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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Not my response, is my point.

 

That's cool, I was speaking more generally anyway.  My point is Avs fans are probably more dialed into what their team wants, the tendencies of the GM, and all that stuff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Slavin is probably our best all around defenseman, and young, and Pesce is probably our best defensive defenseman and RHD at that.

 

So to me the triad of Hanifin (future) and Pesce/Slavin (present and future) is pretty close to no deal.

 

But again, that's me. Would others move any of them?

 

I wouldn't trade any of those three for either of the two Avalanche players that are being discussed....straight up. But nobody is off limits in my mind, it depends on what is the return. For those three, it is pretty high.

Share this post


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

I guess what I'm curious about is specifically people's thoughts on Hanifin. I see him as the kind of D man you usually have to pick in the top 3 or get lucky, and a guy who will eventually become one of those D men that most teams don't even have one guy that good. I realize that he's not that right now as he still makes too many mistakes, but the skill is there, and he's only 19 years old. I would only trade him for a bonefide, young, top 20-25 IC type forward, and even then only if that guy was pretty proven.

 

Am I wrong? Do others value him as highly? I see him to as close to unavailable for trade as any player on the team or in the system.

 

In my mind Slavin is as close to untouchable as we've got.  I already love his D and it seems to me like his skating and puck handling have both improved noticeably over last year, with no sign of stopping, which bodes well for improved offense down the road as well.

 

Hard for me to assess Hanifin.  He's currently nowhere near the level of Slavin or Pesce imo, but he's 2 years younger.  But if in 2 years he's where Slavin is now, with maybe just a bit more offensive punch, I'll be happy.  And that's why I value Slavin more than Hanifin.  Potential is nice, but it doesn't do you any good until it's realized.  And there's always the chance that it might not be realized to the extent that you hope.

 

Pesce is easy, in a way.  He doesn't seem to have the cachet of Hanifin or Slavin and I don't see any other team valuing him as highly as I do.  So I'm not going to spend much time considering trading him because I don't realistically see getting back what I'd need anyways.

 

Given our organizational defensive depth, I might consider trading Hanifin for the right return, but it would have to be someone with a high probability of becoming the elite top line forward we want but who's younger than Duchene or Landeskog (e.g., Draisaitl).  I'd want to have him in his prime for 4 or 5 years after we reach true contender status, which is a couple of years away.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From FanSided:

 

On Thursday, Adrian Dater reported that Boston was in talks with Colorado regarding captain Gabriel Landeskog. According to Dater, Sakic was seeking Brandon Carlo as part of the return package, someone GM Don Sweeney is unwilling to part ways with at this point. 

 

So, I post the above just to support my point about what Avs' fans want and what Sakic does. Carlo is an RHD. And I grant that trade rumor sites are just that. But if true, this kinda blows a hole in the notion that the Avs aren't interested in RHD.

Share this post


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

From FanSided:

 

On Thursday, Adrian Dater reported that Boston was in talks with Colorado regarding captain Gabriel Landeskog. According to Dater, Sakic was seeking Brandon Carlo as part of the return package, someone GM Don Sweeney is unwilling to part ways with at this point. 

 

So, I post the above just to support my point about what Avs' fans want and what Sakic does. Carlo is an RHD. And I grant that trade rumor sites are just that. But if true, this kinda blows a hole in the notion that the Avs aren't interested in RHD.

 

Lot of fans I'm reading up on are comparing that guy to Eklund.  Also, on his twitter, he is insinuating Carlo would be apart of a package that would require Colorado move Landeskog and Barrie.  If the cost of Landeskog or Duchene required taking on Barrie, then I'm definitely out.  Barrie is a poor man's version of Faulk with a bigger contract.

 

There's also a big difference in Faulk and Carlo.  Carlo is a large, physical defensive defenseman that's being groomed for Chara's spot.  Also, Carlo is on his ELC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course as others have pointed out, it may well be that Faulk is not of interest or at least not enough to go straight up for Duchene or Landeskog. We'll probably never know if that was offered or not, unless it happens.

