Elsker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    3,465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    Brutal in their process, but hard to argue that a $4.5M third-pairing D-man with shoulder injury that is going to keep him out until December with questionable serviceability after that and three more seasons on his contract is not a good candidate for freeing up some salary budget...and maybe even some cap room if they are going big on something brewing. I know we didn't acquire him to be a 3LD for us...but that's the way it's turned out with the Pesce/Faulk/Hamilton shuffle.

    Throw in a prospect that Brind'Amour sent home early from camp last season and probably was never going to crack our bottom six as a sweetener for taking damaged goods. As pointed out, not a drafted and developed prospect, but collateral received in yet another trade where the big name in the trade had narrowed the field of potential trade candidates to one team.

    This is a reverse Teravainen/Bickell trade where we sent a second and third round draft pick (both acquired from others) for their salary dump. Both of those picks are unsigned, by the way, with one apparently playing in Russia for the KHL and the other at Penn State.

    Just further evidence that the hive mind is intent on evaluating value with little sentimentality. We're just not used to this kind of thing being raised on JR's GM'ing.

    Could be they are "planning for success" as the Duchene talks heat up. Maybe something is brewing on the goalie front.

    After my immediate "What?!?" reaction subsided, this is starting to make sense.

    As for the return, #7 D at best and someone to challenge Nedeljkovic in camp and/or serve as the #3 injury call-up from Charlotte. Value of either being questionable, but return value was not really the point of this trade.

    I'm okay with it. Mysterious, but only because some other shoe is yet to fall.
    Last edited by Elsker; 06-25-2019 at 01:58 AM.
    Here we are now...entertain us.

  3. #23
    Super-Star ThinIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    Sorry, but I was shocked to read about this when I woke up. De Haan stabilized our D-corps and made us a better, tougher team to play against. I know he's out with an injury, but I don't think his salary was undeserved or excessive. I never worried about having him in the lineup - and I can't say that about every other D-man we have. Like all of you, I figured this might be the first of two shoes to drop, but we've heard all that before and rarely does it pan out. Instead, it seems like a pure economic move. But for a team at the cap floor this just doesn't make all that much sense to me. And I thought Saarela has more upside - even if Brindy isn't impressed - so what we got in return for this deal is completely underwhelming.

  4. #24
    Hall of Famer JamesNorthern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Montreal, CA
    Posts
    4,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    So the offseason continues. Seems fans are pretty bent out of shape about this one. Good guy. Good defenseman. Far from irreplaceable. We have depth.
    Now go do something important with the money saved. Like get a star free agent. Otherwise, this is the 2nd crappy trade under Waddell's direction. (Skinner being first)
    I'm not even remotely convinced that we're anywhere near sniffing distance of signing a guy like Duchene. That being said, there seems to be a lot of high price/talent available this year.

  5. #25
    Mod Squad jeffbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13,967
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    This is probably a great reminder of why evaluating a single trade in an off season that will have plenty of other roster moves probably isn't the best idea. There's an internet and media driven obsession with grading a trade for winners and losers, and honestly it isn't always justified. In fact, it might never be justified. You make a trade like this to set up something else ... open up deHaan's salary slot, open up his roster spot, add another G to the pipeline if not the NHL team, add a depth D who's a bit different than the guys you currently have ... a lot of stuff.

    But at the end of the day, you're not moving a 3rd pairing defenseman for a meaningful asset in this lifetime (generally a prospect or a 3rd round pick in prior markets) and let's be honest here ... this organization is all but polluted with legit candidates to fill a spot on that 3rd pairing. I don't think this move has anything whatsoever to do with Faulk's situation and it certainly doesn't factor into the goaltending issue at the NHL level. I think there are a lot of Canes fans out there right now who are convinced their GM is an idiot because they think this is a face value hockey trade ... and it just isn't. NOBODY is that stupid.

    That said, I'll go on record as not liking either of the players we just added, and I don't think either of them will factor with the big club in any meaningful way ... now or in the future.

  6. #26
    Hall of Famer JamesNorthern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Montreal, CA
    Posts
    4,728
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffbear View Post
    This is probably a great reminder of why evaluating a single trade in an off season that will have plenty of other roster moves probably isn't the best idea. There's an internet and media driven obsession with grading a trade for winners and losers, and honestly it isn't always justified. In fact, it might never be justified. You make a trade like this to set up something else ... open up deHaan's salary slot, open up his roster spot, add another G to the pipeline if not the NHL team, add a depth D who's a bit different than the guys you currently have ... a lot of stuff.

