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

Trade rumors and talk

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

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.

Wait--the least likely? Do you really think BP or RF would give up Pesce, Slavin, or Hanifin before Faulk?

Share this post


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

 

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

Yeah, Bill is never going to go negative on any player, that much we know. He might call them out saying he needs more from them or say what they need to do to improve (a la Skinner). He'll challenge guys to step up ("Hey, guys get hurt and someone else gets an opportunity"), and he'll say things like he did with Eric, "He's a big strong center, of course we'll miss him." But anybody waiting for BP to say "Defense is not Faulk's long suit" is gonna be waiting a long time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canes Country also proposed three hypothetical trades for acquiring Duchene. Am I crazy to say that the first one is absolutely abysmal?

 

Trade #1

Carolina Hurricanes Trade
Jaccob Slavin, Phil Di Giuseppe, Valentin Zykov, Carolina’s 2017 second-round draft pick and New Jersey’s 2017 third-round draft pick

Colorado Avalanche Trade
Matt Duchene

 

I woudn't even consider trading Slavin for Duchene straight-up. Not for a single second. No chance. Let alone adding in Di Guiseppe, Zykov and two high draft picks? What a joke.

Share this post


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

 

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

 

Just as long as Cardinal Waddell and Pope Karmons stay out of it!

Share this post


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

Canes Country also proposed three hypothetical trades for acquiring Duchene. Am I crazy to say that the first one is absolutely abysmal?

 

Trade #1

Carolina Hurricanes Trade
Jaccob Slavin, Phil Di Giuseppe, Valentin Zykov, Carolina’s 2017 second-round draft pick and New Jersey’s 2017 third-round draft pick

Colorado Avalanche Trade
Matt Duchene

 

I woudn't even consider trading Slavin for Duchene straight-up. Not for a single second. No chance. Let alone adding in Di Guiseppe, Zykov and two high draft picks? What a joke.

 

Yeah, that one was crazy. No way.

 

Share this post


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

Wait--the least likely? Do you really think BP or RF would give up Pesce, Slavin, or Hanifin before Faulk?

 

Hanifin, yes.  Slavin/Pesce, maybe.  Fans and management don't all view players the same.  I don't think GMRF views Faulk nearly as bad as some board members do.

 

In general, I think if Francis won't trade any roster Dman for Duchene if it were to happen.  If he can't get it done without messing up the flow of the team, he probably walks away.

Share this post


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

I don't think GMRF views Faulk nearly as bad as some board members do.

I think maybe this is what's at the root of our disagreement. I think you trade a player because you're in greater need of the player they can bring back than you are of what your guy is giving you. Taken to its logical conclusion, your comment suggests that you think players are traded mainly to be unloaded.

 

I don't believe any of Faulk's, Landeskog's, or Duchene's potential upsides for our team, overall, are as great as those of Hanifin and Pesce and Slavin, across - and this is keythe same approximate time horizon. All of the latter three (statistically) will be playing in this league a lot longer than the first three.

 

Trades always come down to value for value. Faulk and Landeskog and Duchene are within a year of each other in age, i.e., they're at the same stage of their careers. To me (and to most GMs, I would venture) that - where the players in a trade proposal are in their careers - is as big and, in given situations, a much bigger factor than cap hit, because once you've signed them, you also acquire the exclusive rights to negotiate future deals with them. With Slavin, Hanifin and Pesce, we would be giving up, based on the average NHL retirement age of 28.18 years old, 8-10 years of service, while getting 4 to 5 from Landeskog or Duchene.

 

This is exactly why Sakic has taken MacKinnon off the table, and IMO, it is why we are faaaaar more likely to do the same with Hanifin, Slavin and Pesce - take them off the table, no questions asked - than we are with Faulk. Now, THAT being said, does it pay us to ride Faulk's current deal out and let the players we've got keep improving? I think so, but if Faulk for Landeskog or Duchene straight up is on the table, I think it's hard to turn down.  

