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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, JCLA said:

 

The only way I see us moving Faulk is if it's Faulk and only Faulk.

 

That would be ideal, but I'm not sure it gets done. Then again, who really knows? We've all heard how Sakic is asking for the moon, but we've also heard one GM after another pass on that moon thing.

 

I'm trying to think, if it had to be Faulk plus, what would the "Plus" have to be? Fresh rebuilds want prospects and picks, and Sakic has indicated that. If he'd take Murphy, obviously, done. But would we throw in a first rounder? Hmmm...that is really tough because our pick will likely be somewhere from 3-16, with an outside shot at a lottery win. If that ends up being the #3 overall pick, that will end up being a bad trade. If it ends up being the #15 pick, probably OK, as a lot more luck comes in by that point in the draft.

 

In the end, I think our first rounder is too much if we are offering up Faulk.

 

I would throw in a second rounder, and maybe a B level prospect with upside, and, of course Murphy.

 

So, Faulk, second rounder, Murphy and....(Carrick, PDG, Zykov, Sareela, Foegle). Maybe even Kuokanen, though that would be a tougher give. Thing is, he's a crafty smaller player, and we have a bunch of those. Maybe take the second rounder off the table if we throw him in.

 

Throw some volume in there. That seems to be what Sakic wants. We've had a great run of second rounders, but we've been seriously beating the odds there. Murphy needs a change of scenery, and even if he flourishes, I'd call it a good throw in, and while any of those other non Kuok guys could become good NHL'ers, their upsides are lmited). Kuok would be a tough one, but if it came to it, I probably still do it.

 

To me, if we can leverage Faulk to get Duchene or Landeskog, and keep: Our first round pick, Fleury, McKeown, Bean, Gauthier, and Roy, it still could be a good deal.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

Here is a question I'm pondering though. How do we get a big fish from the expansion draft?

I wasn't factoring the ExDraft in terms of what we get from it, but what we're potentially willing to lose to it. We all had high hopes for both Aho and TT this year. TT is getting there, Aho is pretty much already is. That, IMO, is what RF wanted to see, especially with TT: Is this guy a part of the long-term picture?

 

Assuming he's now satisfied that he is, our protect list is full:

Jordan

Skinner

Lindholm

Rask

TT

Nordstrom *

Ryan **

Faulk***

Cam

 

Notes:

* Nordstrom could be exposed if we trade for a forward before the draft.

** One of Ryan or McClement, both of whom are UFAs, will be extended prior to the draft (unless we pick up a C before the draft, in which case that acquisition would replace Ryan on the protect list).

*** If Faulk is dealt, we can protect one more forward of our choosing, meaning Nordy stays after all.

 

I think all my reasoning is right in terms of who is under contract, etc., but if anybody finds any flaws please correct me.

 

So rem, I don't think RF was making decisions last summer based on how he could pick someone up through the ExDraft. Sure, it could happen, but I think there's too many moving parts to try to factor in. My point about the draft is that I think RF's chief concern up to now has been solidifying the core he wants to go forward with and protecting it, while still having options like the asterisked items above. Now, with that in place, he's turning his attention to next steps, i.e., a proven top-sixer and (let's hope) goaltending.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

 

That would be ideal, but I'm not sure it gets done. Then again, who really knows? We've all heard how Sakic is asking for the moon, but we've also heard one GM after another pass on that moon thing.

 

I'm trying to think, if it had to be Faulk plus, what would the Plus have to be. Rebuilds want prospects and picks, and Sakic has indicated that. If he'd take Murphy, obviously, done. But would we throw in a first rounder? Hmmm...that is really tough because our pick will likely be somewhere from 3-16, with an outside shot at a lottery win. If that ends up being the #3 overall pick, that will end up being a bad trade. If it ends up being the #15 pick, probably OK, as a lot more luck comes in by then.

 

I would throw in a second rounder, and maybe a B level prospect with upside, and, of course Murphy.

 

So, Faulk, second rounder, Murphy and....(Carrick, PDG, Zykov, Sareela, Foegle). Maybe even Kuokanen, though that would be a tougher give. Thing is, he's a crafty smaller player, and we have a bunch of those. Maybe take the second rounder off the table if we throw him in.

