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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

Quote

You're right about RF's comments, except that getting Iginla at this stage of his career is not the kind of "paying an old guy" RF was talking about, IMO. I think he specifically meant 30-ish free agents who are looking to win the lottery, and that's really the deal Iginla is now coming out of. Jagr has set the price for guys his age trying to hang on, and it's around $1 million. While Jags has seen that increase based on his performance, Iginla is dreaming of he thinks he's getting a long-term hi-dollar deal at 40, before he actually helps a team achieve something.

 

All of that being said, I do agree that it's unlikely he goes anywhere but a team in the running, like a Minnesota or Chicago (I seriously doubt Edmonton, just b/c of his history with their archrival Calgary). But I don't think we shouldn't pursue him, because you just never know. If we say "Jarome, help us out the rest of the way this year and show us you can bring what we need, because we believe we'll be in the mix in the next two years," that may be more attractive to him than the (very low) possibility of getting a ring as a rental. 

I understand ya, I can see your viewpoint on RF's comments, and there is a sense that mid-season, the season itself can deem things possible that was previously impossible. And for the record, I would love to see Iggy in a 'Canes sweater. :P I personally want to see him go to Edmonton and win a cup. I would find that extremely hilarious and evil, poor Calgary.

 

Edited by SuckaPunchd
messed up the quote :[
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

@legend-1 Would you do Jurco for Murphy?

 

If it gets Murphy off the NHL roster and Jurco can goto Charlotte sure. If Jurco's gotta take up space in Raleigh then I'd search for other ways to move on from Murphy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking a bit about the trade possibilities, and while it does make some sense to try to convert our defensive wealth into an offensive player with first line talent, I think the timing might be wrong. I wonder if it doesn't make more sense right now to load up on defenders that we can protect before the expansion draft. My rationale behind this comes from two things: 1) our ability to protect one or two more defenders before the expansion draft, 2) I saw a tweet earlier in the week that reported a GM being frustrated that no one was making any good young defenders available for trade. The expansion draft rules put a premium on defenders by making only three protected slots for them if you want your full complement of forwards to be protected. It also devalues non-ELC defenders (like Faulk) before the expansion draft because the acquiring team would have to use a protection slot for them and possibly lose someone else. So, because of those reasons, I wonder if looking for good 2nd or third pairing guys on teams that can't protect them would be a better strategy prior to the draft, then after the draft move some of our defenders for forwards that we don't have to protect. It would basically mean that we'd just roll the dice on this year with the forwards we already have, but that is far from a risk as many didn't project us being a playoff contender anyway.

 

 

Share this post


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

I've been thinking a bit about the trade possibilities, and while it does make some sense to try to convert our defensive wealth into an offensive player with first line talent, I think the timing might be wrong. I wonder if it doesn't make more sense right now to load up on defenders that we can protect before the expansion draft. My rationale behind this comes from two things: 1) our ability to protect one or two more defenders before the expansion draft, 2) I saw a tweet earlier in the week that reported a GM being frustrated that no one was making any good young defenders available for trade. The expansion draft rules put a premium on defenders by making only three protected slots for them if you want your full complement of forwards to be protected. It also devalues non-ELC defenders (like Faulk) before the expansion draft because the acquiring team would have to use a protection slot for them and possibly lose someone else. So, because of those reasons, I wonder if looking for good 2nd or third pairing guys on teams that can't protect them would be a better strategy prior to the draft, then after the draft move some of our defenders for forwards that we don't have to protect. It would basically mean that we'd just roll the dice on this year with the forwards we already have, but that is far from a risk as many didn't project us being a playoff contender anyway.

Good thinkin,' Lincoln.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From my nhl trade rumors:
 
On the Colorado Avalanche and Matt Duchene

Mark Kiszla of the Denver Post: Kiszla thinks it’s now time for the Colorado Avalanche to move on from forward Matt Duchene. Duchene knows he could traded before the deadline, and seems ready to move on from the Avs if that’s what it comes to.

 

“I’m open to it,” Duchene said Wednesday. “When I say open to it, I know it’s part of the business, and it’s something that might happen. I’m not hiding from it. I’m not running away. I’m not banging my head. I understand it’s part of what we deal with as pro athletes.”

Duchene on having his mention in trade rumors.

“The trade rumor stuff is part of the business. I understand that at this juncture of the season, (with) the way things are going, something may happen, something may not. We’ll see.”

The Avalanche need to rebuild again, and Duchene could land them the biggest return. Would the Avs be able to get a top-four defenseman and prospect/pick for Duchene?

 

Could the Avs get the Hurricanes to part his Jaccob Slavin in a deal?