    But at the end of the day, you're not moving a 3rd pairing defenseman for a meaningful asset in this lifetime (generally a prospect or a 3rd round pick in prior markets) and let's be honest here ... this organization is all but polluted with legit candidates to fill a spot on that 3rd pairing. I don't think this move has anything whatsoever to do with Faulk's situation and it certainly doesn't factor into the goaltending issue at the NHL level. I think there are a lot of Canes fans out there right now who are convinced their GM is an idiot because they think this is a face value hockey trade ... and it just isn't. NOBODY is that stupid.

    That said, I'll go on record as not liking either of the players we just added, and I don't think either of them will factor with the big club in any meaningful way ... now or in the future.
    So that's why I say it is Waddell's 2nd crappy trade. You can save money, open up slots etc, but bring back something more usefull than what we did.

  7. #27
    Mod Squad jeffbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13,967
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesNorthern View Post
    So that's why I say it is Waddell's 2nd crappy trade. You can save money, open up slots etc, but bring back something more usefull than what we did.
    My point is ... it IS a crappy trade, but does that really matter if it sets up a less crappy roster come camp time? For me ... let's wait and see what happens before we get the pitchforks sharpened.

  8. #28
    1st Liner
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    DeHaan is an expensive third pair guy who we all like who is likely to miss a good chunk of the season.

    We have guys in the system that need those minutes.

    Those guys who need those minutes ought to be able to fill the role. If not they need time at this level to learn or so we can determine they donít have it and move on.

    It frees up $ which can be better spent elsewhere.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #29
    Super-Star Elsker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    3,465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    This is why GM's love getting picks for salary dumps since the fan base can concentrate on feel-good memories of former second-round and third-round picks that turned out great instead of focusing on the more likely odds that the players actually selected with those picks will never play in the NHL.

    Getting actual players back instead that may never play in the NHL is just too revealing that you're getting very little of value when dumping your problem on someone else.

    They only agree to help you out because they are essentially getting something for nothing.
    Here we are now...entertain us.

  10. #30
    Hall of Famer CanadaCanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesNorthern View Post
    So the offseason continues. Seems fans are pretty bent out of shape about this one. Good guy. Good defenseman. Far from irreplaceable. We have depth.
    Now go do something important with the money saved. Like get a star free agent. Otherwise, this is the 2nd crappy trade under Waddell's direction. (Skinner being first)
    I'm not even remotely convinced that we're anywhere near sniffing distance of signing a guy like Duchene. That being said, there seems to be a lot of high price/talent available this year.
    Canes fans are use to being stung by management when they seem to set themselves up nicely for a big trade or free agent signing only to be disappointed when nothing really ever happens on that second shoe to drop. Maybe this will be different, maybe Dundon is willing to spend if he feels the worth and fit is there, but until that happens, you can certainly understand the frustration among fans when lopsided trades on the surface go down.

  11. #31
    All-Star SlapShots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    Interesting to note that this is now the second shoulder surgery/repair for deHaan. He has already had the other shoulder repaired. When those kind of injuries happen, I am always reminded of Josef Melichar and his two bad wings and as his career progressed, those shoulders were a problem as was his ability to really move the puck. I thought deHaan was a great signing and did make us better on the back end. I am sorry to see him go. He was that stay at home guy we were missing without Gleason-- without the tough exterior. Steady as they go! I get the decision, but hate the return-- for whatever the reason.

  12. #32
    Hall of Famer CanadaCanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    Quote Originally Posted by SlapShots View Post
    Interesting to note that this is now the second shoulder surgery/repair for deHaan. He has already had the other shoulder repaired. When those kind of injuries happen, I am always reminded of Josef Melichar and his two bad wings and as his career progressed, those shoulders were a problem as was his ability to really move the puck. I thought deHaan was a great signing and did make us better on the back end. I am sorry to see him go. He was that stay at home guy we were missing without Gleason-- without the tough exterior. Steady as they go! I get the decision, but hate the return-- for whatever the reason.
    I guess we can all hope that Fleury gets better to a point of being a reliable stay at home guy and play the same type of role that de Haan did last year. Fleury is not going to give you a lot of offense but he needs to be better defensively in his own end and play with a bit more of a physical edge moving forward.

  13. #33
    Mod Squad jeffbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13,967
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Canes Trade de Haan, Saarela

    The thing with Fleury is, he's be in the Top 6 for all but maybe one or two other teams. He's not far off, but Carolina's standards on D are a little higher just because of the quality in the group. That's one reason everybody else thinks we're nuts for how much we criticize Faulk.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •