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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

good luck with prying one of them loose, lol

That's exactly where I'm at. What they want and what they can get are two different things. But my reasoning is that if it becomes a full-on rebuild, and they're suddenly heavy in RHD - whether they want Faulk long-term or not - they then have multiple bargaining chips in a league that always wants those guys. Of course, if it is a full-on rebuild, picks might be what the Avs covet most in any trade proposal in the first place.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wonder what Faulk's value is to GM's around the league and specifically the teams that might look to trade now. I know that if they read our boards, they would not do Faulk for Duchene or Landeskog straight up, but is there enough there to maybe get it done with another piece? If they are in rebuild mode, then picks and prospects could come into play too.  But Faulk is a RHD who can score, and has been our defacto All Star two years running. Also, Faulk really might be a guy who could use a change of scenery, maybe. We've seen stretches of Faulk the All Star. Seems like the talent is in there. But not consistently enough. Maybe a new team brings it out.

 

I guess I'm just saying that while we experts on message boards have written Faulk way down, he might carry more value than we think.

 

Personally, I see Slavin/Pesce/Hanifin/Fleury/McKeown/Bean as the future. If Fleury, Bean and Hanifin get even close to their upside, that is an embarrassment of riches. Seriously, that could be the best defense in the NHL in a few years.

 

To me Slavin/Pesce/Hanifin are untouchable at least right now. Of course no one is truly untouchable, but the price would prevent a trade from actually happening. While in theory we could trade Fluery or McKeown, I can't see the return being worth it (see Lindholm next paragraph).

 

I also get a real twinge when Lindholm's name is tossed in. Not that he can't be traded, but that it is risky. Risky because we still don't know what he is going to be. If his game keeps building, he could be a 65 point forward. But no way are we getting that kind of return for hi now. He's that guy we throw into a trade and next year he puts up big numbers for another team. Sort of like when Skinner was struggling and his value seemed too low to trade him.

 

I still think in the long term, sky high goals plan, we need to find an elite level forward at some point, ideally a first line center, if we want to be that team that competes for a cup yearly, though if TT finds a home at 3C then a winger would work. We are not going to tank for a top 3 pick, so somewhere down the line Francis has to be constantly trying to figure out how to turn our riches in the system on defense, into as that offense producing guy. If he can do it now, so long as it is the piece he wants, even better.

 

I know we're in draft and develop mode, but if Francis can find a young proven productive guy who still has lots of tread on the tires, it would help now, and the future, it would be worth adding a pick or prospect for the right guy.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

I really wonder what Faulk's value is to GM's around the league and specifically the teams that might look to trade now. I know that if they read our boards, they would not do Faulk for Duchene or Landeskog straight up, but is there enough there to maybe get it done with another piece? If they are in rebuild mode, then picks and prospects could come into play too.  But Faulk is a RHD who can score, and has been our defacto All Star two years running. Also, Faulk really might be a guy who could use a change of scenery, maybe. We've seen stretches of Faulk the All Star. Seems like the talent is in there. But not consistently enough. Maybe a new team brings it out.

 

I guess I'm just saying that while we experts on message boards have written Faulk way down, he might carry more value than we think.

 

I think it's hard for most of us on these boards to objectively value our own players. On the one hand, most fans tend to value one of "their" players at his ceiling, especially when things are going well.  But a different dynamic is that we can become so familiar with one of our players warts that we can tend to underestimate him, especially when things aren't going well.

 

On the Avs board right now, Duchene isn't being viewed as an elite center by all of the Avs fans given how his season has gone so far. Very good, but not elite.  Ignoring the "ceiling fans", many don't think he'd pull a Hanifin, Provorov, or Werenski in a straight up deal.  Some think Faulk-Duchene straight up would be fair, others aren't so high on Faulk.  Bottom line is:  who knows, lol? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at Lake. Ultimately we'll only know for sure what GM"s are thinking if they make a trade, or if we get some inside info (rare).

 

But you make a great point that mostly we over-value our own players, but in this case, we've soured on Faulk, they may have soured on Duchenne. If the GM's agree, that deal might still be there even though we're thinking it would take more, perhaps because we've over-devalued Faulk (that can't be a real word, but you know what I mean), and they've over-devalued Duchenne.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "add" on a Murphy/Duclair trade won't be a 1st (as the author mentioned).  Smurphy's value is low, but I don't think RF throws in a 1st to make that trade for a player in a sophomore slump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely not add a first rounder to that deal. Duclair is in more than a slump. I haven't watched him this year, so maybe he is snakebitten, his shooting perecentage is very low this year. BUT, he has put up 5 points, and ONE goal in 29 games. A .17 ppg pace. He is on pace for 14 points and THREE goals for the year. Also, his shooting percentage during his 20 goal year last year was 19 percent. 1/5 shots went in. For comparison, Skinner's is 11%.

