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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, remkin said:

I stand corrected*. Definitely some rumors out there about him. 

 

Most of them last year, and some speculation over the summer, but there is that one report that claimed as recently as a couple of months ago that management and Landeskog were at odds.

 

Interesting choice in a way, if it came down to Landeskog vs. Duchene. Both very high picks. About a year apart. Duchene scores more, but Landeskog is bigger, historically better defensively, captain material so a leader. Either one could help us a lot. Landeskog is locked up two extra years, and has a limited NTC (not sure if he could block a move here), which would be good if he keeps producing, the money is about even.

 

I would also say Landeskog, but we could use a center more ideally. Either one would make us better.

*well technically I just said I'm not aware of them, but still.

 

Landeskog's NTC doesn't kick in for another couple of years.  But I'm still thinking that Duchene is more likely to be shopped than Landeskog. 

 

Here's a quote from Sakic at the conclusion of last season:

    “We have to look and see if the players are going to buy into what it takes to win. Not just trying to do it the easy way and try and score five goals a game.”

That sounds more like he's referring to his highest scoring forward instead of his best 2-way forward.

 

Of course, that was last spring.  And, I've been wrong before and will be again. :P      

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


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

I would also say Landeskog, but we could use a center more ideally. Either one would make us better.

Landeskog's age, deal, and his history playing Junior hockey with Skins are what tips the scales in his favor, for me.

 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having played in the OHL with Skinner over 7 years ago is ancient history and totally irrelevant. Its about does he financially fit in with the cheapest payroll in the NHL.

 

He played Jr hockey with Skins...good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, raleighcaniac said:

Having played in the OHL with Skinner over 7 years ago is ancient history and totally irrelevant. Its about does he financially fit in with the cheapest payroll in the NHL.

 

He played Jr hockey with Skins...good one.

If you knew much about hockey (you clearly do not), you'd know chemistry is forever. But who wants that, right??

 

Skinner roomed with Landeskog and mentored him at Kitchener. Both won Calders, and they have remained close friends. You could look it up--or just keep aimlessly shooting your mouth off.

 

How about posting when you've got something sensible to share? So far, it's slim pickin's.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Skinner roomed with Landeskog and mentored him at Kitchener. Both won Calders, and they have remained close friends. You could look it up--or just keep aimlessly shooting your mouth off.

 

I did not know this, thanks for sharing.

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you knew much about hockey (you clearly do not), you'd know chemistry is forever. But who wants that, right??

 

Skinner roomed with Landeskog and mentored him at Kitchener. Both won Calders, and they have remained close friends. You could look it up--or just keep aimlessly shooting your mouth off.

 

How about posting when you've got something sensible to share? So far, it's slim pickin's.

 

I would agree about chemistry and it's a plus they are friends.  Chemistry isn't forever though.  As someone who has played sports most of his life, although not hockey, chemistry stays as players stay the same.  I doubt each player have the same game as they have matured as players. I would say they would enjoy playing with each other as they are friends.  They would need a few periods to get back to OHL days as they work through their playing style in BPs system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption of Skinner and Landeskog playing on the same line would seem to be the best fit but not an automatic. We all know of the often line shuffling card tricks in Raleigh. Don't forget the anticipated chemistry between the Staal's, never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

They would need a few periods to get back to OHL days as they work through their playing style in BPs system.

I don't disagree, although a few periods sure beats a few seasons :) As someone who has played hockey in particular, though, I will say this: Hockey chemistry is mostly about knowing your partner will be in given areas in given situations, much like in basketball, due to the speed of the game. The system we're playing now promotes that kind of chemistry, and the more we play it, I think, the more we'll see the fruits of it. 

Share this post


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

Hockey chemistry is mostly about knowing your partner will be in given areas in given situations, much like in basketball, due to the speed of the game.

 

Never played hockey, but I know this is true in basketball.  There is something that just "clicks" with certain players.  In my life, there is one guy that I know to this day, he and I still think the game exactly the same way and would have the old chemistry.  I always knew where he was on the court and where he was going.   Of course, birthdays have put a nix on that, but in our day, we were good as a pair.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they never played together before I think they would compliment each other quite well. Both of them are young, have tremendous skill, hustle and scoring instinct, one is more of a finesse skater and the other more of a power forward who doesn't shy away from the tough areas areas and physical play. $5.5m would not be a concern at all but what we would have to give up to get him might be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Whaler1 said:

$5.5m would not be a concern at all but what we would have to give up to get him might be.

