Confirmed with Link: Lindholm + Hanifin to CAL for Hamilton, Fox and Ferland

robbie111

Registered User
Nov 10, 2013
269
67
awesome, thanks for the information. as a flames fan, what would you say about ferland's trajectory as a late blooming player? it's pretty unusual for a player of his profile to be able to show progress as late in his career as he has. what kept him on the lower lines for most of his flames tenure?



In 2013 he had a great stretch in the AHL where he scored 17 points in 12 games through to early December and then suffered a serious season ending knee injury just as it looked like the Flames were going to call him up.

In 2015 Bob Hartley gave him a shot and he destroyed the Canucks defense in the playoffs with bone crushing hits and was the single biggest reason the Flames advanced. He played the 6th and deciding game injured and scored 2 goals. Check out the 2015 Ferland video you won't believe some of those hits. Unfortunately because of his shoulder injury he couldn't hit as much in the Anaheim series and the Flames lost that one.

I think he is just reverting to what he was in junior now which is a power forward with great hands and skill and hockey IQ who can skate quickly. He's also overcome a lot in his personal life (alcoholism) and is now married to his long time girlfriend and they have a daughter. He used to live close to my town outside Calgary and he's a really big inspiration to a lot of kids here.
 

The Faulker 27

Registered User
Nov 15, 2011
12,820
47,244
Sauna-Aho
Ferland at first glance is just another McGinn type, but looking closer he has a high end skillset to go a long with the edge he plays with. He's taken a while to develop it obviously, but if what we're seeing with him isn't a fluke, he is another irreplaceable player like Slavin.

It's just a rare thing to see, a guy that has lost few if any fights, can check as well as anyone currently in the game, is fast, and has good hands. Marchand is that type of player, although I think he's better than Ferland (and whole lot weirder), but it's just one player that comes to mind.
 
Last edited:

OvermanKingGainer

#BennettFreed #CurseofTheSpulll #FreeOliver
Feb 3, 2015
16,133
7,107
2022 Cup to Calgary
what would you say about ferland's trajectory as a late blooming player? it's pretty unusual for a player of his profile to be able to show progress as late in his career as he has. what kept him on the lower lines for most of his flames tenure?

Ferland had alcohol abuse problems from age 15-21. It Bob Hartley hadn't sat down with him and gotten to the root of it, he may never have played as a pro at age 22. Instead he got help. Funny thing, Hartley claimed Ferland had all star potential way back then. In his rookie year, Ferland's issue was learning to play NHL-level defense. Hartley worked with him on it and by the playoffs Ferland was a part of a great checking line of Ferland-Stajan-Jones which helped us win a round. His sophomore year 2015-16, there was only one thing holding Ferland back and that was the fact that he was the most snakebitten player in the NHL but even that year I could see what Hartley saw. Unfortunately there's not much you can do about puck luck other than stick with it, which we did. Ferland saw time on every line that year - Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland, Ferland-Backlund-Colborne, Colborne-Bennett-Ferland, Ferland-Stajan-Jones, Ferland-Bennett-Jooris, Colborne-Stajan-Ferland were all lines in Hartley's legendary blender, but the one thing that stood out is that no matter what Ferland did, he would get robbed by goalies left and right. That's really all it was. He had 160 unblocked shot attempts that year, and by the expected goals model should have scored 12.52 goals (or round that up to a 13 goal season.) had 7.83% of those gone in as the model would have predicted. How many went in? 2.5% of his unblocked shot attempts went in. He scored 4 goals instead of 13. That, my friends, was an unsustainable shooting percentage for someone with the absolute blast he has in his arsenel.

The next year Hartley was fired.

...Glen Gulutzan decided to bury Ferland on the fourth line because he was, in very simple terms, an idiot who over-relied on "his guys" (Alex Chiasson) and veterans (Troy Brouwer). Gulutzan's usage that year also cost Sam Bennett from having the breakout sophomore season anyone with eyes would have predicted, and it still impacts Bennett because now Peters won't give him deserved ice time because Gulutzan ruined Bennett's career.

