View Full Version : Alberts to Vancouver
puck_it
03-03-2010, 03:14 PM
per hockey news.
puck_it
03-03-2010, 03:16 PM
for what is still pending... but I'm not a fan of this trade thus far. who the hell are we going to have on the bottom half of the blue line next year?
cmw00
03-03-2010, 03:18 PM
for what is still pending... but I'm not a fan of this trade thus far. who the hell are we going to have on the bottom half of the blue line next year?
Tim Conboy baby!!! :lol: J/K.... I hope...
Anyways I kind of liked Alberts, so hope it is a fair return.
for what is still pending... but I'm not a fan of this trade thus far. who the hell are we going to have on the bottom half of the blue line next year?
Lets go over who's under contract (or RFA) for next year:
Pitkanen
Gleason
Carson
Picard
Rodney
McBain
That doesn't look terrible to me, plus we'll be able to sign some depth D-men if we need to.
Solracer
03-03-2010, 03:20 PM
I do not like this one... Alberts was playing pretty well and was still young... argh...
MoBigRed
03-03-2010, 03:22 PM
Lets go over who's under contract (or RFA) for next year:
Pitkanen
Gleason
Carson
Picard
Rodney
McBain
That doesn't look terrible to me, plus we'll be able to sign some depth D-men if we need to.
+ Pothier
puck_it
03-03-2010, 03:22 PM
Lets go over who's under contract (or RFA) for next year:
Pitkanen
Gleason
Carson
Picard
Rodney
McBain
That doesn't look terrible to me, plus we'll be able to sign some depth D-men if we need to.
I liked Alberts over McBain and Picard... (to be fair to Picard.... havent seen a lot)
+ Pothier
Pothier is an UFA at the end of the season.
I was about to post and say +Borer, though.
puck_it
03-03-2010, 03:23 PM
and yeah we can sign a depth d man, but alberts was a decent depth dman.
we'll just have to see what we end up with. that will sway me, maybe.
eta: mckenzie says 3rd rounder. not swayed
cmw00
03-03-2010, 03:25 PM
What was the point of this trade then? Seems like Alberts was worth keeping.
msgtcody
03-03-2010, 03:26 PM
If so Alberts was worth more to me than a 3rd rounder just for his toughness. We've lost two guys that can defend themselves today and play with grit. Gleason can't fight everyones battles.
Fghtr4jc
03-03-2010, 03:26 PM
I agree with puck_it. One thing I realized is that with Walker and Alberts gone, our physical play just evaporated.
caneshockeychick
03-03-2010, 03:27 PM
Not so sure about this one....
Convert
03-03-2010, 03:29 PM
Love the Corvo trade...don't like this one.
I thought Alberts had filled the third pair role very well for us.
caveman
03-03-2010, 03:30 PM
Hm. Alberts at 1.3M next year is probably the reason.
MoBigRed
03-03-2010, 03:30 PM
Pothier is an UFA at the end of the season.
I was about to post and say +Borer, though.
Got it. I've always been big on Borer, though... hope he's healed enough for the NHL!
There has to be something else with this trade... i'm still not seeing just a 3rd-rounder. Alberts wasn't even unrestricted...
PennsylvaniaCanesFan
03-03-2010, 03:31 PM
^ Agree with what everyone said.
However, if I am reading this chart right, http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CAR&season=0910 (http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CAR&season=0910) he is owed a more then 50% increase next year. Could be a pure salary dump.
puck_it
03-03-2010, 03:32 PM
Got it. I've always been big on Borer, though... hope he's healed enough for the NHL!
There has to be something else with this trade... i'm still not seeing just a 3rd-rounder. Alberts wasn't even unrestricted...
a) me, too... but im concerened about readiness with the neck.
b)yeah, i hope something else is in here somewhere.
puck_it
03-03-2010, 03:33 PM
^ Agree with what everyone said.
However, if I am reading this chart right, http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CAR&season=0910 (http://www.nhlnumbers.com/overview.php?team=CAR&season=0910) he is owed a more then 50% increase next year. Could be a pure salary dump.
1.3 million is a piss ant ammount. you dont dump $0.5 million.
KaniacFever
03-03-2010, 03:34 PM
I don't like this one at all.
MoBigRed
03-03-2010, 03:36 PM
a) me, too... but im concerened about readiness with the neck.
That's my concern.
Agreed about the salary here as well - Alberts' salary isn't overly outrageous.
BlueLine
03-03-2010, 03:39 PM
I agree all the way!! I've liked pretty much all the other deals JR has made this season, but I don't like this one a bit! His 1.3M next year is a steal for a proven NHL dman.