 

To me, if we can leverage Faulk and keep: Our first round pick, Fleury, McKeown, Bean, Gauthier, and Roy, it still could be a good deal.

 

If that is Sakic's price for Duchene or Landeskog, he can keep them both. Value wise, Faulk being a RHD with #1D potential is near the apex of positional value. Add to that his age and contract status and value, it could be argued that the Avs need to add to Duchene to get Faulk.

Share this post


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

Assuming he thinks so, our protect list is full:

Jordan

Skinner

Lindholm

Rask

TT

Nordstrom *

Ryan **

Faulk***

Cam

 

I think Ryan is expansion draft exempt

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's another quesiton

Just now, MinJaBen said:

 

If that is Sakic's price for Duchene or Landeskog, he can keep them both. Value wise, Faulk being a RHD with #1D potential is near the apex of positional value. Add to that his age and contract status and value, it could be argued that the Avs need to add to Duchene to get Faulk.

 Yeah it could definitely be argued both ways. I guess it depends on how much you deduct from Faulk for the defensive issues. He is, after all, a defenseman.

 

If he really caries enough value that we could get Du/Land plus? What are we waiting for?!!

 

I don't see it, but that's just me. I think we have to throw at least a little kindling on the fire.

Share this post


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

Add to that his age and contract status and value, it could be argued that the Avs need to add to Duchene to get Faulk.

I just don't see it this way. Faulk's career -80 is glaringly bad, and the Avs are reportedly more interested in defensive Dmen. So to take Faulk, I can totally see us giving more, although I do think we'd expect a solid prospect or two coming back, on top of Duche/Skog.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

 

I think Ryan is expansion draft exempt

Based on this it appears you are right. I find no record of Ryan being under an NHL contract at any previous point in his career, and he's in year two of his first SPC.

 

So let's figure we protect Stemp instead, who isn't an FA until 2018-19. It would certainly make sense to keep around just in terms of veteran presence. 

Share this post


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

Based on this it appears you are right. I find no record of Ryan being under an NHL contract at any previous point in his career, and he's in year two of his first SPC.

 

So let's figure we protect Stemp instead, who isn't an FA until 2018-19. It would certainly make sense to keep around just in terms of veteran presence. 

 

We tend, or at least I do, forget that Ryan is only a second year NHLer. He had to take the long and winding road to the big league. 

Share this post


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

We tend, or at least I do, forget that Ryan is only a second year NHLer. He had to take the long and winding road to the big league. 

Right. Plus there are gray areas in the ExDraft rules. Like that linked article says, they don't affect a former KHLer, but might age/experience supersede that at some point? Though he hasn't played in the NHL until recently, Ryan, at 30, is a veteran by most standards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I just don't see it this way. Faulk's career -80 is glaringly bad, and the Avs are reportedly more interested in defensive Dmen. So to take Faulk, I can totally see us giving more, although I do think we'd expect a solid prospect or two coming back, on top of Duche/Skog.


I'm not saying Faulk doesn't have his warts. He does. But the issue is what is Faulks value on the market? Sakic may think Duchene is worth more, but if other teams agree with me that Faulk is worth more, we should hold him and deal with the other teams vs. just giving extra to the Avs for Duchene/Landeskog. I'd add to Faulk for both, but I wouldn't add to Faulk for just one...and I hope Francis agrees with that value.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep trying to take the personality side out of the trade equation.  You know who we like or who we don't to make a decision on trading a player. I'm asking myself if we trade a certain player how do we replace them, if we get a certain player will that compensate for the loss of the player we give up, most important I'm asking myself what player do we or perhaps more importantly not see with the club in 2 years.

 

For instance I look at Ward who at times this season has been brilliant and at other times not so much but he has shown IMO at the least he still is an NHL caliber goalie. Then I ask do I see him with the Canes in another 2 years, in essence is he our future. I don't think so but this leads me to ponder who is there to replace him. That makes me think that the goalie issue for us in the near term isn't Cam but his future replacement. I"m not saying this is correct only thinking out loud.

 

One thing I think we should note is our GA is pretty darn good. So as a group I would say our defense is doing their job but our GF is anemic at best. So I think we can agree we need scoring help and probable from a source other than our prospects. But at what price. Would adding a forward at the price of one of our roster D-men make us weaker overall. Are there other options perhaps in the off-season that will achieve the same results.

