Why you shouldn't be afraid of going after Grubauer

[Navin R Slavin]

Hans, bunny, I’m your white knight.

Please tell me your phone autocorrected bubby to bunny.

(Oh good. I didn't read far enough.)

 

[geehaad]

Please tell me your phone autocorrected bubby to bunny.

I'm partial to blind intent on this one.

 

[Unsustainable]

I love when @Boom Boom Apathy makes autocorrect errors, and hot wife references that live on.

 

[Cane mutiny]

Grub Darling combo in the net next year. Good times here I come.

I wonder if we got a #1 like Grub, if Vehvilainen would be ready to break in as back up? He had a good year in an adult league already. They could break him in slow, and if things went really well, he could maybe eventually challenge for the #1 spot a few years down the road. I wonder if that's not what they were thinking in wanting to sign him?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

bite the bullet

2nd + darling for lundqvist retained

(i have no clue if that's close, offensive undervaluation or extremely generous)

 

[Bunch of Jurcos]

Damn autocorrect. I typed Bubby.

I'm going to leave it though.

My kids won't even watch Die Hard with me because they said I say the quotes before the line comes up. It was a Christmas tradition in our house for years to watch Die Hard on Christmas day.

I hate when people get all self righteous and say Die Hard isn't a Christmas movie. I suppose they're right, it's THE Christmas movie. Fight me.

 

[sheriff bart]

bite the bullet

2nd + darling for lundqvist retained

(i have no clue if that's close, offensive undervaluation or extremely generous)

You talking the 2nd over all pick? If so...aw hell naw

 

[Lempo]

So who will change name to Hans Bunny?

Mods pls change HankAnger to HankBunny

 

[Chrispy]

I think we have reason to worry that Grubauer is the next in line of our attempts at goalie. Graham, Ellis, Leighton, Peters, Khudobin, Lack, Darling.

I see dead goalies everywhere. Some of them don’t even know they’re dead.

 

[Lempo]

I see dead goalies everywhere. Some of them don’t even know they’re dead.

What is

, Alex. I'll continue with Bruce Willis movies for $600.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Whats Ellis up to these days?

Duh, Hans shot him.

 

[My Special Purpose]

I think we have reason to worry that Grubauer is the next in line of our attempts at goalie. Graham, Ellis, Leighton, Peters, Khudobin, Lack, Darling.

I see dead goalies everywhere. Some of them don’t even know they’re dead.

This is what I was talking about in another thread. We're gunshy, but we have to keep trying. There's no reason to think Grubauer will be next in line down the sh!tter, so let's try to stay positive here.

I do have a question about our goalies, however. Why are we fired up about trading Darling with 50 percent retained and still having to sweeten the pot to get somebody to take him? If he's negative value at 50 percent retained (and I agree, he is), why not just buy him out? It's $8 million over six years to buy him out, and $6 million over three plus an asset to get rid of him via trade. Am I missing something with the math here? I know it's not my $2 million, so it's easy to think we should buy him out with somebody else's money, but 50 percent retained is *almost* a buyout and we still can't get anybody to take him.

 

[geehaad]

So who will change name to Hans Bunny?

Mods pls change HankAnger to HankBunny

Boom Bunny Alexsi

 

[MinJaBen]

This is what I was talking about in another thread. We're gunshy, but we have to keep trying. There's no reason to think Grubauer will be next in line down the sh!tter, so let's try to stay positive here.

I do have a question about our goalies, however. Why are we fired up about trading Darling with 50 percent retained and still having to sweeten the pot to get somebody to take him? If he's negative value at 50 percent retained (and I agree, he is), why not just buy him out? It's $8 million over six years to buy him out, and $6 million over three plus an asset to get rid of him via trade. Am I missing something with the math here? I know it's not my $2 million, so it's easy to think we should buy him out with somebody else's money, but 50 percent retained is *almost* a buyout and we still can't get anybody to take him.

I'm not gunshy about Grubauer because he could fail, which he could. I'm more gunshy about the cost. This looks like it is shaping up to be a bidding war between the Isles, the Canes, and maybe a few others. If that is the case, and the price is more than a 2nd and a prospect like Kuokkanen, I'm completely fine with just letting another team have him and moving on to another option.