 

Looking over the past 3 years and weighting the previous two years a bit more heavily, the case can be made that Duchene is about the #50 best offensive player in points per game played, and about #65 in goals. Landeskog is about #65 in ppg, and #70 in goals. Very oversimplified, Duchene about the #56 forward, Landeskog about the #68 best forward in terms of points. Landeskog is much more off the pace this year.

 

The point is not so much to compare the two as to compare them both to Faulk. In a "hockey trade" sense, and putting aside contract issues for the moment, is Faulk at least in the top 70 Dmen? Of course it also depends on the two GM's, but to an unbiased observer would Faulk fetch either or both Duchene or Landeskog straight up?

 

Offensively, no doubt. In fact, offensively he is top 40 in points/game played and top 10 in goals/game played. So it all comes down to how you factor in the defensive side of the game because if you're valuing goals somewhat over assists, he's arguably around the #20 best offensive D man in the league if not higher.

 

In the end, I guess, the real question to me is how would this year's team handle replacing Faulk with, say Tennyson and Tennyson with....who? Dahlbeck on his off side? And that I guess, is the rub, and the point made earlier. Our depth on defense is not quite yet ready for prime time, which creates risk for this year's team, whom I think is the most likely team to grab that #8 slot (though the field still is more likely than any one team). 

 

What makes me endlessly fascinated with this is that both Duchene and Landeskog are young, and especially Landeskog signed for years to come. They, and especially Landeskog, are not rentals. They are like hitting on a top 5 draft pick and having them already developed and proven.

 

Skinner/Rask/Landeskog/Aho/Teuravainen/J Staal/Lindholm/Stempniak/Ryan. In a couple of years sub Gauthier for Stemp. That's a lot of firepower for a long time. Then Slavin and Hanfin and eventually Fleury and Bean come into form? Not bad......

 

But is it too soon? Next year or two as Fleury, Bean, and McKeown round into form, yes. But now? Hmmmmm.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

Lot of fans I'm reading up on are comparing that guy to Eklund.  Also, on his twitter, he is insinuating Carlo would be apart of a package that would require Colorado move Landeskog and Barrie.  If the cost of Landeskog or Duchene required taking on Barrie, then I'm definitely out.  Barrie is a poor man's version of Faulk with a bigger contract.

 

There's also a big difference in Faulk and Carlo.  Carlo is a large, physical defensive defenseman that's being groomed for Chara's spot.  Also, Carlo is on his ELC.

All points taken--but again, IF the rumor is true, they are obviously not opposed to RHD.

 

As an aside, how is Barrie a "poor man's Faulk"? In the same number of NHL seasons he's "only" a -28, while Faulk is -76. Barrie has three more scoring points than Faulk overall, while playing in 56 fewer games. As an RHD, he could be the Murphy that Murphy never was in the 6 slot. Heck, he could be the Faulk we have now. Of course, that's probably why we've not made a deal yet; the Avs don't want a second (arguably worse) Barrie than Barrie already is.

 

Nonetheless, I'd offer Faulk, Murphy and a high pick for Duchene or Landeskog, and if they're fool enough to throw Barrie in too, we should take him. He'd step right in to Faulk's role on the ice and we'd get our elite scorer to boot.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see that kind of a deal right now. I could be very wrong but I don't think we know yet if we are going to be sellers at the deadline and the team we have on the ice has a legit shot at challenging for a playoff spot. Of course a Faulk/ Landeskog or Duchene swap is more of a pure hockey trade but we haven't seen RF go that route yet. Who would replace Faulk?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Faulk with a bigger contract.

No, Barrie is a million cheaper. He's getting $0.5 million less than Faulk this year, and his total deal is $22 million, with three years remaining after this season, just like Faulk. Over the total 4-year period, Faulk will make $23 million. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

I just don't see that kind of a deal right now. I could be very wrong but I don't think we know yet if we are going to be sellers at the deadline and the team we have on the ice has a legit shot at challenging for a playoff spot. Of course a Faulk/ Landeskog or Duchene swap is more of a pure hockey trade but we haven't seen RF go that route yet. Who would replace Faulk?

