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

Should The Canes Trade A Young Defenseman?

Recommended Posts

[this came up in the main thread, but it seems like it might be interesting enough to start a more lengthy discussion]

 

The outlook for our defense looks remarkably strong.  Faulk is 23yo. Murphy is finally showing signs he may belong in the NHL.  Pesce and Slavin? You've all seen what I've seen and it looks extremely promising.  Right from the start 18yo Noah Hanifin has been generally recognized as a potential defensive cornerstone.  And then we've got a bunch of potential "depth" prospects (McKeown, Biega, Carrick, etc.).

 

As far as our forwards, not so much.  Does anyone see the potential of McGinn, Aho, or DiGiuseppe being anywhere near the potential of Hanifin, Fleury, or maybe even Pesce and Slavin?

 

I'm sure GMRF will focus on forwards going forward. But what are the odds of attracting a top tier UFA forward to Raleigh? Can the franchise afford the time it will take to address that need mostly through the draft? Or should he explore the possibility of moving the timeline up and balancing our prospects by dealing some of our young defensive talent for similarly positioned front line talent? Does the surprising outlook for Slavin and Pesce give us an unusual opportunity to explore the acquisition of top tier young forward talent?

 

If so, some thoughts:

  1. you're not going to get top notch talent unless you give up top notch talent in return
  2. in order to get a deal done, you can't evaluate a trading partner's assets "objectively" but your own as at their maximum potential (which is what seems to happen on most fan forums)
  3. I suspect that big deals for young players don't often happen because the fear of losing what you give up usually overrides what you project as the gain from what you get back
  4. you can't get a Tavarese/Kopitar after they've become a Tavares/Kopitar; your only chance (and it's a slight one) is to get them before they become a Tavares/Kopitar, i.e., before they've actually realized their potential. (How's that for channeling the late great Yogi Berra? :P)

Remkin provocatively pointed out that our prospects are so strong it might turn out that somewhere down the line it might turn out that trading Faulk could actually be our best move.  I could see that possibility. But what about right now? Let me lay out some theoreticals to see what you think.

 

I don't see trading Pesce or Slavin as an option as I don't think they have the reputations to bring back a fair return given the potential upside they've recently shown.

 

What would you want back for Fleury?  What about Nugent-Hopkins for a package containing Fleury plus a bit more? Reinhart? Johansen?

 

( :omg: caution: more heresy ahead!)

What about Hanifin?  Would you consider a trade of Draisaitl for Hanifin?  On paper that seems like it might actually be pretty fair.  A 5th overall potential franchise d-man (and 5th only because of depth last  year) for a 3rd overall potential franchise center.  Never gonna happen; it would take two GMs with cojones the size of a zamboni, but it does make for an interesting hypothetical in my mind. Talk about jump starting your front line rebuild!

 

Or do you consider Fleury off limits regardless of the return? Because I don't see any of our other defensive prospects bringing back enough to make as quick and as big an impact as I think we need up front.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Fleury as off-limits, but think the org does, at least until he logs some NHL ice time. And I think that's prudent.

 

Similar-wise, I don't think it's possible to answer your question about McGinn, Aho and DiGuiseppe and what they might bring to the roster. Yet.

 

More to come. Just got the dinner bell - and I have my priorities. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the way Francis and Peters is trying to build this team, I really don't see them moving any of our top prospects, unless the deal is too good in our favor to pass up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hanifin is off-limits, thats a  given..

 

I see this as a theoretical discussion geared to those who want to play around a bit, not what will actually happen.  I understand that the likelihood of trading Fleury is very very slim and the likelihood of trading Hanifin is basically zero.  But absolutes bug me. :)   What if Buffalo offered Eichel for Hanifin?Of course we'd take that; so what's the cut off?

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as a theoretical discussion geared to those who want to play around a bit, not what will actually happen.  I understand that the likelihood of trading Fleury is very very slim and the likelihood of trading Hanifin is basically zero.  But absolutes bug me. :)   What if Buffalo offered Eichel for Hanifin?Of course we'd take that; so what's the cut off?

I think you just identified it :)

 

So... good dinner. Yay me. 

 

So if we're speaking theoretically, and about how that theory might be applied:

 

I think (hope) that until we have a good data set for how our draftees respond to NHL play, the plan is to develop them toward the goal of making the NHL roster. Meaning that is the cut-off: The guys we clearly wanted and got through drafting get a fair shot to make the NHL team. If they don't - meaning if they don't/can't/won't learn across several call-ups to adapt their game fully to BP's system, they are then deemed not to have worked out in terms of the org's goals - rendering them tradable or AHL lifers, at least with this org. 

 

Adding age cutoffs to that model, I think (generally) forwards get until age 25 and D until maybe 27. But that's generally, with room for exceptions on the lower end of those ages. For example: Without a lightbulb moment that is pretty clearly not coming, I think we already know that Michael Jordan, at 25, doesn't make the cut. It *could* still happen, I guess; he was, after all, playing on his off-side, and that is waaaay more crucial for D than for wingers. But I think he mostly got a shot because he (1) came out of Europe, and (2) had a couple of good years at Plymouth. I think the more we see of him the clearer it becomes that he reached his maximum potential there. So if somebody offers more than bag of pucks I think you have to take it.