Anyways, it took most of that year to finally get Ferland onto the top line and the rest was history. Ferland had something like 27 or 28 goals between his promotion to the top line and his injury - both were actually February road games in Nashville. Anyone with common sense by that point already know Ferland was a high-end power forward with high-end (I'm talking 35 goals, 35 assists) upside but Gulutzan was too dumb to try Ferland with a center better than Sean Monahan all year. All I ever wanted was a Gaudreau-Bennett-Ferland line, I think it would have been a premier line in the entire NHL. And you guys now have something real close to that in TT-Aho-Ferland because that's the kind of talent Ferland and Aho are. Your 3rd wheel TT is a winger, our 3rd wheel Monahan was a center so you're better off there. But imagine a better LW with Aho and Ferland being right there on your 3rd line and your coach doesn't want to entertain it.

Flames fans call me a homer when I point out idiot coaches doing idiot things with high talent players. I don't mind. When this trade was made I voted that Ferland was the best player being moved:

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/thre...st-player-in-june-23rd-car-cgy-trade.2507799/

If I were just a dumb homer and not a hockey fan, I sure as shit am not going to admit we traded away the best piece in the deal especially in such a seemingly fair trade. But that's how must of a beast Ferland is.
 
Last edited:

robbie111

Registered User
Nov 10, 2013
269
67
All I ever wanted was a Gaudreau-Bennett-Ferland line, I think it would have been a premier line in the entire NHL. And you guys now have something real close to that in TT-Aho-Ferland because that's the kind of talent Ferland and Aho are. Your 3rd wheel TT is a winger, our 3rd wheel Monahan was a center so you're better off there. But imagine a better LW with Aho and Ferland being right there on your 3rd line and your coach doesn't want to entertain it.

Gulutzan finally tried a Gaudreau-Jankowski-Ferland line in the last game of the season and Jankowski scored 4 goals. So glad Gulutzan is assistant coach in Edmonton now.

Anyways hope Ferland continues his strong play with you guys. Fox is going to be a good one too.
 
Last edited:

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
Sorry for the bump, but I wanted to ask Canes fans something about this trade and I felt it was kinda off topic in the Adam Fox trade thread as my question pushes all the way back to when Calgary/Carolina first pulled this trade off. Hopefully this bump is OK. If not, sorry.

Quote from Adam Fox trade to NYR thread in trade forums:
Confirmed Trade: - [NYR/CAR] Adam Fox for 2019 2nd round pick and 2020 conditional 3rd

Yup. Fox will be worth it for NYR so that they could do things on their terms, but Carolina got very good value for a prospect that wasn't going to sign.

Will probably go bump the Carolina <> Calgary thread to tie a bow on that one but here's what it looks like as of now

CGY > Lindholm + Hanafin

for

CAR > Hamilton, Ferland (left as UFA) + NYR 2019 2nd + NYR 2020 2nd

Sorry for wall of text:

I mean at face value, it doesn't look great now, but don't forget that part of the value Calgary got afterwards was the fact Treliving acquired RFA with no contracts. He put in effort and worked out really good deals for Lindholm and Hanifin which boosted the value in a way Carolina wouldn't be able to achieve. Their values aren't as good for Calgary/in general if those contracts were higher by about 1-1.5 mil AAV (which apparently were their asks from Carolina when negotiating?). At the time of the trade, I seem to recall most posters thinking it was overall relatively fair in value at the time, slight edge to Carolina. There was also a huge difference in risk. Carolina got the best piece at the time of the trade (Hamilton) and also the best future that could increase in value (Fox). Calgary downgraded by doing a quality for quantity move, and there was risk that Lindholm and Hanifin wouldn't be fits for Calgary. Lots of fans CGY/CAR/Other also felt that depending on fit and projected development, the value would pendulum every other season or so Calgary vs Carolina. I also seem to recall that Ferland burst onto the scene soon after that trade which gave Carolina a big value lead for the trade for a month or so. Dougie took some time to really warm up but wasn't out of place, but within a few months we took the lead when Lindholm took off which we haven't relinquished since then. Hanifin has been pure bonus for us. Not amazing, but steady, which is good enough.

