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

[Boom Boom Apathy]

That’s how I remember the first half of the year but at some point during the run Faulk and Pesce played together for awhile and it went well. For Pesce especially. They did some juggling in the playoffs too.

That’s what I remember. Don’t remember if it was Jan? When the Pesce/Faulk pairing started

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

It was

Slavin Hamilton
DeHaan Faulk
TVR Pesce

until December when Hamilton was bumped down and Pesce promoted back to Slavin's pairing. And that was fairly consistent until DeHaan was injured, which is when Pesce was put with Faulk. In the playoffs Rod did

Slavin Hamilton
Pesce Faulk
Fleury TVR

then Hamilton got sheltered for away games from Game 5 against caps onward (which is around when DeHaan came back) and did

Slavin Pesce
DeHaan Faulk
Fleury Hamilton

for away games. Home games put Hamilton back with Slavin, Pesce Faulk, Fleury DeHaan.
This is from memory.

 

[bleedgreen]

You guys I think will like Forsling. He has talent just needs consistency and fresh start likely does him good

Forsberg on other hand is trash. Gives up goals that Leighton would be laughing about and the goals he gives up are back breaking and seemed to sap life out of team in front of him

He had chance to prove himself with Hawks and fell apart to point we were cheering on an AHL journeyman who was outplaying him until his luck ran out. Forsberg faltering when Crawford went down was turning point of 17-18 season. We were in playoff spot when Crawford went out with injury and Forsbergs play took team out of playoff picture

Thanks, and I agree with all that.

You got the best player by a mile in DeHaan. You’re gonna love him, he’s exactly what you need and everything you had to be hoping Maata would be.

Saarela was not liked by Rod. He wasn’t going to get a chance here. Not a ton of defensive effort and is a bit of a one trick pony with the shot. I keep reading “scouting” reports that say he’s a great skater but I think he’s pretty sloppy and struggles with changes in direction. I didn’t think he was going to make it anymore, but he’s scored too much to not get a shot. He’s this years Zykov. You’ve got enough skill that he could explode if placed in the right situation.

DeHaan is your prize though.

 

[My Special Purpose]

The more and more I think of it, you just can't separate this move and the Marleau move. You can choose to think about it as having to dump a player because we acquired Marleau. OR, you can think of it this way. It's *because* we had a landing spot for de Haan that we were able to take on Marleau's (likely) buyout and get paid a first-round pick.

Put another way, the return for de Haan/Saarela *could* have been better, but we knew we'd be able to get a first rounder from TOR if we took back no salary in the deal, enabling us to take on Marleau.

 

[Chrispy]

I could be misremembering things, but I thought the pairings for most of the year were trying to force Slavin and Hamilton as a pairing (to varied success), having Faulk and DeHann as the 2nd, and Pesce and TVR as the 3rd

That changed due to DeHann’s injury in the playoffs, but it may have happened sooner? My memory’s a little wonky, so you’ll have to tell me.

It changed when de Haan had the freak eye injury during the season (edit: March 11)

 

[GoldiFox]

RIP In Peace: De Haan - Hamilton 2nd Pairing

We never knew ye

 

[My Special Purpose]

Also seems like we’re not using a RD to get ourselves a big forward now?

I think that ship sailed last summer, when we tried to get a big forward for Faulk and failed spectacularly. We just weren't getting a forward for Faulk, so we had to go with Plan B instead of wasting another summer trying.

 

[bleedgreen]

No doubt de Hann was steady and stabilizing back there. I agree we are better with him than without, but 1) we likely weren’t going to have him for the first month or two, and 2) it depends on what other moves are made because of this move.

I think we didn’t get more back for him because of the injuries. He won’t be ready to start the season, and although he’s expected to recover, shoulder surgery in back to back seasons has to be concerning.

Good gamble for Chicago because if he stays healthy, he’ll help them. If not, they aren’t out much.

I think I’m mostly struggling with him seemingly being traded due to the effect of the Marleau trade. I also don’t agree he’s on the third pair. Even if it starts that way someone will get hurt or the pairings would get swapped around. Pesce was a third pairing dman for the first half of last year....

I get we are spending too much on defense it just seemed obvious a RD should go for a forward or for assets to use in a trade for one.

We’ll see over the next week the actual grand plan which will hopefully show today on a better light.

 

[bleedgreen]

RIP In Peace: De Haan - Hamilton 2nd Pairing

We never knew ye

I had really held out hope for this year post Faulk trade.

 

[ONO94]

Then please explain the stats to me....

From 2000 to 2012--there were 390 players taken in each round. Players scoring 100 or more goals occurred at a 30.5% clip in the 1st round, 9.23% in the second, 3.85% in the 3rd and just 1.77% for the rest of the draft combined. Those stats tell me teams really want 1st round picks to find offensive players. But 2nd rounders are more than twice as likely to hit than 3rd rounders and 3rd rounders are twice as likely to hit then the rest of the draft combined. Sure--I wasn't good at stats--but even a simple look shows offense comes at a much higher clip the higher up you draft

So look at the trade for #59--they traded from a round with 9.23% chance of finding offense for 2 picks having 3.85% chance of offense. What I would rather have seen was to leave that pick alone and try to package 2 3rds for an additional chance in the 2nd. After the 3rd--then I agree with trading for as many picks a possible as it is more of a crapshoot at that point.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I wonder how much that's weighted by teams intentionally taking gorillas on skates who were already borderline players in juniors?

