Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

Once they were Canes

Recommended Posts

Adam Fox is now a former Cane (prospect). It was Rangers or bust, I’m not sure who he fooled with his previous comments. We get 2nd rounder and conditional 3rd round, could go to second. While I wish we’d made him go back to school, a pair of decent picks outweighs that.

 

https://www.tsn.ca/report-hurricanes-trade-prospect-fox-to-rangers-1.1298714

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 years at 9 million per year for a 27 year-old player with a career high of 63 points and who brings zero intangibles/other attributes.

 

We signed a 24 year-old TT to a 5 year contract at 5.4 million per. TT had 64 points last season and 76 points this season and was a +30.

 

Buffalo doing Buffalo things.

 

Imagine what guys like Marner and other high-end wingers are thinking.

 

💵💵💵💰💵💵💵

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about in the other threat too. IMO this is the back end of why we traded him. We were  not going to pay a lot for that muffler. And oh boy did Buffalo. But they found themselves pinned in. They need scoring even without Skinner. But when you pay a guy $9 million you are saying this is one of 2-3 key players that we intend to win with for the next 8 years. Well they better build a much better team around him than we did because we got a whole lot of not winning a whole lot cheaper. 

 

Not entirely fair, but it makes the point. We shall see, but I think Buffalo will regret that deal. Knowing Skinner, it must have a NTC too. So when Buffalo finally wants to dump that contract, Skinner will dictate terms. They almost never mention it in articles. 

 

EDIT: Yup. Full NMC. We dodged a bullet.

 

Skinner is now the third highest paid LW in the NHL behind Ovechkin and Benn. Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Skinner and I wish him nothing but the best personally, but I think Buffalo is and has been in a panic mode trying to hold on to/obtain any decent players. They are going to great lengths to make this happen, and I think this recent Skinner deal points to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would trade TVR before any of the above 3 D. No offensive upside whatsoever with him and just a good not great D man. On the other hand you got to give to get and that’s not TVR.

 

Happy for Skinner making $9m a year and close to home. He was badly mis-managed in Raleigh with multiple coaches and being asked to do different things against his strengths. He’s obviously chosen the money route over the Cup route. His choice. When this contract expires he’ll have made over $112m in the NHL. Not too shabby. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, raleighcaniac said:

Happy for Skinner making $9m a year and close to home. He was badly mis-managed in Raleigh with multiple coaches and being asked to do different things against his strengths. He’s obviously chosen the money route over the Cup route. His choice. When this contract expires he’ll have made over $112m in the NHL. Not too shabb

"Mis-managed", not sure that is an appropriate word for Skinner's time on the Canes, raleighcaniac, but I see a very fine line between coddled and held accountable? To me, despite the HC not being to get the ultimate from Jeff, one has to ask if that's the team's fault or the individual player's? And for that matter, I guess we can say that the entire team was mis-managed?

 

As to your 2nd post on not seeing anything on the Calder Cup Championship, isn't that on the opening page and Canes Country?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, KJUNKANE said:

"Mis-managed", not sure that is an appropriate word for Skinner's time on the Canes, raleighcaniac, but I see a very fine line between coddled and held accountable? To me, despite the HC not being to get the ultimate from Jeff, one has to ask if that's the team's fault or the individual player's? And for that matter, I guess we can say that the entire team was mis-managed?

 

As to your 2nd post on not seeing anything on the Calder Cup Championship, isn't that on the opening page and Canes Country?  

 

Isn't every coach going to feel, if not say, that the previous coach(es) mismanaged the team?

 

As far as Skinner is concerned, my opinion is that, yes, he was mismanaged. The Hurricanes knew what they were getting when they drafted him - an offensive talent. They sure as heck didn't draft him thinking they were getting a grinder or a lockdown defender, now, did they?

 

In my book, if you draft a guy exclusively for his offensive skills, it's mismanagement to expect him to suddenly take the body aggressively or play lock-down defense simply because that's the coach's philosophy. The Hurricanes strung along for several years with Skinner, then decided that he wasn't what the team needed after all, based on the committee's analysis (which I'm sure took significant input from HCRtB).

 

Bottom line, as Raleighcaniac says, Skinner's made his money regardless of the Hurricanes' desires. That's about as much proof of mismanagement as there can be in the modern NHL.

Edited by JonKerfoot
Misspelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, raleighcaniac said:

Would trade TVR before any of the above 3 D. No offensive upside whatsoever with him and just a good not great D man. On the other hand you got to give to get and that’s not TVR.

 

Happy for Skinner making $9m a year and close to home. He was badly mis-managed in Raleigh with multiple coaches and being asked to do different things against his strengths. He’s obviously chosen the money route over the Cup route. His choice. When this contract expires he’ll have made over $112m in the NHL. Not too shabby. 

