Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

2016 Off-Season Talk

Recommended Posts

Interesting thoughts Kjun.

 

I think that the specific team bonding things are nice, but as you mention, fairly standard, and when a team does the bonding thing and wins, it stands out, when they do the bonding thing and lose, we just forget they even did it.

 

Personally, I think that the 05-06 team's success was because Laviollete used an attacking, fast paced game suited well to the new rules AND it was a loaded team up front. Eric Staal was a 100 point superstar on his career year, our #2 center was to win the Selke and uber leader in Brind'Amour who BTW put up 70 points from the #2 slot. Our #3 Center, Matt Cullen, still playing in the NHL at 39, put up 49 points. Ray Whitney,  Cory Stillman (76 pits) still in his prime, Eric Cole, and yes, Justin Williams on a 76 point year. Then we pick up Doug Weight and Marc Recci? I put that team winning more on those guys being that good, especially in that system than zip lining in training camp.

 

Still, I do get your point on the younger team adjusting better to travel, especially jet lag. Also, single guys probably do better with travel too.

 

The other thing is that outside of Aho, TT and Stempniak: all the Dmen, and goalies and the rest of the top 9 forwards are much better dialed into the system to start this year, than in past years. They can really get to it faster in camp and pre-season and start the new season in full stride. They are also arguably more suited to the system than say E Staal or C Versteeg (see my next post). I really think that the lifting of the E. effect could lead to an even stronger buy in to the system and speed of play.

 

And I've pointed out that the quality of opponent over the first 12 games is not nearly as high as last year. These are beatable teams.

 

My gut is really not that nervous about the skaters this year. I think they'll start much better than in the past. I still have one eye on the goalies though. I don't know why, but it has generally taken Cam quite a few games to settle down. We need Cam dialed in from the start.

 

The other thing I've always thought is this. We don't need a 8-2 start. The front loaded road trip means we really just need say 5-5 and anything beyond that is gravy, as we will have more home games up coming. So there is opportunity to really go for it early, because even a 6-4 start would be a major leap forward in relative terms.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canes preview sits atop the NHL.com homepage today.

 

In this dry and desolate hockey time, it is refreshing to read a bunch of well thought out articles on the Canes. Seems that the national media types kind of get the Canes situation pretty well, and see the hope that is hidden in having a slew of young guys on the cusp.

 

Stuff that caught my attention:

 

Rask: "with the right linemates he could approach 30 goals."

 

They get that Rask is not done improving, though 30 goals is a pretty gaudy number in today's NHL: Only 28 players hit that mark, and only 4 hit 40 last year. Still, if Rask "approaches 30 G" that is legit top line center, and 1C is one of the questions this year and beyond.

 

Rask and Skinner developed "strong chemistry" at the end of the year.

 

Skinner needs to keep moving his game forward for this team to have a chance. He's one of the main guys who cannot regress. He's had trouble finding any kind of chemistry with anyone, so this is a huge plus. Then it leaves Lind and Finns to be a line too.

 

Skinner's -2 was a 22 point inprovement.

 

I know that plus minus is a shadowy stat, but IMO it is useful over long stretches and in comparison with other long stretches (player from year to year, and ranking teammates in the same year). If Skinner is an even or better player, he is leading to winning because of his relative PP value, which is not counted in +/-.

 

Also, his 22 point plus minus improvement correlated with the eyeball test. He was a more complete player all around last year. This is a great sign. If he is good on injuries, Skinner will not regress, but probably put up a few more points, especially assists.

 

17 mainstays have left over the past 2 years, and the team is younger and faster and better suited to the Peter's system.

 

To me, this could be a huge under the radar factor, that is impossible to calculate until this team rolls out there. But to me the 17 guys are 16 guys and Eric Staal. It is hard to know, but easy to underestimate the potential positive effect of removing E. He had slowed way down, but was still the face and the C of the team. He was still, in some ways above the law. How will it affect the team to lift that final weight off this young team? Will they now play Peter's system at a higher level of speed and full buy in? We shall see, but if they do, it could be very surprising to the league.

 

Faulk: All 12 PPG came in the first half of the season, and in the last 30 games he had 4G, 8 assists, and was minus 15.

 

Based on his full seasons the past two years, Justin Faulk could be one of the most overrated D men in the NHL. This is not to say he is not very talented, or that he is not a good NHL defenseman. But the guy has been an All Star, and not making national international  teams is seen as a huge iinjustice by many reporters.

