Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off-Season Talk 2017

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, remkin said:

Yeah, Lindholm is a bit of a hidden gem that we definitely need next year. The way he finished this past year should set him up for a real full on breakout this year, but was still a bit under the NHL radar in terms of the degree he was putting up points late.

 

Anyways, yes, losing him or him having a major injury setback would have been very bad.

 

I am also not a fan of guys playing in these tournaments. They sign contracts saying they won't do all kinds of things that they could be injured doing, then go play a tourney like this and risk injury. Not a fan. A Lindholm injury would have been a major set back for the entire team.

 

As the end of last seasons Fargo: "and for what?  A little bit of money?".

 

(Minnesota Accent) Oh yah! It's a real big problem, you betcha!

 

4 hours ago, remkin said:

I still prefer going for Duchene and Oshie as my crazy dream. That takes care of the 1C problem, adds more scoring, and less term to deal with in Duchene

 

I would love to get both of them. Though, I thought that one of the problems with Duchene was the fact that he only has two more years left on his contract. So if we use a lot of assets to get him, we might not be getting a good deal if he doesn't re-sign with us after that. Unless everybody thinks that Roy could be the guy after that? I don't know much about his specific stats like ice time and such, but I know that he has been putting up lots of points and is the captain of Chicoutimi. I also know that it can be hard to predict a player's skills at the NHL level when they are playing in the juniors. Since Duchene is a proven 1C and should be for years to come, I'd rather we have him for the long haul, just in case we can't manage to get another guy that can play in that role. 

Edited by Citizen_Quinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oshies stock is rising more. That would be some Minnesota -esque summer plan similar to how they nabbed Parise and Suter, if the Canes can nab a top free agent winger and trade for a 1C.  But we have the cap space, prospects, picks, and talent to do it. 

Share this post


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

Someone should place a call to John Cooper to adjust his lines to see if Skinner and Duchene have any chemistry. 

 

I don't know. Skins has been lighting it up playing on a line with Giroux and MacKinnon. Maybe we should just go all in on trying to get both of them! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see Oshie coming here. Still think we could trade for one of the Colorodo guys, but that almost certainly means trading one of our young D that we would really prefer to keep. But we aren't going to get a quality forward for spare parts. Drouin seems to be in play as well, though TB probably prefers to send him out west just as Colorado prefers to find a trade partner in the east. On Vegas, I think Lake is onto something - throw in a pick or prospect to get them to take Lack, or less likely, Cam. Could we retain salary on a player taken in the expansion draft? I just think Ron had a plan in the works to shed a goalie if we signed Darling. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood the perceived bias against trading within the conference or division.  Make the trade that improves your team now, and let the future work itself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sleekfeeder said:

Look around the playoffs at teams and players that are having most of the success. To me, and this could just be a misconception, but the "speedy", "skill", "snipers" aren't really the ones getting it done. Playoff hockey is a different animal.

POST OF THE MONTH.

 

This (and his alleged lack of D) is exactly why Duchene is of no interest to me. We've rich in snipers already. We need guys with BOTH skill and will--to bang. A leader like Landeskog would set the tone: The Candy Cane days are over.

 

Skinner, Lindholm, Nordy all took a step this year, getting stronger on the puck and refusing to take any sh*t, but let's face it: As long as the Matty Niskanens of this league are allowed to keep doing what they do with impunity, we're gonna need to balance our sniping ability with guys up front who can score and respond to the physicality of playoff hockey if we're gonna get beyond round two. It's not an "if" thing; it's an "is" thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

 

Additions: Duchene 6 mil, TT re-sign 3.5 mil, Ryan re-sign ~ 1 mil, Sign Engelland 1 year 2.5 mil, Sign Stalberg 2 years 1.5 million AAV, re-sign PDG ~1 mil

2017-2018 Canes

Skins-Duchene-Aho

???-Staal-Lindholm

TT-Rask-Stempniak

PDG/Nordstrom-Ryan-Stalberg

 

Slavin-Faulk

Hanifan-Pesce

Engelland-McKeown

 

End salary: 58.1 million, yes we have 8 million left in my assumed ceiling but we'll need it next year.  I wonder if Versteeg would come back for a 1 year deal of 3 million to play on 2nd line.  That would be a pretty good top 9 IMO.  If not, Nordstrom plays on the 2nd line.  Added 30+ goals with Duchene and possible Versteeg, & Aho, TT, and Lindholm will improve.  Leaves one of PDG on the bench, potentially, and Dahlbeck as well.

