FreshSeabass
Aho!
If we move a d man picking up mark borowiecki to be a 6/7 rotation guy could help with our physicality that seems to be lacking from this lineup. Probably can be had on a short low cost deal.
All purpose trade/roster building thread the 13th
- Thread starter Nikishin Go Boom
- Start date
- Status
Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 21,947
- 51,281
I don’t see the benefit of a MAF-Gardiner deal.
a 3 year 4 million 30 year old under-performer is better than a 2 year 7 million 35 year old under-performer. Not even the 12 vs 14 either. 4 million contracts are easier to move than 7 million. MAF’s drop off will be steeper too.
Nino and Fleury + pick, maybe. The 3 million a year is too much with a serious (one they wouldn’t consider) add
a 3 year 4 million 30 year old under-performer is better than a 2 year 7 million 35 year old under-performer. Not even the 12 vs 14 either. 4 million contracts are easier to move than 7 million. MAF’s drop off will be steeper too.
Nino and Fleury + pick, maybe. The 3 million a year is too much with a serious (one they wouldn’t consider) add
spockBokk
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2013
- 7,122
- 17,864
Where are the Necas inclusions coming from? Laine?
I’d say Necas is probably considered an untouchable at this point due to 2yrs or ELC left and the fact he’s expansion exempt
Canes
Registered User
Fleury is only owed 12.5 million, about the same as Gardiner. His contract is front loaded compared to back loaded for Gardiner. Yeah, not really an exciting option but I don't think Gardiner is that enticing to other teams either.
Probably moot anyway because I'm sure we're on MAF's no trade list.
Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 21,947
- 51,281
We aren’t a real dollar vs cap dollar team anymore. We are a cap team. Adding 3 million to the cap for equally or more so underperforming player hurts re-signing Dougie and Svech
Canes
Registered User
All I'm saying is that it's an option if we strike out on the first 3-4 realistic better targets (if we're even planning to play the goalie market in the first place which I'm not sure is a given). Also we've spent to the cap once, I'll hold off in saying we're a cap dollar team until we have 3-4 seasons of spending up to it. And even if we finally are one, we can give Dzingel away for a bag of pucks
- Dec 6, 2011
- 12,351
- 39,337
I'd pass on Fleury. He certainly might rebound, he's looked fine when playing in the playoffs. But that's been spot duty. This year could be the start of what he is moving forward when in an actual starter role given his age. If he played like that on a damn good Vegas team, not sure he's going to be all that much better moving forward. Not a risk I'm willing to take for that much cap for a couple of years.
Fleury comes in at $7 mil. Budget $1.5 mil for a true 3rd pairing guy and that's $8.5 mil for the pair.
Gardiner runs $4.025 mil. Budget $3.125 mil (Mrazek) for a platoon goalie and that's ~$7.18 mil for the pair.
~$1.32 mil is not a big gamble, particularly when a Fleury/Gardiner swap offers the benefit of clearing the books a year earlier, just in time for the Necas extension.
Gardiner runs $4.025 mil. Budget $3.125 mil (Mrazek) for a platoon goalie and that's ~$7.18 mil for the pair.
~$1.32 mil is not a big gamble, particularly when a Fleury/Gardiner swap offers the benefit of clearing the books a year earlier, just in time for the Necas extension.
bleedgreen
Registered User
Fleury hasn’t looked good to me, and I love the guy. I don’t think it improves us at all and makes it harder to change our goalies out moving forward than they are now. I don’t hate Jake that badly. I think Jake is the safer play than adding Fleury.
AD Skinner
Registered User
I'm still not really sure rearranging goalies is a pressing need. Reimer and Mrazek both had some notable goofs against Boston but both had fine save percentages with .934 and .929 respectively. Its not their fault the skaters only scored one goal in games 3 and 5 or collapsed in the third period of game 4.
- Dec 6, 2011
- 12,351
- 39,337
Yeah, it's not just the cap that's a gamble. It's that he wasn't good enough this year and may not be capable of being the guy anymore at his age. He seems like a decent chance to be Cam Ward without the pre-existing good will of accomplishment with this team.
We can continue to hide Gardiner lower in the lineup if he doesn't get better than his best from this year. Good luck hiding a goalie that easily.
Fleury can be hidden on the bench watching a platoon-type backup in net. If his performance warrants it, he won't have anything to complain about at that point.
The top choice is Lehner, but that looks increasingly unlikely. Markstrom is the only other desirable starter type left, if he even gets to free agency. Holtby hasn't been the guy he was for a few years now. Via trade, Murray will be expensive to acquire and expensive to retain with the threat of arbitration out there. Ditto Andersen, because of his 1 year term. Even if they want to go in any of those directions, they're doing it on top of Gardiner, who probably will require a cap in/cap out trade to move. Ultimately, that's the primary motivation behind a Fleury/Gardiner swap: reallocate cap from the bottom of the defense to the goalie platoon.
The top choice is Lehner, but that looks increasingly unlikely. Markstrom is the only other desirable starter type left, if he even gets to free agency. Holtby hasn't been the guy he was for a few years now. Via trade, Murray will be expensive to acquire and expensive to retain with the threat of arbitration out there. Ditto Andersen, because of his 1 year term. Even if they want to go in any of those directions, they're doing it on top of Gardiner, who probably will require a cap in/cap out trade to move. Ultimately, that's the primary motivation behind a Fleury/Gardiner swap: reallocate cap from the bottom of the defense to the goalie platoon.
bleedgreen
Registered User
Unless we’re trading for a goalie I think we’re keeping our goalies. I don’t think we’re going ufa, or at least I’d be surprised. If we can’t work something out with Pitts I don’t know that we’ll do much there.