If this was a straight rental, then a 3rd would make sense. With him signed to a very reasonable contract for next season, I'd have expected to get more back.
I don't like this one at all.
WillLikeWhoa091
03-03-2010, 03:39 PM
Personally I think we can replace Alberts fairly easily in the offseason, and potentially for less.
Granted, at the same time I'm pretty sure this is one we wouldn't have needed to do.
puck_it
03-03-2010, 03:40 PM
at less than a 1.3m, and ~1m cap figure?
I agree about Alberts salary for next year not being bad, but how many bottom-pairing defenseman can one team have? None of Picard, Carson and Alberts belong in the top four and all are waiver-eligible, so you end up paying one of them an NHL salary to sit in the press box.
In that sense, Alberts has already been "replaced" by Picard/Carson.
The real additions that need to be made are to the Top 4 to compliment Pitkanen and Gleason. The way I see it, there was no point in paying $1.3M for a third bottom-pairing defenseman when your Top 4 has two major holes in it.
Very disappointed with this trade. I liked Alberts game and I think it's a good thing to have that size on the blue line. Should have gotten a lot more in return. Possibly the worst trade of the entire deadline.
superdave
03-03-2010, 03:44 PM
I'm not liking this move. Alberts improved into a good d-man at his price point. You have to have some guys like this on the roster. We get a 3rd but have to replace a contributing player who was signed for next year at a good price.
BlueLine
03-03-2010, 04:04 PM
That's a very good point. However, that then would indicate that either we will be signing 2 top-4 dmen (and none of the guys from Albany have a shot), or will be hoping that we can make top-4 guys out of McBain, Rodney, and Borer (who seem to have slotted below Brett Carson at this point).
I agree about Alberts salary for next year not being bad, but how many bottom-pairing defenseman can one team have? None of Picard, Carson and Alberts belong in the top four and all are waiver-eligible, so you end up paying one of them an NHL salary to sit in the press box.
In that sense, Alberts has already been "replaced" by Picard/Carson.
The real additions that need to be made are to the Top 4 to compliment Pitkanen and Gleason. The way I see it, there was no point in paying $1.3M for a third bottom-pairing defenseman when your Top 4 has two major holes in it.
caveman
03-03-2010, 04:57 PM
JR just said he would (could? didn't catch it) use the savings on Alberts to go after a top tier free agent. My guess is he said "could" but, well, whatever.
SouthernHockeyChick
03-03-2010, 06:26 PM
Well, we better spend the off-season working on the D. Wait, didn't we do that last off-season? And the one before?
This is getting old.
puck_it
03-03-2010, 06:28 PM
yeah, EXACTLY my feelings on trading alberts and bringing someone new in. He was an alright defenseman at not a bad price. and our track record of getting guys that arent bad defensively on the open market isnt the greatest
livinthedream
03-03-2010, 06:29 PM
C'mon. This (http://hurricanes.nhl.com/club/depthchart.htm?dcid=12) doesn't make you feel all warm and secure?
I get the dollars side of it, but mark me down as not a fan of this move. I liked Alberts. A lot.
:(
SouthernHockeyChick
03-03-2010, 06:33 PM
I guess they have to provide Mo his requisite excuse (ie "We had a lot of new personnel who just wasn't used to playing together until February when they blew the top draft pick their miserable fans had earned").
Scottysfistofdeath
03-03-2010, 08:18 PM
I think this is a really bad trade- Alberts was a very solid third pair, and brought good physicality to the team. Whoop-de-do, there's an extra 0.5 m we have to go after a top tier free agent, but it'd also help if we'd offer more reasonable contracts instead of having bad contracts on our books. If we've already got a solid third pair guy there's not really a need to create a logjam at the position with trades... maybe with enough second and third rounders we can use them to trade up or move around in the first possibly? I'm not sure
SouthernHockeyChick
03-03-2010, 08:32 PM
I really think that "Whoop-de-do" (and the many incarnations of its spelling) may have become the most popular phrase around this place in the past few days. :lol:
SoCalcaniac
03-03-2010, 08:52 PM
:lol::lol: Thought the same thing when I saw that phrase yet again. Hilarious.
I'm gonna miss Andrew Alberts. I though he started to round into a 5-6 d-man for us, and he seemed like a good dude.
The revamping of D will be interesting in the offseason.
andyt
03-03-2010, 08:55 PM
yeah, EXACTLY my feelings on trading alberts and bringing someone new in. He was an alright defenseman at not a bad price. and our track record of getting guys that arent bad defensively on the open market isnt the greatest
Agreed.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.