I really just like the mental image of the Canes FO having a heavy, old-fashioned desk phone that can be slammed down.
Speculation: Offseason Roster Building Thread - Trades, Signings, Rumors
- Thread starter Boom Boom Apathy
- Start date
- Status
I really just like the mental image of the Canes FO having a heavy, old-fashioned desk phone that can be slammed down.
cptjeff
Reprehensible User
Not to be a buzzkill, but the vast majority of offices still have landline systems installed. There are lots of benefits- you can have everyone call one number and have receptionists transfer calls around, you have far more reliable and clear connections, all sorts of neat stuff!
I'm sure GMs do talk to each other on their cell phones a lot since they all travel a fair bit, but Francis undoubtedly has a good old fashioned landline on his desk. Probably one that looks identical to the one in this photo of Eric Tulsky:
CandyCanes
Caniac turned Jerkiac
- Jan 8, 2015
- 7,665
- 26,717
CandyCanes
Caniac turned Jerkiac
- Jan 8, 2015
- 7,665
- 26,717
some of those were great lmao
Dishface
Registered Jerk
Bingo. The Canes essentially need to add 90-100 points from a combination of 2 scoring forwards. I'm assuming Stempniak is gone, so we have to replace his 40 points and need to find 50-60 more.
Also, I've said for a while the Minny was going to have some trouble signing all of their RFAs (all 5 are arbitration eligible). And while they will lose some salary because of expansion, they are going to still struggle to sign all their guys and add a competitive player or two.
This is a very good summary article about defensemen that might be moved due to the expansion draft. Talks both sellers and buyers (Canes are listed due to only needing to protect Faulk).
Hockey Writers
Hockey Writers
DougieSmash
WE'RE IN! WE'RE IN! YES! YES! WOO!
- Jan 2, 2009
- 14,795
- 15,968
- Aug 24, 2006
- 7,530
- 18,993
Thanks...I enjoyed that. This monkey wrench is certainly much more complicated than how I'd originally viewed it. Once a team pulls the trigger on trading away one of their players - and depending on which position they trade away - it can really change the conversations that had been had up until that point. You could be working on a defenseman from NYI, then they trade a forward instead and the price goes up for the defensemen you've been talking about (because now maybe they can protect him instead).
What I don't understand is why any defenseman would waive his NMC. I guess if they were on a team that wouldn't give them any TOI, then yeah...but otherwise you're going to a team that's gonna suck for a while. So why would Bieksa (for example) waive his NMC...what's in it for him?
Well, if asked, waiving means you probably get to keep your contract. The alternative is that if you don't waive, the team may just buy you out. You don't get the full value of the contract and no guarantee you will get another job/contract that covers the lost income.
Boom Boom Apathy
I am the Professor. Deal with it!
- Sep 6, 2006
- 49,319
- 102,039
Yep, been of the same view all along. Most of these guys with NMCs are older, more settled guys with high dollar contracts. Maybe there will be an exception (like the no TOI you mentioned), but other than that, I don't see it happening. Even if a team is not giving the player TOI, he could always waive the clause at a later date for a team he wants to go to or the team may buy him out and he can then sign where ever he wants.
Boom Boom Apathy
I am the Professor. Deal with it!
- Sep 6, 2006
- 49,319
- 102,039
I think the concern over losing money over a buy-out is a bit overblown. First, If they are bad enough that they can't get a job after being bought out, then even if they waive their NMC, Vegas won't likely take them and they are still at risk for a buyout. Secondly, most of these guys likely aren't going to fret over the lost salary. Bieksa has 1 year at $4M left and a buyout pays him $2.7M to do nothing after making probably $30M over his career. Girardi had 3 more years left but a buyout would pay him $6.7M vs. the $10M he's owed, this after making almost $40M over his career.
It will obviously depend on each players own situation. If playing 1 or 2 more years, regardless where, trumps everything else, then yeah, maybe they'd consider waiving. But if family, where they live, playing on a good team, etc... means more, they likely won't waive.