 

The good news (to me) is that pretty much all the other guys who have had a least a cup of coffee at the NHL level this year have shown flashes, and are young enough that they deserve more development time.

 

So, applying all this to a possible Fleury deal, since he was a high pick, is still very young, and has yet to suit up for an NHL game (and has only one in the AHL), I don't think trading him fits the model - IF the model I've described is how RF and BP define "building through the draft."  

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Fleury as off-limits, but think the org does, at least until he logs some NHL ice time. And I think that's prudent.

 

Similar-wise, I don't think it's possible to answer your question about McGinn, Aho and DiGuiseppe and what they might bring to the roster. Yet.

 

More to come. Just got the dinner bell - and I have my priorities. :)

 

True, we don't know exactly what they'll bring, and sure, they might surprise, but we do know that the chances of these guys becoming significant  difference makers are much less than the Draisaitls, Reinhardts, and Marners of the world. Can a franchise like the Canes afford to "wait and see" before making significant moves to bolster the future chances of our anemic offense? Is there some way we can be more proactive than that?

 

I'm trying to start thinking about our roster in "Gretzky like" terms when he said something to the tune of being so successful because he goes not to where the puck is but where it's likely to be (I know that's terrible paraphrasing but I'm not going to look it up :grin:)

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, we don't know exactly what they'll bring, and sure, they might surprise, but we do know that the chances of these guys becoming significant  difference makers are much less than the Draisaitls, Reinhardts, and Marners of the world. Can a franchise like the Canes afford to "wait and see" before making significant moves to bolster the future chances of our anemic offense? Is there some way we can be more proactive than that?

 

I'm trying to start thinking about our roster in "Gretzky like" terms when he said something to the tune of being so successful because he goes not to where the puck is but where it's likely to be (I know that's terrible paraphrasing but I'm not going to look it up :grin:)

I get what you mean, and one thing I omitted from my keep 'em or deal em hierarchy was that the development time we are willing to give them has to be tied to how we acquired them, and on what basis.

 

For example, first-rounders need to show flashes pretty much out of the gate, spend the better part of their first year in the AHL (unless they are generational talents), much of their second perhaps, but by year three should be ready to play at the NHL level and not look back. Guys acquired in later rounds get progressively longer to develop, but we also accept that it could be years before they get even their first "cup of coffee" - and that they might just be long-term AHLers, whose role in terms of the big club's success is to battle-toughen the higher picks.

 

But that said...

 

I think BP also has a strong streak of belief (well-founded, if you look at the Detroit and Chicago examples) that any guy drafted by an NHL team who is willing to FULLY commit to the role the coach wants him to fill has the ABILITY to play in the NHL. The big question is whether they want it badly enough to make that FULL commitment, forget themselves, and "play for each other."

 

I think that's the kind of team/org we are trying to build, and given our market size and cash issues, it is probably the only model that can work over the very long term here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Pesce and Slavin look good, AND given that we went best player over need with a presumed upgrade on Fleury with Hanifin, it is not an unreasonable discussion IMHO. That said, the return would have to be a forward prospect with fairly elite top line potential as Fleury is a top pairing prospect. This makes this type of deal really unlikely. GM's are very hesitant to be the guy that traded the next big offensive player. While defense wins championships, offense fills seats and captures most fan's attention. SSo, in theory, it might make sense, the actual execution would be tough. Nearly any other team with a top 5 or so offensive pick, who is doing well wherever they are, are the apple of that GM's eye (who probably picked him in the first place).o a GM would have to be absolutely flush with stud offensive players to give us the return we would need. Likely only Edmonton would be in that position.

 

Just pretty unlikely at this point I would think, but if a GM out there needs defense and values Fleury as a future top paing maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Pesce and Slavin look good, AND given that we went best player over need with a presumed upgrade on Fleury with Hanifin, it is not an unreasonable discussion IMHO. That said, the return would have to be a forward prospect with fairly elite top line potential as Fleury is a top pairing prospect. This makes this type of deal really unlikely. GM's are very hesitant to be the guy that traded the next big offensive player. While defense wins championships, offense fills seats and captures most fan's attention. SSo, in theory, it might make sense, the actual execution would be tough. Nearly any other team with a top 5 or so offensive pick, who is doing well wherever they are, are the apple of that GM's eye (who probably picked him in the first place).o a GM would have to be absolutely flush with stud offensive players to give us the return we would need. Likely only Edmonton would be in that position.

 

Just pretty unlikely at this point I would think, but if a GM out there needs defense and values Fleury as a future top paing maybe.

 

I think this is a pretty good condensation of the points I was trying to make in my long original post. And from remkin; who woulda thunk it? :P

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Wis coming back next season, I say trade Murphy. 

 

Faulk, Wis, Hanafin, Hainsey, Slavin, Pesce is a good top 6.  Add in Fluery as a possibilty with Jordan as a 7th and we are set. 

