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

Rumors and Trade Deadline Talk

Recommended Posts

Cardiac Cane blogged that the Canes should re-sign Sekera, which of course I think would be a sweet move, but since he didn't realy provide anything to suggest why it might actuallly happen, I'm not linking it.

 

But the site MyNHLtraderumors is pretty decent, and they posted an article of the top 25 available UFA's (as of now).

 

Number one? Oh, Andrej Sekera. OK, in fairness, it was a three way tie Sekera, Cody Franson, and Devan Dubnyk.

 

http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/2015/05/27/top-25-2015-nhl-unrestricted-free-agents/

 

Clearly those of us die hards that even check these boards let alone still post regularly, know that I am a big Sekera fan, and that true rental move: "rent you a player -take your pick and prospect - get our rental back" would be massively sweet. Also it is tempting to think that we might have a shot at Sekera since he supposedly liked playing here (any half decenltly intellegent athlete is going to say that no matter what though). BUT.....

 

It will be really tough to land him or the other "top" UFA, Cody Franson, since whomever gets them will overpay, and they can pick whatever team and location they want from the list of suitors.

 

I do think, however, that we could and should swing for the fences on this UFA move. Why?

 

This is the key link right now to playing well now, but also in the near term future, and we are currently spending bupkiss on our D.

 

We do not have a straight faced even close to average NHL defense currently. We were average at best before we traded Sekera. The record after that happened reveals what will happen if we don't pick up at least one serious NHL dman.

 

We may have a shot at Hanifin, but if he is gone we should not pick a D man (unless we trade down) because Strome or Marner are too good to pass up. This (picking a forward) will make this need for defense even more acute.

 

But even if we pick Hanifin, and even if he is NHL ready (50-50), he will be NHL 5-6 pairing ready as an 18 year old. And indications are that Fleury is at LEAST a year away as is McKeon. Pecse is generally felt to be a year off also.

 

Murphy is still an unknown. Is he the next McBain, or is he going to be a solid offensive dman? Until that is cleared up, we have one top pairing D man: Faulk, and one 3-4 pairing D man (Haisney). We have a bunch of guys who can slot in at 5-6, but our top level d talent has to be at or near the worst in the NHL in terms of filling the top 4 slots, and it is not likely that any prospect will be ready to change that this year, and most are really two years out from just getting started in the NHL.

 

Salary. Next year Faulk is our top paid dman at $3.5 milllion. Hainsey at $3.0 million. JML drops to $2.7 million (wonder if he might be tradeable at $2.7 million (one year left) even for say a draft pick, just to clear salary). Every other defenseman is under $1 million/year.

 

The 2016-17 season Hainsey drops to $2.5 million, JML is off the books, but Faulk gets a bump to $5.5 million.

 

The thing is, we will be building our future defense around guys on entry level deals or bridge deals. Say Fleury and Hanifin just for fun. Well those guys won't be getting paid big bucks until a guy we pick up now in UFA would be near the end of his deal.

 

So, it makes sense to overpay for one of the top UFAs, and to front load that deal. Get them paid when our defensive payroll is thin. This also leaves us with options later.

 

Say we pick up Cody Franson on a 5 year deal* that averages $5 million/year. (Most teams have one or two $5 million/year or more dmen). Give him $7 million year one, $6 million year two, then $4 million/year X the last 3 years. So, let's say he underperforms, but is a solid player. Well he will be very tradable by year 3 and beyond. Also, as Fleury and Murphy and eventually say Hanfin get into the money, we can make moves as needed.

 

And IF say Franson (or Sekera) was as solid as we think, then imagine the defense we could have in the last 3 years of that deal. And it would be a relatively cheap defense at that point.

 

Faulk ($6 mil), Franson ($4mil), Hanifin entry/bridge, Fleury entry/bridge, Murphy ($3 million est), McKeown/Pesce

 

If all of that talent developes as hoped, at least one could be traded for more offense if needed too, including the now bargain Franson.

 

It also gives us an instantly upgraded defense for the next two years while we grow our talent.

 

It also lets us focus on fixing the offense as the defense will be at least passable.

 

Could trade JML and buy out Semin to free up most of the money. (Though would leave us needing to find a #4 dman, with a little luck maybe Murphy could be the new JML).

 

Now if GMRF could find a lower level fix for the #4 dman, an "after the dust clears" value pick up" then he could definetly trade JML.

 

 

It's going to be really tough to get Franson or Sekera, or Petry, for that matter. Supply and demand alone would give us at best a 1/10 chance, but the need is massive.

 

Can Francis pull it off? Probably not, probably have to go down the list and get a lower ranked guy or make a trade. But if he could...it would get real interesting real fast.