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Slavin traded I will not even support the Canes anymore!  Pesce has to stay.  I used to see Hannifin as untouchable but this year he has not been great.  Yes I said it.  I know hes very young and I know he will eventually hopefully be "great".  From what I've seen this year, his poise is has not been great, he throws the puck away a lot when he's pressured.  I also feel sometimes he just seems a little to relaxed, doesn't put it into fifth gear and give it all he's got.  I want to see him grind and press and have a sense of urgency more.  I think we need to keep him but if it had to be between him or Faulk,........as of now I would be equally disappointed to let one go and keep either one. Hannifins skills are undeniable and so is his skating, I think a fire needs to be lit under his butt and he needs to get some more confidence.  Before I get hung by everyone here, I'm not saying he's having a "bad" sophomore year.  It's pretty solid for the most part.  I just expected him to be better than average, and at this point he is not IMO.  I do think he is on the untouchable list for RF, which is fine with me.  No more "he's young" excuses next year, he better bring it.  I like this team a lot and as of now I'd rather give up some good draft picks and keep all of our top players if it was possible.  I think we are set for the next decade on the blue line and pretty close on the offense.  see what we can get with some picks and prospects and a Murphy or Nordstrom thrown in. something like that. If not than I guess one good "D" guy has to go if we want a top 6 forward.  I'll let RF decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me qualify my opinion with the fact that if I knew how to make a trade I would be playing Wall Street instead of the lottery. Having said that I will guess that Pesce and Slavin aren't going anywhere.  They are expansion draft exempt, RFA's and have in all reality become our top 2 D. Not even on the table.

 

Faulk a young  top 4 D-man with a reasonable contract who can score. That's our defensive scheme. Why in the world after working so hard to build a defense would we even entertain the notion of disrupting it. Possible sure but not likely.

 

Hanifin a youthful D-man full of promise in his second year. You don't give up on this kid. He is learning and making mistakes but he is learning. I'm gonna guess he will slide up into Hainsey's spot in the next year or two.

Hainsey a veteran stabilizing force that plays a responsible game, While we are in the playoff hunt I doubt we trade him but if we are out of it by March 1, well with an expiring contract he would be an ideal rental candidate.

 

Flurey is in the wings and next season I won't be surprised to see him on the bottom pair. That makes Murphy and our press box core expendable. They won't get you a top scoring forward in a trade but coupled with other assets may bring a return. I just don't see a big trade using our D-men as bait.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ThrashCanes said:

Canes Country also proposed three hypothetical trades for acquiring Duchene. Am I crazy to say that the first one is absolutely abysmal?

 

Trade #1

Carolina Hurricanes Trade
Jaccob Slavin, Phil Di Giuseppe, Valentin Zykov, Carolina’s 2017 second-round draft pick and New Jersey’s 2017 third-round draft pick

Colorado Avalanche Trade
Matt Duchene

 

I woudn't even consider trading Slavin for Duchene straight-up. Not for a single second. No chance. Let alone adding in Di Guiseppe, Zykov and two high draft picks? What a joke.

 

 

Yeah, no way.  I also would not trade Slavin for Duchene straight up, much less sweeten the pot that much.  The other way around - Slavin for Duchene + 2 prospects and 2 picks - maybe.  Though probably not even that.

 

 

48 minutes ago, danimal-ch1 said:

If Slavin traded I will not even support the Canes anymore!  Pesce has to stay.  I used to see Hannifin as untouchable but this year he has not been great.  Yes I said it.  I know hes very young and I know he will eventually hopefully be "great".  From what I've seen this year, his poise is has not been great, he throws the puck away a lot when he's pressured.  I also feel sometimes he just seems a little to relaxed, doesn't put it into fifth gear and give it all he's got.  I want to see him grind and press and have a sense of urgency more.  I think we need to keep him but if it had to be between him or Faulk,........as of now I would be equally disappointed to let one go and keep either one. Hannifins skills are undeniable and so is his skating, I think a fire needs to be lit under his butt and he needs to get some more confidence.  Before I get hung by everyone here, I'm not saying he's having a "bad" sophomore year.  It's pretty solid for the most part.  I just expected him to be better than average, and at this point he is not IMO.  I do think he is on the untouchable list for RF, which is fine with me.  No more "he's young" excuses next year, he better bring it.  I like this team a lot and as of now I'd rather give up some good draft picks and keep all of our top players if it was possible.  I think we are set for the next decade on the blue line and pretty close on the offense.  see what we can get with some picks and prospects and a Murphy or Nordstrom thrown in. something like that. If not than I guess one good "D" guy has to go if we want a top 6 forward.  I'll let RF decide.

 

 

I'll continue to be patient with Hanifin.  You're right, the age excuse will really start to disappear next season, but if my math is right, he's 325 days younger now than Pesce was when he made his NHL debut, and over a year and a half younger than Slavin was when he made his, so he still has more growing to do before we can compare apples to apples.  Those 2 have certainly set the bar very high, in any case, particularly when you factor in the obvious difference that he was 5th overall while they were 3rd- and 4th-rounders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danimal-ch1 said:

I just expected him to be better than average, and at this point he is not IMO.

I won't hang you, because he could be better. That said, he's much better than the average 19-year-old D-man, which until very recently was an oddity in the league, period.

