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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, TheFaulker said:

I know the team has looked great offensively the last few games but I don't think we should pass up an opportunity to add an upper tier/elite fwd if the right deal falls into place. I just don't want to get complacent based on a stretch of successful games. With that said, I'm also nervous to give up Hanifin or Faulk. 

The way I look at it is this:

Skinner - Rask - XXX
McGinn - Staal - Lindholm
Aho - Teuvo - XXX

Ryan and Stempniak have played well, but those are the two spots I think the upgrades should be made. The issue I see with Landeskog is that he's a LW and we don't really have a spot for that without breaking up the current chemistry. Aho can play either wing so maybe he'd fit on that line. With Duchene, could he slide into Rask's spot and Rask play RW? 

I can say with great confidence that Ryan isn't going anywhere, based just on BP's recent comments. The fact that he can play both wing and C is huge, especially for road games, where we don't get last change. Stemp (to me) would be the more obvious guy to take out of the lineup, especially if you get Landeskog. Ryan joins TT and Aho and makes them better just as he already has with two other lines, and Landeskog plays with Skinner and Rask. He may prefer LW but as I've already noted, winger handedness is very different from D handedness; it's just not as critical, and in fact many wingers prefer to play their off-side, b/c it gives them forehand looks on pucks in the slot. (i.e., a left-shooting RW can one-time a loose puck in the slot on his forehand, where a right shot would be on his backhand.)   

Share this post


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

 

I may be in the minority on this but from my point of view, the asking price as it stands is where any hypothetical trades with Colorado fall apart.  Our young, uber defense JUST arrived on the scene last season.  I'm not so eager to give any of that up yet until we know what we have in Fleury, McKeown, or Bean and whether they are ready to take the next step if we did want to move one of our roster defensemen - even for an elite forward like Duchene or Landeskog.  And given the struggles in Charlotte, I'd say Fleury and McKeown still need a little more time in the oven.  

 

I know this team has had offensive woes in the recent past and that we have to take the recent goal scoring with a heavy grain of salt but I think when you look at this season as a whole there has been a slow, gradual build up to the increase in offense.  To me, it seems like Coach Peters is of the mindset that a team doesn't have to rely on one or two elite forwards for offense.  He wants offense that is spread throughout the line-up because that makes it so much more difficult for teams to match-up against us.  As a budget-minded team, that strategy negates any immediate need for another elite forward when you can rely on scoring from any of your lines.  

 

 

First off, really good first few posts yggsdrasil. If these posts are any indication, (or even if not) keep'em coming! I think your point of view is very reasonable. Indeed it is kind of the ying to the pull the trigger yang that has a few votes here.

 

I have come more around to your way of thinking lately. The team has enough offense now to make the playoffs, and we don't need a deep run, or shouldn't mortgage the future to take a shot down the field, in football terms.

 

Yes, to me the final piece in the no trade puzzle is the emergence of the McStaalholm line (I'm going to keep using that for a while). Others have pointed out that guys get hot, then fall back, and this line has had all of two games together. This is true, but I am just offering my eye, and to my eye Lindholm and McGinn are for real, and are hitting a level they've had, but needed the confidence to find. Jordan has always been consistent, but I am projecting more offense from him. Peters has struck on something here, and it is far from over.

 

I will say this though. On the side of making the trade, these two guys are high quality players, and they are themselves young, especially Landeskog, who is also signed forever. That is why I keep wondering if Francis might be trying to get Landeskog without moving Faulk, Slavin, Pesce or Hanifin. Seems like a long shot, but Fleury is a pretty attractive prospect, and maybe if we pile enough picks and pieces on him, we can get there. If Landeskog flourishes with the Captaincy lifted and a change of scenery, this is a guy who will be 24 at the start of next season, who put up 65 points at age 20, and has hit 20-26 goals three straight years, was the #2 overall pick, and is signed for 4.5 more years.

 

I'm still not saying we do it, but especially Landeskog would be not just trading for the short run.

 

Still, your point is well taken, and at the moment, I agree too. So that's nice.

 

Now what is a yggsdrasil?