So keeping this in mind, for Carolina fans, if you're willing to entertain my wall of text, I have a few initial questions:
- Was the value CGY > CAR; CGY < CAR or CGY = CAR the moment the trade was made? (Personally, I thought Carolina)
- After the trade, ignoring Calgary, how well did Carolina management do in boosting, maintaining and maximizing value? (I felt like it was decent, but maybe Ferland should have been flipped as a rental vs allowed to walk as UFA)

=========================================
Some reasoning: IMO in order of the quality of the pieces since trade:

Lindholm > Hamilton > Hanifin >> Ferland = 2nd = 2nd

Carolina's cost for all the pieces was:

5OA + 5OA

Calgary's cost was:

(2015 15th OA + 2nd + 2nd + RFA negotiation of a long term deal) = Dougie Hamilton
(5th rounder + time) = Micheal Ferland
(3rd rounder + time/realizing quickly that he wasn't going to sign) = Adam Fox

Absolutely, I think Calgary sold high on two pieces and bought low on two pieces. I think your team is doing a little better if you'd flipped Ferland for a late 1st or early 2nd as a rental prior to him walking as UFA, but overall it's not abysmal for how the whole Hanifin/Lindholm thing transpired and negotiations stale mated. Other than the contracts Treliving negotiated with Hanifin/Lindholm increasing their value, I feel like Ferland and Fox's values increased more than the base values of Lindholm and Hanifin; Fox Carolina correctly capitalized on, but Ferland it seems like he flubbed that one slightly. Is that correct? Conservatively assuming Ferland was worth a high 2nd as a rental, if Canes finished the whole tree with the following, do you guys still feel good about the trade?

- Dougie Hamilton + 3x 2nd rounders

I get it if many of us cannot agree. The whole value aspect was confusing as hell because other than perhaps Hamilton (stayed consistent, didn't drop, good fit) and maybe Hanifin (Sans contract adding value, as advertised warts and all, stable enough value didn't drop), everyone else's value kept increasing immediately after the trade (especially Fox which skyrocketed) which was also the part of the confusing debate on how to value the players in the first place. I'm also not taking the subsequent draft effects after this trade, but if you guys think it's worth considering, that's fair too. Overall though, Calgary added to the trade by negotiating two RFA contracts and Carolina added to the trade by negotiating a trade for Fox to NYR.

========================================
I am curious about something though. What did Canes fans think was the ball park value of all the players at the time of the trade? Specifically I was wondering what Fox and Ferland were perhaps worth in the trade. Some of our fanbase felt Fox was worth around a late to mid 1st at the time of the trade which I thought was ridiculous and bonkers. I am thinking he was worth around a condition 2nd (maybe a conditional 1st for an idiot GM) but later 2nd or 3rd at the time of the trade due to the NCAA UFA situation. No matter how I try and slice the trade, the values don't make sense. Calgary sold high on Ferland and Fox, but the values don't make sense.

In the order of value at the time was it:

Hamilton > Lindholm (RFA) > Hanifin(RFA) > Ferland >= Fox?

Assuming:

Hamilton's rights = 1st + 2x 2nd = value of his rights; At time of trade with contract was worth two mid 1sts?
Lindholm (RFA) = Mid 1st + 2nd (No contract)
Hanifin (RFA) = Mid 1st + 3rd (No contract)

Means:

Ferland = 2nd (Worth a 1st at his peak)
Fox = 3rd (Worth a late 1st at his peak, but flight risk?)

Does that seem to make sense value wise or am I way off?

Sorry again for the wall of text.
 

TheReelChuckFletcher

Former TheRillestPaulFenton; Harverd Alum
Jun 30, 2011
10,073
22,347
Raleigh and Chapel Hill, NC
Sorry for the bump, but I wanted to ask Canes fans something about this trade and I felt it was kinda off topic in the Adam Fox trade thread as my question pushes all the way back to when Calgary/Carolina first pulled this trade off. Hopefully this bump is OK. If not, sorry.

Quote from Adam Fox trade to NYR thread in trade forums:
Confirmed Trade: - [NYR/CAR] Adam Fox for 2019 2nd round pick and 2020 conditional 3rd



Sorry for wall of text:

I mean at face value, it doesn't look great now, but don't forget that part of the value Calgary got afterwards was the fact Treliving acquired RFA with no contracts. He put in effort and worked out really good deals for Lindholm and Hanifin which boosted the value in a way Carolina wouldn't be able to achieve. Their values aren't as good for Calgary/in general if those contracts were higher by about 1-1.5 mil AAV (which apparently were their asks from Carolina when negotiating?). At the time of the trade, I seem to recall most posters thinking it was overall relatively fair in value at the time, slight edge to Carolina. There was also a huge difference in risk. Carolina got the best piece at the time of the trade (Hamilton) and also the best future that could increase in value (Fox). Calgary downgraded by doing a quality for quantity move, and there was risk that Lindholm and Hanifin wouldn't be fits for Calgary. Lots of fans CGY/CAR/Other also felt that depending on fit and projected development, the value would pendulum every other season or so Calgary vs Carolina. I also seem to recall that Ferland burst onto the scene soon after that trade which gave Carolina a big value lead for the trade for a month or so. Dougie took some time to really warm up but wasn't out of place, but within a few months we took the lead when Lindholm took off which we haven't relinquished since then. Hanifin has been pure bonus for us. Not amazing, but steady, which is good enough.