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
These situations are tough and can be pretty nuanced. It's essentially a game of chicken. If Anaheim tells Bieksa that he either waives his NMC or he sits in the pressbox all year, that might be reason enough. I think there's a good chance that it's not a bluff from Anaheim. They probably don't want to carry his buyout number for 2 seasons and would likely let his contract expire naturally. Additionally, it's important to remember that the team must initiate the buyout process. At 35, he's going to need to be playing somewhere if he hopes to secure another contract past this one. Nobody is going to be interested in giving a 36-year-old Bieksa a contract without having seen him play for an entire season. It's essentially like saying either waive and go to this bad team for one season or your career is over. Like it or not, he's out of the plans entirely in Anaheim. The emergence of Theodore and Montour has made him so entirely superfluous that they'd barely notice his absence. Additionally, those two players are on ELC contracts so it's not like Anaheim would need the cap he occupies to replace him heading into next season. In terms of personal opportunity to continue his career, it seems like waiving might be the best option if he hopes to play beyond 2018. Best case scenario, he goes to Vegas and performs well enough that they either decide to shell out for him or he gets to pick his destination the following year. However, if he decides to stick it out with Anaheim he spends an entire year being a red-headed stepchild and a team member in mutual contractual obligation only. Imagine enduring that for an entire season due to stubbornness. That couldn't be worth it just to stick it to a team that needed to move on.
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
I think a few of us are assuming that a buyout is the worst case scenario for these players and that's just not true. The buyout would be the ideal scenario for a lot of these players, but a lot of teams that are up against the cap aren't interested in having dead money on the books. A buyout essentially extends the commitment for double the duration of the contract at half the cost, which is sometimes more annoying than just letting a guy ride the pine for a full season. We see buyouts a lot in this market because cap hit means nothing to us. In fact, it could be argued that it has an added benefit of helping us reach the floor. Anaheim isn't interested in that. New York isn't interested in that. Especially in the case of Anaheim where it's one year of commitment that can be offset by multiple players on ELCs that can more than replace his contributions. New York would have to carry Girardi's on the books for 6 years. There's no way they'd be interested in that.
- Aug 24, 2006
- 7,530
- 18,993
Is Bieksa still a top-4 defenseman? I was under that impression, but I haven't seen him play in quite a while...
EDIT: got my answer from Trade board: no he is not. My bad.
Could he work in CAR as a #6 RHD for Fleury? Expensive, yes, but maybe ANA sweetens it ala CHI deal for Bickell.
EDIT: got my answer from Trade board: no he is not. My bad.
Could he work in CAR as a #6 RHD for Fleury? Expensive, yes, but maybe ANA sweetens it ala CHI deal for Bickell.
Last edited:
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
I was thinking along similar lines. He seems to fit the profile of the kind of guys we like to bring in for leadership purposes and there have been rumors of Carolina's interest in Bieksa previously. Hainsey and Liles come to mind as similar reclamation projects. Bieksa still has some gas in the tank, but Anaheim is so ridiculously stacked on defense that he's not required. However, opportunity would be an issue. Agreeing to waive would mean that Anaheim would attempt to accommodate him as much as they possibly could and we almost certainly wouldn't be at the top of that list due to similar issues he's facing in Anaheim. Truth be told, his best chance of earning another lucrative payday might just be to take the Vegas option and get his 20 minutes a night virtually guaranteed without the risk of being lapped by a younger option. It's going to take some adjustment in our mindset, but the idea that free agent defensemen might be dissuaded by our young depth is a very real consideration. We'd likely have to settle for someone a little closer to the end who wouldn't be entirely put off by the concept of a true 3rd pairing treatment.
RodTheBawd
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2013
- 5,529
- 8,604
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
I wouldn't be so sure. We had that expectation with Liles as well, but Liles went to Boston and displayed some competency and parlayed that into another deal. Hainsey has been rock solid in the playoffs for Pittsburgh and it wouldn't surprise me if there were teams taking notice. Perhaps even Pittsburgh. We know JR is a fan.
