Confirmed with Link: CDH and Saarela to CHI for Forsling and Anton Forsberg

[Buenos Necas]

I don't buy that we're in for any high-dollar free agent, especially Duchene who looks like he's about to be pretty decently overpaid. Would run very counter with what our FO is trying to do. I'd realistically expect someone like Donskoi (3 years, $3m per?) or a trade for a forward.

After the Marleau deal we were going to be pushing right up against the cap just to retain our own free agents. This gives some breathing room to bring back Mrazek, or maybe one of the "better" UFA goalies like Varlamov. This sucks on the surface, but we'll see what transpires over the next week or so.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

He's also the one that was playing on the 3rd pairing when the team was at its best.

.....with one shoulder.

Again, if it was a choice between Faulk and CDH, then I completely understand that hockey ops chose Faulk. Had to choose one. The whole paying 5 top 4D.

But there’s zero question he’s a top 4. Coupled with just signing as a UFA...it’s an interesting turn of events.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Stupid ass move. Clearing cap space because you decided to leverage cap space for the Marleau trade.

So now we're down a good prospect and a reliable defenseman for a player that we're probably going to buyout and a low 1st.

In fairness, You would complain regardless of the move.

People get so focused on “winning the trade” vs having a winning team. Same thing with Skinner last year and in the end, it worked out great. I get that on the surface, this looks perplexing, but Let’s wait and see how this plays out.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

This is precisely why it's too early to have an opinion, because you end up having a reactionary opinion like this guy. Don't be this guy.

Also: you might want to check the definition of "reliable" if you've got a dictionary handy.

Hey, I don’t know when I pissed in your cornflakes to make you target me like this, but could you kindly f*** off? Thanks bud.

And DeHann was definitely a reliable defenseman for us. He and Faulk were basically the 2nd line pairing the entire year, and unlike the Slavin/Hamilton pairing, rarely had dips in their play.

This trade is pretty inexcusable by any standard. A cost cutting move immediately after taking on an expensive albatross contract. Genius.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Counter argument: solid stay at home D men are common and have less value than we think, especially third pairing stay at home D men. May be that they've got salary slots in mind for players, and now it's clear that CDH is third pair on this team, and injured to boot, that cost is too high.

Again, though: hard to say. Not enough data.

I think it’s a case of, you can’t pay a guy that much on the 3rd pair, regardless of how good he is. It throws other stuff out of whack. So, I agree with you.

 

[Raleighpig]

Reaction to this trade is really puzzling, IMO. You'd think we just traded Bobby Orr in his prime. This is a 28-year-old, No. 4 d-man with more major shoulder surgeries than playoff appearances, making $13.65 million over the next three seasons. Plus, we all knew we needed to get rid of one of our five top-four defensemen, and -- at least for now -- we didn't want to go the Skinner route with Faulk, evidently.

On top of that, this *may* have been part of the Marleau deal, as somebody mentioned. If you look at it that way, we just got a first-rounder and two prospects for de Haan by taking on Marleau's buyout.

It's yet more flexibility -- both financially and asset-wise -- for Carolina. And they're clearly not done. For the first time in forever, nothing can be counted out. They could legitimately do anything with all this money, cap space and prospect value.

People here, on Twitter, and on Facebook really think Waddell lost it and returned to his "Atlanta ways" over this trade. Seriously? How smart does this group have to consistently prove to be before we start believing it? Do we really believe Waddell got hosed, just because he traded Calvin freakin' de Haan?

Thank you

 

[Unsustainable]

Slavin - Hamilton
Pesce - Faulk
Fleury - TVR

I mean, that’s still not bad, and Pesce was great on his off side.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Ok. Are we that in on Duchene?

Nope, it’s for a Faulk extension, and watch everybody’s head explode.

 

[SlavinAway]

Hey, I don’t know when I pissed in your cornflakes to make you target me like this, but could you kindly **** off? Thanks bud.

And DeHann was definitely a reliable defenseman for us. He and Faulk were basically the 2nd line pairing the entire year, and unlike the Slavin/Hamilton pairing, rarely had dips in their play.

This trade is pretty inexcusable by any standard. A cost cutting move immediately after taking on an expensive albatross contract. Genius.

What if it’s a cost cutting move for an upcoming move though? Give it time.

 

[emptyNedder]

I liked the de Haan signing last season. But I also noted that it kept the Canes for being penalized for being under the cap. With Marleau's contract that isn't a concern this season. So maybe de Haan was redundant. I hope I am wrong.

There is one scenario that makes sense:
If Fox plays 30 games the Canes have an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the next draft. So a 5-year, $42M offer sheet still leaves the Canes with picks in all three rounds. Something in that neighborhood makes sense for Connor or Meier.
So either the Canes want to ice the least expensive team possible, or they are going to seriously attempt an offer sheet.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Hey, I don’t know when I pissed in your cornflakes to make you target me like this, but could you kindly **** off? Thanks bud.