 

I think when RF has to do it over again, he'll put his foot down and tell any draftee that he doesn't get to choose where he'll develop. Hanifin reportedly wanted the NHL or college, no AHL. Tough darts. Once a player signs on the dotted line, we get to make that call, and if a prospect doesn't like it, we shouldn't draft them in the first place. A year in the AHL would have done Noah a world of good IMO; he'd be tougher to knock off the puck and in the corners, which are really my only issues with him. But I think he's getting there, albeit more slowly than we'd all like. Hopefully playing opposite his fellow 18-year-old draftees Werenski and Provorov a bunch in the next couple weeks - both of whom, by any measure, are well ahead of him developmentally - will prompt Noah to kick it up a notch.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Why in the world after working so hard to build a defense would we even entertain the notion of disrupting it.

Just playing devil's advocate, b/c as I've said, I don't see it happening, and I'm not sure moving him sends the right message to our prospects... but the short answer is:

 

Because we are still in/winning hockey games without him. With the added goals a scoring forward brings, we likely win more of them.

Share this post


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

Just playing devil's advocate, b/c as I've said, I don't see it happening, and I'm not sure moving him sends the right message to our prospects... but the short answer is:

 

Because we are still in/winning hockey games without him. With the added goals a scoring forward brings, we likely win more of them.

 

Only if you believe the defense would remain as tough to score against as the boost in scoring you get. You also have to factor in last season Faulk accounted for 16 goals and when healthy there is no reason  not to believe he can still add 16 to 20 goals in a season. Couple that with the emerging play of Aho who now has 10 goals as a rookie in half a season and the continued play of Skinner and Rask.

 

We do need additional scoring but perhaps we will need to wait until the off season for a more permanent solution. If we are really in it by trade deadline I expect there will be rental help available for this season. Help that won't cost you one of your four core D-men.

 

As to what RF will do I really can't even guess. He hasn't made that jaw dropping kind of trade yet but sooner or later he probable will.

Share this post


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

. . .

I think when RF has to do it over again, he'll put his foot down and tell any draftee that he doesn't get to choose where he'll develop. Hanifin reportedly wanted the NHL or college, no AHL. Tough darts. Once a player signs on the dotted line, we get to make that call, and if a prospect doesn't like it, we shouldn't draft them in the first place. A year in the AHL would have done Noah a world of good IMO; he'd be tougher to knock off the puck and in the corners, which are really my only issues with him. But I think he's getting there, albeit more slowly than we'd all like. Hopefully playing opposite his fellow 18-year-old draftees Werenski and Provorov a bunch in the next couple weeks - both of whom, by any measure, are well ahead of him developmentally - will prompt Noah to kick it up a notch.

 

We agree that Hanifin may have benefited from additional development before getting thrown into the NHL.  But I suspect that Hanifin's interactions with RF may have been more discussions than demands.  I just don't see Francis responding well to the latter.  And I'm not nearly as down on an additional year in college in lieu of the AHL as you seem to be, mostly because of the recent examples of successful d-men going that route.  Werenski spent an extra year in college and he should be under consideration for rookie of the year imo.  Slavin spent 2 years in college with just 14 AHL games before his NHL debut, Pesce 3 years in college with just 7 AHL games, and we all know how they both turned out. 

Share this post


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

 

We agree that Hanifin may have benefited from additional development before getting thrown into the NHL.  But I suspect that Hanifin's interactions with RF may have been more discussions than demands.  I just don't see Francis responding well to the latter.  And I'm not nearly as down on an additional year in college in lieu of the AHL as you seem to be, mostly because of the recent examples of successful d-men going that route.  Werenski spent an extra year in college and he should be under consideration for rookie of the year imo.  Slavin spent 2 years in college with just 14 AHL games before his NHL debut, Pesce 3 years in college with just 7 AHL games, and we all know how they both turned out. 

I've got nothing against an extra year, and don't care where it is. But once Hanifin signed, another year in college was off the table. Under the rules, his NCAA career was over (he relinquished amateur status) so we could only assign him to the AHL or the Q, where the Remparts held his rights. But the scuttlebutt at the time was that if the Canes' didn't think he was ready for the NHL, he (read: his family) preferred returning to college to the other two. So by signing him, we pretty much committed to putting him on the NHL roster.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hannifin has been above average in the NHL, so he deserves to be here IMO and RF made the right decision signing him rookie year. He was so good for an 18yr old rookie that I think we all expected him to really blow it out this year and be the man  .  It's up to him now to run with it, get stronger each off season, more confident each game, and play with more fire all the time.  This is the NHL kid, its nice to play safe but you got to bring that fire and passion or someone else will and they will beat you.  Yeah, yeah, that's what I'd tell him if I was coach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe an extra year in college would have benefited Hanifin, who knows?  IMO he has struggled all season and has been very inconsistent.  I don't think the Russian roulette of partners has helped, but he's definitely having some growing pains, even with sheltered minutes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maybe an extra year in college would have benefited Hanifin, who knows?  IMO he has struggled all season and has been very inconsistent.  I don't think the Russian roulette of partners has helped, but he's definitely having some growing pains, even with sheltered minutes. 