- Aug 24, 2006
- 7,530
- 18,993
Given everything else said about him, sounds like Vegas wouldn't waste their one pick on him.
Boom Boom Apathy
I am the Professor. Deal with it!
- Sep 6, 2006
- 49,319
- 102,039
By the time his contract is up, Bieksa will be 37 years old. This year in the NHL, there are a grand total of 4 defensemen who are 37 and older that played in more than 42 NHL games. Chara, Streit, Markov and Campbell. Char, Streit and Markov are on the end of longer term contracts they signed at a younger age. Only 1 of them signed after the age of 35 and that was Campbell, who signed a 1 year, $1.5M contract at the age of 36.
I may be wrong, but Bieksa has to know that he's not getting another lucrative payday at 37 years old, regardless if he goes to Vegas or not.
I may be wrong, but Bieksa has to know that he's not getting another lucrative payday at 37 years old, regardless if he goes to Vegas or not.
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
Well, defining lucrative is a tricky proposition. I understand the premise, but if there's any hope of extending his career then he has to play next season. That was my basic point. Staying with Anaheim would effectively be retirement. I can't say I am a fan of the qualifiers on that query. It seems selectively chosen to exclude candidates. It only stands to reason that older defensemen are going to be less durable and the games played does not impact their salary since we're looking at this from a fiscal standpoint. Plus, putting the marker firmly at 37 and saying that 36 1/2 is somehow different strikes me as selective as well. For all intents and purposes, over 35 is over 35. There were 14 such defensemen that played this season at that age. That seems a little more reasonable to me.
Boom Boom Apathy
I am the Professor. Deal with it!
- Sep 6, 2006
- 49,319
- 102,039
I didn't selectively choose anything. I simply picked the exact age he would be when he signs his next contract, 37 years old. There was no "excluding" of candidates, it was just the precise age he'll be. My point still stands that the chances of getting a "lucrative" contract are slim and none regardless. Now, if your definition of lucrative is different than mine, that's fine. Best case I see for him is like a Liles or Campbell type deal. Very short term, not much money.
The difference between and English major and an Engineer.
Last edited:
Boom Boom Apathy
I am the Professor. Deal with it!
- Sep 6, 2006
- 49,319
- 102,039
I think this might be the exact type of deal RF looks at. Not sure if it will work and/or maybe not Bieksa, but someone like that. The UFA pool is either very weak, or guys want too much. With raises coming to Hanifin, Slavin, and Pesce, on the horizon, I can't see him wanting a high $$$$, long term deal.
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
I didn't selectively choose anything. I simply picked the exact age he would be when he signs his next contract, 37 years old. There was no "excluding" of candidates, it was just the precise age he'll be. My point still stands that the chances of getting a "lucrative" contract are slim and none regardless. Now, if your definition of lucrative is different than mine, that's fine. Best case I see for him is like a Liles or Campbell type deal. Very short term, not much money.
The difference between and English major and an Engineer.
For sure, I was mostly talking about the games played threshold though as being particularly curious as the ROI for the club isn't as much of a concern for us in this hypothetical. I can see why the age issue would be something you'd want to be more precise about, but it seems somewhat arbitrary to me to say if Bieksa were 3 months younger he would have a better chance of getting a contract as a result of this analysis. I think sample size skews this a bit. Plus, of those 14 players that I mentioned that were 35 and over, many of them were in the upper 30's. One or two were even right at 40. Streit and Chara. I don't know what any of that means other than to say it's unpredictable which defensemen make it to 37 in this league, but I don't know if it's fair to imply that teams simply write players off at a specific cutoff as it seems was the implication. Many players retire by choice prior to 37, so that's another variable we have to consider.
As far as lucrative is concerned, there are a lot of guys that retire from the NHL to continue playing in Europe for below league minimum. I would consider lucrative to be virtually any NHL level guaranteed salary in this specific case. I know that's not very impressive of a definition..... but $1.5 million compared to $525k in Sweden seems significant enough to warrant calling it a lucrative increase.
- Status
