Confirmed with Link: Faulk to the Blues for Edmundson, Bokk

[Anton Babchuk]

I think that for most organizations, a Fleury-McKeown pairing would work just fine on a third pairing. It's important to note, however, that the Canes are clearly in win-now mode and are ready to make their run this year, and Edmundson-TVR is a third pairing to match those ambitions.

who are these "most organizations"??? literally every team just passed on mckeown for free. if he was a surefire third pairing defenseman you'd think someone would at least want him as #7 or #8 for depth purposes.

 

[MinJaBen]

unless edmunson is really, really bad, a fleury-mckeown pairing would be a huge step down. i think the reason we have a 5.4m third pairing is because the organization just doesn't trust those guys.

fleury has looked miserable so far, in his sixth training camp and fourth pro year. there's this "they're easily #6 defenseman on any other team!!!" sentiment that about fleury and mckeown that doesn't have any merit alll imo.

Given the limited amount I've seen, I think I'd put Sellgren ahead of both Bean and Fleury as the 3rd pairing LHD. He seems to be the most effective of the three in transitions and in the offensive zone, and he doesn't seem to make terrible mistakes in his own zone.

 

[Chrispy]

Well Edmure makes 3.something with TVR making 2.something, so while we are “cheaper” on the third pair we’re paying a decent amount back there. Especially since we could probably roll with Fleury and McKeown.

1) Carolina had to retain salary on Faulk after taking back Edmundson to get STL cap compliant. So if they don't take back Edmundson they either take back similar salary in other player or players, or retain more on Faulk. They took Edmundson for a year rather than retain more.

2) There's a lot of talk about the lack of interest in Fleury or McKeown for cheap around the league. Why should we assume there's a market for Edmundson at $3.1M and TVR at $2.3M? Are those cap hits worth the added performance to other teams over their own third pairing?

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

who are these "most organizations"??? literally every team just passed on mckeown for free. if he was a surefire third pairing defenseman you'd think someone would at least want him as #7 or #8 for depth purposes.

Waivers don't just occur in a vacuum. Canes snuck him in early when other teams were still evaluating their own players.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

2) There's a lot of talk about the lack of interest in Fleury or McKeown for cheap around the league. Why should we assume there's a market for Edmundson at $3.1M and TVR at $2.3M? Are those cap hits worth the added performance to other teams over their own third pairing?

The main kicker with TVR is his injury. Teams likely want to see how he performs after he recovers. I think that most teams know that a healthy TVR is well-above average on a third pair.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

1) Carolina had to retain salary on Faulk after taking back Edmundson to get STL cap compliant. So if they don't take back Edmundson they either take back similar salary in other player or players, or retain more on Faulk. They took Edmundson for a year rather than retain more.

2) There's a lot of talk about the lack of interest in Fleury or McKeown for cheap around the league. Why should we assume there's a market for Edmundson at $3.1M and TVR at $2.3M? Are those cap hits worth the added performance to other teams over their own third pairing?

from friedman's 31 thoughts a couple days ago:

"7. Some of the teams looking for defencemen are considering Stanley Cup champion Joel Edmundson from St. Louis. He will earn $3.1 million, and become an unrestricted free agent on July 1. I think the Devils are trying to add a blueliner, but am not certain he’d be the one. I’m wondering if Winnipeg is there, too."

31 Thoughts: How Brayden Point's contract impacts the RFA market - Sportsnet.ca

If we wanted to, I think Edmunson could be easily moved. I think it's simply that the organization is willing to pay a few million extra to not have Haydn Fleury on the ice every game.

 

[MinJaBen]

Does anyone know if the rules about staying with the NHL team for a guy claimed off waivers is the same or different in the preseason as it is during the regular season? I wonder if that may also be playing a part for teams considering whether or not to make a claim on a guy like McKeown?

 

[Anton Babchuk]

Does anyone know if the rules about staying with the NHL team for a guy claimed off waivers is the same or different in the preseason as it is during the regular season? I wonder if that may also be playing a part for teams considering whether or not to make a claim on a guy like McKeown?

i might be misunderstanding the question, but there's no rules about a waiver claim having to stay with their new nhl team. it's just that they have to go through waivers again to be sent to the ahl.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

If we wanted to, I think Edmunson could be easily moved. I think it's simply that the organization is willing to pay a few million extra to not have Haydn Fleury on the ice every game.