 

[Bunch of Jurcos]

To be a Patriots-like team we will have to move players we like constantly. Bean comes up soon and will fight it out with our new guy and Fleury. May the best man win. Eventually Bean will be up and he will qb our power play. Fleury will be gone then.

I was president of the CDH fan club. If management wants to keep entry level contracts to balance some of the raises guys are getting or a UFA then I am okay with it. Change can be scary but the results from last year have warranted a wait and see approach.

We aren't a normal team. Let's see what happens when we make abnormal moves.

 

[bleedgreen]

It wouldn’t surprise me to see Forsling win the third pair spot. I could see Bean taking the slow road another year and Fleury either getting traded or being the 7th guy again. They could flip flop all year too. There’s no comparison in skating or puck handling, Fleury is cooked there but is stronger and way more physical.

 

[Roman Yoshi]

As the rookie fan here, I thought CDH would be the one moved... But this seems like a bad move? Is that just me? What am I missing?

 

[bleedgreen]

From over a year ago. I didn’t see one for this year but didn’t look very hard either.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Then please explain the stats to me....

From 2000 to 2012--there were 390 players taken in each round. Players scoring 100 or more goals occurred at a 30.5% clip in the 1st round, 9.23% in the second, 3.85% in the 3rd and just 1.77% for the rest of the draft combined. Those stats tell me teams really want 1st round picks to find offensive players. But 2nd rounders are more than twice as likely to hit than 3rd rounders and 3rd rounders are twice as likely to hit then the rest of the draft combined. Sure--I wasn't good at stats--but even a simple look shows offense comes at a much higher clip the higher up you draft

So look at the trade for #59--they traded from a round with 9.23% chance of finding offense for 2 picks having 3.85% chance of offense. What I would rather have seen was to leave that pick alone and try to package 2 3rds for an additional chance in the 2nd. After the 3rd--then I agree with trading for as many picks a possible as it is more of a crapshoot at that point.

OK, the stats you quote are crap.

• Players scoring 100 or more goals occurred at a 30.5% clip in the 1st round. OK, so in this scenario, No. 1 overall = No. 31 overall, right? And the Canes pick that they just got from Toronto has a 30.5 percent chance to score 100 or more goals in the NHL, regardless of where it falls?
  
• So look at the trade for #59--they traded from a round with 9.23% chance of finding offense... No. 59 is the very bottom of the second round. Again, totally equivalent to No. 32, right?
  
• ... for 2 picks having 3.85% chance of offense. Even if they traded No. 59 for Nos. 62 and 63, huh? Because all that matters is the round?

This pick-by-pick value chart is much more indicative of reality. And I think it's pretty obvious to see why, if you're not picking in the top 10, your best bet is to have as many darts as possible inside the top 100. With our first pick at No. 28, it would have been impossible to move into the top 10. Therefore ... darts.

 

[bleedgreen]

As the rookie fan here, I thought CDH would be the one moved... But this seems like a bad move? Is that just me? What am I missing?

We’ve got four RD and all belong in the lineup. Last summer it was huge adding DeHaan and Hamilton and we were seemingly told Faulk was on the way out. Then it just sat there for a year, hanging in the wind and now there’s word we haven’t gotten anywhere with negotiations. We know they love him but DeHaan is way more steady than Faulk. Also to me calling DeHaan a third pairing guy in nonsensical with the way both how our season goes and how our coach coaches.

It does make sense if you believe that the team sees Pesce as a LD and that this cures the overload while allowing some of the youngsters a chance. Fleury should never have been back in the minors after the previous year.

It makes some sense but it just stings. I think we way overvalue Faulk and are missing the boat with DeHaan....but as our owner said you can always buy more defense.

 

[My Special Purpose]

From over a year ago. I didn’t see one for this year but didn’t look very hard either.

Wow. A bonus Darling "how did that get through me" expression, too! Oh how I've missed those.

 

[bleedgreen]

He can clearly skate very well with or without the puck. He won’t make a ton of brilliant goal line plays like the others did all season though.

 

[SaskCanesFan]

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?

Honest question: How smart *has* this group consistently proven to be?

Rask for Nino was great, obviously. But I don't think it was overly cunning, considering everyone on here would have easily pulled the trigger too. That's more Fenton being dumb than Carolina smart when the average fan knows what to do.

The Calgary trade was... Decent? Hamilton had a great 2nd half, but Ferland disappeared and will walk, Fox wouldn't sign, and Lindholm took the big step up with better linemates that I expected him to and is super cheap. They gave up 2 young, relatively low cost assets for 1 great D that can go to UFA and a couple 2nds as of today.

