Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

In-Season Talk 2016-17

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

And Pesce is young enough that he should be able to improve his shot over the next few years.

 

Just my opinion, but I highly doubt that will happen.

Share this post


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

 

Just my opinion, but I highly doubt that will happen.

I don't see him ever approaching Faulk's cannon, but you don't think he might benefit quite a bit from an offseason dedicated to working on his shot?  ( a question, not an argument)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our best RHD in the system at this point is probably McKeown, and he has shown even less offense than Pesce, and at the AHL level. That'll still probably be ok if he can hold down the #6 slot next year, but obviously argues against trading Faulk, our only serious RHD offense.

 

I just wonder if some combination of picks and prospects could get us Landeskog given his fall off, and not move anyone off of the existing D. Probably not. Our first, and two seconds, and Fleury plus another prospect? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a ton to give up! I'm sure they would do it!

i really hope we can add a 30 goal guy this year! thats my hope every year and it never happens! other than semin we never have spent any money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pesce is responsible defensively, but it's hard for me to see a scenario where he makes a big jump offensively.  That isn't a negative, but he is who he is.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scoring from defensemen is, to me, icing on the cake.  The ability to defend is the cake.  Defend like Pesce defends and i'm happy with a couple goals a year.  Bring in a 50-goal scorer to complement him and we're good.

Share this post


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

Our best RHD in the system at this point is probably McKeown, and he has shown even less offense than Pesce, and at the AHL level. That'll still probably be ok if he can hold down the #6 slot next year, but obviously argues against trading Faulk, our only serious RHD offense.

 

I just wonder if some combination of picks and prospects could get us Landeskog given his fall off, and not move anyone off of the existing D. Probably not. Our first, and two seconds, and Fleury plus another prospect? Probably not.

That is an awful lot to give up. Not sure I would do it unless it were for a more prolific goal-scorer. He fits the bill for our needs, though. Maybe just one second, instead of two. I know it has been said on here before, but I would like to try to throw Lack into the deal and have them send over Varlamov or Smith, but that might be asking too much from them.

Share this post


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

Our best RHD in the system at this point is probably McKeown, and he has shown even less offense than Pesce, and at the AHL level. That'll still probably be ok if he can hold down the #6 slot next year, but obviously argues against trading Faulk, our only serious RHD offense.

 

I just wonder if some combination of picks and prospects could get us Landeskog given his fall off, and not move anyone off of the existing D. Probably not. Our first, and two seconds, and Fleury plus another prospect? Probably not.

rem, far be it from me to doubt your thoughts, but I'd be shocked if Ron Francis sees this as a viable deal. Throwing everything at a GM, but the kitchen sink, screams DESPERATION, and I'm not sure Francis cares to be labelled that, particularly since this is such a unique year, and we've been told over and over again that ours is  a very favorable position, combining Cap and position protection space, as well as a trending upward appearance of this very young team, the latter surely attractive to FAs wanting a shot at the cup, 

 

Surely, if one searches around, there will be other opportunities for acquisition of a goal scorer to meet our needs, without giving up the farm? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a gradual transition for this team to a very active defense.  What I mean by this is that the 3 players furthest up ice go in on the play and fore check, or try to score on the rush, rather than wait for the forward who is back to do so.  You'll see our dmen fore checking behind the enemy goal line several times a game even.

 

Couple that with a strategy to suck all of the opposing D towards the goal, pass it out to the dman for the slappy or the wristy and you have an offense that is predicated on some pretty high end abilities on your DMen that go way beyond playing defense.  I find myself waiting for the kickout to Faulk now and hoping he'll wrist it which is his more effective shot now.

 

All this to say that a guy like Bean is tailor made for this style, Faulk obviously is, we hope Hanny is.  Pesce is coming around, not sure he'll ever get a shot, I agree with that but he can handle all the positional things I am talking about, pinching at the right time, etc.

 

Teams are not really ready to defend an active 5 man offense where the guys freely switch positions as the play suits it, it is an advantage that we have been getting better and better at applying successfully.  

 

All this to say I am starting to move off of the trade Faulk camp, where I was firmly in before.  If we can play like this, his offense is key, he is basically one of our better forwards, he just plays D.  The system needs him.

 

Trade picks and prospects, and sign some FA's.  Phase 4 is underway.  Gimme my goalie.  16 more saves this year and we would be even in goal differential.  There is never a better year to trade for a goalie, they can all protect only one for expansion.  If they want to keep their budding young phenom they need to trade their vet away.  Or, trade for the budding young phenom.  Either way, they get nothing if he gets expansion drafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hag65 said:

 If we can play like this, his offense is key, he is basically one of our better forwards, he just plays D.  The system needs him.

 

I've being trying to explain this to deaf ears for 6 months.

 

Defense is offense waiting to happen.  If you don't see it you are not paying attention to how this team plays hockey.

 

We aren't in Kansas anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bring in a 50-goal scorer to complement him and we're good.

