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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, OBXer said:

 

Agree and when we take on that player we can expose to the draft we should get some assets we can bank

 

What do you mean? No one is giving us assets to take a player they can just let Vegas pick for free. We can buy at a discount, but we will still pay some assets for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

What do you mean? No one is giving us assets to take a player they can just let Vegas pick for free. We can buy at a discount, but we will still pay some assets for them.

 

I didn't mean we won't have to give back in a trade but there will be teams trying to trade players to make room for others and free cap space. We may have to take a bad contract but we will insist on assets to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:
Could be nothing since we play them next week, but take what you will from this.

 

 Scouting AVs two games in a row. I would think that means we have more than a passing interest in something they have. I wonder what that could be ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at TSN's trade bait list, with eyes on forwards I'm loving Duchene, and liking Landeskog, and every other forward feels like small ball, too old or too much of a rental for this year, or in the case of Kane, too much baggage. So if that's the list:

 

Give me Duchene (or maybe Landeskog) or sit it out. Anyone want anyone else on that list?

 

TSN: Updated Trade Bait list …(Dmen and goalies)

 

Kevin Shattenkirk
Matt Duchene
Martin Hanzal
Patrick Eaves
Michael Stone
Radim Vrbata
Gabriel Landeskog
Ben Bishop
Evander Kane
Patrik Berglund
Ondrej Pavelec
Patrick Sharp
Thomas Vanek
Anthony Duclair
Jordan Eberle
Dmitry Kulikov
Marc-Andre Fleury
Curtis Lazar
Shane Doan
Jarome Iginla
Mathieu Perreault
Jaroslav Halak
Alexandre Burrows
Drew Stafford
Brian Gionta

Share this post


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

Anyone want anyone else on that list?

 

If we are looking to make this year better but without a rental, I'd give MAF a serious consideration. If this year is gone, then I'd rather go after Grubauer in the off season before the expansion draft.

Share this post


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

TSN: Updated Trade Bait list …

 

 

10 years ago a hefty number of those guys would have been nice additions.  Today, i'm pretty much in agreement... most of them look like either rentals or they're b-sides when we already have enough b-sides, thanks.  I still find Eberle interesting, but i'm not sure what he's worth at this point.  Duclair as well, but only if we could get the Duclair from last season and not the one from this season.  Otherwise, yeah, Duchene or Landeskog.

Share this post


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

Looking at TSN's trade bait list, with eyes on forwards I'm loving Duchene, and liking Landeskog, and every other forward feels like small ball, too old or too much of a rental for this year, or in the case of Kane, too much baggage. So if that's the list:

 

Give me Duchene (or maybe Landeskog) or sit it out. Anyone want anyone else on that list?

 

 

 

I'd take either of the Coyote guys if this asking price isn't too much, but not that I really think we should get them.  Not really just for this year but to have for a few years.  Duclair is still young and on a bad team, having a bad year.  Hanzal is a big body and we need more big bodies. 

Edited by JCLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody please explain to me how Duche makes any sense whatsoever contractually, let alone makes us bigger or better. He's a 5-11 finesse player who doesn't hit and plays no D. Beyond face-off skills - which I'll be the first to admit are crazy good - he's another sniper, something we're loaded up with already. He's under contract thru 2018-19 at $6 million.

 

Rask, meanwhile, is three years younger, is locked up three years longer, is three inches taller, and is $2 million cheaper. He also plays some D. To me, he pretty much epitomizes the draft-and-develop model, and RF's stated commitment to getting bigger. 

 

Landeskog, on the other hand, is bigger than Duche (6-1) and plays tougher. Google "Landeskog hits" and you'll get results of him dishing them--and even dropping the gloves. Google "Duchene hits" and it's all injuries from hits he's taken--with the exception of a dirty hit, which even the Avs agreed deserved discipline.

 

IMO Duchene is a shiny object that doesn't fit this team's needs. That's not taking anything away from his performance in the World Cup, or his cred as a pure scorer. But the NHL grind is not the World Cup, and we're already loaded up with scorers. Our deficiencies are net-front presence (so their shots get through) and general toughness. If we can get those things from a guy like Landeskog - who also happens to know how to put the puck in the net himself and plays some D (and who, by the way, is two years younger and under contract two years longer) I'm having a very hard time understanding why we'd have any interest in Duche at all.

 

So please, I don't ask my opening question sarcastically (or -chastically!): I'm seriously asking advocates for Duche to tell me how his acquisition fulfills RF's stated goals: Making us bigger, tougher, more defensively responsible, and bringing net-front presence.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francis first stated goal was speed. Also, despite the fact that we have depth of scoring and potential for scoring, we lack high end scoring. Also big, physical centers who can put up 65 points are few, and rarely traded, so I wouldn't hold my breath on adding one. Sure maybe Roy, but he could just as easily end up a 3rd or even 4th liner. Also I wouldn't say Duchene plays no defense. One year he was at the top of his team in plus minus.