Yes, I agree. To Dundon, $3M is chump change to improve a win-now team to make them Cup-ready for this year. If Fleury plays super-well again and has the same great defensive metrics as he did last year, perhaps they will trade Edmundson for a mid-round pick and re-allocate cap for a Willy return, but for now, it's worth it.

 

[geehaad]

I think it's simply that the organization is willing to pay a few million extra to not have Haydn Fleury on the ice every game.

At this point, Edmundson alone won't prevent that, due to TvR's injured status. His presence is preventing further down the pecking order from starting on opening night.

 

[Lempo]

I think it's simply that the organization is willing to pay a few million extra to not have Haydn Fleury on the ice every game.

I would take it onto myself if they paid me 1M to play and 3M to someone else so I don't play.

I would take the million obviously, but under very subdued protest.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Yeah, I think the Ferland thing was mis-handled a bit for sure. Only because in the end they clearly could have brought him back for a relatively low cost considering what he signed for in Vancouver. The borg decided that Haula + Dzingel were better adds and they might be right on that but you can't deny what a healthy motivated Ferland brings to the table. Either way from an asset management standpoint it was less than ideal but maybe a lesson learned on that what and at least it wasn't on a player who was part of the core.

I'm not sure it was mis-handled. It was pretty clear they didn't WANT to bring him back, even at a lower price, and that due to his injuries, there wasn't much of a market for him at the deadline.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Waivers don't just occur in a vacuum. Canes snuck him in early when other teams were still evaluating their own players.

Still, if he was a sure fire 3rd pairing guy on a cheap contract, a team would have made a claim. And Carrick has now passed waivers on two separate teams. These are the type of players that every team has, which is why they are passing through waivers, early or not.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

i might be misunderstanding the question, but there's no rules about a waiver claim having to stay with their new nhl team. it's just that they have to go through waivers again to be sent to the ahl.

EDIT 2: I mis-understood the question and response. Your response was about a guy claimed, and there is NO days/games played associated with that. A team claiming a guy would need to put him on waivers again to send him down, just as you stated.

My response below was in regards to a guy not claimed, as I misread the posts.

Isn't that only if they are on the roster for so many days and/or play in so many games?

EDIT: 13.5 of the CBA says 30 days or 10 games.

So a player not "loaned" to a minor league club or one who gets recalled from a minor league club won't need to be waived as long as he is under 30 days or 10 games, both cumulative. I don't think pre-season games count, but it's not clear.

 

[bleedgreen]

unless edmunson is really, really bad, a fleury-mckeown pairing would be a huge step down. i think the reason we have a $5.4m third pairing is because the organization just doesn't trust those guys.

fleury has looked miserable so far, in his sixth training camp and fourth pro year. there's this "they're easily #6 defenseman on any other team!!!" sentiment that about fleury and mckeown (and other prospects in the past) that doesn't have any merit alll imo.

people here have been SHOCKED when the likes of carrick and mckeown cleared waivers, but they shouldn't be. these guys are dime-a-dozen #8/9 defensemen who shouldn't be in a regular role on any team. every team has two or three of these guys.

I’m not advocating that they start these two. I’m saying if they were being cost conservative that’s a place other teams would go young. It could Bean or Forsling as well.

Personally I like that they went vet, and that Fleury should have to beat a guy out. I think they’re going for it this year and this is part of the reason why.

 

[bleedgreen]

1) Carolina had to retain salary on Faulk after taking back Edmundson to get STL cap compliant. So if they don't take back Edmundson they either take back similar salary in other player or players, or retain more on Faulk. They took Edmundson for a year rather than retain more.

2) There's a lot of talk about the lack of interest in Fleury or McKeown for cheap around the league. Why should we assume there's a market for Edmundson at $3.1M and TVR at $2.3M? Are those cap hits worth the added performance to other teams over their own third pairing?

I think they took the guy because he fits what they want at that spot. I think they didn’t want to go young. I definitely think TVR has value around the league.

 

[Lempo]

EDIT 2: I mis-understood the question and response. Your response was about a guy claimed, and there is NO days/games played associated with that. A team claiming a guy would need to put him on waivers again to send him down, just as you stated.

My response below was in regards to a guy not claimed, as I misread the posts.

Isn't that only if they are on the roster for so many days and/or play in so many games?

EDIT: 13.5 of the CBA says 30 days or 10 games.

So a player not "loaned" to a minor league club or one who gets recalled from a minor league club won't need to be waived as long as he is under 30 days or 10 games, both cumulative. I don't think pre-season games count, but it's not clear.