 

 

Engelland - :puker: just say no...I rather have both Fleury, & McKeown up with Dahlbeck...as our 5-7 Dmen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A leader like Landeskog would set the tone: The Candy Cane days are over.

 

What tone is that? Fold like a cheap suit? He provided nothing more than Duchene this past year for the Avs...with less scoring. If we are going to trade assets for a guy "who can bang" let's at least get a guy who can score, too. I'd rather take a chance on a guy like E. Kane than Landeskog: he still scores at a great clip, is nastier, and probably cheaper, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams that have too many players to protect and will look for trades as to not lose value for nothing:  Wild, Ducks, Kings, Lightning, Red Wings, Blackhawks.  There may be more.  

 

Note, the way the expansion rules are written (7,3,1 and 4,4,1), there will likely be more quality defensemen at risk for exposure than forwards.  If we do a 7,3,1 arrangement, we have slots for 2 defensemen and 2 forwards.  Perhaps we could trade for a few defensemen and that gives us even more ammo to pick up the goal scoring forward we are looking for.

 

It will be a VERY interesting time after the Stanley Cup is awarded...

Share this post


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

I'd rather take a chance on a guy like E. Kane than Landeskog: he still scores at a great clip, is nastier, and probably cheaper, too.

Yeah, and he's sooo reliably in the lineup, not in trouble with the law, or player safety, or reviled by his teammates.

 

Landeskog has the tools, knows when it's smart to fight and when it's not (the later being something Kane still has no clue of) and he was a rookie of the year. He's been in an awful situation, made worse by being coached by one of the most volatile idiots in hockey (Patrick Roy) who then abandoned the team a month prior to camp this year. We're in agreement much of the time MinJa, but I'm sorry, blaming Landeskog for the Avs' tank is nothing short of ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ironman87 said:

Teams that have too many players to protect and will look for trades as to not lose value for nothing:  Wild, Ducks, Kings, Lightning, Red Wings, Blackhawks.  There may be more.

 

I've seen this written too many times, and probably used the same logic myself, but I'm not so sure it is a valid a point as most believe it is. Yes, no team wants to lose a player for nothing, so they may explore trades. However, ALL teams WILL lose a player for nothing, so trading some for just pennies on the dollar will now just mean you will lose value on two players vs. value on one player. I think a good example of this thinking is the Wild. They likely have two defensemen they can't protect due to the rules (if they go 7-3-1 to protect more players). If they decide to trade one of them to "get some value", then they lose that guy for the next year plus probably lose the other guy they didn't trade. If they trade both, they have now lost two good defensemen from this years team, even if they got some assets back, which will hurt. It may make more sense for them to just keep them both, lose one, but be left with the rest.

Share this post


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

We're in agreement much of the time MinJa, but I'm sorry, blaming Landeskog for the Avs' tank is nothing short of ridiculous. 

 

I'm not blaming him for the tank, I'm blaming him for the regression. Look at his numbers of the last four years....they are in steady decline and not fantastic anyway. He is just not worth the assets that are going to be asked.

 

Quote

 

Season                         Age     Team      League   Games    Goals    Assists    Points      +/-

2013-14 21 COL NHL 81 26 39 65 21                                          
2014-15 22 COL NHL 82 23 36 59 -2                                          
2015-16 23 COL NHL 75 20 33 53 -5                                          
2016-17 24 COL NHL 72 18 15 33 -25

 

Edited by MinJaBen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MinJa, I don't think teams are going to be dumping players at bargain prices, but I think there will be players available for reasonable trades due to the expansion draft.  No superstars, but players that may be available for picks or prospects that may normally not be on the move.