 

 

 

 

*Franson may be looking more than that, and for a 6 or 7 year deal, but the same front loaded concept can make years 6 and 7 even less by putting a touch on years 1-2 and bumping year three a bit. Also, ideally no NTC or a limited NTC.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Canes spend the same 59-million they did last year, then there is approximately 6-million dollars to sign 2 RFA's (Nash, Nesty), replace Terry and Dwyer, and upgrade the defense.

 

You armchair GM's should get busy making some trades.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmChairGM'sknowbest.com

 

1. Trade the 5th pick for Skill Speed and Grit offensive player..(The future is now)

2. Trade Skins for a top D-man

3. Trade/Restructure E.Staal or move to 2nd line duties, he just cant play against top pairings... (new captain needed)

4. Semins buyout.. Do it for the sake of the teams moral 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of discussion let us say we were offered a young-ish top pair D-man for our number 5 pick. Lets say it included a later first round pick or high second round pick for us but we would need to give up a roster player to make it happen.

 

Are most of you saying you wouldn't pull the trigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of discussion let us say we were offered a young-ish top pair D-man for our number 5 pick. Lets say it included a later first round pick or high second round pick for us but we would need to give up a roster player to make it happen.

 

Are most of you saying you wouldn't pull the trigger?

 

It entirely depends on who this young-ish top pair D-man is: I'd probably do it for Ekblad at this point and OEL, maybe Jones. However, none of those teams would make that type of swap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of discussion let us say we were offered a young-ish top pair D-man for our number 5 pick. Lets say it included a later first round pick or high second round pick for us but we would need to give up a roster player to make it happen.

 

Are most of you saying you wouldn't pull the trigger?

 

I'm not, unless it's a real overpayment.  Making this pick is most likely going to result in getting a player that is going to be able to contribute a lot while being on an entry level deal and then a bridge deal.  The only player that would be offered up is one whose cheap contract days are up and is about to hit UFA age.  One of the key elements to being competitive while managing the cap is having several guys contributing while on entry level deals so you can afford to sign the other players you need.

 

Trading that pick for a quick fix is like trading a high 1st, Sutter, and Doumolin for another quick fix a while back.  It hasn't even been a slow fix.  I'd always be willing to listen to trade deals, but you'd have to severely overpay to get the 5 pick out of my hands.  There are the top 2, and then we are told there are basically 3 more that could be 1st overalls in a different year.  We sit on that bubble. 

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the cap. Spend more. I know, I know, it's not my money, but we need another NHL defenseman to field a team that is not already planning to go for a high draft pick next year. Presumably the cap will go up, so our baseline should. Also, PK will get his taste of expansion money soon enough, and there has to be some price to an empty PNC center. Also could buy out Semin to get a little more room.

 

As to trading the #5 pick, I am in agreement with those opining thusfar. If we just step up and pick at #5 we are highly likely to get a very seriously special player as SD pointed out, on entry and bridge for quite a while. The return would have to be a near proven top pairing Dman who is on contract for a long time. Even then it would be getting another first rounder that might make one look at it. I mean, if a team in the top 10 wanted to offer us a legit top dman plus their pick, sure, but it is hard to imagine the other team giving that guy up in almost any scenario. Just hard to see it.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it. But I didn't name what player(s) would be involved on purpose. Lets say the player(s) is player you want. Young-ish, top pair, expensive but won't break the bank and will be around for the next 3 to 5 years. Time for Flurey to develop. Say the player we send back with the pick is your choice. It doesn't matter who because it is your choice in other words the player each of you individually  think would be ok to lose.

 

From my point of view a draft pick is an asset, nothing more.  Francis says all deals must make sense. So if a deal made sense to you I'm asking would you still hold on to the number 5 pick no matter what.

 

and I agree that this years pick is a difficult one to walk away from and deal like this is probable near impossible but what if?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it. But I didn't name what player(s) would be involved on purpose. Lets say the player(s) is player you want. Young-ish, top pair, expensive but won't break the bank and will be around for the next 3 to 5 years. Time for Flurey to develop. Say the player we send back with the pick is your choice. It doesn't matter who because it is your choice in other words the player each of you individually  think would be ok to lose.

 

From my point of view a draft pick is an asset, nothing more.  Francis says all deals must make sense. So if a deal made sense to you I'm asking would you still hold on to the number 5 pick no matter what.

 

and I agree that this years pick is a difficult one to walk away from and deal like this is probable near impossible but what if?

 

No team is going to do this, it's completely unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No team is going to do this, it's completely unrealistic.