 

My take is that Faulk has the tools to be a top all around defenseman. I think he has the skills to be strong in his own end as well as bringing the offense. But he has not yet put it all together in that elite way that some seem to credit him with. But what if he does?

 

The upside is still very much there, I think. He is still only 24, at a position that most say around 28 -29 is peak.

 

This young D relied a lot on JML for leadership, and he's gone. This is partly why I think in the end Francis just could not pull the trigger on a blockbuster trade for Faulk. Until Hanifin gets to "that" level and the other newby Dmen get some more mileage on them, we still really need Faulk back there.

 

I talk alot about Lindholm, Rask, TT, etc taking a step or two forward, but if Faulk can, then the next step is consistent, elite, 3 zone D man. Every team needs one, and for this year, Faulk really could be that guy.

 

Aho. Just about everyone is in on Aho now, but the only real question to me is the small ice. But he has dominated on multiple stages with men, NHL players, and elite junior players, and stood out in camp before all of that. That is just too much excellence not to think he will dazzle.

 

Gauthier. I really think it's next year, but this is a guy that will be climb the re-draft boards and will be a "how did he fall that far down the board?" guy.

 

One thing I just do not get. Why would they say that a guy like Skinner having less than 40 PIMs is bad? I get that the scrappy guys need to show aggression, and in the past high PIMs meant you'd drop the gloves, but to me Skinner taking penalties are going to be sloppy stick penalties, and one of Skinner's best attributes is that he draws so many more penalties than he takes, which, BTW is also a stat not captured in plus minus.

 

Anyways, overall I think they captured the main points about this team. Lots of hope, but also uncertainty. I'm feeling mostly hope.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On rems 2 posts above:

 

I think the Canes need to start a bit better than 5-5 on the initial road trip because of the relatively low level of the competition (which someone already pointed out).   I remember several times last year when the Canes would threaten a wild card spot but then lose to one of the teams near the bottom.  That's something we need to clean up as I don't think the top tier teams are going to be anywhere near as likely to underestimate us as they were last year.  I just don't think we'll be able to afford to drop many points against the bottom half of the league.

 

I suspect we may be in the minority here, but I agree with rem's thoughts on Faulk.  I also think he is overrated by many. And I agree that he has the talent to actually live up to people's perceptions of him as a near elite d-man.  Whether or not he does so remains to be seen.  Imo he was an All Star 2 years ago only because they had to appoint a Cane.  His appointment last year was well justified based on a great 1st half of the season. But if the game had come 3/4 of the way through the season (even before he got hurt), instead of at the halfway point, I think you're looking at  a "Canes Participation" appointment again. 

 

We've been talking mostly about our new forwards, but I think a big factor in our success this season will depend on Justin Faulk actually playing up to how most people perceive him.  And the d-yutes continuing to improve rather than hitting a sophomore slump (which I'm actually not too worried about, not that my opinion means very much).

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense! According all on this board. Extending Lack before he played a single game with the Canes was such a great move! Remember guys?

Seriously dude, do you ever have a pleasant thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, having said all that, I'd like to interject a slightly different take on the matter. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts might be regarding what I'll refer to as "travel ability" of this YOUNG team vs those of the past several years? 

 

Kjunkane, I think you have a point.  We've talked about this from time to time over the years, but it hasn't come up lately, so thanks for the reminder.

 

A few years ago some "insiders" talked about some "room" issues.  Now we don't know for sure whether those insiders were just making it up, or knew stuff.  

 

The one thing that came up was some of the disconnect of the youngsters compared to all the guys starting families.  This is life, and there's not a lot you can do about it, but it does make a difference.  I know as I moved through my 20s, both at work and with friends, I experienced this.

 

At work, a bunch of us were all on the same journey, close in years from school.  We did a LOT of stuff together outside work.  Helping each other move, going out for a bit to eat, etc.  This rubbed off at work.  We just did things really well.

 

Same can be said about friendships.  A certain fracturing occurs for those with kids, and the kidless.  Those with spouses, and those without.  You know.

 

Just seeing where the guys were in life, some of this clearly happened with the team.  I remember early on in '07 or '08 stories of the guys helping each other move, and getting chastised for it.  Hey, it is a bonding experience.

 

The final mix is language and cultural barriers.  Not sure where that will factor with this team.