I’m happy for Skinner too. He’d be a fool to turn down $72 million. But he gave Buffalo a lot of what he gave us. As they faded down the stretch, he scored 4 goals in 20 games. His scoring comes mostly on goals - not an assist guy. When his goal scoring goes AWOL for long stretches, what is he bringing? Then there is the concussion history. 8 years and $72 million is a lot of commitment for Skinner. I don’t wish him anything but success, but I wouldn’t have made that commitment. I don’t know that he was mismanaged, or if like E. Staal in his later years, we didn’t have enough players with the talent and chemistry to bring out his best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bluedevilcane said:

I don’t know that he was mismanaged, or if like E. Staal in his later years, we didn’t have enough players with the talent and chemistry to bring out his best

I think you are leaning in the same direction I am. It wasn't that any one player was mismanaged, the entire organization was mismanaged for the last decade.

To be fair, Francis was moving things in the right direction. His lack of urgency was probably the handcuffs PK put on him when he took the job. 

Edited by DevildogKodi
Finished a thought
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bluedevilcane said:

I’m happy for Skinner too. He’d be a fool to turn down $72 million. But he gave Buffalo a lot of what he gave us. As they faded down the stretch, he scored 4 goals in 20 games. His scoring comes mostly on goals - not an assist guy. When his goal scoring goes AWOL for long stretches, what is he bringing? Then there is the concussion history. 8 years and $72 million is a lot of commitment for Skinner. I don’t wish him anything but success, but I wouldn’t have made that commitment. I don’t know that he was mismanaged, or if like E. Staal in his later years, we didn’t have enough players with the talent and chemistry to bring out his best. 

 

No comment either way on your post except I do feel compelled to address the bolded part.  Skinner has missed a total of 3 games over the past 4 seasons and 8 games over the past 5. I wonder how many NHL regulars over that time span have been more dependable than that?  I'd also have some concerns with giving Skinner a long term big $ contract, but his concussion history really wouldn't be much of a factor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 10:38 AM, JonKerfoot said:

 

Isn't every coach going to feel, if not say, that the previous coach(es) mismanaged the team?

 

As far as Skinner is concerned, my opinion is that, yes, he was mismanaged. The Hurricanes knew what they were getting when they drafted him - an offensive talent. They sure as heck didn't draft him thinking they were getting a grinder or a lockdown defender, now, did they?

 

In my book, if you draft a guy exclusively for his offensive skills, it's mismanagement to expect him to suddenly take the body aggressively or play lock-down defense simply because that's the coach's philosophy. The Hurricanes strung along for several years with Skinner, then decided that he wasn't what the team needed after all, based on the committee's analysis (which I'm sure took significant input from HCRtB).

 

Bottom line, as Raleighcaniac says, Skinner's made his money regardless of the Hurricanes' desires. That's about as much proof of mismanagement as there can be in the modern NHL.

I saw this post yesterday, and started to respond, then got pulled away and forgot it. For the most part JK, I still am not understanding how Skinner was "mismanaged", besides not really grasping the final thought that because "Skinner's made his money" equates to "proof of mismanagement"? To that latter point, possibly Skinner really had Botterill over a barrel, in the sense that apparently Ryan O'Reilly and at least one other had already been viewed as "mismanagement" of assets?

 

Where I agree that Skinner was drafted for his scoring prowess, and he does so unquestionably, none of the present regime were in on that draft. That's another  2 GMs, and several Head Coaches ago, and obviously philosophies on coaching change. While I further have no doubt that surrounding Skinner with "better" line mates could have produced more goals, that was not to be. Now I'm not privy to the complex scenarios of drafting/trading that occurred thru Skinner's 8 years here, or the attempted adjustments contemplated to bring in complementary players for Jeff,  but in my mind it seems that a player has to take some responsibility for his game and attempt to readapt if necessary to compensate. But then a new HC is installed, who puts a premium it appears on a certain type of work ethic, and Jeff Skinner would appear not to fit this mold? So now, to me at least, is that truly "mismanagement", or finally did some body in the committee insist on accountability? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

I saw this post yesterday, and started to respond, then got pulled away and forgot it. For the most part JK, I still am not understanding how Skinner was "mismanaged", besides not really grasping the final thought that because "Skinner's made his money" equates to "proof of mismanagement"? To that latter point, possibly Skinner really had Botterill over a barrel, in the sense that apparently Ryan O'Reilly and at least one other had already been viewed as "mismanagement" of assets?