 

Agree but there might be a deal out there that does make sense for us. I don't think we should be so stuck on keeping a draft pick that if a deal does make sense and addresses the now and the future we don't consider it. I have confidence Francis is not going to deal the future for the now but also confidence that if a deal is there he won't be shy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree but there might be a deal out there that does make sense for us. I don't think we should be so stuck on keeping a draft pick that if a deal does make sense and addresses the now and the future we don't consider it. I have confidence Francis is not going to deal the future for the now but also confidence that if a deal is there he won't be shy.

 

Well propose an example.  I'd be interested in what this sweet deal would be?

 

No offense, but this reaks of Jim Rutherford, who by the way, traded away all his first round picks on quick fixes that didn't work, and is now scrambling to figure out how to get back into the first round.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well propose an example.  I'd be interested in what this sweet deal would be?

 

No offense, but this reaks of Jim Rutherford, who by the way, traded away all his first round picks on quick fixes that didn't work, and is now scrambling to figure out how to get back into the first round.

 

I intentionally avoided the naming of specific players and posted a purely hypothetical exercise. There is precious little news coming out and I was curious if the dealing of our pick would be looked at favorable under the right circumstance (according to each individuals criteria) or if the belief was we shouldn't trade the 5 pick under any circumstance.

 

If you understood my post you will see that I never proposed a quick fix and clearly said I had confidence Francis wouldn't trade our future.

 

I always find your point of view thoughtful and with merit. I think this time you misunderstood my intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I intentionally avoided the naming of specific players and posted a purely hypothetical exercise. There is precious little news coming out and I was curious if the dealing of our pick would be looked at favorable under the right circumstance (according to each individuals criteria) or if the belief was we shouldn't trade the 5 pick under any circumstance.

 

If you understood my post you will see that I never proposed a quick fix and clearly said I had confidence Francis wouldn't trade our future.

 

I always find your point of view thoughtful and with merit. I think this time you misunderstood my intentions.

 

Okay, sorry, it's not on purpose. 

 

I have a hard time dealing with hypothetical trades like this, and suggested an example might be in order to move things along.  A couple of others kind of said the same thing.

 

I thought you originally proposed that some team would be willing to part with their young, top-pair d-man, that's likely still on an entry level deal (realistically) that they just invested all this time in developing, for our 5th round draft pick?

 

Okay, so moving forward......

 

.....the Coyotes are willing to trade Oliver-Ekman-Larsson, or the Panthers are willing to trade Aaron Ekblad to us for our 5th pick.  Does that sound like a plausible scenario?  I know you add other stuff thrown in, but I just can't wrap my head around the logic of why any team would do something like that.

 

I'm trying to understand so help me out...probably just boredom and throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks? 

 

That's okay too.  I think it fell off personally. :)

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is always a price. I personally have trouble making the parts fit, but that doesn't mean it is impossible.

 

For me personally, I think that the value of Stromarnifin is that of a #1 pick in many years. So a team would really have to bring it. Either a very very high quality prospect, maybe Darnel Nurse, AND a first round pick that is at least in the top 15.

 

I doubt that would happen, so I just step up and pick from Stromarnfin. But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we run up (without tripping) and take Hanifin, then trade third line center hands of stone Jordan Staal for a similar package to how he was obtained in the first place.

 

I know there is at least one Jim Rutherford out there.

 

That would be sweet.

 

But then, he has that no frikin' trade clause.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we run up (without tripping) and take Hanifin, then trade third line center hands of stone Jordan Staal for a similar package to how he was obtained in the first place.

 

I know there is at least one Jim Rutherford out there.

 

That would be sweet.

 

But then, he has that no frikin' trade clause.

 

You made the "no frikin' trade clause" edit before I could post.  I didn't like the trade since I don't like the issues that come from having brothers on the team, and both with NTC's to boot. 

 

JStaal has no scoring touch.  I have watched him plenty, and he just doesn't.  He needs to be nowhere near the PP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBXer, thanks for the stimulating discussion. Permit me please to weigh in on this in a slightly different track.

One thing I'm starting to understand to some degree about this sport is the true "team" nature of it that transcends all we can observe from our seats. Thus, to truly attain the epitomy of success, a team which does so will be a repeat qualifier for postseason playoffs, right? What keeps slapping me in the face, year after year, is the discordance which our team displays thru the 1st 1/3 or more of the season. Sloppy passes that others have commented upon, players out of position and general lack of running anything resembling a coordinated attack all seem to me to be glaring early season problems.

This brings me to the crux of my thoughts, and please do not take offense. To simply view a draft pick as another "asset" IMHO vastly undervalues what that player CAN, and I purposely highlighted the word, become to the system. Although I get that a draftee is a "crap shoot", nurturing a player in the system certainly gives him a level of familiarity, both with the system, as well as with fellow teammates, that a player brought in from elsewhere will never have.