Faulk, Murph and retain some salary. Done. And I still want Jeremy Smith for Lack, even up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we somehow actually traded Faulk, for a top forward, would our defense hold up? Who slides up to the second pairing, and who fills the #6 slot opened up at RHD, especially if we include Murphy. Dahlbeck could play his off side. I know that Francis wants to protect McKeown as a rule. Trevor McCarrick would probably be next man up, but also a LHD.

 

As much angst as we have for Murphy, I'm not sure we want to trade 2 RHD at the same time.

 

Tripp also called out Faulk on XM yesterday, saying he has "so much more to give". 

 

But even with Faulk in non All Star mode, he is clearly better than Murphy or probably McKeown at this point. We are deeper at LHD, with both Dahlbeck and Carrick on deck.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

If we somehow actually traded Faulk, for a top forward, would our defense hold up? Who slides up to the second pairing, and who fills the #6 slot opened up at RHD, especially if we include Murphy. Dahlbeck could play his off side. I know that Francis wants to protect McKeown as a rule. Trevor McCarrick would probably be next man up, but also a LHD.

 

As much angst as we have for Murphy, I'm not sure we want to trade 2 RHD at the same time.

 

Tripp also called out Faulk on XM yesterday, saying he has "so much more to give". 

 

But even with Faulk in non All Star mode, he is clearly better than Murphy or probably McKeown at this point. We are deeper at LHD, with both Dahlbeck and Carrick on deck.

 

 

Yeah, i'm totally happy having Tennyson slide up to the second pairing if something were to happen, but if Murphy goes as well then we're digging deep to fill a RD3 hole that we were really struggling to fill.  Particularly when the Nakladal option also no longer exists.  Dennis Robertson?  Wow, i don't know.  Plus then CLT's down 2 RHDs...

 

edit - Actually Robertson's already an LHD playing on his off-side.  Not sure trading away two RHDs is an option...

Edited by realmdrakkar

Share this post


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

I know that Francis wants to protect McKeown as a rule.

If you mean from trade, I agree. If you mean for development, it might have been true when the season started that RF wanted him to get games under his belt in the AHL, but given McKeown's experience in international competition and the fact that he was put on the roster, I think he's next cowboy up if RDH is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

donwake, I've lusted after that trade for a while on here, before the season began. At the moment though I really don't think Edmonton is interested in moving Draisaitl. I'd do it in a heartbeat though.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edmonton also isn't having the defensive issues they were last year i think - can they realistically still be considered to be on the market for a defenseman?  As much as i would love to have a couple of their forwards i wonder if it's even worth looking to Edmonton at this point.  Things have come together pretty well for them by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Edmonton also isn't having the defensive issues they were last year i think - can they realistically still be considered to be on the market for a defenseman?  As much as i would love to have a couple of their forwards i wonder if it's even worth looking to Edmonton at this point.  Things have come together pretty well for them by now.

Exactly. Some of us are skittish about changing anything just based on the quality of our play now. Edmonton, meanwhile, is 10th overall and 4th in the West. It clearly ain't broke; they'd be foolish to "fix" it.

 

The Avs are another story, though. Football season is about over; the Broncos are going nowhere. If Avs ownership expects people to brave the Denver winter to come watch them the rest of the way, they need to at least look they want to start winning some hockey games. We reportedly scouted the Avs-Habs game over the weekend.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Exactly. Some of us are skittish about changing anything just based on the quality of our play now. Edmonton, meanwhile, is 10th overall and 4th in the West. It clearly ain't broke; they'd be foolish to "fix" it.

 

The Avs are another story, though. Football season is about over; the Broncos are going nowhere. They need to at least look they want to start winning some hockey games, or people aren't going to brave the Denver winter to come watch them the rest of the way. We reportedly scouted the Avs-Habs game over the weekend.