 

Where I agree that Skinner was drafted for his scoring prowess, and he does so unquestionably, none of the present regime were in on that draft. That's another  2 GMs, and several Head Coaches ago, and obviously philosophies on coaching change. While I further have no doubt that surrounding Skinner with "better" line mates could have produced more goals, that was not to be. Now I'm not privy to the complex scenarios of drafting/trading that occurred thru Skinner's 8 years here, or the attempted adjustments contemplated to bring in complementary players for Jeff,  but in my mind it seems that a player has to take some responsibility for his game and attempt to readapt if necessary to compensate. But then a new HC is installed, who puts a premium it appears on a certain type of work ethic, and Jeff Skinner would appear not to fit this mold? So now, to me at least, is that truly "mismanagement", or finally did some body in the committee insist on accountability? 

 

You're right about none of us here on the forums knowing the complete story.

 

Simply, the Hurricanes could have majorly screwed up Skinner by holding onto him for eight years before dumping him. As you say, none of the current management or staff was part of the team when Skinner was drafted. Yet, through how many changes in philosophy did they hang onto him? If he didn't fit in with the philosophy of the time, why keep him around? Surely it would have made more sense in that context to trade him five years earlier, when his potential would have attracted more attention.

 

Tell me how Skinner, in his first season with the Sabres, could have had Botterill over a barrel? He was a UFA, wasn't he? The Sabres only traded a couple of near-throwaway draft choices and a guy who didn't even stick with the Checkers for him, so it isn't like they were going to lose a lot (other than 40 goals) if they thought his ask was too high and let him walk. The fact that the negotiations were concluded rather quickly indicates to me that there's no barrel to be found under Botterill.

 

As far as "readapting" to a new coaching philosophy, he did "readapt", didn't he, or at least tried to? Peters (or someone) asked him to be more defensively responsible, and he actually made progress at it. Maybe not as much as some would have liked, but he did at one point seem to be getting better at it. Then what happens? Peters buries him on the third line with linemates who were just barely NHL quality, and despite Peters claiming that he asked for more-skilled players, nothing happened on that front.

 

Your poke at "accountability" is rather odd, too. Is behaving in one's own best interests being "not accountable"? Did we hear stories of Skinner coming in overweight or otherwise out-of-shape (looking at you, Phil Kessel)? I never heard anything about Skinner being a cancer in the locker room, either, and stuff like that does leak out in this day and age of "news" having to be made 24/7. Everyone has different skill sets, and to try to push them into one mold because that's how the coach or the GM or the mascot did it is NOT accountability, it is very nearly the definition of mismanagement.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the judge, jury and executioner on Skinner was Brind'Amour. And to cut to my conclusion, Brind'Amour turned out to be right; like entirely right.

 

Brind'Amour's own words indicate why Skinner stayed around before last year: no one listened to Rod. Brind'Amour was hinting at it in the past without using Skinner's name, but once Brindy had a seat on the Committee, it was a done deal. Rod has pretty much said as much, saying that for whatever reason, from day one, as an 18 year old, Skinner was treated differently. He never really had to do much else as long as he scored. This clearly bugged Brind'Amour, particularly as the kid's coach, and knowing Brind'Amour's very different approach to the game, I'm guessing it really annoyed him. 

 

If we think back to the JR/PK years, there were favored players. Eric Staal, golden boy, comes to mind. And those guys' numbers and careers ironically did not benefit from the special treatment. But it really hurt the team and the "culture". Well Skinner was in that favored camp. He was treated differently, and that was part of what held him back and held the team in mediocrity.

 

It's been mentioned that this team was aiming to be average. For Skinner, average is goals but no defensive effort. He was allowed to be average for a long time, and again that last year, and I'm sure it sealed his Hurricanes' fate. (Of course he's managed OK with out us). Brind'Amour won the job in large part by convincing the committee that true culture change needed to happen and he was the guy to do it. Every coach says that. Brind'Amour, and the committee, for the first time in recent memory actually meant it. And the shot across the bow, the opening salvo, was moving Skinner out for zilch. It is true that the return stunk. But it a way, that made the message even clearer. 

 

I don't think Skinner was a cancer. I just think that Brind'Amour thought he'd be unable to get his leading goal scorer to buy in to what he wanted. And as it turned out, Brind'Amour is pretty vindicated given how this season went versus every single other season Skinner was here. And we barely made it, so any issue would have kept us back in the "mushy middle". (I mean, it's ironic how close we came to ending EXACTLY where Brindy most hated: the middle: no playoffs, bad draft pick).

 

I want to add one more factor. His last year in Carolina, Skinner reverted. I think that mattered, because the two years prior, he had improved his defense quite nicely. But that last year the guy was so defensively lazy that even a casual fan could see it, and yes, miraculously, his plus minus followed back down to a career worst -27, also good for dead last on the team. Rod watched this, and had to be grinding gears as Skinner half-assed it back on 2-1's that went into our net. I wouldn't be surprised if he told himself "that's why we're not winning" as he watched.

