Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Years ago I was one of the first on here to criticize Faulk's defensive play, but I've got to mostly agree with your first paragraph. All things considered, while we still had deHaan I could have seen moving Faulk for the right return, but now I'd want to see success at the NHL level from one of the yutes before making such a move.
  3. One day maybe in the near future these system guys can average 23 minutes TOI for a full season over an entire career.
  4. ^ This. I guess I’m in the minority but I’m not as keen on moving Faulk as others. Most people talk about our defensive strength, last year Faulk was a big part of that. The criticism directed at him before was well deserved, but he was very good last year, not just ok. I think it’s assuming a lot that one of these unproven players are just going to replace Faulk in the top 4. Like I said before we have a young, strong defensive corps. I’m not sure why people are so eager to change it up. There will be a battle for DeHaan’s old spot, and I’m not sure I’m comfortable with a battle for 2 spots (a third of our starting defense), especially when one is a top 4 position. Also, if we trade Faulk what are we getting in return? More picks and/or prospects? No thanks. We could trade him for a forward but that hasn’t worked so far and there might not be any seats left at the table as it is. Based on last year’s play the only way I trade Faulk is if he makes it crystal clear this is his last year in Carolina.
  5. I just see not being able to crack the lineup as different than it used to be in these parts. It's not necessarily because the player isn't ready, or that good. I'm not sure that McKeown would be that much of a drop off from TVR. I'm not sure that Fleury might not grow into more than we've seen if he got regular use on the bottom pair. But I do think that the return for either of those guys would be small now and McKeown and Fleury, IMO could be an effective, and cheap bottom pair right now, and maybe grow into more. I tend to think that other franchises undervalue other team's prospects unless they are top tier, highly touted or break out offensively. I do agree that we need to be careful changing up the D too much at once, especially top 4, and we already moved DeHaan. As much as I can see trading him, after the season Faulk had last year, and with DeHaan gone, there is risk in trading him, especially before we see what the guys below him can do. But we do have Pesce, Hamilton, and Faulk on the right, so the top 4 could be Pesce/Hamilton on the right even if Faulk was moved. But then Fleury would have to slide up to #4 on the left, and get better as the year goes on, because currently that would be a drop off, and in the middle pair it would be risky. To me it's more about being careful not to push someone top 4 that's not ready for that. If not for the injury (and maybe even with it), I'd rather have moved Faulk than DeHaan. I really liked Faulk's season last year, but we seem to be far away from signing him, and DeHaan was solid on D, moving the puck out, and physical, and signed for longer. But that ship has sailed so now. I also agree that camp should be just nuts in terms of what it would take for a guy not currently in the lineup to crack it sans injuries. It will take an overwhelming performance. It's all a good problem to have, but also an unfamiliar one, especially this kind of depth on D. We should be in good shape if TVR isn't ready or we need to bring a guy up for any other reason, and it should be a fun camp for sure.
  6. Yesterday
  7. Don't agree with the concept of moving prospects for what they usually return when they can't crack the lineup, as lost value. We have McKeown's rights to 2023 so he won't be lost for nothing, if it comes to that. Besides, we have two firsts, two seconds, and two thirds in the draft next year and the team stocked up similarly in the last draft. Guys are going to be regularly moved, even higher-end prospects. It's a good problem. At this point having TVR, McKeown, or Priskie getting regular top-4 minutes [on the right side] for 82 games seems like playoff suicide to me. Maybe you meant later? For now, we only have 4 top-4 defenseman. To me Priskie is just another prospect on the right side until he beats out a guy ahead of him. Should be an insane camp for spots. Which is not too far off, thankfully.
  8. No, definitely not sure, that's just the feel I get from this board. Priske is on a 2-way contract and waiver exempt, so if the Committee let him know there's a decent chance he might start in Charlotte this season I could see them possibly going with both. But as you point out, there would be a lot of risk with starting both in Raleigh, and to my mind McKeown will either be given (earn) a spot on the Canes roster or be traded. I think we're still in for some interesting moves this summer.
  9. But are we sure that Priskie is in line to replace McKeown? Would it be conceivable that we keep both, and replace Fleury/TvR, Fleury/Faulk (riskier I know) or maybe TvR/Faulk (very doubtful that we'd give up both)? Training camp likely very critical to sort this out?
  10. I wish we could access the in depth Canes scouting reports on both Priske and McKeown. Both are 23 yo. Priske: Hobie Baker finalist, led NCAA d-men in goals last year, team captain for 2 seasons. Possible future PP quarterback? McKeown: Already proven successful at the AHL level. Very gaudy +- stat the last 2 years in comparison to the rest of the Checkers (insert standard disclaimer). indicates very good 2-way game? Given that McKeown could be viewed as already having success at a higher level than Priske, the Committee must be really high on the new kid.