Which to an extent is fine. Goaltending didn’t lose us the playoffs, we have other things to worry about before goalies are killing us. We’re also one season past Mrazek being a very good starter. Could be a hot year for him. I’d take him over a lot of the available options.
Which to an extent is fine. Goaltending didn’t lose us the playoffs, we have other things to worry about before goalies are killing us. We’re also one season past Mrazek being a very good starter. Could be a hot year for him. I’d take him over a lot of the available options.
Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 21,947
- 51,281
Until we score 4+ a game and lose 5-4 on a regular basis, lets keep trying to get to average 4+ a game.
We averaged 3.19 during the regular season and 2.75 during the playoffs.
We averaged 3.19 during the regular season and 2.75 during the playoffs.
If we're going to look at a cup-winning veteran G for a year or 2, I'd try to sign Crawford before I traded for Fleury.
It’s not that Mrazek and Reimer were bad, I just don’t want to get caught up in the here and now. I think we can all agree that neither of the two is or will be our definitive #1 in the future. There appears to be some options that could be available, which isn’t all that common in the league. So if there’s a chance for an upgrade in net, we shouldn’t close ourselves off to changing it up.
I seem to recall an interview with Tom Dundon where he says it’s the front office’s job to find better players.
I seem to recall an interview with Tom Dundon where he says it’s the front office’s job to find better players.
Agreed. When you look at the crop this year, this is the best year in a while to find goalies on the open market or via trade.
I think that's also a reason Toronto is looking to upgrade; they see the crop available this year and think they can make their move now and not worry about who is available next year when Andersen is UFA.
Exactly. Because what’ll happen is the same thing that has happened in the past of over-critiquing goalies, and watching other teams make moves that ultimately improve their team while we’re sitting stagnant.
bleedgreen
Registered User
We’ve been anything but stagnant in terms of making moves. We could use a little less ADD in that department imo.
WreckingCrew
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2015
- 12,273
- 37,819
Our biggest problem isn't that Mrazek/Reimer weren't a fine and decent duo for the season, or even in the playoffs (I can't really fault any of the losses with them except maybe the Reimer implosion game). The biggest problem is that BOTH are UFA at the end of this next season, as is Needaspellcheck...leaving us with NO goalies going forward. If you have a chance to acquire a solid UFA goalie to hold us over a few years until Koch/Mak/(Askarov) are closer to ready, you make the move and worry about who gets tossed from the carousel afterwards (neither Mrazek or Reimer are immovable contracts). IF that doesn't pan out, then you consider giving up assets in a trade for a guy with term, but probably be ready to pay a higher price also if the top UFA candidates are gone. If we wait until but Mraz/Reim are UFAs, then we're forced to overpay for a sub-par UFA, leveraged in a trade, or resign/roll with them during our prime Cup contention years
When it comes to goalies, we’ve been meh. We signed Mrazek to a cheap 1 year reclamation deal, and he has been decent, but not great since. I believe the only reason he was chosen last summer over Lehner is because he was cheaper and we were up against the cap. We traded Reimer for cap reasons and losing Mch. I don’t think we acquired either goalie because they were considered a great option, as both goalies were seen as mediocre prior to their arrival in Carolina. And while I’m not as sold on Fleury as I was a couple years ago for age reasons, I don’t think he or any other option out there would come in here and do worse than Mrazek/Reimer. I think we could only get better.
spockBokk
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2013
- 7,122
- 17,864
Cap friendly just switched their site over to the 20-21 season. Canes have $7.7M in cap space and are spending over $24M next year on just 5 D...ouch.
10 forwards under contract (not including Geekie) and 5 D (not including Bean). Fleury’s bridge deal should look pretty interesting.
10 forwards under contract (not including Geekie) and 5 D (not including Bean). Fleury’s bridge deal should look pretty interesting.
Nikishin Go Boom
Russian Bulldozer Consultent
- Jul 31, 2017
- 21,947
- 51,281
Geekie makes it 7 million in space. Foegele and Fleury's bridge deals should be between 1.5-2 million a piece. We are talking 3-4 million in cap space with no improvements and a 20 person roster.
Add Geekie (12th F) at .763 and Bean (7th D) at .863 and you get 6.155M cap space with Fleury and Foegele to sign as RFA, plus maybe roster an extra forward. There's definitely space to upgrade at least one spot somewhere, maybe more if a deal moves out some salary.
bleedgreen
Registered User
Our previous moves haven’t all worked out very well. We are cap restrained. I don’t believe anyone is taking one of our goalies without us taking the same money back. This makes moving one our goalies and then beating market price for a ufa less than likely. I’m more worried about signing Dougie at this point.
Really big issue is that we are officially in our window to win a cup based on age. This is this groups prime....right now. Every year we don’t take a stab we are wasting the best years of these players careers. Slavin/Pesce/Dougie(?)/Skjei/Aho/TT and I think Svech are all where they need to be. All the others are prime aged as well including Trocheck, Marty, Foegele, with young legs in Geekie/Necas/hopefully Bean pushing their way in the picture.
Wherever the gaps are this management is on the clock to make that core win a cup or at least start threatening. We clearly aren’t there yet. We can’t just hope on the current group improving.
- Status