As far as the retain vs. buyout of Darling, I'd keep working toward trying to trade him over the summer. From the article about a trade between us and Chicago involving Faulk, Saad, Darling and other pieces, the writer seemed to suggest from the wording that Chicago actually wanted him. If that is the case, I would think we could come to a deal better than the buyout or 50% retention.

 

[cptjeff]

Darling is a negative value, so don't trade him and lose good assets just to save money. If we make trades, I want them to be hockey trades that actually make the team better. Getting rid of Darling can be accomplished at no cost to the NHL roster by buying him out or burying him in the AHL. Do that instead, and then you don't have to trade Skinner for a C prospect in order to get rid of only half of his salary.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Darling is a negative value, so don't trade him and lose good assets just to save money. If we make trades, I want them to be hockey trades that actually make the team better. Getting rid of Darling can be accomplished at no cost to the NHL roster by buying him out or burying him in the AHL. Do that instead, and then you don't have to trade Skinner for a C prospect in order to get rid of only half of his salary.

Say it again for the folks in the back.

I hear all this "but if we can move Darling in a hockey trade" stuff. Sure, if a deal falls out of the sky, that's fine. I just really, really, *really* doubt that any such deal will present itself -- and moving actual assets to get rid of Darling is going back to being a team run cheaply for the sake of being cheap. No one should actually *want* that.

 

[Chrispy]

I'm not gunshy about Grubauer because he could fail, which he could. I'm more gunshy about the cost. This looks like it is shaping up to be a bidding war between the Isles, the Canes, and maybe a few others. If that is the case, and the price is more than a 2nd and a prospect like Kuokkanen, I'm completely fine with just letting another team have him and moving on to another option.

As far as the retain vs. buyout of Darling, I'd keep working toward trying to trade him over the summer. From the article about a trade between us and Chicago involving Faulk, Saad, Darling and other pieces, the writer seemed to suggest from the wording that Chicago actually wanted him. If that is the case, I would think we could come to a deal better than the buyout or 50% retention.

I think this first paragraph gets to my point. If there is a bidding war for Grubauer, what is the comparative price for a different option? And why are we convinced Grubauer is THE answer vs other potential acquisitions, especially if Grubauer costs more assets?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is there any downside to just burying Darling in Charlotte as opposed to buying him out?

 

[Chrispy]

Is there any downside to just burying Darling in Charlotte as opposed to buying him out?

It's $2.8M more expensive this year for a similar impact in Raleigh during that time. That's the only one I can think of.

 

[MinJaBen]

Is there any downside to just burying Darling in Charlotte as opposed to buying him out?

Carrying a veteran goalie that will take starts from Ned and Booth. Carrying a guy over the age/experience limit which could go to another guy in a more critical leadership position. Other than those, I can't think of any problem.

 

[vorbis]

Is there any downside to just burying Darling in Charlotte as opposed to buying him out?

I think it's untenable mostly in the business sense. in the sense that Darling being in Charlotte might literally double the budget for the entire squad.

 

[sheriff bart]

As a fan, I think it would be irresponsible for the Canes to count on Darling to be 1 of the 2 goalies in Raleigh at the start of the season. He shit the bed so bad last year that we need a new mattress. Sending him to Charlotte takes starts away from somebody else, but to me, it's either that or a buyout. If he can't turn it around quickly in Charlotte, bench him and buy him out next summer. All of these are expensive options, but it is already a sunk cost

 

[AD Skinner]

If not for the out of shape comments I might think he deserved a chance to right the ship with a full offseason or some BS, but if you show up to camp where everyone is obviously counting on you to be your best and went out on a limb to make sure you were well paid to do that unready, F you buddy. It's one thing to not play well, it's another thing to not even be prepared

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Bring 4 goalies into camp, keep the best 2 on the squad, send the others to the AHL. Or the ECHL, for that matter, if someone is "blocking the way". If that's Darling, he can suck it up. If he fails to report, great! Suspend him without pay, just like the Lightning did to Drouin.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Dumb question: who pays for AHL salary? I assume the Canes would pay for any one-way deals that got buried (e.g. like we’re discussing with Darling).

Does Charlotte pay for two-way deals when the player is in Charlotte? What about AHL one-way deals (Schilkey, etc.)?

I know the teams are likely financially intermingled in some way - but at the same time the Checkers do have an owner so I’m sure they have a separate operating budget. Not sure how that all works.