 

I don't know the answer. I'll have to get back to you on this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MinJaBen said:

But the issue is what is Faulks value on the market? 

I agree, but you can't deny that whether it's the Avs or someone else, teams know what we've got in the barn and in picks. Once we start talking to any team, they also know that we want the asset they've put on the table. When these factors are all considered, market value becomes a very nebulous thing, and (IMO) the issue is really this: How badly do we want to take the next step? i.e., are we willing to pay the price, or content to wait for our developing guys?

 

This is really the crux of the poll I put up (Would we? Should we?). While I couched the question in terms of this year's playoffs, it's really asking whether most of us think we're a move or two away from being consistently competitive. Whether RF thinks that's true now or a year from now, don't you agree that at least part of his thinking in acquiring the huge stock of assets he has is so that he can make it very hard for the other team to say no, if/when he identifies and decides to really go after those one or two pieces?

 

I think Faulk, a D prospect and second-round pick is fair for either Duche or Landeskog, provided we get a prospect or two coming our way. It's okay to disagree, but both teams know who the other has in their systems, so I think it's very unlikely that a deal of this magnitude would be only "straight up."

Share this post


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

It's okay to disagree, but both teams know who the other has in their systems, so I think it's very unlikely that a deal of this magnitude would be only "straight up."

 

Well, that argument cuts both ways. We know they have MacK, Jost, Rantanen, and a great shot at Nolan, so why would we give them a pass on Duchene's value? Plus, we know that they value our piece, or they wouldn't be talking to us, either.

Share this post


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

That makes me think that the goalie issue for us in the near term isn't Cam but his future replacement.

I know you were just citing this as an example, but here's my take.

 

If we can get a bona-fide number one sometime before next season but after the ExDraft, we must do it. In other words, we protect Cam for the ExDraft, then find that other guy, and Cam becomes our 1A. The ExDraft wild card necessitates the strategy. Bishop and Fleury are reportedly available now--but if you get one and protect him instead of Cam, and your acquisition falls flat--then what?

 

I think at bottom RF knows that Cam knows the system and trusts him. I think the plan (which hasn't worked out) has been for Eddie's game count to gradually increase while Cam's gradually declined. With that plan's failure, I think he recognizes that before the ExDraft is the worst possible time to commit to a new keeper, but that after the draft, with Cam still here, you have your solid backup and can then go shopping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MinJaBen said:

 

Well, that argument cuts both ways. We know they have MacK, Jost, Rantanen, and a great shot at Nolan, so why would we give them a pass on Duchene's value? Plus, we know that they value our piece, or they wouldn't be talking to us, either.

Exactly--it's what makes trades so interesting :)

 

I don't think sweetening the pot by acknowledging that Faulk isn't the defensive D man they want equates to giving them a pass on Duche's value. I think it's just that: a concession. We're conceding that if they're willing to bend on that, we're willing to bend a little too.

 

For me, unloading Murphy - who we know doesn't fit our plans going forward, so we need to unload him anyway - is a bonus for us. The only real concession we give up is the pick--and hey, if they happen to turn Murph into something we couldn't, more power to 'em.

Share this post


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

I know you were just citing this as an example, but here's my take.

 

If we can get a bona-fide number one sometime before next season but after the ExDraft, we must do it. In other words, we protect Cam for the ExDraft, then find that other guy, and Cam becomes our 1A

 

Exactly. I might even suggest that we get a quality up and comer that will be ready in another year or two to take the starters crease. Having said that if we can get a proven starter like you suggest I can't find fault with that thinking. 

 

Add;  The one concern I would have is that Ward does play better the more work he gets and that isn't ideal for a backup. But we really need to look at our future when it comes to our goalie situation. I still have hopes NED lives up to expectations but I'm not sure that is a smart bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Custance from ESPN in his Eight NHL trades that make sense article has this listed in the article:

 

Jake Bean, another strong prospect, and a protected 1st rounder for Landeskog.

Edited by JCLA

Share this post


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

Craig Custance from ESPN in his Eight NHL trades that make sense article says has this listed in the article:

 

Jake Bean, another strong prospect, and a protected 1st rounder for Landeskog.