Share this post


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

Now what is a yggsdrasil?

 

Here is more than you will ever want to know. :) 

 

And in regards to the rest of the post, I certainly understand the temptation.  Both are fine players and Landeskog is young and as you mentioned, signed for 4.5 years.  But I look at his production and while it is nothing to sneeze at, I don't see it as anything beyond the realm of what some of our still-developing roster players couldn't bring soon (looking towards Aho, Teravainen, Lindholm, Rask).  Sure, add Landeskog to all of those players I mentioned and it looks amazing up front but the cost of potentially poking a hole elsewhere doesn't seem worth it if you believe that the org has actually turned a corner in its player development skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yggsdrasil said:

 

Here is more than you will ever want to know. :) 

 

And in regards to the rest of the post, I certainly understand the temptation.  Both are fine players and Landeskog is young and as you mentioned, signed for 4.5 years.  But I look at his production and while it is nothing to sneeze at, I don't see it as anything beyond the realm of what some of our still-developing roster players couldn't bring soon (looking towards Aho, Teravainen, Lindholm, Rask).  Sure, add Landeskog to all of those players I mentioned and it looks amazing up front but the cost of potentially poking a hole elsewhere doesn't seem worth it if you believe that the org has actually turned a corner in its player development skills.

 

The arguments you make to not trade away the youth is reasoned, but has a couple of holes. Primarily in that they won't always be young and cheap. At some point if we keep having success with development, we will need to trade away a few as we won't be able to afford them. And the problem there is that at that point, if we can't afford all of them, then we can't afford to trade them for someone else who also costs a lot of cash or cap. Right now we can afford to trade cheap for more expensive because we will have a ton of cap space. If we wait until Hanifin, Pesce and Slavin have come off their ELCs, then we might not have the room to make a trade for the guy we want because of the money needed to pay them, or resign Faulk, or give Aho his next contract, etc, etc. If we feel we can make a run at the cup with one or both of those two forwards, and the cost is Hanifin and some other futures who aren't on the team at this point, given the youth of both of those two guys, I find it hard to not strongly consider doing that. Look at what is happening to Chicago now. They made their runs while both Kane and Tavares were both on their first contracts. Now that they "got paid", Chicago is scrambling to find cheap guys to fill important roles due to cap crunch. I'd hate to waste the cheap years of all of our youth "waiting for them to develop." It might never happen soon enough to be of use to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, yggsdrasil said:

 

Here is more than you will ever want to know. :) 

 

 Very interesting :letssee:.  Not sure I know any other words that start with 6 consonants. 

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MinJaBen said:

 

The arguments you make to not trade away the youth is reasoned, but has a couple of holes. Primarily in that they won't always be young and cheap. At some point if we keep having success with development, we will need to trade away a few as we won't be able to afford them. And the problem there is that at that point, if we can't afford all of them, then we can't afford to trade them for someone else who also costs a lot of cash or cap. Right now we can afford to trade cheap for more expensive because we will have a ton of cap space. If we wait until Hanifin, Pesce and Slavin have come off their ELCs, then we might not have the room to make a trade for the guy we want because of the money needed to pay them, or resign Faulk, or give Aho his next contract, etc, etc. If we feel we can make a run at the cup with one or both of those two forwards, and the cost is Hanifin and some other futures who aren't on the team at this point, given the youth of both of those two guys, I find it hard to not strongly consider doing that. Look at what is happening to Chicago now. They made their runs while both Kane and Tavares were both on their first contracts. Now that they "got paid", Chicago is scrambling to find cheap guys to fill important roles due to cap crunch. I'd hate to waste the cheap years of all of our youth "waiting for them to develop." It might never happen soon enough to be of use to us.

 

I don't see that as a hole but rather reinforcing the need to have plenty of stock in the development system.  You are right in that they won't always be young and cheap but as long as the system is deep you can trade a known quantity and feel relaxed because you know you have someone that is ready to make the jump up.  My point is that from my perspective we are not currently at that level.