Well if PK17 is right and the 'Lanch want to rid themselves of Barrie, we should totally agree. He could step right into Faulk's slot.

 

I'd offer Faulk, Murphy, McKeown and a pick for Landeskog (or Duchene) and Barrie. Done and done.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Well if PK17 is right and the 'Lanch want to rid themselves of Barrie, we should totally agree. He could step right into Faulk's slot.

 

I'd offer Faulk, Murphy, McKeown and a pick for Landeskog (or Duchene) and Barrie. Done and done.

 

Yes, that could work. But once you get past the +/- that is almost impossible to compare between teams Faulk is the slightly better player. You suggest adding Murphy, our only other true PP puck mover with a big shot and Mckeown who many think has a place with us in the future.  On the flip-side you do get either Landeskog or Duchene.  This isn't a trade that is out of the question but 2 roster D-men and a good D prospect to make it work. I still don't see it.

 

I think something like a Faulk/Lindy/ late pick for Landeskog/ Barrie (or Duchene/ Barrie) straight up would be more to my thinking. I don't think I would do it but I think it would be more of a possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once more, just to be clear, I don't think anything happens with the Avs, either. It's intriguing to talk about and it'd be awesome if we fell into a deal. But the fact is, we're already playing with the best in the league and our guys are taking yuuuuuuge steps--every night. A deal doesn't rise to the level of urgency for us that it does for the Avs--and Sakic is just delaying the inevitable, seemingly oblivious to just how desperate things are. He is, very simply, asking too much--or he'd have made a deal a long time ago. Joe, you don't want to give up your next star? Well, guess what: Teams with much better records than yours aren't giving theirs up, either.

 

What old Joe is really shopping for is a rebuilding shortcut. We've been down that road ourselves and can say this much with certainty: Lotsa luck. Because there are no shortcuts. Until you're willing to accept the offers you're getting for players you yourself want off your payroll due to their age and cap hits, you're gonna be stuck with those players. How's refusing to see things from your trading partners' POV workin' out for ya?? Last in the NHL, that's how--and there's no generational talent in this years' draft class. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

All points taken--but again, IF the rumor is true, they are obviously not opposed to RHD.

 

As an aside, how is Barrie a "poor man's Faulk"? In the same number of NHL seasons he's "only" a -28, while Faulk is -76. Barrie has three more scoring points than Faulk overall, while playing in 56 fewer games. As an RHD, he could be the Murphy that Murphy never was in the 6 slot. Heck, he could be the Faulk we have now. Of course, that's probably why we've not made a deal yet; the Avs don't want a second (arguably worse) Barrie than Barrie already is.

 

Nonetheless, I'd offer Faulk, Murphy and a high pick for Duchene or Landeskog, and if they're fool enough to throw Barrie in too, we should take him. He'd step right in to Faulk's role on the ice and we'd get our elite scorer to boot.

 

Barrie has only had one more + season than Faulk, and that one year he was on a playoff team.  Colorado fired Patrick Roy because he felt strongly about getting rid of Barrie.  

 

Cap hit Faulk 4.8, Barrie 5.5.

 

Also, Faulk has outscored Barrie by 13 more goals over their careers.  And yeah Barrie has 3 more pts, but he's played on a team with significant more offensive firepower than Carolina.  If Faulk played for that team over the years, he'd probably be a 60pt player.  And he's smaller too.

 

I just don't see the logic in trading Faulk to get a similar player back.  And like I said, Carlo is a completely different type of Dman than Faulk and Barrie.

Share this post


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

 

Yes, that could work. But once you get past the +/- that is almost impossible to compare between teams Faulk is the slightly better player. You suggest adding Murphy, our only other true PP puck mover with a big shot and Mckeown who many think has a place with us in the future.  On the flip-side you do get either Landeskog or Duchene.  This isn't a trade that is out of the question but 2 roster D-men and a good D prospect to make it work. I still don't see it.

