Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About remkin

  • Rank
    Carolina Hurricanes Admin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

6,812 profile views
  1. First I've heard of Forslund responding to being cut: https://abc11.com/hurricanes-john-forslund-carolina-caniacs/6564246/
  2. Haven't had a poll in a while, and the draft is fast approaching. So trying to predict the actual pick outside of Askarov is going to be very tough. But I'll leave the comments open if people want to take a shot at predicting the forward pick if we don't get Askarov. But, will Askarov be there at #13? if Askarov is there, should the Canes take him? If he's there will they take him? FOR THE SAKE OF A CLEANER POLL, THIS POLL ASSUMES THAT NO FORWARD FROM THE TOP 10 OF THE DRAFT FALLS, thus providing a practical much higher than #13 pick. This poll assumes that if a Cole Perfetti or even higher pick somehow falls, we'd pick that guy. So, in this poll, the choice is between the goalie and the next tier of forwards presumably to include: Quinn, Mercer, Jarvis, Holloway, Gunler, Zary, Lapeirre, Amirov, Bourque. etc.
  3. So, obviously, I have no inside knowledge as to how the Canes are rating the forwards they'd take ahead of Askarov. It makes sense that pretty much the entire first round pick can be seen through that lens. If Askarov is there, they look at the "better choice at forward than Askarov" list. If one of those names is available, that's the pick, if not, they pick Askarov. If Askarov is gone, then it's just best forward available, or possibly trade down and pull off a version of gocane's plan. (To me, if we trade down, I'd like to move up in the second round to as high of second round as we could to catch a falling star like Mysak, Gunler, maybe LaPierre, etc). Anyways, then the key to predicting what we do if Askarov is there, comes down to that list of forwards we have on the "take him even if Askarov is there" list. Personally I think we would be looking for a huge dropper with high end skill (probably any consensus top 8 forward not Lundell), and then whoever we like having the highest ceiling. This probably doesn't include a Lundell or Holloway, or an all around guy like Zary since they have not bust out scoring lately, but especially Holloway some think has more than he showed his freshman year, still I'm thinking no on them. If one accepts that LaPierre is too big of a reach at #13 then it might come down to: What do we think of Jack Quinn? Scoring machine, but older draft player. Wheeler seems to not have mad love for him, but some scouts have him top 10. Maybe gone, may fall below us. Dawson Mercer? Seems to me to be an all around guy with all the compete and 200 foot game we like, but Wheeler has him dropping a bit below us. I've been locked on those two as very likely picks, but TBH, I'm starting to warm up to the Seth Jarvis bandwagon. Guys who get compared to Brayden Point and Mitch Marner gets my attention. If Askarov is not there, I'm leaning Jarvis. I'm just not convinced that any of those guys not routinely listed in the top 8 forwards knocks Askarov off if he's still there. IMO it would be Quinn or Jarvis outside of the top non Lundell forwards dropping, but to me, no top guy dropping I go Askarov still. Just can't talk myself out of it. But if we do go Jarvis....right now he has me the most intrigued of the next tier outside of the top 10. In the end, if no top guy drops, and no team above us takes the Askarov plunge, then it will come down to Askarov vs. the field. The field is pretty big admittedly, so then it comes down to how many of the field our scouts love. Ultimately we can't know that, so it is an interesting bet.
  4. Wheeler also mentioned a few forwards he likes outside of the top 10. Mysak, Jarvis, and Zary. All interesting for different reasons. He is part of a pretty small band playing for Mysak and admits he probably falls, possibly to quite late, but just likes the player, a lot. Jarvis has been rising despite little to no hockey, and Zary has fallen. But elsewhere he lists them both as standouts outside of the top 10 for hockey IQ among other things. He's not as high on Mercer (sees him dropping mid round). Quinn he didn't flat out say yeah or nay. Another tidbit he was asked who looked good in the little bit of hockey that has been played post-pause, he included LaPierre who he said looked unstoppable again. Probably a reach at #13, but a good trade down pick up, or if he plummets, trade up with seconds? Wheeler thinks he's legit outside of health concerns (but he also thinks he's healthy). He thinks MTL might take a swing at him, and he probably doesn't make the second round. Just too much tantalizing skill (I added that part). Two guys who might fall to the second round and have big upside: Gunler (slide on effort questions but skill is there) and Mysak, who has shown extreme flashes at lower levels, but was unsteady vs men and early in transition to Juniors allowing him to slide. These guys might be worth trading UP in the second to get. Interesting, when asked if any player could be picked way outside the box in the top 10 (reached for), he thought not unless a team decided to "take the Askarov plunge". He was asked who the Oilers should take if it came down to Jarvis, Quinn or Askarov. He said, Askarov. This is just one guy, but if the Canes agree, that would be a big nod to taking Askarov if he's there because Quinn would be the goal scorer's choice (TD says he likes forwards who score goals), and Jarvis has that tempting comparison to some elite small players (Point and Marner).