 

Edited by yggsdrasil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landeskog is the best option because of his length of control, prior chemistry with Skins, and age.  If we were to move Fluery, it would be Lands or someone of similar age/contract length.  I still hate to move him or another young D player without seeing Fluery on the ice.  

 

With all that are we going to afford to re-sign Pesce, Hanafin, and Slavin at the same time? Can we spend 16 mil on 4 D players?

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, yggsdrasil said:

You are right in that they won't always be young and cheap but as long as the system is deep you can trade a known quantity and feel relaxed because you know you have someone that is ready to make the jump up.

 

That is true but misses the point of the original argument. The statement you made is really only a benefit if we are winning cups. If we are just treading water, in the playoffs or not, does not advance the team. And maybe that is all management wants is to go to the playoffs. But if they are trying to go to the playoffs and win a cup, I think we are likely missing one or more pieces up front. And with the success we are having now, we are extremely unlikely to find those pieces at the places we will now be drafting. Thus, at this point, I think if we can get a couple of those (still young) pieces via a trade of some of our futures, it is prudent to very carefully consider doing so. It sounds like Ron Francis is at least doing that, given the rumors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to weight actual achievement more heavily than potential because in considering potential our natural default tends to be max-potential, which very often isn't completely realized.  Obviously some of you are a lot more confident that Hanifin will become elite than I am. Which is fine, you may very well turn out to be right. In fact, I hope you are, whether Hanifin stays with us or not.

 

And I'll expand on a concept I think Min is alluding to above, which is opportunity cost.  It's not often that a team has an opportunity to pick up a proven player of Duchene's stature. Missing such an opportunity can be as costly as making a mistake in letting a developing player go too soon.   

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

I tend to weight actual achievement more heavily than potential because in considering potential our natural default tends to be max-potential, which very often isn't completely realized.  Obviously some of you are a lot more confident that Hanifin will become elite than I am. Which is fine, you may very well turn out to be right. In fact, I hope you are, whether Hanifin stays with us or not.

 

And I'll expand on a concept I think Min is alluding to above, which is opportunity cost.  It's not often that a team has an opportunity to pick up a proven player of Duchene's stature. Missing such an opportunity can be as costly as making a mistake in letting a developing player go too soon.   

 

 

Lake, I'm using your first paragraph as a jumping off point for this. I know you are saying you weigh those factors not use them absolutely, and this post is mostly not a direct response to you but goes beyond that.

 

Weighing potential with actual achievement is the trick. It is absolutely an inexact science, but the entire philosophy of "draft and develop" demands a very robust role of potential. If one weighed only actual achievement you wouldn't draft and develop at all. Evaluating potential is exponentially harder than evaluating achievement, which is fairly easy. How do you figure out who is the next Slavin and who is the next Boychuk while their developing? And even harder, when they are pre-draft age? But the team that does it will be better than the team that doesn't. Frankly, even Francis and many scouts have admitted there's a lot of luck, especially in drafting. But once you have a pool of talented prospects you have to let them develop to find out what you've got.

 

In some ways evaluating potential is harder when a guy goes straight to the NHL. He is no longer playing against his peers. The bar is so high. The NHL chews up and spits out extraordinary hockey players constantly.

 

There is a different sort of opportunity cost to trading a guy like Hanifin too. The opportunity to have what Hanifin has a good chance of becoming: a dominant #1 Dman if Hanifin turns into that elsewhere. If Hanfin is not there yet, then there is even more risk that Fleury and McKeown or Bean never get there either. I realize that "a good chance" is my evaluation, but with prospects that's what you have to do. Project. I lot of people don't like doing that, but that is the thing with prospects.

 

Hanfin is the topic of the moment on this so I want to explore his situation more. Most of our prospects, obviously and as I pointed out before, are safely tucked away in various Junior, College, and minor league ponds, playing against inferior opposition. Hanifin, however, is in a way trickier to assess precisely because he is in the NHL, playing the most difficult position against the best players in the world, initially a year younger than Fleury, his counterpart from the previous draft who hasn't played a single NHL game. Hanifin is being judged juggling 5 balls while others juggle 3. It is fair to try to compare him to Provorov and Werenski, but there are limits to those comparisons. Hanifin was viewed by most scouts and analysts as a can't miss eventual top pairing guy, with even higher upside. He was the first D man taken in his draft.