My interpretation is that pre-season games don't count. A little later "NHL games" are defined as Regular Season games and Playoff games.

 

[My Special Purpose]

I think they took the guy because he fits what they want at that spot. I think they didn’t want to go young. I definitely think TVR has value around the league.

I think they *did* want to go young. They *wanted* Fleury to grab the job and run with it. I don't think it was a decision between "young" or "veteran." I think it was a decision between *competent* and *not good enough*. If Fleury showed he was ready for 82 games plus playoffs of the third pairing in the NHL, this trade doesn't happen.

 

[Chrispy]

I think they *did* want to go young. They *wanted* Fleury to grab the job and run with it. I don't think it was a decision between "young" or "veteran." I think it was a decision between *competent* and *not good enough*. If Fleury showed he was ready for 82 games plus playoffs of the third pairing in the NHL, this trade doesn't happen.

If Faulk waives for Anaheim, we wouldn't be getting back an LD like Edmundson and we'd be arguing about RBA thinking one of Fleury/Forsling/Bean is ready to pair with TVR.

I think Edmundson was the only pending UFA STL would deal (Bouwmeester NTC, Schenn and Pietrangelo are not getting moved) to send some salary back and make their cap work.

 

[bleedgreen]

You guys are looking too much into our guys passing through waivers. They did it early and got some credit for that, all the teams are still too full with their own decisions to bring in a maybe at this point, even if they like him.

A little overboard on the “he’s crap no one even wanted him on waivers” boys.

This isn’t the same as waiving guys in the middle of the season. Every team is waiving guys right now that other teams might be able to use. It’s rare at this point guys get picked up, by any teams. It’s always seemed like an unspoken agreement that no one picks anyone up at this point, it’s always seemed odd some guys get through. The last cuts usually get some interest.

 

[bleedgreen]

I think they *did* want to go young. They *wanted* Fleury to grab the job and run with it. I don't think it was a decision between "young" or "veteran." I think it was a decision between *competent* and *not good enough*. If Fleury showed he was ready for 82 games plus playoffs of the third pairing in the NHL, this trade doesn't happen.

BS

What does Fleury have to do with Faulk? Different sides, different roles, different contract situation. Just a ridiculous comment that Fleury not grabbing a spot influenced this trade.

We had to take money back. Edmunson was the one that made sense and the one they had us take back.

 

[A Star is Burns]

BS

What does Fleury have to do with Faulk? Different sides, different roles, different contract situation. Just a ridiculous comment that Fleury not grabbing a spot influenced this trade.

Um, they were looking to trade Faulk. Not that long ago, they were not getting a dman in a trade involving Faulk. Now, they did. One that will likely take a spot from the underwhelming Fleury when TVR is back (if he's even the one to get that temporary spot/ultimate #7). Seems pretty simple to me how it might have influenced things. Not a guarantee that it did, but certainly possible.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

If Faulk waives for Anaheim, we wouldn't be getting back an LD like Edmundson and we'd be arguing about RBA thinking one of Fleury/Forsling/Bean is ready to pair with TVR.

I think Edmundson was the only pending UFA STL would deal (Bouwmeester NTC, Schenn and Pietrangelo are not getting moved) to send some salary back and make their cap work.

other teams were reportedly interested in edmundson, though. if they didn't want him they could have flipped him. this isn't a case where a player had negative value and the hurricanes were forced to take him. if they aren't trading him, then it's clear they wanted him. why? because haydn fleury is a career ahler.

 

[bleedgreen]

Um, they were looking to trade Faulk. Not that long ago, they were not getting a dman in a trade involving Faulk. Now, they did. One that will likely take a spot from the underwhelming Fleury when TVR is back (if he's even the one to get that temporary spot/ultimate #7). Seems pretty simple to me how it might have influenced things. Not a guarantee that it did, but certainly possible.

They were looking for a prospect/young player and whatever else they had to take back. Did you guys really think we were getting Kase straight up? You don’t think we were going to have to take something with him?

Cmon. Be realistic. We were always taking money back to get something we wanted.

 

[A Star is Burns]

They were looking for a prospect/young player and whatever else they had to take back. Did you guys really think we were getting Kase straight up? You don’t think we were going to have to take something with him?

Cmon. Be realistic. We were always taking money back to get something we wanted.

Anaheim has plenty of cap space and Kase makes $2.6, so, yeah?