 

Whether Duchene gets his points standing in front of the net or not, he gets them, and they count just as much.

 

Adding size and grit and net front, is, IMHO a different player, and adding Duchene does not preclude that. But Duchene adds to the speed and scoring game at a level that is higher than Landeskog, and FAR higher than anyone else on the trade bait list.

 

Now I do get that Landeskog could bring both, and I'd be perfectly OK with that, but I am just a bit wary of his recent decline in production vs. Duchene, who produces consistently. I also like Landeskog if he could be had cheaper.

 

Just providing a rationale for Duchene. Could be that Francis is more after Landeskog.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

Francis first stated goal was speed.

Okay. But it's not like we haven't added that element (or that Landeskog is slow himself). Playing fast hasn't been the issue. Finishing has, and it's been pretty consistently attributed by BP to no net-front. Is Duchene's pure scoring ability more elite than Skinner's? Than Aho's? Even if you answer yes, he's that same mold of player: Fast and a relative lightweight, while Scogger is a power forward who isn't afraid to hit people. What makes you think Duchene's finishing ability will translate to the East, the elite teams of which (read: Metro teams) are playing a much heavier game in recent years than those out West?

 

We can agree to disagree, that's fine. But I think speed and scoring potential on this team is both there and several years younger than Matt Duchene. Speaking purely for myself, and considering how the game is being played in the division where wins are most critical - our own - I want bigger guys up front who play heavy night in and night out, who battle for position in the slot, and who can also put the puck in the net. Of the two currently on offer from the Avs, Landeskog (to me) is the one who brings that dimension. He has 91 hits through 41 games to Duchene's 23 (through 46). That would be good for second place on this team, behind Stalberg, who has played 10 more games.

 

If we're talking about which guy brings more of what we currently lack, it's not even close IMO.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely we can agree to disagree. Just a healthy debate. I've been in favor of Duchene, so since you asked, I just wanted to provide the rationale for Duchene.

 

I think mainly it's that he's the one point producer widely felt to be available. Big gritty guys usually don't score much. Heck, if a fairly big, fairly gritty guy scores even a little they're hard to come by, let alone a big gritty guy who can score a lot. If you have a guy like that you rarely trade them, or even let them get to UFA.

 

I do get that Landeskog could be better that way, and I get your preference for him, and in the end, I'd jump for joy if we got him, but his scoring is down for two seasons now, he's had some concussion issues, and some have speculated it might be partly that, but it does present more risk, especially if we give up serious assets for him. If Landeskog gets back to his historical production, or even better his upside potential, he'd be the better pickup.

 

As to just trying to find a guy for grit and net front, I'm all for it, but I think it will be hard to find that guy who can also score.

 

But in a point we can probably agree with is that we have two guys who could be the total package on size, grit and scoring: Roy and Gauthier. I'd put money on Gauthier.

 

 

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

Absolutely we can agree to disagree. Just a healthy debate. I've been in favor of Duchene, so since you asked, I just wanted to provide the rationale for Duchene.

 

I think mainly it's that he's the one point producer widely felt to be available. Big gritty guys usually don't score much. Heck, if a fairly big, fairly gritty guy scores even a little they're hard to come by, let alone a big gritty guy who can score a lot. If you have a guy like that you rarely trade them, or even let them get to UFA.

 

I do get that Landeskog could be better that way, and I get your preference for him, and in the end, I'd jump for joy if we got him, but his scoring is down for two seasons now, he's had some concussion issues, and some have speculated it might be partly that, but it does present more risk, especially if we give up serious assets for him. If Landeskog gets back to his historical production, or even better his upside potential, he'd be the better pickup.

 

As to just trying to find a guy for grit and net front, I'm all for it, but I think it will be hard to find that guy who can also score.

 

But in a point we can probably agree with is that we have two guys who could be the total package on size, grit and scoring: Roy and Gauthier. I'd put money on Gauthier.

Yeah, I agree that we're closer than our preferences indicate.

 

I just added some stats to my prior post that you might have missed.

 

Hits this season:

Duchene 23 through 46 games.

Landeskog 91 through 41.

 

That would put Landeskog second on our roster to Stalberg (102), who has played 10 more games--meaning Scog is actually averaging .2 more hits per game than our top guy, who is (arguably) our only real power forward on a nightly basis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other note about Landeskog vs Duchene is Landeskog's played with a high level center his entire career, and he won't have that luxury in Carolina.  

