Matt Karash: What to do with Tuomo Ruutu?

Eat a ton of his salary and give him to LA

Eat a ton of his salary and give him to LA
- poisondhearts37

That's what I'm afraid of.

Talk about a player that I have completely forgot about....

Matt Karash: What to do with Tuomo Ruutu?
- CarolinaMatt63

Trade him for Booth.

Nice one Matt.

I for one agree with those scenarios. I see no other realistic option, however, than Car retaining hefty portion of his salary. Like it or not.

Old yeller him.

Scenarios 1 thru 3, yes, trade him. Scenario 4, no, do not trade him. The Jokinen situation still makes me sick to my stomach. What a dumb way to handle a talented player who was in a rut. If Rutherford botches Ruutu's situation the same way he botched Jokinen, I'll be screaming for Rutherford to be gone. He did a better job as GM when the team had a self imposed cap. He is a good low budget GM. I don't think he has done a good job at all since the ownership has allowed him to spend to the cap.

This guy is exactly what the Sharks need. What's the expected asking price for him?

This guy is exactly what the Sharks need. What's the expected asking price for him?
- FinAddict

Best guess is that Rutherford is ready to move on and shed the contract. If San Jose is willing to take on the entire contract, I think the asking price is very low - it is mostly a financial flexibility/salary dump for the Canes. Per my comments in the blog, if SJ starts asking the Canes to eat a big chunk of the salary it then becomes more complicated. Basically, his value in trade should go up as his cost comes down. I hope Rutherford gets this, but with the "I just want out" precedent set by the Jokinen deal last year, I worry that we could see a repeat in which he gets fleeced by an opportunistic GM who gets it.

Best guess is that Rutherford is ready to move on and shed the contract. If San Jose is willing to take on the entire contract, I think the asking price is very low - it is mostly a financial flexibility/salary dump for the Canes. Per my comments in the blog, if SJ starts asking the Canes to eat a big chunk of the salary it then becomes more complicated. Basically, his value in trade should go up as his cost comes down. I hope Rutherford gets this, but with the "I just want out" precedent set by the Jokinen deal last year, I worry that we could see a repeat in which he gets fleeced by an opportunistic GM who gets it.
- CarolinaMatt63

We'll swap you Havlat for him so it makes sense financially

SJ has Thornton, Boyle and Marleau as upcoming UFAs this summer. For a trade to happen I'd assume the Canes would have to eat a significant chunk of the salary, which probably puts his cost out of SJ's grasp.

We'll swap you Havlat for him so it makes sense financially

SJ has Thornton, Boyle and Marleau as upcoming UFAs this summer. For a trade to happen I'd assume the Canes would have to eat a significant chunk of the salary, which probably puts his cost out of SJ's grasp.
- FinAddict

While I think that Rutherford would definitely consider a "change of scenery" trade of another contract for which current play/role does not match price (like the Liles/Gleason deal), Havlat is far from ideal. First, the $ savings are minimal. Canes owe Ruutu about $12.5M over next 2 1/2 years and Havlat gets about $8.5M over next 1 1/2. I think Rutherford would like to do better on either saving more money or getting a better player in return. But I think you are right on in that Havlat for Ruutu would be the core of the deal that the Sharks would offer.

Only time will tell:
--If Rutherford can get a better deal elsewhere.
--How desperate he is to just move on even if terms are not great. (Rational would suggest that there is some point where it is smarter to keep him.)
--Or if possibly Ruutu can find an important role on a Canes team that starts winning in which case things slow down a bit.

While I think that Rutherford would definitely consider a "change of scenery" trade of another contract for which current play/role does not match price (like the Liles/Gleason deal), Havlat is far from ideal. First, the $ savings are minimal. Canes owe Ruutu about $12.5M over next 2 1/2 years and Havlat gets about $8.5M over next 1 1/2. I think Rutherford would like to do better on either saving more money or getting a better player in return. But I think you are right on in that Havlat for Ruutu would be the core of the deal that the Sharks would offer.

Only time will tell:
--If Rutherford can get a better deal elsewhere.
--How desperate he is to just move on even if terms are not great. (Rational would suggest that there is some point where it is smarter to keep him.)
--Or if possibly Ruutu can find an important role on a Canes team that starts winning in which case things slow down a bit.
- CarolinaMatt63

I'd assume he can get a better deal elsewhere. Havlat has had injury issues and when he has been healthy he's been about as useful as a screen door on a submarine for SJ.

If you really want him gone, throw him on waivers.. problem solved.
somebody will take him

Matt Karash: What to do with Tuomo Ruutu?
- CarolinaMatt63

I wish for:
Clarkson + draft pick/prospect incentive for Ruutu + salary dump