 

Not that I disagree with you, but bringing in a 50 goal scorer probably fixes EVERY team. That's Ovechkin level scoring right there. Where do you find that without giving up the farm?

Share this post


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

Not that I disagree with you, but bringing in a 50 goal scorer probably fixes EVERY team. That's Ovechkin level scoring right there. Where do you find that without giving up the farm?

 

 

If i had the answer to that, i'd be sending my resume to RF!  My main point is that the fact Pesce is 'nothing offensively' is not, to me, an issue.  He doesn't hold back from joining the rush when needed, and even if he's not the one scoring the goals, he's part of the overall pressure the team has when he's on the ice, and the fact this team scores so much more than the other team when he's on the ice - despite the fact that he's usually out against the other team's top scoring unit - is a huge testimony to what he brings to this team.  Is he simply a beneficiary to playing with Slavin?  Maybe, but my eye test tells me that's not the case.  I'm all for offense from our defensemen as long as they can still defend, but if the fact our best defensive RHD doesn't bring as much offense is a negative, then i'm more confused than i thought i was.  For what it's worth i voted for Lack over Ward in the goaltender poll despite the fact Ward has scored more goals than the majority of goaltenders in this league.  I'm all for the big picture and for defensemen joining the rush and scoring goals, but i just can't see lack of offense as a major negative when it's our best defensive RHD in question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

If i had the answer to that, i'd be sending my resume to RF!  My main point is that the fact Pesce is 'nothing offensively' is not, to me, an issue.  He doesn't hold back from joining the rush when needed, and even if he's not the one scoring the goals, he's part of the overall pressure the team has when he's on the ice, and the fact this team scores so much more than the other team when he's on the ice - despite the fact that he's usually out against the other team's top scoring unit - is a huge testimony to what he brings to this team.  Is he simply a beneficiary to playing with Slavin?  Maybe, but my eye test tells me that's not the case.  I'm all for offense from our defensemen as long as they can still defend, but if the fact our best defensive RHD doesn't bring as much offense is a negative, then i'm more confused than i thought i was.  For what it's worth i voted for Lack over Ward in the goaltender poll despite the fact Ward has scored more goals than the majority of goaltenders in this league.  I'm all for the big picture and for defensemen joining the rush and scoring goals, but i just can't see lack of offense as a major negative when it's our best defensive RHD in question.

 

Oh, I get where you were coming from and agree with you, but the example of a 50 goal scorer is what I was calling out specifically. If you need a 50 goal scorer to fix your problems, you are out of luck because they are few and far between and superstars. I actually think you are correct even if the goal scorer is just an additional 20 to 25 goal scorer. Much more manageable and we might have a few of them in the AHL and juniors ready by next year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, enough have questioned my trade proposal that maybe it's too much, though we do tend to overvalue our own assets as a natural rule. I threw that out there fairly quickly, so maybe it's too much. I do shiver about giving up our first rounder, though the prospect could be a second tier prospect.

 

Since Faulk plays into this and I've been also warming up to him, let me start there. As everyone knows, the thing about Faulk is that he has trade value, possibly serious trade value. Briefly in my view Slavin is untradable. Pesce is too, but mainly because he likely can't bring back what he should due to low offensive numbers. Murphy is useless and worth very little in a trade, as is Dahlbeck and Tennyson if we signed them. Fleury, Bean and McKeown are all still simmering in various stages of development and likely don't command enough to get what we want: ie: Fluery for Landeskog straight up, doesn't get it done. So, if we are to trade defense for offense, the obvious targets are Faulk and Hanifin.

 

The problem with trading Hanfin is that he is still about potential and upside, and I'm not sure opposing GM's are following closely enough. He sports a team worst -17, just behind Faulk at -13, and in the first half especially, still quite mistake-prone. But IMO, he is playing much better since he was elevated to second pairing. He is plus 4 since then, over about 19 games and against better players. He is 20 at a position that guys tend to not really "get" at the NHL level until at least 23. He's big and a smooth skater in a league where D men have to know how to skate. This is GM Remkin here, and I get that not all agree, but I think every year Hanifin will get better and better, and eventually be very good if not better. He is better than Fleury or Bean, and while Bean may end up being better, I'd bet on Hanifin being right there overall, even if Bean puts up more offense.

I don't want to be the GM that traded Hanifn before his time.

 

So trade Faulk. Still an option. But Faulk has also been playing better. Since the trade deadline he is plus 3. Yes, it is easier to be a plus player on a plus team, but he is passing the eyeball test too. He's only been beaten clean or made a bad attacking play a few times, while being even more noticeable not only with the shot, but also all over the ice. Faulk shows a ton of skill making little plays in all three zones. If he can just clean up the one on one defense, and do a bit more turn and defending, he has all of the other skills to be great. (And I remember him doing those defensive things when he first came up, so I think he can).

 

Finally, Faulk is, as has been pointed out by others, a RHD, and we have no other offense from that position anywhere in the organization. Bean and Fleury are both LHD, and McKeown is not showing offensive gifts. That could be a problem if we trade him.