 

So, Duclair is not likely to repeat that, and his good year could easily be an outlier. He is 5'11" and was a late third rounder.
 

All of that said, this is a sort of Ron Francis type trade. Small ball, for a guy who has shown skill and scoring, but has dropped way way back. He is still young at 21. While not technically a prospect, in a way he is. He did put up 44 points at 20 years old. Also, he's on a tanking team. And despite his utter lack of production, his is at least only -2 on a terrible team.

 

I think Murphy for Duclair staight up, or maybe throw in a third round pick could get done. I don't think Francis gives up a first round pick now for a guy who has tailed off that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Avs implode, teams are calling. Apparently the only names off the table are McKinnon and Rantanen according to Elliot Friedman.

 

Quote:

 

Friedman adds that the Avs won’t be giving Matt Duchene or Gabriel Landeskog away and are interested in good, young defensemen or prospects.

 

“Now, if you’re asking about Matt Duchene or Gabriel Landeskog, from what I understand, teams have been told they’re not giving these guys because they’re panicking,” said Friedman. “If you want to come at [the Avalanche] with good, young defencemen or prospects, [they] are prepared to listen. But the packages are going to have to be big because they look at both [players] and see good players signed to good contracts.”

 

Sounds to me like they're at least potentially available.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be a deal worth exploring, with young for young, but who would we give up, and who of those 2, whom I vaguely recall from drafts past as being desirable, would benefit this team most? Just have not kept up with their developments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faulk seemed to be on upswing coastal, do we want to let that go? Looked up those 2 proposed, and both have large +/- deficits (I know not the greatest of stats), but McKinnon is a center? But like you, I'd attempt to pry Landeskog loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense here. Looking at goalie situation, maybe that's the critical need now, like being discussed on other site ( in season talk).

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


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

Thought you'd converted, coastal! 

 

Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the reader who doesn't get it.

 

More fun definitions here.

 

Yeah, sarchasm - that's it!!!  (you have to be real careful around here or someone might get there feelings hurt).

 

That list is hilarious.  I like "bozone" - seems so appropriate.  "ignoranus" isn't bad either, LOL.  This could be it's own thread.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

Yeah, sarchasm - that's it!!!  (you have to be real careful around here or someone might get there feelings hurt).

 

That list is hilarious.  I like "bozone" - seems so appropriate.  "ignoranus" isn't bad either, LOL.  This could be it's own thread.

Those two really reached me, too. 

Share this post


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

We could trade any one of Faulk, Faulk, or Faulk.

 

Personally, I'd rather have Landeskog.

 

Just package all 3 for Landeskog

 

(Sarchasm alert)

 

edit:  I'll be using the term "sarchasm alert" on a regular basis

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landeskog is having a down year, but this is a young guy who is really a 60-65 point player most years. Instantly as good as any forward we have in terms of overall offense.

 

Down year on a down team, could be the time to get him.

 

Previously I would prefer Duchene, a touch more dynamic, more points and a center. But with TT settling in nicely at center, the need for a center is lower. Landeskog has the rest of this year, and 4 more years on his deal, so he would be a part of the future as well as the present.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

Yeah, sarchasm - that's it!!!  (you have to be real careful around here or someone might get there feelings hurt).

 

That list is hilarious.  I like "bozone" - seems so appropriate.  "ignoranus" isn't bad either, LOL.  This could be it's own thread.

Most of it is the dopeler effect!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2017 at 6:30 PM, remkin said:

Friedman adds that the Avs won’t be giving Matt Duchene or Gabriel Landeskog away and are interested in good, young defensemen or prospects.

 

From  Lyle Richardson of Spector's Hockey

Quote

As I’ve recently observed, the Carolina Hurricanes are the only team that suitably fits the bill, but there’s no certainty GM Ron Francis wants to part with any of his young blueliners.

 

Richardson also speculates that such a trade is more likely to happen around the June Draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this on the "just say no" side of the Faulk for Insert Name Here idea, last night after another stuck in mud effort, Peters mused that the problem was getting the puck up from the defense, openly mentioning the team missing Faulk. He did walk it back a touch saying he had to look at the film to see if the forwards were getting open for the pass up, but seemed to be at least one notch to the don't make that move side.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it sounded like whomever asked wanted to blame missing Lindy.   Peters was quick to mention Faulk.

 

I think both of them missing has had a visible effect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what side of the equation of an individual player your on I think we can all agree that when you remove two starters from the lineup it has to have an effect. I suspect we also have a few players playing through injuries. It is part of the game but I think it does have an impact. Couple that with the Skinner-Rask-Ryan combo who have seemed to cool down and your left with an anemic offense.

 

No excuse because other players have to step up but an impact non- the- less

 

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...