Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes

top-shelf-1

Full Member
  • Content Count

    9,404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    106

About top-shelf-1

  • Rank
    Uhhhhhhh... yeah!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Big Sur

Recent Profile Visitors

3,464 profile views
  1. And hope you're right. And I'm right. And we can BOTH agree on that.
  2. If people don't already know where I stand on this, their mental capacities are surely beyond the point where my stating it again here, let alone voting, will make one damned bit of difference.
  3. Based on unwritten hockey orders of succession it would pretty much have to go to Staal, but in a perfect world (i.e., he doesn't want it and the players choose) I'd vote for Slavin all day long. Mature beyond his years, exudes a quiet confidence, and is usually the first guy back at the rink as the season approaches--if he leaves at all.
  4. Agree completely, but I'll just stick my neck out further (because I've said this so many times already that if I'm wrong, it'll be easier to just cut my head off than try to get all the egg off my face) and say it again: Willy will be back. He's done everything in his career the right way; I expect no less of him when it's time to hang 'em up. Given the strides the team took last year with him leading the charge and the improvements made over the summer, I can't see him announcing his retirement at this point short of (heaven forbid) some health issue preventing his return.
  5. Classic. From perhaps the funniest coming-of-age movie ever made.
  6. I don't think so, I think it was a salary dump, pure and simple, on a guy who may or may not be back before Christmas. But it's okay to disagree. IMO, McKeown could suit up tomorrow and give this team more D than Justin and just as many minutes, at half the price. I wish we could have moved Faulk last off-season, so McKeown would already have a year in the NHL under his belt. But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.
  7. He was being diplomatic. Necas got laid out several times and tried some cutesy moves through the neutral zone that didn't play at this level. I'm hoping he's put some meat on his @$$ and will get another year in the A to learn what to do with it, and maybe to be Captain down there, now that they need one. I love all the enthusiasm for him, I really do. I just don't see any need to rush this kid. He didn't play in a stellar league in Europe, and it showed in the few games he played before being sent down last year. Why not let him dominate in the A? Being able to wait until prospects are beating down the door is the whole point of building depth. At 20, another year in CLT is no big deal.
  8. They talked extension earlier in the summer: Now those players have been signed. It's clear Faulkers gonna Faulk and non-Faulkers ain't, but if you call two instances of (finally) being in the right place at the right time to bail out his keeper--when Slavin and Pesce have done it routinely over the past three years--and still pinching at the wrong times and chasing the play back to his own end in time to fish the puck out of the goal "beyond good," we have very different ideas about the meaning of that phrase in relation to defensive play. Especially when we're talking about a $5 million-a-year guy. But I'll sign off, lest I be admonished (yet again) for "needing a whipping boy."
  9. If we could get the Justin who showed up at his best more often than not last year, I'd be fine with keeping him. But he's never been defensively consistent, and with his offense also largely going away, I'm just not seeing the fiscal sense of handing him another $5 million when we have ample (and cheaper) talent that can do a better job on the back end. I agree we'll have to see what happens, but the fiscal and now-available talent similarities between Faulk's situation and Skinner's are noteworthy.
  10. None of which was my point. I'm talking about from a fiscal point of view. As your prior post suggests, if we don't move him now we likely get nothing back. And we're so D heavy and close to the cap that now is the time.
  11. You are right that it's the last year of his deal. Thanks, and fixed it. Last season was the last year of Skinner's, and we moved him over the summer. Which doesn't necessarily mean a damned thing. But it doesn't necessary mean nothing, either.
  12. 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 a year 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.
  13. Hmmmm, I wonder who we're trading him to.
×
×
  • Create New...