 

Ultimately, the team is probably better if Faulk can improve his defense, than anything he is likely to bring back due to those factors listed above.

 

But if we don't trade Faulk, or, for the sake of argument, we don't trade Hanifin, (or Slavin/Pese), then how do we get what we are looking for if Fleury and Bean are still not developed enough to trade straight up for a good forward? We could try to find a similarly positioned forward prospect, but we need help next year. This team has to make that next step next year, and adding more firepower up front is key to that (especially if one considers injury potential that hit us lightly this year).

 

So, one way is to throw a lot of picks and prospects on one side of the scale.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In BP's welcome aboard presser, he talked about an active defense that jumped in and joined the rush.  Amazing that some people haven't been paying attention for 3 years.

 

edit: Made my point in 2 sentences

 

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our team is pretty well set and we have at least 2 high end forward prospects: Gauthier and Roy (some might say 3: Kuokkanen), and several lower round picks with lots of upside looking good in D1 college etc. We also have guys like Saarela, Wallmark, Zykov, and Foegle, any of whom could step up. We also have 2 high end D prospects: Fleury and Bean (some might say 3: McKeown).

 

Personally I think both Roy and Gauthier make a mark in the NHL sooner than later. BUT will it be next year? Roy is 20 and I think can start in Charlotte. Gauthier? Gauthier is exactly that guy that is probably best served going to the AHL and getting scorer assignments. I'm thinking his October birthday would allow that next year? I can't keep that stupid rule straight.

 

Anyway, since we need forwards, and if we are trying to pry loose a 60 plus point established forward, but don't (IMO) really want to trade any of our top 4 D men, or any of our productive forwards, what do we do? I wonder about piling on our side of the scale with picks/prospects and here to fore lower end players (PDG/McGinn).

 

I would not trade Gauthier or Roy. I'd be careful trading Kuokkanen because he could end up being better than his likely current value, but if he made the right deal go OK. I'd trade any other forward on the Canes not currently on a clear pace for at least 40 points in the right deal.

 

I'd trade any defenseman in the system. If we keep Faulk then the top 4 of Slavin/Pesce/Faulk/Hanifin could get it done for years. As a practical matter of RHD/LHD, I would project McKeown as a guy who could lock down that #5 slot on the right for years too, so would be slow to trade him, but #5-6 Dmen are fairly easy to get. We could trade both Fleury AND Bean and still have a perennial playoff defense. But I'm not sure Fleury and Bean have enough trade value.

 

Fluery seems the most NHL ready. #7 pick overall, playing pretty well lately in the AHL. But what do we need to add?

 

We have 3 second round picks this year. Two will be late round, one will be mid-round. We have been kicking hinder picking in the second round, BUT, we have a slew of prospects and late second rounders have a very high likihood of never being career NHL players. We also have 3 (possibly 4?) third rounders.

 

If we traded the two lower seconds and three lower thirds, we'd still have a full draft.

 

What about our first rounder? This is tricky. This is said to be a weak draft. Unless we win the lottery we are picking around #13. But even in this supposedly weak draft there are very skilled forwards that should be there at 13. I'd be hesitant to trade that pick. (Even though I did in my trade proposal...).

 

In my ideal world we move Fleury a couple of prospects not named Roy or Gauthier, our lower seconds and a third or two to try to get "that guy" up front. I'd use that high second rounder to take a top goalie prospect ideally, and our #13 (or close) pick to get the best forward available (possibly even try to trade up a few notches).

 

One other idea kicking around my head, is Vegas. What would it take to trade up and get their, say #4 overall pick? This is a team that needs to build an organization. A bunch of picks and prospects, a couple of seconds a third, and a prospect? Weak draft or not, the #4 overall pick is going to be a high end forward. Right now that's Owen Tippett by most accounts, and he would be just what the doctor ordered.

 

Lots of speculation obviously. In Francis I Trust though, so whatever moves he makes have a good chance of being good ones. But I really hope he makes a couple of moves.

 

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

 . . .

One other idea kicking around my head, is Vegas. What would it take to trade up and get their, say #4 overall pick? This is a team that needs to build an organization. A bunch of picks and prospects, a couple of seconds a third, and a prospect? Weak draft or not, the #4 overall pick is going to be a high end forward. Right now that's Owen Tippett by most accounts, and he would be just what the doctor ordered.

 

Lots of speculation obviously. In Francis I Trust though, so whatever moves he makes have a good chance of being good ones. But I really hope he makes a couple of moves.

 

I don't think we have time for Vegas' 1st round pick.  We need another legit 1st line scorer next season imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a nickname for this guy. I can't be expected to type  Poturalski  each time we talk about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, super_dave_1 said:

In BP's welcome aboard presser, he talked about an active defense that jumped in and joined the rush.  Amazing that some people haven't been paying attention for 3 years.

 

edit: Made my point in 2 sentences

 

 

I hope you don't mean me, because I know it was always the goal, we just hadn't been doing it well until recently, it's like BP's finally getting the team to the 300 and 400 level classes at BP University.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...