  5. Scott Wheeler at the Athletic did a very interesting live stream on the draft. He feels it is extremely unlikely that Askarov gets past #14. He thinks that if he's there at 13 we'll take him and we pass the Oilers will take him at #14. He was asked straight up about the whole drafting a goalie high first round thing and here's the exchange: Peter W. Sep 22, 4:12pm Haven't we found that drafting goalies is so random and their development can change so quickly that spending a 1st round pick on one is extremely risky? Is Yaroslav Askarov really worth that risk? Scott W. Sep 22, 5:38pm @Peter W. It's definitely a huge risk. I've been a big advocate against having goalies in the first round -- and didn't have Knight in my top 31 last year even though he has since shown he belonged. Asakrov this year (and maybe Wallstedt next year) is different, though. He's got all of the physical tools AND the advanced, prolonged track record against older competition that usually isn't there in young goalies.
  6. Personally, that's what I'd do. That is, there are in the combined scouting world at least 7 forwards and 2 D men widely held out by conventional wisdom to be too good to pass on for even as hot of a goalie prospect as Askarov. Since we're in the #13 slot, most likely, those forwards are off the board. In that case, I'd draft Askarov. I fully get that not everyone would, and I get why, and I'm not going to pout about it if we go BFA with Askarov there, but I'd take him. However, there are a couple of top tier forwards who could drop and very often one does. Again, IMO, that's what happened with Necas and Francis ran up drafted him and ran back to the table. If that happens, I take that forward. That said, if I read the tea leaves of DW's comments, we have a pretty good chance of taking Askarov if he's there, because there is a pretty good chance that our "too good to pass on forwards" are gone by #13. Admittedly, the Canes might have a name or two that they consider top 10 material. Maybe a Seth Jarvis, or someone like that. They may have a couple of wild card forwards they like. If they do though, it would change the math. If the top 10 is say Lafren, QB, Stutzle, Perfetti, Drysdale, Rossi, Holtz, Raymond, Sanderson, Lundell, but a guy like say Rossi just falls. Say someone goes Jarvis, then Quinn, then Gruhle, and Rossi and Askarov are sitting there at #13. Not likely but possible. Then they take Rossi probably. But that is unlikely. I guess Lundell would be the most likely to drop, but he's more of a D first, two way guy, and TD has said he likes forwards that score goals, so not sure if we'd go Lundell over Askarov. If our list really contains 10 forwards that are picks even if Askarov is there, then there is a pretty good chance we pick a forward. Since at least Drysdale and Sanderson are going in the top 12. And it would then just take either a 3rd D man or just one team going with a forward not on our list. However, if our list is really only 8 forwards long, then we probably take Askarov. Of course the Canes might be playing full on possum with this whole thing and dying to take Askarov. We won't know for a while and maybe never.
  7. I'll say this. Dougy Hamilton might well be the second most important on ice player to this team. That probably draws some fire, given how good Slavin is, but then they are not mutually exclusive anyways. I'll give the number one nod to Svech because he is going to be a massive star. But he's not a center, and traditionalists would probably list your Norris level D man ahead of just about any winger not named Ovechkin. I love Slavin and to me he's untouchable. But he doesn't have that otherworldly 200 foot game that Hamilton has. Hamilton can push the play offensively, and still get back almost effortlessly to defend. And his shot is not a Faulk close your eyes and fire thing, he places the puck like a true goal scorer. And he's got some size and a touch of nasty too. Like the premier D men, when he's going, he just looks like he has the game figured out at a level few D men ever do. The classic pundit saying is that to win a cup you need 4 main players: A 1C, a 2C, an elite D man, and a very good goalie. And in our history those last two have evaded us. Until now. If we can find a goalie (cough Askarov cough, or other), and Aho and say Necas or Suzuki can be that 1-2 down the middle, and lock up Hamilton? There it is. Then fold in Svech, TT, Slavin, etc...not bad. Just about every cup-winning team has an elite D guy like that, but most teams don't have one, and we've never had one before. We must keep him. That is all.