 

I'd go even farther and say it has definitely hurt his development. When you feel the need to "cover" for another guy, even when that covering is taking you away from your own responsibility, that can be hard on a young guy. More than sheltered minutes, he needs a partner who can play a steady and disciplined game on the other side to help him learn his own role. The best player we have for that role is Pesce, but would we want to split him from Slavin to help Hanifin develop? In the short term trying to make this year's playoffs, probably not. But for the long term of the club and Hanifin, it might be a good idea to try if we become eliminated.

Share this post


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

The best player we have for that role is Pesce, but would we want to split him from Slavin to help Hanifin develop?

I thought Tennyson did a great job of modeling good decision-making for Hanifin from the moment he came up and apparently BP did too, up until the Pitt game. Then we paired Noah with Murph and the results were predictable. Hoping Tenny now gets that he's gotta bring his best every night and that, by extension, Hanifin will get it, too.

 

On a separate note, I laugh to myself every time Michael Smith lists "Hainsey-Faulk" as the top pairing in his game-day lineups. I first noticed it about two or three weeks ago; prior to which "Slavin-Pesce" were atop the list. When I get beyond my little chuckle, I realize it's very likely RF's hand on the wheel; a subtle (and smart) way of enhancing Faulk's perceived value around the league.  

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Only if you believe the defense would remain as tough to score against as the boost in scoring you get.

I do. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a struggle and put pressure on people we really don't want to yet, but when I look at the combo of Faulk's minus rating and offensive contributions, then at the scoring of Landeskog and Duchene, I have to think its a net gain, and not by a small margin. But it's that putting pressure on people thing that's the real sticking point, and if we know nothing else of RF, it's that he's loathe to do that.  

Share this post


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

I thought Tennyson did a great job of modeling good decision-making for Hanifin from the moment he came up and apparently BP did too, up until the Pitt game. Then we paired Noah with Murph and the results were predictable. ....

I may be wrong, but I recall Tennyson was in that game and made a poor defensive attempt at keeping a guy wide with 4 minutes to go.  That was the game and he sat the next one.

Share this post


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

I may be wrong, but I recall Tennyson was in that game and made a poor defensive attempt at keeping a guy wide with 4 minutes to go.  That was the game and he sat the next one.

Exactly right. BP was not pleased, and the hammer swung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spent 10 years post Stanley Cup putting together patchwork D, mostly because JR was too impatient to draft top D prospects and wait for them to develop. I'm not sure RF would break up our top 4 at this point by trading any of them. I agree if anyone was to go for Duchene, it would likely be Faulk, but his offensive production from the blue line would be hard to replace, and losing it would devalue the offensive upside of Duchene or whoever we might get in return. I could see us dangling someone not currently on the team plus our first - I don't even know if that is enough ( or too much). But realistically there is one playoff spot in play in the east, and we are as well situated as anyone to grab it. If we don't want to pay the price for Duchene, maybe if we are still on the doorstep at the deadline, we look at a UFA with proven scoring ability for a draft pick.

 

As far as Hanifan goes, I have said before that when he was drafted, no one (maybe outside our management) would have predicted that Slavin and Pesce would come up and play so well during Hanifan's rookie year. This has definitely reduced the role he has been asked to play and has created an in house comparison that is tough to match. Last year, he played mostly with Liles, and this year he started out with 2 cast offs from other teams as his partner, then with Murphy. I think he has settled down since he has played primarily with Tennyson. Yes he has had some hiccups, but I still see a smooth skater who can contribute on the power play and is improving all the time. I don't think he is going anywhere. I hope he is not.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a down the road problem, but Slavin/Pesce/Hanifin/Faulk/Fleury/?   is going to be too expensive for a D-corp.  One of those guys is going to be a 5/6.  And there are even more prospects in the pipeline.

 

Therefore, my point would be that if the right trade comes along for one of these guys (comparable to better value), take it.   But there is no pressure to make the trade anytime soon.  So make sure its a great trade.  Because eventually, you'll have to make the trade just to afford these guys.

 

My do not trade list is short.  Slavin.  But even in that case, as always, there is a short list of names that I would trade him for.  It's just those guys are never traded.

 

  • Like 1

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...