 

I dont see how how with this team that struggles heavily with playmaking and scoring needs another gritty winger.  If anything, I'd say we need more toughness from the blueline, which is a void I think Fleury could fill.  We have plenty of players with size, they just don't always play like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy with MD or GL. It always comes down to Sakic's asking price for them. I can't see Joe Sakic's  asking price to vary much between the two players but from an age/financial/contract perspective the Canes may have more of an interest in Landeskog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally I'd hope we could get both, as they're both young and on decent contracts.  No way though am I giving up Hanifin straight up for Landeskog.  I'd give up Bean and a lesser prospect, but that probably wouldn't be enough.  And Landeskog is only a year younger than Duchene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will preface this by saying, if we can get either Duchesne or Landeskog without giving up the farm, I'm all for it.  We need good players and both of these guys are good players.  But given our roster make-up, Landeskog would be a better fit given the mix of players we have now.  We need good players with more "sandpaper" and that is one thing he brings to the table that Duchesne does not.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Ideally I'd hope we could get both, as they're both young and on decent contracts.  No way though am I giving up Hanifin straight up for Landeskog.  I'd give up Bean and a lesser prospect, but that probably wouldn't be enough.  And Landeskog is only a year younger than Duchene.

I'd give up Hanifan for Skoggers straight up in a heart beat. A proven player and currently holding the C for the AVS for a #5 defensiveman...where do I sign?? Unfortunately that would not be enough. Sakic wants an existing DMAN ++. Hanifan has more development ahead of him and may turn into a very good defensive man but currently he has his Faulk's.... I mean faults. If a straight up deal was enough, RF would of pulled the trigger a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in corner to get both and would pull the trigger on trading Hanifin with prospects to do it. We need pucks in the net, our GF is about 150, the top 4 teams in the metro are netting 170-190..and extra 15-20 goals right now would have us in the mix...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Yeah, I agree that we're closer than our preferences indicate.

 

I just added some stats to my prior post that you might have missed.

 

Hits this season:

Duchene 23 through 46 games.

Landeskog 91 through 41.

 

That would put Landeskog second on our roster to Stalberg (102), who has played 10 more games--meaning Scog is actually averaging .2 more hits per game than our top guy, who is (arguably) our only real power forward on a nightly basis.

Landeskog is currently in the top 50 in the NHL for hits. I would say that Skoggers vs Stalberg in total hits and hits per game is highly skewed as minutes per game is highly tilted in Skoggers end but it does prove that when Stalberg is on the ice he is hitting anything that moves with a different colored jersey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, PamlicoPuck said:

Im in corner to get both and would pull the trigger on trading Hanifin with prospects to do it. We need pucks in the net, our GF is about 150, the top 4 teams in the metro are netting 170-190..and extra 15-20 goals right now would have us in the mix...

 

I agree. For me, I don't trade Hanifin for either of Duchene or Landeskog alone. Both are very good players, but Noah's age and potential keep telling me that for just one of them, the risk reward is not enough because just Duchene or just Landeskog don't change the time horizon on when/if this team becomes a consistent playoff contender. We end up plugging one hole in the lineup while creating another.

 

So, for me to consider moving Noah for one of the Avs, I keep thinking we have to go blockbuster and get both to push the needle on our time horizon. Here is a proposal I posted on another message board site:

 

To the Avs - Hanifin, 2017 1st, Gauthier, Roy, PDG

To the Canes - Duchene, Landeskog

 

This gives the Avs the young defenseman they want, a first round pick, and then a very good prospect center and a very good prospect winger to replace the two guys they lose on a time horizon that better matches their new rebuild timeline. The Canes get a legitimate 1st line center that plays a fast game that Peters likes and a legitimate top six power forward that we don't have, both under contract for at least two more years that now seems to match up better with the time horizon for our team making a push. Noah's spot in the lineup can be replaced very soon by Fleury and maybe even Bean the year after, while Roy and Gauthier become a lot less necessary with the two forwards from Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

And Landeskog is only a year younger than Duchene.

He's 22 months younger--two months shy of two years. Two NHL seasons at any rate. Duchene: b. Jan 17 1991. Scog: Nov 23 1992.

 

19 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Ideally I'd hope we could get both

Not happening, and not necessary, IMO. We just buttoned down Rask for six years and we have other natural centers in Aho, TT, Lindholm, and a cupboard full of others on the way.

 

21 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

I dont see how how with this team that struggles heavily with playmaking and scoring needs another gritty winger.

Our problem isn't playmaking, it's getting shots through top-level NHL keepers, who no one on our roster is consistently willing to screen. I'd be interested to see your list of these numerous other "gritty wingers" we have enough of. I count two: Stalberg, who will likely be gone next year, and McGinn (and maybe PDG) who are still developing. We have no pure winger with toughness and a high-end scoring touch; someone in the Scotty Walker/Mark Recchi mold. Landeskog is that guy, and has the resume - and the Calder trophy - to prove it. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this debate just got some pop today. Interesting points. There are several angles on this, and the fact that we keep this particular trade talk going suggests that there is something to several of them.

 

One point is the Duchene vs Landeskog debate.