 

Now, I am not keying on Hanifin all game and I am no expert. Still, I see the gaffs and the turnovers, but I also see lots and lots of high skill puck plays and passes. I also see an overall calm and smooth skating. Maybe he would have been better off staying in college one more year, but he still seems pretty good for a 19 year old, and looks to have all the talent needed to find an elite game. Further, there is no evidence of any off ice problems or lack of dedication that I know of. 

 

The fact that 18 year old Hanifin beat out 19 year old, and essentially 20 year old #2 dman taken, Fleury, as well as McKeown, 18 year old Bean and others, points to a skill level that is viewed by our brass as pretty elite. Francis was not overly thrilled with aspects of Hanfin's game last year. Saying he had lots of things to improve in his game. But he was 18. Did that mean Francis has lowered his bar for Hanfin's ultimate game? Definitely not last year, but what about now? I don't know.

 

What I would love to know is the natural trajectory of different historical D men who came right into the NHL. How long did it take some very very good ones to get the kinks out? It is said that NHL Dmen peak around 28, and I've heard very good NHL Dmen say that his NHL game didn't really click until he was 24.

 

Anyways, my main point is that the philosophy of letting the kids grow and develop is the dominant Francis theme to this point. He has not traded a single prospect of any note to date. He has only compiled them. 

 

If one looked at the projected top line upside of our prospects (and here we include say anyone under 20, or anyone not in the NHL) I would say Aho, Hanifin and Gauthier seem to be the most prime high upside guys we have, with Aho and Hanfin already showing NHL skills in the NHL.

 

In the end, it is one of the GM"s primary jobs to evaluate and set value on his prospects. That becomes paramount if he is considering trading one. To the extent that GM's are generally not public with that valuation, we have to guess. My guess is that Francis values Hanifn very highly. I am guessing more highly than Duchene even. But there is a lot of chatter about us and the Av's so who knows?

 

Anyways, this was mostly just an opinion put out there for reading, more than a specific critique of your point.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

I tend to weight actual achievement more heavily than potential because in considering potential our natural default tends to be max-potential, which very often isn't completely realized.  Obviously some of you are a lot more confident that Hanifin will become elite than I am. Which is fine, you may very well turn out to be right. In fact, I hope you are, whether Hanifin stays with us or not.

 

And I'll expand on a concept I think Min is alluding to above, which is opportunity cost.  It's not often that a team has an opportunity to pick up a proven player of Duchene's stature. Missing such an opportunity can be as costly as making a mistake in letting a developing player go too soon.   

I'll add that there's a difference between the general idea of potential and the far more specific ability/willingness to play to the system. Which is not to suggest Hanifin (or any of our current guys) are lacking in that capacity. But when it comes to trades, assessing a guy's ability to mesh with the style of play and complete assignments is big. If the knock on Duchene - that he is not defensively responsible - is accurate, I don't see him as a fit for us. We just had that in a #1 center; no thank you on repeating past mistakes. And his contract most definitely is not a fit.

 

All of that being said, I can see us getting Duchene for the next two years and moving him at the 2019 deadline for assets which "restock" our inventory of draft picks, because about the only way we're going to get high first rounders as we continue to improve is through trade. If the deal being worked on is the kind of blockbuster we're hearing about, it could bring us both Duchene and Landeskog. I think RF would aspire to do that deal if it's available--and if Sakic gets more realistic about the return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be for sending Hanifin alone and I wouldn't even consider trading Hanifin+.  I value Duchene as a tier below the rest and I also value Faulk in that same category in relativity to position.  If a trade were to be made for Duchene, I would feel comfortable with trading Faulk for Duchene - straight up.  

 

There is a lot to like about Hanifin's game and I don't see anything that tells me he won't reach the potential scouts have said he is to reach.  And if he does reach that potential, getting rid of him for Duchene will be a loss when he hits it.