So keeping this in mind, for Carolina fans, if you're willing to entertain my wall of text, I have a few initial questions:
- Was the value CGY > CAR; CGY < CAR or CGY = CAR the moment the trade was made? (Personally, I thought Carolina)
- After the trade, ignoring Calgary, how well did Carolina management do in boosting, maintaining and maximizing value? (I felt like it was decent, but maybe Ferland should have been flipped as a rental vs allowed to walk as UFA)

=========================================
Some reasoning: IMO in order of the quality of the pieces since trade:

Lindholm > Hamilton > Hanifin >> Ferland = 2nd = 2nd

Carolina's cost for all the pieces was:

5OA + 5OA

Calgary's cost was:

(2015 15th OA + 2nd + 2nd + RFA negotiation of a long term deal) = Dougie Hamilton
(5th rounder + time) = Micheal Ferland
(3rd rounder + time/realizing quickly that he wasn't going to sign) = Adam Fox

Absolutely, I think Calgary sold high on two pieces and bought low on two pieces. I think your team is doing a little better if you'd flipped Ferland for a late 1st or early 2nd as a rental prior to him walking as UFA, but overall it's not abysmal for how the whole Hanifin/Lindholm thing transpired and negotiations stale mated. Other than the contracts Treliving negotiated with Hanifin/Lindholm increasing their value, I feel like Ferland and Fox's values increased more than the base values of Lindholm and Hanifin; Fox Carolina correctly capitalized on, but Ferland it seems like he flubbed that one slightly. Is that correct? Conservatively assuming Ferland was worth a high 2nd as a rental, if Canes finished the whole tree with the following, do you guys still feel good about the trade?

- Dougie Hamilton + 3x 2nd rounders

I get it if many of us cannot agree. The whole value aspect was confusing as hell because other than perhaps Hamilton (stayed consistent, didn't drop, good fit) and maybe Hanifin (Sans contract adding value, as advertised warts and all, stable enough value didn't drop), everyone else's value kept increasing immediately after the trade (especially Fox which skyrocketed) which was also the part of the confusing debate on how to value the players in the first place. I'm also not taking the subsequent draft effects after this trade, but if you guys think it's worth considering, that's fair too. Overall though, Calgary added to the trade by negotiating two RFA contracts and Carolina added to the trade by negotiating a trade for Fox to NYR.

========================================
I am curious about something though. What did Canes fans think was the ball park value of all the players at the time of the trade? Specifically I was wondering what Fox and Ferland were perhaps worth in the trade. Some of our fanbase felt Fox was worth around a late to mid 1st at the time of the trade which I thought was ridiculous and bonkers. I am thinking he was worth around a condition 2nd (maybe a conditional 1st for an idiot GM) but later 2nd or 3rd at the time of the trade due to the NCAA UFA situation. No matter how I try and slice the trade, the values don't make sense. Calgary sold high on Ferland and Fox, but the values don't make sense.

In the order of value at the time was it:

Hamilton > Lindholm (RFA) > Hanifin(RFA) > Ferland >= Fox?

Assuming:

Hamilton's rights = 1st + 2x 2nd = value of his rights; At time of trade with contract was worth two mid 1sts?
Lindholm (RFA) = Mid 1st + 2nd (No contract)
Hanifin (RFA) = Mid 1st + 3rd (No contract)

Means:

Ferland = 2nd (Worth a 1st at his peak)
Fox = 3rd (Worth a late 1st at his peak, but flight risk?)

Does that seem to make sense value wise or am I way off?

Sorry again for the wall of text.