It seems to me that this one element of player development is one of the glaring differences between more recently established teams, like ours, vs "Original 6" teams and others who've been around awhile. As one trades, plays the UFA markets, etc, it appears that the team becomes more of a "hodgepodge" of talents that have difficulty reaching the epitomy of "team work".

Thus, I would strongly favor holding on to that #5 pick, never really knowing what type of player we'd be receiving as apposed to one we could develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're just diddling around in the hypothetical:

 

Would you do Ryan Murray and some combination of Columbus' 2nd/ 3rd round picks (they have overall #s 34, 38, 58, 68, and 69) for the #5 pick?  

 

This assumes Murray is fully recovered and passes a stringent physical. Granted, It's a highly unlikely scenario (my understanding is that the BJs probably need depth on D moreso than a forward). But just to place a value on our #5 pick, let's assume the BJs fall in love with Marner or Strome who are available at #5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

If you were Columbus, would you give your 8th pick away for Ryan Murphy and a second?  And this is assuming Murphy will one day be effective as an NHL defenseman.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we run up (without tripping) and take Hanifin, then trade third line center hands of stone Jordan Staal for a similar package to how he was obtained in the first place.

 

I know there is at least one Jim Rutherford out there.

 

That would be sweet.

 

But then, he has that no frikin' trade clause.

 

Only fair if JR undoes the trade-back. Pittsburgh got a nice defensman at #8. We'll take him back, and Doumalin and Sutter.

 

How on Earth did Jordan put up 25 goals in 73 games that year in Pittsburgh? Were they all tap ins? Maybe. Then 23 playoff goals in 73 games too. I'd take that at this point. His defense is great, but not worth the paycheck and NTC. He needs to put up at least 50-60 points. Maybe this year....

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus, I would strongly favor holding on to that #5 pick, never really knowing what type of player we'd be receiving as apposed to one we could develop.

 

Thats a good point. This years draft is going to be one of those once in a decade drafts too. The player we pick at 5 is most likely going to be a NHL  talent in the upcoming years and quite possible a game changer. Still I would keep my options open.

 

 

.....the Coyotes are willing to trade Oliver-Ekman-Larsson, or the Panthers are willing to trade Aaron Ekblad to us for our 5th pick.  Does that sound like a plausible scenario?  I know you add other stuff thrown in, but I just can't wrap my head around the logic of why any team would do something like that.

 

 

 

I would consider it. Ekman-Larsson would probable be a better fit as a left handed shot but comes with a huge contract, doesn't he?  Ekblad more affordable (for now). I think Florida would want something more in exchange. I don't think it will happen but I would consider it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No team is going to do this, it's completely unrealistic.

 

 

Well, if we are just going with hypotheticals, then let's trade Semin for a top pairing d-man.

 

It's as realistic as the other scenario.

Yeah, completely unrealistic.  Unless GMRF still has JR's number in his cell phone.  Then a stupid crazy deal COULD happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're just diddling around in the hypothetical:

 

Would you do Ryan Murray and some combination of Columbus' 2nd/ 3rd round picks (they have overall #s 34, 38, 58, 68, and 69) for the #5 pick?  

 

This assumes Murray is fully recovered and passes a stringent physical. Granted, It's a highly unlikely scenario (my understanding is that the BJs probably need depth on D moreso than a forward). But just to place a value on our #5 pick, let's assume the BJs fall in love with Marner or Strome who are available at #5. 

 

 

No.

 

If you were Columbus, would you give your 8th pick away for Ryan Murphy and a second?  And this is assuming Murphy will one day be effective as an NHL defenseman.

 

Of course not.  I think most will agree that it's still questionable whether Murphy will become a solid NHL regular, let alone hold down a top pair slot.   

 

Murray (2nd overall pick in his draft class) is younger, 25 lbs heavier, and projecting him as a top pair NHL d-man isn't much of a reach imo.  I picked him because I think he might fit the "type" OBXer was referring to when he asked his original question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Murray (2nd overall pick in his draft class) is younger, 25 lbs heavier, and projecting him as a top pair NHL d-man isn't much of a reach imo.  I picked him because I think he might fit the "type" OBXer was referring to when he asked his original question. 

 

And I still beg the question, which has yet to be answered, why would COLUMBUS do that? 

 

If Murray's injuries aren't a concern, and he's all you-OBXer claim him to be, then why would Columbus be willing to part with him?  All I'm hearing is why the Canes would\should consider it.

 

I understand we are talking in a hypothetical world, but even then trades take two willing partners, and should be somewhat realistic. 

 

But, I admit, I'm biased to begin with when it comes to giving up draft picks, so I'm probably not fully recognizing the "hypothetical" part of all this.

Edited by coastal_caniac

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...