I'd be all for Bean/Kuokkanen/1st (lottery protected) for Landeskog.

Share this post


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

Not I, Jake Bean is going to be special, mark my words.

 

Ditto. I'm ok with trading Fleury or McKeown plus Kuokkanen and the 1st for Landy, but please not Bean. I think he is going to be the Hanifin we hoped Hanifin would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh to Landeskog.  His production is consistently dropping each year, not a great sign. Plus he's a left wing which leaves Rask as our # 1 center.  A void that still needs to be filled IMO.  We need a #1 center more than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have time to comb through the rosters, but I imagine there are some teams (Kings, Pens, Hawks) that will not be able to protect all of their valuable assets.  They do have the option to trade with the Knights to not pick their players (draft picks or a prospect perhaps).  But with open protection slots (2 skaters by my count), we may be able to pick up a really good player in a "hockey trade" and then protect them.  I'm sure GMRF has already pursued this and has some targets in mind that we are not even considering.

 

And this has been stated before, but this type of activity does not have to occur at the deadline, but could also occur in the offseason before the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, danimal-ch1 said:

We need a #1 center more than anything.

You keep saying this. Back it up. We're T6 in the league in face-off percentage, and have seven natural centers on the roster (McC, Ryan, Rask, Staal, Lindy, TT, Aho). Duche is the same kind of player we're already loaded with: non-hitting snipers. Landeskog, however, brings big-time edge (top 50 in hits), was a rookie-of-the-year, and has history with Skinner. His production has more to do with having the target (the letter C) on his sweater, and it can be reasonably argued that the attention he draws is a big reason their top scorer - MacKinnon - has room to maneuver (Scog is MacKinnon's LW). He could do the same for us. 

 

We're not lacking centers; we're lacking net-front presence and chaos in the O-zone. Landeskog would bring both, while Duche is potentially Eric all over again. Nobody, however, is going to confuse Skog's style with that of E. Staal (a.k.a. the Artful Dodger).

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

I'm just going to push back a little and reiterate that we have guys with elite scoring ability. What we lack - and what stats like those Lake shared, which look at scoring percentages, don't take into account - are the things that enable players like that to work their magic. We're not called the CandyCanes around the league for nothing, and until we get those one or two guys up front who can bang - and score - with the best of them, other teams will know that they only need to shut down our one-dimensional players to win games.

Sorry top, I don't think we've got near enough elite scoring ability. In fact, the only Cane who I'd say is close to an "elite scorer" right now is Skinner (Aho will be, if not already).  And it sounds like we've got different definitions of "sniper", as well.  I sense you link it mainly to playing style (mostly non-physical), but for me it goes well beyond that and requires exceptional scoring ability, as well.  See above as to my thoughts on that, lol.  Hey, sometimes we agree, sometimes not,  This one is a "not".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You keep saying this. Back it up. We're T6 in the league in face-off percentage, and have seven natural centers on the roster (McC, Ryan, Rask, Staal, Lindy, TT, Aho). Duche is the same kind of player we're already loaded with: non-hitting snipers. Landeskog, however, brings big-time edge (top 50 in hits), was a rookie-of-the-year, and has history with Skinner. His production has more to do with having the target (the letter C) on his sweater, and it can be reasonably argued that the attention he draws is a big reason their top scorer - MacKinnon - has room to maneuver (Scog is MacKinnon's LW). He could do the same for us. 

 

We're not lacking centers; we're lacking net-front presence and chaos in the O-zone. Landeskog would bring both, while Duche is potentially Eric all over again. Nobody, however, is going to confuse Skog's style with that of E. Staal (a.k.a. the Artful Dodger).

 

We are more than anything lacking high-end skill.  If you want to get technical, you can add Skinner to your natural center list, considering that's the position he played in juniors.  Of all the centers you've listed, not one of them is consistent at creating offense for themselves or their line mates.  We need offense, pure and simple.  We are 19th in the league in scoring, and are always hovering near the bottom, that should be all the proof you need.  Adding grit isn't going to provide a substantial difference on the scoreboard.  Landeskog has played with an elite scoring center his entire career.  It's why Duchene is the person always mentioned when it comes to Carolina, not Landeskog.  You look at Duchene and see Eric, when I look at Landeskog and see Ruutu.

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...