 

Potential is only potential and there is a risk on banking on it, but I wouldn't take the risk of losing out on it.

Edited by JCLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

And I'll expand on a concept I think Min is alluding to above, which is opportunity cost.  It's not often that a team has an opportunity to pick up a proven player of Duchene's stature. Missing such an opportunity can be as costly as making a mistake in letting a developing player go too soon.   

 

 

You really got me thinking today Lake. The other piece of your post, is something else I've been kicking around a while too.


I have the basic thesis that cup winners have elite forwards. At least one, and usually two  or more. Elite is a subjective term, but I mean a guy widely seen as a guy who creates a serious amount of offense with his speed and skill. A guy not out of place in a list of top 20 point getters, even top 10.  I realize that this could be wrong, but looking over the list of winners for the last 12 years or so, since and including our cup team, there are almost no exceptions.

 

Continuing on with this, is the realization that JR was planning on that being Eric, and then Eric and Jordan, and then even "he who shall not be named-sky". But when that didn't pan out, we are left trying to find that guy (s) somehow. We drafted D men with our last three top picks, which is fine. I think we did that in part because even drafting #7 and #5, the can't miss forwards were gone (also this past year), so we took the best player available. But, Aho aside, that still leaves us looking for that guy.

 

Digression. We do have the potential to have a couple of guys pretty close to that elite bar (Skinner/Aho, maybe Rask or TT, or even maybe LIndy), and then a really strong supportive cast, which could work. Also, if Gauthier, who I would not trade, ends up hitting his potential, he could be a guy like that. But he might not be too.

 

Anyway, following the notion that we will or should or even for salary reasons might have to convert some defensive power into forward power, I have been watching and waiting for that move. (We have discussed it to death, but the super elite UFA signing is a long shot at best, and we won't be picking in the top 3 any time soon, so a trade is the way). Admittedly, Francis is being very patient about that move. I think he is planning it, as evidenced by his attempt to get Drouin and his apparent attempt to get a guy from the Avs.

 

I was hoping we could move someone for Johansen and I wanted Drouin, and looked to the Oliers with lament when they moved Talyor Hall. But those were not to be.

 

So what I'm saying, is that I have been all about a move like one that could pry loose a Duchenne for the better part of two years. Oddly, while I know these opportunities don't come along every day, the emergence (my opinion) of McGinn and what looks like a whole new Lindholm, in the last week, ironically makes this move less urgent than at anytime in recent history. So while I know that opportunity is knocking as the Avs implode, and I want to pick that carcass, more than ever, I want to be careful what we give up, especially potentially elite prospects.

 

A few weeks ago, I'd have done Faulk for Duchene in a heartbeat. Now? Well this team is rolling, and gutting it's defense is not a risk free move.  I'm suddenly feeling more cautious. This is just me. Just one opinion. If the guy who's opinion counts pulls this trigger? I'd change my tune in a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JCLA said:

I wouldn't be for sending Hanifin alone and I wouldn't even consider trading Hanifin+.  I value Duchene as a tier below the rest and I also value Faulk in that same category in relativity to position.  If a trade were to be made for Duchene, I would feel comfortable with trading Faulk for Duchene - straight up.  

 

There is a lot to like about Hanifin's game and I don't see anything that tells me he won't reach the potential scouts have said he is to reach.  And if he does reach that potential, getting rid of him for Duchene will be a loss when he hits it.

 

Potential is only potential and there is a risk on banking on it, but I wouldn't take the risk of losing out on it.

The only way I'd be cool with trading faulk is if GMRF had a plan to sign a good FA dman.  We need experience on the back end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

The only way I'd be cool with trading faulk is if GMRF had a plan to sign a good FA dman.  We need experience on the back end

 

Yeah, I figured we'd sign another Hainsey or so in FA.

 

Pesce, Slavin, and Hanifin will be hitting year 3, so I think there is more experience there than one would think, even with the youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JCLA said:

 

Yeah, I figured we'd sign another Hainsey or so in FA.