I think that trade was a perfect example of a trade that was great for both teams. The only situation that was slightly mismanaged was Ferland, but only slightly (Remember, we made the ECF in part because we own-rentaled him), and in the end they chose Dzingel over him in UFA. Getting Fox was good, as well, because even though he wanted to play for the Rangers, the Canes acted quickly and got two high 2nds for him. Dougie is Dougie and Lindholm is Lindholm; to me, that's a wash. Both uber-talented and both will be fixtures for their teams for a long time. I'm still high on Hanifin, as well, and think he'll bloom some more in Calgary than people expect as guys like Giordano hang it up.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,101
I don't know that you can look at it that way in terms of trying to place exact value on players at the time of the traded. Canes wanted to make some changes and didn't think Hanifin and Lindholm were worth the money that they'd need to spend on them. IMO, they were right on Hanifin, but wrong on Lindholm. My view was that the Canes brass probably thought the players were of similar value (contracts aside) at the time of the trade, but wanted Fox included because Lindholm and Hanifin were younger and under team control longer.

Anyhow, I see the trade now as:

CGY > Lindholm + Hanifin
CAR > Hamilton, 1 year of Ferland, Jamieson Rees*, Antonni Honka*, and a 2020 NYR 2nd round pick*.

I still think the value favors Calgary, mainly because of Lindholm and the fact that he's younger and under contract longer than Dougie, but also because the * assets above are still unknown. I think the Canes brass are still very happy with this deal though given how Dougie has performed and how the team has performed. They would have been ecstatic with it had they been able to sign Fox though.

* Fox became NYR 2019 2nd round pick (37th OA) and the NYR 2020 2nd round pick (TBD). Canes traded the 37OA in 2019 for the #44 (Rees) and #83 (Honka) in that draft.
 

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,786
14,617
Toronto, ON
Sorry for the bump, but I wanted to ask Canes fans something about this trade and I felt it was kinda off topic in the Adam Fox trade thread as my question pushes all the way back to when Calgary/Carolina first pulled this trade off. Hopefully this bump is OK. If not, sorry.

Quote from Adam Fox trade to NYR thread in trade forums:
Confirmed Trade: - [NYR/CAR] Adam Fox for 2019 2nd round pick and 2020 conditional 3rd



Sorry for wall of text:

I mean at face value, it doesn't look great now, but don't forget that part of the value Calgary got afterwards was the fact Treliving acquired RFA with no contracts. He put in effort and worked out really good deals for Lindholm and Hanifin which boosted the value in a way Carolina wouldn't be able to achieve. Their values aren't as good for Calgary/in general if those contracts were higher by about 1-1.5 mil AAV (which apparently were their asks from Carolina when negotiating?). At the time of the trade, I seem to recall most posters thinking it was overall relatively fair in value at the time, slight edge to Carolina. There was also a huge difference in risk. Carolina got the best piece at the time of the trade (Hamilton) and also the best future that could increase in value (Fox). Calgary downgraded by doing a quality for quantity move, and there was risk that Lindholm and Hanifin wouldn't be fits for Calgary. Lots of fans CGY/CAR/Other also felt that depending on fit and projected development, the value would pendulum every other season or so Calgary vs Carolina. I also seem to recall that Ferland burst onto the scene soon after that trade which gave Carolina a big value lead for the trade for a month or so. Dougie took some time to really warm up but wasn't out of place, but within a few months we took the lead when Lindholm took off which we haven't relinquished since then. Hanifin has been pure bonus for us. Not amazing, but steady, which is good enough.

So keeping this in mind, for Carolina fans, if you're willing to entertain my wall of text, I have a few initial questions:
- Was the value CGY > CAR; CGY < CAR or CGY = CAR the moment the trade was made? (Personally, I thought Carolina)
- After the trade, ignoring Calgary, how well did Carolina management do in boosting, maintaining and maximizing value? (I felt like it was decent, but maybe Ferland should have been flipped as a rental vs allowed to walk as UFA)

=========================================
Some reasoning: IMO in order of the quality of the pieces since trade:

Lindholm > Hamilton > Hanifin >> Ferland = 2nd = 2nd

Carolina's cost for all the pieces was:

5OA + 5OA

Calgary's cost was:

(2015 15th OA + 2nd + 2nd + RFA negotiation of a long term deal) = Dougie Hamilton
(5th rounder + time) = Micheal Ferland
(3rd rounder + time/realizing quickly that he wasn't going to sign) = Adam Fox

Absolutely, I think Calgary sold high on two pieces and bought low on two pieces. I think your team is doing a little better if you'd flipped Ferland for a late 1st or early 2nd as a rental prior to him walking as UFA, but overall it's not abysmal for how the whole Hanifin/Lindholm thing transpired and negotiations stale mated. Other than the contracts Treliving negotiated with Hanifin/Lindholm increasing their value, I feel like Ferland and Fox's values increased more than the base values of Lindholm and Hanifin; Fox Carolina correctly capitalized on, but Ferland it seems like he flubbed that one slightly. Is that correct? Conservatively assuming Ferland was worth a high 2nd as a rental, if Canes finished the whole tree with the following, do you guys still feel good about the trade?