  8. Obviously Brind'Amour's hockey knowledge and insight is infinitely deeper than mine even when he's asleep for the night and dreaming. But I do have to wonder about the whole Jordan Staal thing, which clearly has seeped into TD's mindset. Brind'Amour is a character guy and a proven leader. He says Staal is a rock and a massively good person, I take that as truth. And I've always been on board with the idea that Jordan is the living definition of a guy who brings many intangibles that don't show up on the score sheet: leadership (that we probably don't see all of), physical presence, strong possession ability, tenacious D, OK, face-off wins, etc. But doesn't a guy have to put up some minimum level of production for his salary? To keep leading other players? I get TD giving Nino a pass because, IMO they're probably trying to trade him. I get him not listing goaltending as an area of need, both because it's been at least decent and because we are trying to upgrade there, and why lessen our hand? But is he trying to lay the groundwork for a blockbuster deal with Staal by pumping him up? Knowing Brindy's long affection for Jordan, and TD's reliance on Brindy, I don't think so. It's just hard to watch another highly paid Staal decline dramatically in production while serving as team captain. I guess on the flip-side, if Staal can find a resurgence to a least that 20G, 50P level, it would likely lift this team higher than another player hitting 70 points. It's just overdue and with his brother, it only happened after a change of scenery.
  9. This expansion draft feels a lot different for us than the last one. So what are the rules in terms of the timing for re signing Hamilton? Do we have to let him go UFA to protect Slavin, Pesce, etc? I guess the more depth you have the worse this thing hits. If you believe in draft and develop, which after years of pretty lousy not drafting and developing, I do. Then all of that work is staring to finally come to fruition, so having a Jake Bean, a mid first rounder, and a Hayden Fleury a high first rounder, take years to develop into not only very good NHL D men, but the even more valuable very good "cheap" D men, only to be practically assured that one will just be taken, really sucks. Most fans don't follow the yutes, so if Bean goes, it's just another prospect. But then Necas was "just another prospect" and Boychuk was just another prospect. All prospects are not created equal. I've put these ideas down separately, but putting them together, I think that teams need to hit on both ends of the spectrum in the cap age. You must have star players to win cups. But you must manage the cap, and thus, in order to pay those star players you also need very effective value players at the bottom. In this case, on the D, the top is Hamilton, the "bottom" is Fleury/Bean. The danger comes in the middle: somewhat effective/ineffecitve players making too much. Skjei is probably better than Fleury or Bean right now. But he is also a #4 D man making $5.6M. Gardiner is a #5 D man (or 6) making $4M, nearly $10M. They can probably be replaced by Fleury/Bean for $4M or less. That would be $6M in cap space for (insert need here) or paying Hamilton/Svech. I think a lot of teams looked a bit foolish with deals to be passed over by Vegas, but I totally get it right now. Yes, one can focus on that, but on the flip side teams gave them actual effective NHL players too which are more valuable that most draft picks that never make much impact. It makes some sense to give Francis a draft pick, maybe even a first rounder (likely a mid to late pick) to pass us over. I don't know. What I do know is that I really don't like this expansion draft thing, especially this time around.
  10. The TD interview with Adam Gold was again, interesting IMO. He said we have enough good players right now to win the cup, and later said that at this point you have to be careful not to make a trade and make the team worse. He did say it would be unlikely we'd take a goalie at #13, but also that there are exceptions to every rule He also said that each player makes the choice of how physical to play. He does not see size as thing he's looking for. Only if two players are equal would he take the bigger player. He made a good point on the progression process. As the team gets better we don't get that lesser effort from the opponent taking us lightly. He thought that was a factor last year. He thinks Jordan Staal is one of the best players in the league. He also said that Brind'Amour is the most untouchable person in the organization. I think those two comments might be related as Brindy loves Jordan. If he thinks there is a problem with Nino, he didn't let on (may not want to lower trade value IMO). Svech he says will not be playing anywhere else for 20 years. Dougy he loves, but was a bit more reserved in that negotiation, thinks it should be doable. Says that a big part of going with the Wolves was less travel time for the players. Thinks it might free up 15-25 days that could be used for development. Said that with Forslund they just couldn't make a deal. Says he often turns the sound down on other broadcasters, especially "that guy in Boston".