 

Pesce, Slavin, and Hanifin will be hitting year 3, so I think there is more experience there than one would think, even with the youth.

We need a top 4 guy like Stone from the Yotes thats played similar number of games to Faulk.  The 3 younger guys will have between 160 & 140 games under their belt.  That isnt a lot of experience.  Hainsey is a decent 3rd line option but not a top line guy like Faulk.  He could be kept as a number 7 guy that mentors Hans, Slavin, Pesce, Fluery, and potentially another young defender.  

Share this post


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

Weighing potential with actual achievement is the trick. It is absolutely an inexact science, but the entire philosophy of "draft and develop" demands a very robust role of potential. If one weighed only actual achievement you wouldn't draft and develop at all. Evaluating potential is exponentially harder than evaluating achievement, which is fairly easy. How do you figure out who is the next Slavin and who is the next Boychuk while their developing? And even harder, when they are pre-draft age? But the team that does it accurately will be better than the team that doesn't. Frankly, even Francis and many scouts have admitted there's a lot of luck, especially in drafting. But once you have a pool of talented prospects you have to let them develop to find out what you've got.

Absolutely.  I'd just add the word "accurately".  And I'd make the case that there should be no absolutes. An org can lean towards mostly draft and develop, but I'd argue that there is value in accurately assessing where a player is likely to end up before the cycle plays out so that you can make  appropriate adjustments as you go.  Case in point: a couple of years back some of us were calling for more talent.  Others argued that we needed to wait to see how our prospects played out (at that time players like Boychuk and Terry),  Now, I'm not saying Hanifin is equivalent to Boyuchuk, lol.  Balanced against the return, the "risk" in our current discussion isn't that Hanifin won't make it; rather it's that he'll end up as a solid NHL d-man instead of "elite", or even a legitimate team #1.   I lean towards our GM being reasonably prospective instead of completely reactive.  Sure, that will lead to the occasional mistake, but hopefully not very many if you're accurate in your projections.  And it will also take advantage of opportunities that we'd have otherwise missed.  

 

In some ways evaluating potential is harder when a guy goes straight to the NHL. He is no longer playing against his peers. The bar is so high. The NHL chews up and spits out extraordinary hockey players constantly.

 

There is a different sort of opportunity cost to trading a guy like Hanifin too. The opportunity to have what Hanifin has a good chance of becoming: a dominant #1 Dman if Hanifin turns into that elsewhere. If Hanfin is not there yet, then there is even more risk that Fleury and McKeown or Bean never get there either. I realize that "a good chance" is my evaluation, but with prospects that's what you have to do. Project. I lot of people don't like doing that, but that is the thing with prospects.

 

Hanfin is the topic of the moment on this so I want to explore his situation more. Most of our prospects, obviously and as I pointed out before, are safely tucked away in various Junior, College, and minor league ponds, playing against inferior opposition. Hanifin, however, is in a way trickier to assess precisely because he is in the NHL, playing the most difficult position against the best players in the world, initially a year younger than Fleury, his counterpart from the previous draft who hasn't played a single NHL game. Hanifin is being judged juggling 5 balls while others juggle 3. It is fair to try to compare him to Provorov and Werenski, but there are limits to those comparisons. Hanifin was viewed by most scouts and analysts as a can't miss eventual top pairing guy, with even higher upside. He was the first D man taken in his draft.

I changed my opinion about trading Hanifin after I realized that my personal projections about him becoming elite were driven more by the above than by what I was actually seeing on the ice.  And I'll repeat what I said earlier; I haven't seen anything that would make me think that he can't become elite.  But there a lot of things that would help me make that jump that I haven't seen, either.  To pass on the return we're talking about, I'd need Hanifin to become more than just a decent top pairing guy, which is where I'm projecting him based on what I've actually seen so far (and yes, I'm taking his age into account in my own personal assessment).      

 

Now, I am not keying on Hanifin all game and I am no expert. Still, I see the gaffs and the turnovers, but I also see lots and lots of high skill puck plays and passes. I also see an overall calm and smooth skating. Maybe he would have been better off staying in college one more year, but he still seems pretty good for a 19 year old, and looks to have all the talent needed to find an elite game. Further, there is no evidence of any off ice problems or lack of dedication that I know of. 