 

You called Murphy a roster d-man

:rofl:

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

What old Joe is really shopping for is a rebuilding shortcut. We've been down that road ourselves and can say this much with certainty: Lotsa luck. Because there are no shortcuts. Until you're willing to accept the offers you're getting for players you yourself want off your payroll due to their age and cap hits, you're gonna be stuck with those players. How's refusing to see things from your trading partners' POV workin' out for ya?? Last in the NHL, that's how--and there's no generational talent in this years' draft class. 

If you think Colorado wants a rebuild, why would you offer Faulk?  He's the same age as the people he's trying to get rid of. In a rebuilding trade scenario, my Bean Fleury trade is more plausible 

Share this post


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

our only other true PP puck mover

I'm gonna have to go ahead and uh, sort of disagree with you there...

 

Slavin and TT have both shown to be great at carrying the mail, and others will too, because it's no longer about individual talent, but playing the system: lugging it up, tossing it back, and moving it laterally to create clean zone entries.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

I just don't see the logic in trading Faulk to get a similar player back.

I never said we should. I said if the Avs are foolish enough to throw Barrie in at a low cost in addition to the forward we're actually interested in, we should totally do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

If you think Colorado wants a rebuild, why would you offer Faulk?  He's the same age as the people he's trying to get rid of. In a rebuilding trade scenario, my Bean Fleury trade is more plausible 

Because during a rebuild you still need skilled guys who have been through them before. Faulk has--here. Which is not to suggest our rebuild is complete, but we're sure a lot further along than the Avs. Fleury I'd do, but Sakic apparently wants a roster player. 

Share this post


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

Slavin and TT have both shown to be great at carrying the mail, and others will too, because it's no longer about individual talent, but laying the system: lugging it up, tossing it back, and moving it laterally to create clean zone entries.

 

I exaggerated a little. Both Slavin and TT can move the puck and Slavin can certainly score. We did draft Murph to be that puck mover with a big shot at at times he is. The problem is just as many times he isn't. I think my point should have been we aren't going to give up 3 D-men in one trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Cap hit Faulk 4.8, Barrie 5.5.

We've had this discussion already and will have to agree to disagree; I run with the actual contract. But either way, the differences are too small to quibble about. -28 versus -76 however--not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

If you think Colorado wants a rebuild, why would you offer Faulk?  He's the same age as the people he's trying to get rid of. In a rebuilding trade scenario, my Bean Fleury trade is more plausible 

 

I'd offer Faulk, but a fly in the ointment for an Avs / Canes deal seems to be that their situation would ideally call for an even younger d-man.  The Oil seem to better situated to optimally utilize Faulk at this point in his career but are they still looking to balance their O and D after the Hall/ Larsson trade?  Probably not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to remind everyone that Pastor Bill mentioned "missing Faulk" during some of our recent losses.  Just sayin'.  Sounds like the Pastor likes him, which matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Cap hit Faulk 4.8, Barrie 5.5.

 

13 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

We've had this discussion already and will have to agree to disagree; I run with the actual contract. But either way, the differences are too small to quibble about. -28 versus -76 however--not so much.

 

I've got to believe that for many teams the more important figure is cap hit, for Canes and other "budget" teams it's actual salary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wxray1 said:

Want to remind everyone that Pastor Bill mentioned "missing Faulk" during some of our recent losses.  Just sayin'.  Sounds like the Pastor likes him, which matters.

 

This is the more important point in all of this talk.  Peters and Francis think highly of Faulk, and he's probably the least likely blueliner to go in a trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, wxray1 said:

Want to remind everyone that Pastor Bill mentioned "missing Faulk" during some of our recent losses.  Just sayin'.  Sounds like the Pastor likes him, which matters.

 

Pastor Bill also spoke highly of Brother Eric. Didn't stop Monsignor Francis from sending him on a pilgrimage into the Wild. 

  • Like 2

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...