  11. Just to give one example of how important scouting is going to be, the Athletic did a piece on the most controversial prospects in terms of high opinions vs low. Quinn was one of them with one scout saying top 5-7, and the other calling him a risky pick saying using a top pick on him would "worry me a lot". But how about the split on Hendrix Lapierre: Scout in favor: “He has so much skill and he’s a very smart player. It’s first-round skill all day. At the Hlinka Gretzky, he looked like a top-10 pick. If he looks healthy again, I realize there’s some risk, but I think you got to go after him in the first round at some point; there’s too much player there.” Scout against: “I wouldn’t use a top-50 pick on him. The injuries … the two goals in 19 games, his game lacks pace. He looks healthy now and then you use a high pick and in two or three years those issues always seem to pop back up again. At some point it becomes worth it, but that point will be later than where he’ll likely go.” His downside and injury risk scare me, but what a second round pick he could end up being. There are a couple forwards like that, fitting well into our high reward strategy in late rounds. Our second and third round picks could be very interesting in addition to the big one.
  12. GoCanes, are you assuming Quinn will be gone, or just not a fan of him?
  13. I've had the opportunity to talk to John twice and Tripp once. They were both very engaging and did not have any apparent sense of ego about it. Both experiences were on my highlight reel for my life as a Canes fan. That said, I have no doubt that Mike would be just as engaging. BTW, I think Shaya would be engaging too. It also comes down to the actual call of the game. But I think Mike will be good. This is a huge opportunity for him and I expect him to really work to keep improving and honing the craft. One of the nice things about being a Canes fan is the ongoing opportunities to engage with players and management over time. Had the opportunity to briefly talk to Don Waddell, Brind'Amour, Shane Willis, John and Tripp, Eric Staal, and some other players briefly, and of course had my dream lunch with Francis, who also was extremely engaging and down to Earth for over an hour! I've seen TD in the PNC restaurant, but with his family, didn't want to disturb him. And I don't even live in Raleigh!
  14. Very interesting interview. Worth the time. I found it very reassuring overall, not just on the draft. I recommend it. I will say this. For a team to go goalie high in the draft, that team will need the support of the owner because of the risk involved and the time to play it out. TD says he does not make the pick and just guides on principles. But one such principle is to be very very careful drafting D men or goalies high in the draft, as in big bias against. He did say he didn't think it was likely we'd pick a goalie, then later said there are exceptions to every rule. I would be very tempted to say that this is subterfuge to try to keep team above us from taking Askarov, and it may very well be, but later in the interview when asked what the team needs to improve the thing he finally settled on was basically that you can't have too many high end forwards that score points. This could also push the idea that we go with the highest skill forward on the board to try to essentially build Tampa who TD is clearly (and for good reason) impressed with. Of course Tampa has Vasilevskiy too, whom they drafted in the first round and whom scouts think Askarov is as good or better than..... Personally, I still think that while drafting goalies this high is rarely a good idea, that the stars just seem to be aligning for us to pick Askarov. The "can't miss" scoring machine forwards will probably be gone at 13, no D man left will be good enough to push through the anti D bias, and Askarov is probably the best goalie prospect since Cary Price. I stand by the assertion that this is the exception to the rule pick. But I would not put much money on it. It will make this draft interesting for us though.
  15. Well the thing's over. It was interesting listening to TD on that interview with AG. I really did sense some humility in it to the possibility that it might be a mistake. But he explained it in his terms. They just couldn't come to a deal. He did talk up MM's truly caring and more about John's skill at calling games. One has to read between the lines on this, and really we don't know. I do wonder if there might be at least a bit of personal in there. Maybe the scoreboard comments, or other. I really did sense John was not thrilled with the one year deal he got last year and that probably affected the relationship. It's TD's prerogative to run his business his way. I do fully appreciate the notion of keeping the money on the ice and supporting the product on the ice directly (practice facilities, etc). I just happen to think that the team broadcaster is a bit of an overlapping area, and haggling about money at the numbers likely involved is still a mistake. TD talks a lot about the brand and how much it has strengthened. IMO having the universally agreed upon best local broadcaster in hockey, who is also an ambassador for the team, is pretty good for the brand. Going to MM for me allows this go down easier than any other alternative. A guy coming in from the outside would have been tough, and Shaya would have been too big of a drop off. MM is going to be good. Will he be as good as John? Not likely IMO, but he will be good and it will be fine. There may be some indirect benefits too. JF was probably headed for the full time national job at some point, and this gets MM on board and going. Also, it does resonate the message in the organization that the business side, is the business side, and money will not be overspent there. I will say that I really did appreciate that AG interview with TD. I think he is absolutely committed to the Canes and Raleigh, and the franchise is in very good hands. He is smart and IMO on the right track in many areas. I'm very happy we have him. I think he was wrong on this one move, but overall, we are very lucky to have him at the top.
  • Create New...