 

This is stuff you really cannot control completely as a GM.  I do think some of the experienced guys can help.  I know a few guys at my work took me under their wing, and it was really helpful (I had moved a long way from home).  

 

So, I'm just kind of brain dumping here.  I think you have a very valid point.  But I have no idea what the situation is on the team right now, or how it will be.  And we may never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On rems 2 posts above:

 

I think the Canes need to start a bit better than 5-5 on the initial road trip.

 

I suspect we may be in the minority here, but I agree with rem's thoughts on Faulk. 

I agree (w/rem) that 5-5 given the sked is okay, but also (w/Lake) that we need better. Maybe I'm just starved for us to get out of the gate with some real authority, but while Rem's take on Lavi's 2005-6 success overall is spot on - and while I'm elated we're committed to getting back to that style of play - starting 8-3 in October of 2005 sure didn't hurt.

 

Re Faulk, the thing that stood out to me was how the NHL.com story (correctly, IMO) called him the "still developing Justin Faulk." I can pretty much write off his latter part of last year: He was coming back from a long injury, and by the time he did, the D had essentially left him in its dust in terms of defensive efficiency. We all agreed that Faulk's defensive cred was questionable before he got hurt, so it was pretty much inevitable that the combination of the steps the D took in his absence and trying to get back to game speed would magnify his D-ficiencies when he returned.

 

Like many, I seriously doubt Faulk is moved before his current deal ends. I think RF is committed to giving guys the chance to fulfill their deals, and let's face it, if Faulk can get with the D program, his upside essentially limitless. Plus, I think moving him sends the wrong message to our developing youth. All of that being said, given what he hasn't brought so far on D, if it doesn't get better or winds up costing us games this year, I could see BP losing patience with that and RF moving him for the right elite forward, especially if doing so could get us into the dance.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche rem and those that point to Lavy's attacking style etc as explanation of the magic of 05-06, but we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't in the least discount the masterful adaptation Lavy,and quite likely  Jim Rutherford, made to the rules changes enacted that year, oft spoken of by outsiders discrediting this team's accomplishment that year, BUT, I think team bonding, although rem you belittle it, also played a major role in that team's success. Thus, from my perspective, to enact a major philosophical overhaul to a team's game,seems to me there has to be total buy in. How else can that be so quickly enacted than thru TEAM BONDING, where every player knows that someone has his back?

 

So, despite the snide comment about "zip line", I credit team comradery for much of the success that year.

 

Likewise, I'll also point out that one Kirk Mueller  had, I believe, perhaps a similar innovative approach to game philosophy, but look where that got him. Why? Might it be that there was not team buy in, as one gets when team comradery helps players all be on the same page? The team under KM looked disconnected, and granted eventually, disheartened, but I do not accept that was all on Mueller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, despite the snide comment about "zip line", I credit team comradery for much of the success that year.

The ability of members of the team to work effectively together without doubt plays a huge role in the success of any team endeavor. BP and RF have both expressed excitement about how 19 guys went out to dinner together on a trip last season. How can you not love that?

 

My biggest problem with the October road trip is not about whether bonding is good, it's about human physiology. It may seem like a really small point to many people, but They're the same one who have never had it. Until you have, it's impossible to appreciate. It literally kicks your tail, and the effects can continue for weeks. Combining those effects with the physical demands of the game, and having them manifest right when the team is trying to capitalize on being back home is just crazy.

 

Last November's 5-game losing streak from Nov 10 to 20, four of which losses came consecutively, at home - not to mention the fact that we played five games in 10 days that soon, after the October West Coast marathon, is at minimum something the org can take to the league in requesting for CST/EST games during the State Fair trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I got your point, top, and appreciate it because to a lesser degree, traveling and running in marathons, AT MY AGE, is extremely tough. You've got no argument from me on the inordinate physiological stress that the NHL seems to turn a deaf ear annually on as relates to this team's early schedule vs that of 29 other teams!! Seems that scheduling would be more equitable if this type of stress would be spread to more teams?

 

Having said that, I'd further opine that a "younger" team could withstand those rigors better than one up in age.  Epinephrine rush can also help, the type that comes with youthful enthusiasm. To my point also, bonding cannot be discounted, as I've also experienced frequently, with partners, when One's behind is dragging, another's enthusiasm can act to pick him up,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not discounting team chemistry. I think it does matter, especially in "free flow" team-depent games, and even more in physical contact team dependent games (of which hockey may be THE prime example). I'm a bit more skeptical about the trip to the woods type events, though it's hard to see any downside to doing them.