 

Over years on this board, I have heard a constant lament for more grit and sandpaper on this team, but this team has also been woefully inadequate at scoring over that same period. In general, guys who can play a gritty game and guys who can be a constant scoring threat are....different guys, not one player. Are there exceptions? Of course, but the are pretty rare, and teams rarely trade them at their peak, or they are in demand UFA's that don't come here (Lucic).

 

Oddly that paragraph would make the case for Landeskog. And really, other than pure points and speed, most of the boxes favor Landeskog, especially in the long run. Outside of the points issue, Duchene has speed and is great face-off guy, Landeskog is younger, grittier, bigger, captain, and signed for longer.

 

I would tend to agree with the idea that a gritty scorer is a role we could use. The only thing about Landeskog that gives me pause is that his production has tailed off.

 

2013-14: 65 points (.802 ppg)

2014-15: 59 points (.720 ppg)

2015-16: 53 points (.707 ppg)

2016-17: 42 points (.512 ppg)

 

Now, yes, this year is an Avs disaster. But Duchene, on the same team is at .70 ppg on pace for 57 on the same terrible team.

 

This is where the scouts and GMRF make their money and we don't. If they can account for Landeskog's fall off, and predict there is a solid chance it will pick back up with a change in scenery, maybe taking the Captain burden off?, or whatever, and they like the rest of his game, then he is the better choice.

 

The other thing is that he might be gotten cheaper, with us giving up less, and in the end that may well be the better deal.

 

But despite Landeskog's hitting and being grittier, and Duchene's defense being questioned, both guys have essentially the same plus minus this year and amazingly have exactly the same plus minus over the past 3 years on exactly the same team.

 

Personally, I get back to the GMRF thing. I trust him to judge the players and their fit for our team. I will say this. Based on what we've seen so far, Landeskog is the more Francis'esque play. The reason being that his drop off in production might make him available for less, and GMRF is not going to pay a lot for this muffler. Also, Francis is trying to build a team for the long haul, and Landeskog is younger and signed for longer.

 

When I look at the list of likely trade bait, I see a couple of interesting small ball moves Francis could make, but the only apparent big league move is for one of these two guys. I'd honestly jump for joy if we landed either of them.

Edited by remkin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we seem to spin circles on this discussion.  Unfortunately it seems to be the only trade topic to discuss.

 

after reading Ben Case's article on hockey buzz about trading Hainsey, I like the idea of getting Fluery and/or McKeown some PT.  I know there is risk with the potential flag going away but the reward of increased value is worth the risk.  On top of that, if they perform as expected it eases the mind on moving someone else. Make an offseason move for either MD or Skog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the cost side of the equation it is even more difficult. I see it in the responses here with ambivalence about who to send or not send. My contention is that long term trading Faulk still makes sense. But this year's team would not go without him. He is the only D man we have who scores goals. Faulk has one less goal than all the other D men combined. Even though Duchene would replace those goals, a team needs at least one threat from the blueline, especially on the PP.

 

Fleury to me makes sense from our end. He was a high draft pick, and has the size and skating that should translate into top pair D man. He's close to being NHL ready. Problem is, he probably doesn't get the trade done. We'd have to include more. Our first rounder, and a good prospect at least, maybe even more.

 

Hanifin is the guy who would seem to be the most logical in the end. While he seems to have elite skill, he is not there yet with his decision making. I look at him at 19 and still think this kid ends up being an All Star eventually. Does Sakic see that through the miscues and bad decisions? If so, Colorado could land a guy who eventually becomes a premier D man. While it is very hard to give up on a guy with this much talent, we do have Fleury likey NHL ready next year, and Bean a year or two behind him. Not to mention McKeown. This is a very tough one, but I sense most on here ready to move Hanfin for one of the Avs big two on the market, and I'm reluctantly getting there too.

 

I actually wrote this to plead Francis not to include Gauthier in any trade. The plan is to trade D for O, and Gauthier is IMO, a potentially elite NHL forward. This is a guy who not only goes to the net, but knows what to do once there. He makes "in tight" plays around the net, not just hack and whack. He's a 6'4" load, and he also makes plays in open ice that are very high skilled.

 

I would also be very reluctant to give up Roy. Another huge guy who has skill to go with his size. Also another guy who goes to the net constantly. A major element of the team Canada PP was basically about Roy standing in front of the net. He also passes very well.

 

If moving Hanifin saves us giving up Gauthier and Roy, that could end up being huge down the line.

 

I have far less trouble giving up our first rounder this year. We have drafted so well, and picked up other team's prospects, so that one year missing a mid round pick is worth getting a guy like Duchene or Landeskog. This is also supposedly a weaker draft year, and frankly at some point our drafting luck is bound to miss.

 

So have I talked myself into Hanifin and our first rounder for Duchene or Landeskog? Probably.

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...