The Skinner trade ended up being fine, considering the contract he got and the fact he would have walked. Need to see what comes from the picks, but it was by no means an earth shattering good move.

Signing a big UFA in deHaan last July was a no doubt win for this franchise. But moving him for nothing after a single year of that contract because they failed to come up with any other D trade for over 11 months? That doesn't scream great asset management.

Taking advantage of Toronto's cap situation to get a 1st looks good. But I saw it referred to as "playing chess" compared to other management, and its not. The old GM that everyone hates managed to do the exact same thing 3 years ago to Chicago, and get a 1st line winger.

The draft is getting universal praise right now, but nobody yet knows how that will turn out. Maybe they get 3 or 4 NHLers, maybe in trading back they passed on the next Aho or Oreilly for 2 of the next Brock McGinns. It's simply too soon to tell

I'm not seeing any consistent brilliance here. I'm seeing a bunch of moves that will hopefully work out, or may not.

 

[My Special Purpose]

It makes some sense but it just stings. I think we way overvalue Faulk and are missing the boat with DeHaan....but as our owner said you can always buy more defense.

I want to be very clear that I agree with you 100 percent that I'd have preferred to move Faulk before de Haan. For a lot of reasons. However, it's also clear to me that we have *tried* to move Faulk and we haven't found anything good enough to pull the trigger. I'm still upset we didn't trade Faulk last summer. It's hard to be too upset after the season we just had, but I'm definitely not a Faulk fan. Somebody had to go and for whatever reason, we didn't like any of the offers for Faulk, if there even were any. But I'd have preferred to see Faulk go.

 

[SaskCanesFan]

Slavin - Hamilton
Pesce - Faulk
Fleury - TVR

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

As long as you don't have to go back to Slavin-Pesce like they did against Washington. Then the rest has the potential to be ugly.

 

[Chrispy]

I want to be very clear that I agree with you 100 percent that I'd have preferred to move Faulk before de Haan. For a lot of reasons. However, it's also clear to me that we have *tried* to move Faulk and we haven't found anything good enough to pull the trigger. I'm still upset we didn't trade Faulk last summer. It's hard to be too upset after the season we just had, but I'm definitely not a Faulk fan. Somebody had to go and for whatever reason, we didn't like any of the offers for Faulk, if there even were any. But I'd have preferred to see Faulk go.

I fail to see how they "can't find anything good enough to pull the trigger" on Faulk, but deal de Haan for this return.

The failure to get value for de Haan is what surprises me here, not making the move in general.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Honest question: How smart *has* this group consistently proven to be?

Rask for Nino was great, obviously. But I don't think it was overly cunning, considering everyone on here would have easily pulled the trigger too. That's more Fenton being dumb than Carolina smart when the average fan knows what to do.

The Calgary trade was... Decent? Hamilton had a great 2nd half, but Ferland disappeared and will walk, Fox wouldn't sign, and Lindholm took the big step up with better linemates that I expected him to and is super cheap. They gave up 2 young, relatively low cost assets for 1 great D that can go to UFA and a couple 2nds as of today.

The Skinner trade ended up being fine, considering the contract he got and the fact he would have walked. Need to see what comes from the picks, but it was by no means an earth shattering good move.

Signing a big UFA in deHaan last July was a no doubt win for this franchise. But moving him for nothing after a single year of that contract because they failed to come up with any other D trade for over 11 months? That doesn't scream great asset management.

Taking advantage of Toronto's cap situation to get a 1st looks good. But I saw it referred to as "playing chess" compared to other management, and its not. The old GM that everyone hates managed to do the exact same thing 3 years ago to Chicago, and get a 1st line winger.

The draft is getting universal praise right now, but nobody yet knows how that will turn out. Maybe they get 3 or 4 NHLers, maybe in trading back they passed on the next Aho or Oreilly for 2 of the next Brock McGinns. It's simply too soon to tell

I'm not seeing any consistent brilliance here. I'm seeing a bunch of moves that will hopefully work out, or may not.

Dissecting every move like this can direct the narrative any which way you want to direct it. But how about this, instead. Since taking over, this management team has:

• Hired a coach who looks like he'll be around for a long time
• Made the playoffs for the first time in 10 years
• Won 8 playoff games
• Won a Calder Cup in the AHL
• Put together what has universally been credited as the best draft in the league with the highest pick being No. 28 overall
• Have six of the top 93 picks next draft, including two first-rounders
• Have $25 million in cap space
• Have the youngest team in the NHL for the 2019-2020 season

So yeah, not brilliant, but pretty damn effective.

 

[My Special Purpose]

I fail to see how they "can't find anything good enough to pull the trigger" on Faulk, but deal de Haan for this return.

The failure to get value for de Haan is what surprises me here, not making the move in general.

Serious question, if our two trades had been made in reverse order, would we feel any differently?

So, first we trade de Haan/Saarela for Forsberg/Forsling. Then we get Marleau, a first and a seventh from Toronto for a sixth-rounder.

Would it make more sense? Be any better? I know it's hard to think this way, but try?