 

I'm a bit protective of the memory of that 05-06 team. I know that you didn't mean this, but the idea that they were a bunch of scrubs who bonded together in the woods then kept that team fire burning for 82 games and all of the playoffs almost a year later, somehow beating vastly superior skilled teams along the way, is what I'm probably reacting to. Again, I know you didn't say this, but sometimes parts of posts are just out there to a separate point, not specifically made by the post responded to.

 

There has been wide-spread debate that the 05-06 team was a fluke. The main argument is that they "figured the rules out after the lock out first." Another is that they were willed there by the team cohesiveness, thereby able to beat vastly superior teams. While both may well have played a role, some people (not on this board) seem to lose sight of the fact that that team was stacked up front, and got good goaltending during the season from Gerber, and in the playoffs from Ward.

 

That team had superstar E Staal in his career (100 point) year, 70 point, soon to win Selke two way stud Rod Brind'Amour,, and "still playing now pushing 40", 49 points from the third line Matt Cullen down the middle. Then 70 plus point still prime Cory Stillman, 70 plus point, still playing Justin Williams, Ray Whitney (.87 ppg), Eric Cole (30 goals) and then Doug Weight and March Recci. That team finished #3 in the league with 112 points and scored 294 goals (thats basically 100 goals more than last year's team's 198). That was a team that put Chad LaRose on the 4th line, not the 1st line.

 

Again, I know you didn't mean that team was all heart but no talent. But I'm just forever defending the massive amount of talent that team actually did have.

 

I am no expert on the lasting effects of team building exercises. My non expert opinion is that they are nice, but that the main thing that bonds the team is the team and it's leadership during training camp and the season. Of course having talent tends to lead to winning which tends to lead to buy in, which tends to lead to more winning, which tends to bring the team together. Brindy was almost unanimously referred to as an outstanding captain, and my guess is that their team bonding took place 99.9% on ice and in the locker room, and .1% in the woods.

 

It's not that I'm trying to be snide about zip-lining (I do seem to recall that was part of it), but that crediting that day in the woods with the bonding this team did on the ice and in the locker room over a nearly full year of battles, would seem to trivialize the real bonding. At least to me. Just one, non expert opinion.

 

In the end, in the NHL, I do think you need both: team bonding-chemistry and skill. If I had to take one it would be skill, but the Cup playoffs are a long grueling road, and I do think dysfunctional groups of Semin-types do not win. But they always have skill too. Always. And that includes 2006.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many variables that could influence the effects of a long road trip I don't know how one could accurately assess them from outside.  For example, which would be worse, a very long road trip at the start of the year when every one is still fresh or a moderately long road trip towards the end of the year when everyone is beat down? 

 

As far as bonding: based on personal experience from within a relatively large organization I believe it can be helpful.  More with respect to creation of the positive healthy "culture" we've been referring to the past 2 years. Zip lining or curling are just tools that might or might not be useful in helping to facilitate that. I'm pretty sure I heard in the past that Skinner helped Lindholm and Nesty feel at home when they joined the Canes.  Hopefully that's true and he expands the role given that we're getting younger and younger.  He seems to have the personality for it imo.  

 

And of course, skill is critical.  

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rem, I hear what you are saying too, just like with top, and don't discount any of it, comparable to "the chicken or the egg" scenario. The bonding surely as you've pointed out didn't last 82 games, but I contend, it did set the framework. One could argue also that the massive points scored that year, including Eric's never to be attained again 100 point year, and all the rest were due to the underpinning that comradery built, otherwise, why did he never again approach that?

 

No, I too will always defend that team as legitimate contrary to what the Canadian media would have the NHL world believe, but I contribute all facets of the game to that, not just the various skills of players, but ultimately the essence of teamwork that helped them come together as one. They were truly "the giant killer" that year, and just wish they'd have sustained it. They believed in themselves, due to the fact, I'm convinced, that they would persevere no matter the adversary!!

 

OK rem, I've just reread your latest post, and there seems to be a misunderstanding from my point. First and foremost, I hope you do not understand that I feel that the one STATIC (see what I'm doing there) episode which took place at Ft Bragg that year constituted the bonding of which I spoke!! No, but I believe it was the underpinning, or spring board if you will, that started in motion all the remainder of the 99% ON ICE bonding of which you speak. But, the conundrum of which we differ, namely: the bonding led to the on ice success, or the success led to the on ice bonding, is really the age old "chicken or the egg" argument, don't you agree?