- Dougie Hamilton + 3x 2nd rounders

I get it if many of us cannot agree. The whole value aspect was confusing as hell because other than perhaps Hamilton (stayed consistent, didn't drop, good fit) and maybe Hanifin (Sans contract adding value, as advertised warts and all, stable enough value didn't drop), everyone else's value kept increasing immediately after the trade (especially Fox which skyrocketed) which was also the part of the confusing debate on how to value the players in the first place. I'm also not taking the subsequent draft effects after this trade, but if you guys think it's worth considering, that's fair too. Overall though, Calgary added to the trade by negotiating two RFA contracts and Carolina added to the trade by negotiating a trade for Fox to NYR.

========================================
I am curious about something though. What did Canes fans think was the ball park value of all the players at the time of the trade? Specifically I was wondering what Fox and Ferland were perhaps worth in the trade. Some of our fanbase felt Fox was worth around a late to mid 1st at the time of the trade which I thought was ridiculous and bonkers. I am thinking he was worth around a condition 2nd (maybe a conditional 1st for an idiot GM) but later 2nd or 3rd at the time of the trade due to the NCAA UFA situation. No matter how I try and slice the trade, the values don't make sense. Calgary sold high on Ferland and Fox, but the values don't make sense.

In the order of value at the time was it:

Hamilton > Lindholm (RFA) > Hanifin(RFA) > Ferland >= Fox?

Assuming:

Hamilton's rights = 1st + 2x 2nd = value of his rights; At time of trade with contract was worth two mid 1sts?
Lindholm (RFA) = Mid 1st + 2nd (No contract)
Hanifin (RFA) = Mid 1st + 3rd (No contract)

Means:

Ferland = 2nd (Worth a 1st at his peak)
Fox = 3rd (Worth a late 1st at his peak, but flight risk?)

Does that seem to make sense value wise or am I way off?

Sorry again for the wall of text.

Wow, a lot to unpack there and I certainly can't go through it all. It's a lot of moving parts and value relative to CAR vs value relative to CGY. You're right in that CGY getting Lindholm and Hanifin as RFAs and being able to sign them to contracts that worked within their structure provided a lot more value then what it was going to be for Carolina.

You can dissect the nuts and bolts of the trade to try to even out the pieces but I'm inclined to call this a win-win-win for Carolina, Calgary, and New York. They all gave up value and they each got pieces that are now performing better than they were in their original situations.

Hamilton is a Norris contender this year (he won't win it but he's right up there). What he re-signs for will be a big question or maybe he's flipped for more assets.

Lindholm has taken his game to another level and is providing a lot of value to Calgary with his contract.

Fox is performing very well for NYR and eventhough they might have been able to get him for free in a year or two they paid a price to get him now and develop him on their team and make an immediate impact.

Ferland didn't work out as well as had hoped in Carolina and sure it would have been nice to trade him to recoup some value at the deadline last year but the Canes made it to the ECF so they couldn't really trade him off for futures. Letting him walk gave us space to bring in Haula/Dzingel so there's that as well.

Hanifin had a middling year last year and doesn't look to be doing great this year but he's still young and lots of time to put all his tools together. How he plays over the next few years will determine if the trade is a big win for CGY or not.

Carolina ended up getting 2 (high) x 2nds for Fox which they have already parlayed into multiple prospects by trading down and then have NYR 2020 2nd which could be twisted into something else as well.

So, yeah, a lot of moving parts and this story is far from written on Carolina's end.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,270
38,836
Long story short, I personally was a fan of the trade at the time for Carolina, and I couldn't be a whole lot happier at this point with how it's worked out. We got some value out of Ferland for a year, and sometimes, expiring contracts are valuable. We were able to make moves this offseason by not re-signing Ferland. I couldn't be happier with Dougie other than him signing an extension. Fox was a good gamble and at least we squeezed some solid value out of a bad situation when he wouldn't sign.

If it's worked out and continues to work out for Calgary, that's great. But from a Canes perspective, it's been excellent in my mind. I don't really see the point in arguing who won at any given point in time.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->