  11. Exactly. McKeown could now be odd man out. Will we trade his rights, will he play RFA chicken, will he go to Europe or we could sign him but I think that is doubtful
  12. I agree with all of that. The issue is where do the Canes want to spend their money and how to do that efficiently. Both Faulk and TVR are in the final season of their current contracts. With value D men in the pipeline, you would think management will choose not to spend the money on Faulk or TVR. I believe Nino has 1 year remaining, and Hamilton 2. Those two guys represent possible investment subjects, Svech will definitely be in line for a big contract after his ELC is complete, and other players such as Foegele, Geekie, Necas, goalie(s) will need new deals. The team is so lucky to have both Slavin and Pesce on team friendly contracts for a while. It is a real accounting question.
  13. I am referring to Priskie's signing and how it affects McKeown.
  14. But, and I'm just guessing here, I can see why he's looking so goofy? I mean, look at what he's holding in that cup?
  15. At the moment he isn't signed so I think his status is already uncertain
  16. I assume you mean a third rounder. I don't know, but I agree with your point about promoting him. The problem with doing what is required to get these guys, then spending time and resources to develop them, then don't put them in the NHL but just dump them for a third round pick, or maybe even a second rounder, before they establish value, is lost value. Each time there is a little slippage on potential value. At worst it's systemically inefficient, and while each one might not be huge, they can add up. These are the guys Ron Francis built up and put into the system and guarded tightly. Now we just ship them off for low round picks? (If we do). TVR has been good, and Faulk had a really good year last year IMO, but the defensive depth we have suggests to me that both of those guys could be moved and replaced with guys from the system. And we'd get cap relief too. Imagine if Faulk got us a "first rounder-plus" next year, and TVR got us a second rounder. We'd still have Slavin, Pesce, Hamilton, Fleury, McKeown, and pick one more, and we'd have three firsts and three seconds (possibly) in next year's super rich draft. But if we trade McKeown? Third rounder? Maybe? We may end up doing it, and right now we're so rich we can dump DeHaan for prospects and trade McKeown for a late rounder, and still probably get away with it, but it's not maximal value. Same thing with Fleury until we get him some NHL games to show himself. We lose potential trade value for these guys building up in the holding pattern. Thing is, if we play Fleury and McKeown and they're ok but not great? They'll still have more value as a guy with X NHL games, and we still have a next guy to bring up.
  17. First of all, he is not currently under contract with the Canes. He is an RFA, so I am not sure how the collective bargaining agreement works with sign and trades in the NHL. That said, he is about NHL ready, steady 3rd line RH shooting D man, so he has value. While I would hope they could get a #2 for him, in the real world probably a #3. As a value player, this is why I have pushed for his promotion for 2 years and wondered why they resigned TVR.
  18. Looking at your avatar, I can just hear The Dude saying that, man!
  19. I'm having a discussion on another board about McKeown's value. In terms of draft pick(s), what do you guys think he's realistically worth in today's market? To "bias check" your answer, another way to put it is: what would you give up for him if he was in a different organization and the Canes were really shallow on the right side?
  20. I could be wrong (if you go by my wife I haven't been right in a few years), but I believe Faulk is in the final year of his contract. Management has tried extensively to trade him for a few years now. With his play last season, I think they will either ride this out or move him at the trade deadline. My bet would be riding it out and letting him go. Then again, I am not much at betting.
  21. I still can't believe Faulk has had a job here as long as he has. Though I don't see Priskie making the team this year, I can totally see both the strategic and economic sense of moving Faulk now, while he still has two years on his deal, and slotting McKeown in while Priskie seasons. McKeown has captained teams in the Juniors and now the A to championships. Given the offensive strides both Pesce and Slavin have taken, along with our overall depth at D, I'm having a hard time seeing why we keep trotting out the defensive adventure that is Justin Faulk.
  22. Crud, you're right. Added him in too. The depth is fairly amazing. I agree about Faulk. Probably TVR too.
  23. On top of those 9, there is the guy they picked up in the de Haan trade (Forsling?). The signing of Priskie suggests to me that the Canes may not resign Faulk. There is only so much $$ to go around. I am sure allocating $$ to Svechnikov is on management's mind, so having an offensive minded RH D man to take over for Faulk at a fraction of the cost must seem appealing. I have been a fan of McKeown since his acquisition from the Kings, so I hope this signing does not affect his status.
  24. That's what I get for posting at work. Or projecting. Fixed it. Of course even deeper.
  25. The question I have is how fast on his feet will he be and would he able to transition to the Canes system effectively fast enough to warrant the teams hard edge play . The reason i ask this question is because there is not a ton of tape on him in different systems when playing defense . Being told hey we want you to play a 1-3-1 or we like you to use a European style trap , or another example , We need our defense to play 2-2-1 but transition into a 1-4 when the other team has the puck is easy to remember but to put it into practice is a whole another story . Obviously these questions have been answered if the Canes management feels comfortable to hand Priskie a contract . Im sure even Priskie knows he can handle to extra pressure . The spots are all open for the taking in training camp and that only leaves 7 weeks lefts until the drop of the puck . Man hockey flies by quickly when you have a shorten summer ! ! !
  26. Did Justin Faulk get traded?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...