 

Could get a decent O prospect for Murphy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a pretty good condensation of the points I was trying to make in my long original post. And from remkin; who woulda thunk it? :P

 Hey, I resemble that remark!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if Edmonton doesn't get their crack at the top defenseman in the draft and would have to draft a forward, they'd be open to trading the pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if Edmonton doesn't get their crack at the top defenseman in the draft and would have to draft a forward, they'd be open to trading the pick.

 

A big part of the reason to even consider what many would consider a radical proposition would be to move up the timeframe to major help on the front line. Getting a draft pick in return wouldn't do that.  I'd want someone back who'd stand a good chance of being a difference maker right away or within a year or 2 at most.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Wis coming back next season, I say trade Murphy. 

 

Faulk, Wis, Hanafin, Hainsey, Slavin, Pesce is a good top 6.  Add in Fluery as a possibilty with Jordan as a 7th and we are set. 

 

Could get a decent O prospect for Murphy. 

 

 

No way in hell would i trade the young, upcoming, finding-his-game Murphy and keep the turnover machine known as Ron Hainsey - who i also think would bring in more than Murphy.  I also don't re-sign Jordan in order to have him as a 7th next year when Wiz returns - waste of space, if you ask me.  Throw Carrick or McKeown in his spot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big part of the reason to even consider what many would consider a radical proposition would be to move up the timeframe to major help on the front line. Getting a draft pick in return wouldn't do that.  I'd want someone back who'd stand a good chance of being a difference maker right away or within a year or 2 at most.

Depending on the pick, it could turn into an impact player sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be very surprised if we don't flip Liles and/ or Hainsey at some point, that is if we can get anything of value in return. Due to his inauspicious NHL start, I see Murphy as sliding into a similar category as Pesce and Slavin, namely his potential at this point is probably worth more to us than what he'd bring back in a trade.

 

But I was thinking much bigger than any of those guys.  I was thinking about how to get a hold of not just a future legitimate top line forward, but a future elite top line forward we could build our offense around.  A future Thornton, Tavares, Kopitar, etc.  And as I said in the original post, you've got to give in order to get . . .   

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that everything we discuss around here is theoretical, but that said, doing something with Fleury in exchange for a top forward prospect? The Ramones pretty much summed it up for me: I'm Against It. And coastal nailed the reason: It is waaaaay too early.

 

The idea of fast-tracking our return to competitiveness - I get that too. But we don't know yet if Faulk will be become more defensively responsible, we don't know if we've got reliable goaltending, we don't know if Slavin and Pesce and for that matter Murphy - as positive as we all feel about them - are going to actually be what it looks like they are becoming. I would rather be loaded up with D prospects and build our forward prospects through the draft than go for a "kismet" that may prove illusory.

 

The odds of what you are proposing working are better than the road JR took, Lake, I'll grant you that. But nothing is surer than having ridiculous depth that extends to our guys in the ECHL, WHL and the O - and we are in a position, thanks to the high picks we've amassed, to build that depth.

 

We've built decent D depth relatively quickly. I think it's too early to trade away the skills and ages of our future D or our future O role players as guys like E and Gerbs and McClement and Versteeg and Jordan and Wiz and Liles and Hainsey age out or are dealt. I'd much rather build through the draft on the belief that Peters can work the same magic with our kids that he did in a very short period in Spokane.  

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that everything we discuss around here is theoretical, but that said, doing something with Fleury in exchange for a top forward prospect? The Ramones pretty much summed it up for me: I'm Against It. And coastal nailed the reason: It is waaaaay too early.

 

The idea of fast-tracking our return to competitiveness - I get that too. But we don't know yet if Faulk will be become more defensively responsible, we don't know if we've got reliable goaltending, we don't know if Slavin and Pesce and for that matter Murphy - as positive as we all feel about them - are going to actually be what it looks like they are becoming. I would rather be loaded up with D prospects and build our forward prospects through the draft than go for a "kismet" that may prove illusory.

 

The odds of what you are proposing working are better than the road JR took, Lake, I'll grant you that. But nothing is surer than having ridiculous depth that extends to our guys in the ECHL, WHL and the O - and we are in a position, thank to the high picks we've amassed, to build that depth.

 

We've built decent D depth relatively quickly. I think it's too early to trade away the skills and ages of our future D or our future O role players as guys like E and Gerbs and McClement and Versteeg and Jordan and Wiz and Liles and Hainsey age out or are dealt. I'd much rather build through the draft on the belief that Peters can work the same magic with our kids that he did in a very short period in Spokane.  

I agree.  We get 2 1sts next year. Let's grab a couple of good forwards.  By the time they are NHL ready, Pesce, Hanafin and company will be close to hitting their peaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rem touched on it some in detail.  We can't have ALL young talent.  Eventually they all need to get paid at roughly the same time.  A mix of all age groups is necessary in the world of the cap.

 

That being said... right now I wouldn't trade for older veteran talent because we are so far from contending.  A top line forward in the 27 year old range maybe, signed to a long term deal.  But those are hard to come by.

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...