 

 

remkin:

 

There remains a lot of smoke around this move. It appears that more and more people in Colorado are ready for a move to happen, including Duchene himself. Personally I don't give up Slavin period. We need a defenseman who plays defense. But I guess we've talked that part to death.

 

 

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's odd to me that I would for Faulk and even Hanifin potentially, but Slavin would make me say no to Matt Duchene. I'd want to try to keep Slavin and Pesce for as long as possible. They compliment each other well and have no business being this good this soon in their young careers individually, let alone as a pairing together.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't give up Slavin period.

Yes.

 

20 hours ago, remkin said:

We need a defenseman who plays defense. But I guess we've talked that part to death.

And yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

 

23 hours ago, legend-1 said:

If it gets Murphy off the NHL roster and Jurco can goto Charlotte sure. If Jurco's gotta take up space in Raleigh then I'd search for other ways to move on from Murphy.

 

A case of goalie sticks would do it for me. Used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SuckaPunchd said:

It's odd to me that I would for Faulk and even Hanifin potentially, but Slavin would make me say no to Matt Duchene. I'd want to try to keep Slavin and Pesce for as long as possible. They compliment each other well and have no business being this good this soon in their young careers individually, let alone as a pairing together.

 

I'm not as big on Pesce as other people tend to be, but Slavin, I'm completely on board and agree on saying to to Duchene if Slavin is involved.  I'd be fine sending Pesce though.

Share this post


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

 

I'm not as big on Pesce as other people tend to be, but Slavin, I'm completely on board and agree on saying to to Duchene if Slavin is involved.  I'd be fine sending Pesce though.

Given what they've done so far, I'm guessing that the Canes brass sees Slavin and Pesce as our defensive top pair for maybe the next decade and won't consider splitting them up if at all possible.  Even outside of that, I don't see Pesce as likely being in trade play since I don't think other teams would value him as highly as we do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bret Pesce is that underrated of players: the shut down defenseman. As flashy and fun as it is to have offensive defenseman, in the end, is it not about scoring more goals than the other team? Well Pesce is Plus 9, despite drawing the other team's top line nightly. Top of the team. In fact Pesce/Slavin are plus 15 together. The next best combination of two players (#3 and #4 on the plus-minus list) is Stempniak and Rask at even zero.

 

Seems like every time we bring up plus minus, we have to caveat that it is a messy stat. OK there it is.

 

That said though, over the last two years Pesce is Plus 2. Faulk is -37.  Just sayin', that's a lot more goals in our net when Faulk is out there.

 

(I know I've rang this bell more than once, but when I look at Faulk's career -80, I think, we could probably get by if we traded him).

 

I'm too lazy right now, but I've read Pesce excels at advanced stats too. I've also heard him gushed about by analysts on XM on a few occasions.

 

Pesce also could be renewable for less cash than say J Faulk. One of the challenges is building a D, one that we will face, is putting together 6 guys under the cap. If Pesce can be had for middling money, that makes him even more valuable.

 

No, Slavin and Pesce are quite simply the two best D men on the team, and young. Do not trade them. Trade Faulk and be done with it.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way I'd trade Slavin. Faulk has the offensive numbers that other team's fans may tend to notice, but watching our team, Slavin always seems to be the guy in the right position, the guy who gets the puck up the ice without sloppy passes or unforced turnovers. I'd bet if Colorodo's management put Duchene on the table, they'd ask for Slavin over Faulk. The bigger question is whether we'd part with Hanifan. If he lives up to his draft position, he would be a lot to give up. But he's not there yet, and Duchene was a top 3 pick as well, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have to trade a "protectable" defenseman, I would trade Hanifan before Slavin and Pesce.  We have a top pairing defense that we can build around, so we should do just that.  Because of age and contract status, there are only a few players in the NHL I would consider giving up Slavin for (Two are mentioned here).  The only exception for that is if someone drastically overpays for him (example - Edmonton giving up Draisaitl + couple of firsts) we would have to consider it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bluedevil58 said:

Trade should have happened already.  Management blew a golden opportunity of making the playoffs and squandered it.

If the rumors are true about what Sakic is demanding, then it would have been irresponsible for GMRF to make that trade.  

 

Don't get me wrong, I want Duchene (Landeskog) and I'm wiling to give up Faulk or Hanifin in order to get him.  But I'm not willing to give up one of the two PLUS Roy or Gauthier PLUS our 1st round pick.  It takes two to tango.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would do Hanifan and a 1st for Duchesne, using the "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" analogy.   For Landeskog, I would not trade a NHL defenseman.  Perhaps a McKeown or Fleury plus a second.  I read the Avs boards last night.  The fans thinks he's a 2nd/3rd liner.  Of course Sakic is seeing what is out there.  In his eyes there is no hurry since all these guys have contracts that go beyond this year.  He's can wait for the overpayment during the season.  If it does not come, he can make his moves in the offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ironman87 said:

I would do Hanifan and a 1st for Duchesne, using the "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" analogy.