 

I would point out as to why we didn't trade him sooner, 2 things (besides nobody listening to Rod). First, his trade value dropped for a couple of years of "bad Skinner". From 2012-2015 Skinner was -59. I know that is not a beloved stat, but I guarantee that other GM's look at it. We might have gotten less than Pu. Second, whatever one might think of JR, the man handed out NTC's like candy. I almost imagine him just throwing them in without the other side even asking. Well, Skinner got a full NTC coming out of RFA (completely unnecessary) and it bit hard. He apparently would only allow himself to be traded to Buffalo. We've found ourselves in this position a lot over the years (Eric Staal, Skinner, Adam Fox, Ray Whitney, etc). 

 

I have come full circle on the Skinner trade debacle. It was addition by subtraction. True, Cliff Pu will probably only be a trivia answer (we'll see if the draft picks turn out), but the team did have the rarest of things: an actual culture change. Brind'Amour made that happen, where so many fail over and over. And it was his call to move Skinner. It worked. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do begrudge Skinner phoning it in that last season here. I don't like his getting special treatment including the NTC that he used to let us get Pu for him. But I don't begrudge him for getting paid. The guy is smart, I'll give him that. He wanted to go to Buffalo to be close to family, but also to play with Eichel, (whom he probably owes about $2 million per year for his new contract). And it paid off. 

 

It also paid to go to a team that pretty much HAD to pay to keep him. I guarantee one thing. Skinner would not have forgone UFA if he did not get a deal that he thought was better than he would have gotten on the open market. And he did indeed. Complete with a full NMC. Why did Buffalo have to pay him? The exact trap we stepped out of. The guy just put up 40 freaking goals on a team that was #21 in scoring WITH him. Take Skinner off the team and replace him with a 15 goal scorer and Buffalo still finishes LAST in scoring in the NHL. 31/31. That's what Buffalo was looking at without Skinner. Plus Skinner loves Buffalo. He requested it. And just now he wrote an open letter to the fans there about how much love he feels: https://www.nhl.com/sabres/fans/jeff-skinner . Yeah, they don't sign Skinner and it's open revolt and panic in Buffalo. 

 

I don't know if "Bad Skinner" will return in Buffalo (he really dropped off the last 20 games or so last year), but I would also point out that it was a contract year. Not saying a guy with all the cards, and 8 year deal and a full NMC, and a history of, shall we say, inconsistent 2 way effort, will drop back at all, but if I had that bet, I might put a few bucks down on it. And he doesn't have to drop back very far to not be worth $9 million.

 

Well now he's theirs. And those 40 goals were pretty tasty crispy cremes. But the danger is that his net effect on winning might help that hunger craving in Buffalo about as long term as a crispy creme. Then there will be that contract. Oh, and the full NMC. 

 

We made the right move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nailed!!!! You "succinctly" put into words what I was trying and have long felt, though I have no hatred against Skinner even for his last coasting season, that this ultimately was addition by subtraction. Would I have liked for team to have gotten more for him, unquestionably, but in someone's mind, likely RBA's, the need to assure culture change outweighed the return. 

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've talked to some sabers fans  on twitter and  youtube comment section and  they show they are happy to have skinner locked up but  are unhappy the price  they spent  just to keep him Image result for buffalo sabers meme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, remkin said:

To me the judge, jury and executioner on Skinner was Brind'Amour. And to cut to my conclusion, Brind'Amour turned out to be right; like entirely right.

. . .

If we think back to the JR/PK years, there were favored players. Eric Staal, golden boy, comes to mind. And those guys' numbers and careers ironically did not benefit from the special treatment.   But it really hurt the team and the "culture". Well Skinner was in that favored camp. He was treated differently, and that was part of what held him back and held the team in mediocrity.

 

Two thoughts:

  1. Primarily Brindy, but I suspect that Justin Williams also had some influence on the committee's decision about Skinner.  He spoke openly about issues in the locker room ("something stinks") during  the season.  And I've got to believe that Dundon gave Willy's opinion a bit of weight. 
  2. I didn't start following the Canes very closely until 2013-14.  Not too long after that, Faulk presented as the epitome of a "golden boy" to me. He was awarded a US Olympic team spot in more of "developmental role" rather than on merit. If anyone criticized his defense (few did in spite of glaring deficiencies to my eyes), I recall several on here stating that they didn't care as long as he kept on scoring.  It appeared to me that he was the least likely of all Canes d-men to use his body to block a shot, even in key situations, and I recall way too many instances when he just gave up on a play rather than hustling to get back in it.  I strongly suspect that a big part of his resurgence this year (and he had a very good year imo) was due to : a ) the change in team culture and b ) the defensive development of the rest of the Canes D to the point that it destroyed all vestiges of the golden boy syndrome for Faulk, generating a commitment to all aspects of his game  (That, plus I also believe that he got quicker after de-bulking over last summer.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...