And DeHann was definitely a reliable defenseman for us. He and Faulk were basically the 2nd line pairing the entire year, and unlike the Slavin/Hamilton pairing, rarely had dips in their play.

This trade is pretty inexcusable by any standard. A cost cutting move immediately after taking on an expensive albatross contract. Genius.

Hey man. Sorry you don't like my assessment of you, but you're pretty generally one of the most reactionary, negative people here. I'm not mad at you. I'm just calling it like I see it.

 

[Drivebytrucker]

The problem with trading Faulk instead of CDH is that trade could end up really looking bad (El Nino Trade) if Faulk refound his offensive game .

DeHaan is a more known commodity with less upside.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Do they have to make offers to these two new guys?

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Nope, it’s for a Faulk extension, and watch everybody’s head explode.

My head won’t explode, but I’ll be scratching it. The paid-like-a-PP QB that can’t QB a PP.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Nope, it’s for a Faulk extension, and watch everybody’s head explode.

It makes sense. You convert 3 years of de haan into one of marleau buyout and two of expensive faulk.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Hey man. Sorry you don't like my assessment of you, but you're pretty generally one of the most reactionary, negative people here. I'm not mad at you. I'm just calling it like I see it.

To expand on this a bit: some fans are highly emotional, and some are more analytical.

The emotional ones are gonna have a rough ride in the Dundon years, I suspect.

I liked CDH. What's not to like? But this is business.

 

[Roboturner913]

I figured De Haan was safe, mainly because teams don't generally sign guys in UFA and then ship them out less than a calendar year later.

Having said that, he was an awfully expensive for a third pair guy, and with Bean/Fleury/Sellgren/McKeown sitting around it makes sense to move his salary.

I just don't like moving Saarela, no matter how many other good forward prospects we have.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

What if it’s a cost cutting move for an upcoming move though? Give it time.

If we needed to trade DeHann to clear space after acquiring Marleau to make this upcoming move, wouldn’t it have been much simpler (and make more sense) to simply not acquire Marleau in the first place?

Everyone’s waiting for the other shoe to fall, but what if this is simply it? What if this is the other shoe to the Marleau trade?

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I liked the de Haan signing last season. But I also noted that it kept the Canes for being penalized for being under the cap. With Marleau's contract that isn't a concern this season. So maybe de Haan was redundant. I hope I am wrong.

There is one scenario that makes sense:
If Fox plays 30 games the Canes have an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the next draft. So a 5-year, $42M offer sheet still leaves the Canes with picks in all three rounds. Something in that neighborhood makes sense for Connor or Meier.
So either the Canes want to ice the least expensive team possible, or they are going to seriously attempt an offer sheet.

Yep. After listening to 31 Thoughts I got a Marner offer sheet stuck in my head after work today - if any team could afford to give up 4 1sts it may be us. Was wondering if 7x$11m would do it. Then I thought better of it.

But a Tkachuk, Meier, Laine, or Connor under the 4 1sts threshold? It might not be a terrible idea.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

If we needed to trade DeHann to clear space after acquiring Marleau to make this upcoming move, wouldn’t it have been much simpler (and make more sense) to simply not acquire Marleau in the first place?

Everyone’s waiting for the other shoe to fall, but what if this is simply it? What if this is the other shoe to the Marleau trade?

Then it’s a 1st round pick for de Haan. Which is a good way to break up the defensive logjam.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

has all the tools to be a good goalie but way too many nights he lacks confidence and after making a great athletic sprawling save will let in a muffin floater from a terrible angle.

 

[MinJaBen]

I figured De Haan was safe, mainly because teams don't generally sign guys in UFA and then ship them out less than a calendar year later.

Having said that, he was an awfully expensive for a third pair guy, and with Bean/Fleury/Sellgren/McKeown sitting around it makes sense to move his salary.

I just don't like moving Saarela, no matter how many other good forward prospects we have.

We lost nothing we were going to use by moving Saarela. Rod sent him down first last year for a reason, and since then, we’ve added a bunch of guys who are just as likely to fill any open spot he’d compete to fill.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

All I can say is that there is no middle ground with this trade: it's either going to be really good for the Canes or really terrible. The thing is that this trade wasn't really a pure cap dump because they got two decent young players with some upside. Forsling's only a half year older than Saarela and has more NHL experience, and Forsberg was once a highly-regarded goalie prospect that, like Mrazek, has a shot at putting it together.

 

[Canes]

I don't really like the trade but I can understand why the Canes had to do it. Thankfully even without these two players, we still have depth on defense and our prospect pool is still stacked. And if Saarela finally puts it together in the NHL, at least he'll be in the western conference.

 

[Roboturner913]

We lost nothing we were going to use by moving Saarela. Rod sent him down first last year for a reason, and since then, we’ve added a bunch of guys who are just as likely to fill any open spot he’d compete to fill.

He's maybe the only prospect we have (had) with legit high-end NHL shot talent. I hate losing those guys, considering historically we just never have any.

Judging by what I saw of the Checkers' postseason, as well, he's got a much more well-rounded game than people seem to think, or at least he showed he's capable of that.