I would too, but Sakic apparently wants a "young, established" NHL Dman: 

...And I don't think Hanifin cracks that nut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to think Francis is waiting this out until the price gets real.

 

The thing is who we have to offer that fits the bill. I wouldn't mind if we had a less talented young established guy plus our first rounder. But if Hanifin doesn't make the cut, (which is nuts IMHO, Sakic could easily end up on the right side of Hanifin plus our first rounder for either guy). Then to me anyways, Pesce/Slavin are too core.

 

IF they would take Pesce and our first for Duchene, I guess you have to look at it. The problem is that we are flush w/ LHD, from Dahlbeck and Hainsey to Fleury and Bean. This pushes Faulk back up to top pair, where his lifetime -80 and three year team worst plus/minus is emphasized.

 

That leaves trading Faulk. But Faulk plus a first rounder? Well, when you look at Faulk's plus/minus, maybe.

 

The main problem is the immediate hole that leaves us at RHD. I have liked Tennyson. His plus/minus is center mass of the team, and he seems steady. However, he's been scratched a couple of times and he does not produce any points. Murphy....well, you see the problem. McKeown? I've read he's still up and down, learning the pro game.

 

That is the delema. Can this team get by on RHD without Faulk? I think you have to push Tennyson up, and play Murphy in the 6 slot. This is not terribly encouraging. Of course we would have more firepower up front, and could leave Murphy exposed, and hopefully McKeown is ready or find a trade or UFA for a servicable RHD.

 

If Faulk were a LHD it would be a lot easier. Assuming Colorado wants Faulk.

 

Ironically, as much as I hate the idea of trading Hanifin, this is where that trade could make some sense. We have Fleury and Bean coming up, and currently have Slavin and Dahlbeck and Hainsey.

 

If Bean or Fleury can become a true #1 Dman or Hanifin won't, then if they'd make that trade, that seems to be the one we could best do right now.

Edited by remkin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sakic has made it too expensive so I say no sale.  If he wants to get real, and realize he is bargaining from a position of weakness, then maybe we can do something.

 

You don't have to trade if you are the Canes, that's the beauty of it.  You can wait until you get a great deal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sakic isn't going to settle for less than he's reportedly asking, I'm not sure he'd see Faulk or Hanifin as acceptable anyway.

 

Hanifin is young but by no means "established." Faulk is established but may be older than Sakic would like (which is insane--he's 24). If he's not too old, though, I'd deal Faulk and a second-rounder at most, and take my chances with Tennyson as the bridge to our D future. His D is better than Faulk's, and absent a major upgrade in goal, goals prevented are more important to this team at this time than the "offensive punch" of Faulk's net -6 (plus/minus rating less goals scored).

 

I get that the East is offense heavy and we were probably asked to send a D as a result. But by any measure, Slavin is the All-Star D-man on this team, so the skeptic in me wonders if Ronnie sent Faulk instead not because of his (supposed) offensive edge, but out of a dual desire: (a) to burnish Faulk's cred for potential trade, and (b) to give Slavin the rest he earned every single shift of every single game. I totally get that ASGs are offensive affairs, but Slavin's no slouch. He's got 16 assists, can carry the mail, leads the team in TOI and is second in plus/minus (+6). On any other team trying to decide which D-man goes to the ASG, it would have been a no-brainer: Slavin, hands down.

 

I'm staying tuned, but do agree that Sakic is unlikely to do anything before the off-season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, remkin said:

I would love to know what the Cane's brass really rates Hanifin's upside and likelihood of hitting it.

I still think the sky's the limit. His mistakes are mental lapses, and those are due to fatigue. By not insisting he play for a year in the AHL, we bet, against the odds, that his transition to the NHL would be anomalously faster than is typical for a guy his age. I understand why we did it, but hope that the next time we take a Dman early in the first round, we insist that he play a year in the AHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

 but out of a dual desire: (a) to burnish Faulk's cred for potential trade,

And adding 5 pts in the ASG doesn't hurt. Granted the players are going at half speed and Goalies aren't in any positions for groin pulls, but it can add to the resume. I'd do a Faulk and a 2nd round pick and no more. RF can also look at a RF D man in the off season if the yutes aren't ready. Oh let's not forget looking at the Goalie market as well.

  • Like 1

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...