 

Further, and I guess this is where we have to diverge, I've always held that the reason I've been so attracted to the sport of hockey is because, in my naïve perhaps world, Hockey is the ULTIMATE TEAM SPORT. Bonding, comradery, working together is what drives it. Skill, a necessary ingredient to a successful team, can become the antithesis of teamwork, if the athlete fails to harness his ego, much like I'm afraid occurs in the NBA.

 

As always, JMHO

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 1 more week of this Bermuda high heat and I'm going to go crazy.

Yes, but put in the context of the events in my beloved Louisiana, which would you choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but put in the context of the events in my beloved Louisiana, which would you choose?

 

This Bermuda high is the cause of the flooding in LA and the heat we are having.  Since we can't choose our weather I reserve the right to not like this heat.  :)  Heat goes away so does the flooding.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so boring I tried to find anything, really anything of interest.

 

Found that Cardiac Cane has a pretty low standard for writing.

 

This profile appears to have large chunks that only apply to last year.

 

http://cardiaccane.com/2016/08/05/carolina-hurricanes-prospect-profile-haydn-fleury/

 

This one is about the Checkers signing Mitchell Heard, a clear deep depth signing, but the article lifts huge stretches directly from Hockey's Future without credit.

 

http://cardiaccane.com/2016/08/15/carolina-hurricanes-ahl-affiliate-sign-mitchell-heard/

 

Things are definitely better on Canes Country. Here is a blockbuster trade proposal if anyone wants to kick it around:

 

http://www.canescountry.com/2016/8/9/12352312/lets-make-a-deal-a-trade-to-consider

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are definitely better on Canes Country. Here is a blockbuster trade proposal if anyone wants to kick it around:

 

http://www.canescountry.com/2016/8/9/12352312/lets-make-a-deal-a-trade-to-consider

Looks like NotOpie is pretty bored, too!

 

I'll tell you what I would do: Lindholm, a D prospect and picks for Landeskog. Skinner has history with him in Kitchener; they roomed together and have stayed in touch. Put Stemp on the third line wing with TT and Aho and you're good to go.

 

Even though I *would* do it, I'd rather not, for the reasons NotOpie mentions early in his piece and near the end. Respectively: (1) There's no guarantee the move adds scoring "now," which is his thesis (a jump start this season) since you're bringing new guys into a new (to them) system. And: (2) We've got two guys in LIndholm and Rask who we've made a big investment in and who are poised to blossom. Our moves this summer have been about strategically surrounding them with the support they need to do so.

 

After what we've forced on Lindholm his first four years, I'm really excited to see what he's capable of with all that experience, a summer off, and two consistent linemates whose skills complement his. That line could be crazy good. Rask and Skins, meanwhile, have proven chemistry already; Stemp's experience and playmaking should only enhance it.

 

So to me, this proposal pretty much negates the moves we've made, in terms of giving the guys we already have and whose abilities we know the complementary players needed for them and the org as a whole to take the next step. That next step is the playoffs, and I think getting there this year with our core intact will prove more valuable over the long term. It's going to be a fight and it should be, because that's what builds the final piece of puzzle: Character.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

484142_18_e9135b.jpg?rand=0.814976580906

GMRF isn't in the quick fix business.

 

edit: and he know just how important cost controlled players (entry level and RFA) are to this budget organization.  He's building for the long term.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that GMRF isn't in the quick fix business; but then as a fan how do we measure success in the upcoming season?

 

For the season to be a success in our eyes.

 

Do we need to make the playoffs?

or

Do we only need to contend while improving our overall record?

or perhaps

scoring more goals than we give up will be enough to keep the optimism growing.

 

I'm just curious how other feel. For me making the playoffs is the only improvement that will signal the team is moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think making the playoffs has to be the goal for the team this year.  It's been too long and the team should be moving in that direction.  I guess "just missing" at the end would be an improvement, but it'd still feel like a kick in the crotch.

 

I'm not against a big trade, but it's hard for me to see how it would work.  The player we would want isn't going to come without us giving up a key piece (robbing Peter to pay Paul).  I still think a move may be made as the season gets closer with a cap casualty.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...