 

 

Still fun to salivate over, but no longer realistic i don't think.  I would have traded Faulk for Hall (or RNH, or Draisaitl, or Eberle, or the pick that became Puljujarvi) over the summer, but that ship sailed once Jersey pulled the trigger.  Like you i turn my fantasies to Colorado now.  I still don't think Faulk gets us Duchene or Landeskog (last summer maybe, but not now), but like i said, fantasies.  We'd have to sweeten the deal but even though Murphy's the obvious sweetener, i'm hesitant to trade 2 RHDs, particularly after we lost Nakladal.  Dahlbeck, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2016 at 1:04 PM, remkin said:

If we somehow actually traded Faulk, for a top forward, would our defense hold up? Who slides up to the second pairing, and who fills the #6 slot opened up at RHD, especially if we include Murphy. Dahlbeck could play his off side. I know that Francis wants to protect McKeown as a rule. Trevor McCarrick would probably be next man up, but also a LHD.

 

As much angst as we have for Murphy, I'm not sure we want to trade 2 RHD at the same time.

 

I've been browsing the Avs fan forum and they seem to think they need a left shot d-man more than a right shot one.  Some speculated that if they got Faulk, 25yo r-shot Tyson Barrie http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/player/7306 would become redundant.  So they were chewing on a multi-player deal, something like Duchene and Tyson Barrie for Faulk and Lindholm, with draft picks to balance out the trade (they'd want to add a pretty high Canes draft pick). 

 

Seems like it would be tough to make a trade involving Lindholm work because we'd weight his potential very highly (especially now that is all around game is starting to come around even if his scoring isn't), while they'd focus on his history to date and current state.  But that is one scenario that would take care of the r-shot d-man situation until McKeown is ready (or even allow us to get other assets for McKeown depending on how Barre worked out).      

Share this post


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

Still fun to salivate over, but no longer realistic i don't think.  I would have traded Faulk for Hall (or RNH, or Draisaitl, or Eberle, or the pick that became Puljujarvi) over the summer, but that ship sailed once Jersey pulled the trigger.  Like you i turn my fantasies to Colorado now.  I still don't think Faulk gets us Duchene or Landeskog (last summer maybe, but not now), but like i said, fantasies.  We'd have to sweeten the deal but even though Murphy's the obvious sweetener, i'm hesitant to trade 2 RHDs, particularly after we lost Nakladal.  Dahlbeck, though?

I think calling Murphy an RHD is the real fantasy. :lol: I've really hung in with him and hoped he'd get there, but I've seen enough. He just doesn't fit our style of play, and the better we get, the clearer it becomes that he's not going to. If he and Faulk would shake Landeskog or Duchene loose, I'd do that deal in heartbeat, especially with McKeown in waiting. We're certainly going to have eight skaters to expose for expansion, and Murphy isn't going to get the needed games anyway. Sometimes you have to take a chance. The question is whether the brain trust thinks this (or sometime prior to the TD) is the time to do so. I'm not convinced it is, but I'd have to listen very closely if bringing either of those guys back is the possible outcome.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

I've been browsing the Avs fan forum and they seem to think they need a left shot d-man more than a right shot one.  Some speculated that if they got Faulk, 25yo r-shot Tyson Barrie http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/player/7306 would become redundant.

IMO, and no disrespect to them, but that just means they're not thinking ahead. RHD will always be in demand in this league, so they don't need to worry about whether Barrie will become redundant once Johnson comes back six weeks from now. They need an RHD, today, who can bring what Johnson does--and at 5-10/190, Barrie is not that guy.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

IMO, and no disrespect to them, but that just means they're not thinking ahead. RHD will always be in demand in this league, so they don't need to worry about whether Barrie will become redundant once Johnson comes back six weeks from now. They need an RHD, today, who can bring what Johnson does--and at 5-10/190, Barrie is not that guy.

 

 

I'm not familiar enough with the Avs franchise to weigh in on their relative depth regarding right vs. left handed d-men.  And I don't think they're worried about today, just the opposite. They've written off this season and are focused on getting as high a draft pick as possible (administrative tank).  They're resigned to a reconfiguration if not an outright rebuild. 

 

I should have also mentioned that some over there aren't interested in Faulk.  That's not necessarily due to his overall value (although some question it in relation to Duchene), rather it's because they don't think he's a good fit for where they want to go.  Part of it seems to relate to his defensive abilities and part of it is due to the fact that they see themselves as a few years away from becoming truly competitive.  Faulk is only 24yo but some want an even younger d-man to build around.  Someone like a Hanifin, Slavin, Provorov, or Werenski.  [good luck with prying one of them loose, lol]    

Edited by LakeLivin

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...