 

The fact that 18 year old Hanifin beat out 19 year old, and essentially 20 year old #2 dman taken, Fleury, as well as McKeown, 18 year old Bean and others, points to a skill level that is viewed by our brass as pretty elite. Francis was not overly thrilled with aspects of Hanfin's game last year. Saying he had lots of things to improve in his game. But he was 18. Did that mean Francis has lowered his bar for Hanfin's ultimate game? Definitely not last year, but what about now? I don't know.

Doesn't necessarily mean our brass viewed his skill as "elite", just better than those other prospects at that time, no?.

 

What I would love to know is the natural trajectory of different historical D men who came right into the NHL. How long did it take some very very good ones to get the kinks out? It is said that NHL Dmen peak around 28, and I've heard very good NHL Dmen say that his NHL game didn't really click until he was 24.

 

Anyways, my main point is that the philosophy of letting the kids grow and develop is the dominant Francis theme to this point. He has not traded a single prospect of any note to date. He has only compiled them. 

Sure; the question being, is the deal we're talking about good enough to make an exception based on how the brass projects Hanifin? 

 

If one looked at the projected top line upside of our prospects (and here we include say anyone under 20, or anyone not in the NHL) I would say Aho, Hanifin and Gauthier seem to be the most prime high upside guys we have, with Aho and Hanfin already showing NHL skills in the NHL.

To me, Aho is the only one I see as being so "sure" that I wouldn't consider trading him for the right return (and of course I'd even trade Aho if the return was ridiculous).  But that's obviously completely subjective.  

 

In the end, it is one of the GM"s primary jobs to evaluate and set value on his prospects. That becomes paramount if he is considering trading one. To the extent that GM's are generally not public with that valuation, we have to guess. My guess is that Francis values Hanifn very highly. I am guessing more highly than Duchene even. But there is a lot of chatter about us and the Av's so who knows?

Exactly. Another case where I'd love to have a mole deep inside the Canes organization.  B)

 

Anyways, this was mostly just an opinion put out there for reading, more than a specific critique of your point.

Even if it had been directed at my points, I see it as a discussion from a different perspective; there's nothing at all I'd consider critical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, remkin said:

Anyways, my main point is that the philosophy of letting the kids grow and develop is the dominant Francis theme to this point. He has not traded a single prospect of any note to date. He has only compiled them.

 

Rem, I don't mean to single you out here, or even imply that this is the summation of your argument, but I've seen people playing around the edges of this thought and I want to comment on it.

 

Many here keep saying things just like this, that the "dominant" theme with Francis is to grow and develop players. But that is not correct. What he was saying (and I don't have a quote, so just paraphrasing here) is that he wants to build a successful organization that not just makes the playoffs occasionally, but consistently through the process of drafting and developing players. So the idea that he is wedded to that process is false. What he is REALLY wedded to is the goal of producing a successful team that consistently makes the playoffs and challenges for a cup. His comments on the drafting and developing were centered on the most consistent ways to do that, but I believe if he were to conclude that a certain opportunity to trade for a player or players would also allow for that success, he'd do it. And he'd have no problem making a trade of young players to make that happen because the development of young players is the prefered means to the goal, not the goal itself. The big question is: does the failure of the Avs present such an opportunity to him, or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the only reason why RF would make the bigger trade a bit earlier than planned would be because of the opportunity that has presented itself. If there were a such thing as perfect trading partners, Colorado and Carolina are that. We are probably the only team in the league that has the cap space and enough depth organizationally at D to pry one of the two big players from Colorado in Landeskog and Duchene (EDIT: This current season). RF has to at least kick the tires. He has stated many times in the past that eventually the right trade will present itself. Considering both Colorado players carry (at least) some term, and their age, they are the right type of players age-wise, skill-wise, and (arguably) contract-wise for what we need. We have more defensive depth than forward depth, and a move like this would even that out, at least at the NHL-level. It also gives us more time to develop Gauthier, Roy, and/or whoever remains post-trade. 

 

If we can't make that deal by the deadline, the rest of the league has the off-season to make such a move possible. That is where I see RF realizing this and making at least a significantly honest offer to CO. Also, I don't see RF moving Hanifin unless we somehow get both Skoggin and Duchene, or magically MacKinnon comes back. Or they find someone in the Avs system they feel can mitigate his departure, which I doubt the Avs would go for.

 

Edited by SuckaPunchd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my post above I used an example of Boychuk and Terry when talking about potential lost opportunity if you postpone decisions about your yutes until after you see how they develop.  Not a great example when we're talking about someone like Hanifin.  A much better example is Nail Yakupov.  Contrast what Edmonton could have gotten in trade for him 3 years ago vs. the conditional 2nd or 3rd round pick plus Zach Pochiro that they got for him this off season.  I'm not saying Hainifin is likely to disappoint as much as Yakupov, but it does illustrate my original point much better. 

 

Bottom line though: each of us calculates his own risk/ reward ratio based on our own subjective projections and makes a trade call based on that result.  Only time will tell who was most accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SuckaPunchd said:

In my opinion, the only reason why RF would make the bigger trade a bit earlier than planned would be because of the opportunity that has presented itself. If there were a such thing as perfect trading partners, Colorado and Carolina are that. We are probably the only team in the league that has the cap space and enough depth organizationally at D to pry one of the two big players from Colorado in Landeskog and Duchene (EDIT: This current season). RF has to at least kick the tires. He has stated many times in the past that eventually the right trade will present itself. Considering both Colorado players carry (at least) some term, and their age, they are the right type of players age-wise, skill-wise, and (arguably) contract-wise for what we need. We have more defensive depth than forward depth, and a move like this would even that out, at least at the NHL-level. It also gives us more time to develop Gauthier, Roy, and/or whoever remains post-trade. 

 

 

 

I agree with all of the above. A trade would significantly increase our depth offensively. For most of the season most of us have wanted more increased firepower.Granted our offense has gelled lately but why not increase our depth significantly if the opportunity is there.I don't view that an addition would disrupt our current mojo as either of these guys are 50+ scorers. We have the cap space for either GL or MD. The age is right as well and can offer proven talent for years to come. 50+ pt scorers don't grow on trees and  considering the age,cap,proven NHL experience it's just to good to pass up. This move takes pressure off of our yute prospects and will give them additional time to develop. Yes we have to give up some defensive depth but the pipeline is there to make the trade now. I'm hoping we can get it done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

In my post above I used an example of Boychuk and Terry when talking about potential lost opportunity if you postpone decisions about your yutes until after you see how they develop. 

Just a side note that Chris Terry cleared waivers two days ago and was sent back to St.Johns. Just shows how far we have come in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think if we make a deal with Colorado, it'd probably be for Landeskog and not Duchene. A few reasons that persuade me. One being the term Landeskog has (4 years left from a 7 year contract, 5,571,429 per). Landeskog also is thought to have a lower asking price. And another being his history and relationship with Skinner. But mainly the term. One thing to note is Landeskog has a Modified NTC that kicks in 2018. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on which guy I want more. Duchene could be that #1 C we've been missing for so many years. But we have Rask, Staal, Teuvo, Ryan all playing well and then Roy on his way up. Putting great wingers around those guys might be more beneficial than getting Duchene and still having little depth on the wings. 

Edited by TheFaulker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheFaulker said:

I'm torn on which guy I want more. Duchene could be that #1 C we've been missing for so many years. But we have Rask, Staal, Teuvo, Ryan all playing well and then Roy on his way up. Putting great wingers around those guys might be more beneficial than getting Duchene and still having little depth on the wings. 

 

Same here. 

Duchene is a speed demon, better scorer, and one of the best face-off men in the league (currently ranks 2nd).

Landeskog is a year younger, has a better (longer) contract, better 2-way player, and was given Avs "C" at 19yo, whatever that  implies.

Ether could make the Canes a very dangerous team in the playoffs, imo. 

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...