Share this post


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

I'm not blaming him for the tank, I'm blaming him for the regression. Look at his numbers of the last four years....they are in steady decline and not fantastic anyway. He is just not worth the assets that are going to be asked.

He put up 53 points in 73 games a year ago. That's 60 points if he'd played the full 82, despite working for that idiot Roy. 

 

Sakic isn't getting what he wants for either of these guys (Skog or Duche), and RF isn't overpaying for anybody anyway, I think that much we know. But viewed together, Skog's numbers from a year ago and from this year are the strongest argument that a change of scene is all he needs. He essentially went into this year with his GM saying, "we're looking to dump your salary," and played all year with trade speculation hanging over him.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah, and he's sooo reliably in the lineup, not in trouble with the law, or player safety, or reviled by his teammates.

1 minute ago, top-shelf-1 said:

He put up 53 points in 73 games a year ago. That's 60 points if he'd played the full 82, despite working for that idiot Roy.

 

Wait a minute....you tell me that Kane isn't as good because he can't stay in the line up, but then tell me that Landy would be even better if only he had stayed in the line up for more games? Looks to me like he put up 53 points, not 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between being out of the lineup due to injury versus due to idiocy. Do you really think there's the slimmest chance that BP tolerates Evander Kane for more than 17 seconds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree we are probably not getting top line talent with the expansion draft strategy.  And your specific example, MinJaBen, is reasonable.

 

But there are some team (the Ducks I think fall into this category) that have one more "valuable" player than they can protect.  In that case, their GM would be negligent in his duties to see what they could get for him, rather than losing him for nothing.  Sure they won't give him up for free, but if we were to offer say a 2 for Silfverberg, I think they would consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't ran any statistical analysis of these data sets, but from the eyeball test, one could probably argue that Landeskog and Duchene have had essentially the same season as each other from the years you picked from your table.

Share this post


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

There's a big difference between being out of the lineup due to injury versus due to idiocy. Do you really think there's the slimmest chance that BP tolerates Evander Kane for more than 17 seconds?

 

That is a good question. I don't know the answer to that. But he does like his guys with skill and sandpaper, so who knows. However, I do think BP is more likely to tolerate Kane than RF is likely to pay a lot of assets and money for a guy with a steadily declining performance. I'm sure Eric Staal would second that assessment.

Share this post


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

I haven't ran any statistical analysis of these data sets, but from the eyeball test, one could probably argue that Landeskog and Duchene have had essentially the same season as each other from the years you picked from your table.

 

Yep, pretty damn close. I'm not advocating paying what would be required for either.

 

Quote
2013-14 23 COL NHL 71 23 47 70 8                                          
2014-15 24 COL NHL 82 21 34 55 3                                          
2015-16 25 COL NHL 76 30 29 59 -8                                          
2016-17 26 COL NHL 77 18 23 41 -34

 

Edited by MinJaBen

Share this post


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

 

That is a good question. I don't know the answer to that. But he does like his guys with skill and sandpaper, so who knows. However, I do think BP is more likely to tolerate Kane than RF is likely to pay a lot of assets and money for a guy with a steadily declining performance. I'm sure Eric Staal would second that assessment.

We totally agree on the not overpaying part. I just don't think it'll take much, because RF can make the same points I am: "Joe, you can't have it both ways, saying you don't value this kid anymore and at the same time asking me to pay for him as if you do value him. That's your tuition cost, and the lesson is, 'Next time you want to deal someone, don't diminish their value through your own ill-timed words and actions.'"

 

I don't think any GM that was interested in either of these guys is going to let Sakic get away with dangling them all year, if only to teach him that's not how it works.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

 

I've seen this written too many times, and probably used the same logic myself, but I'm not so sure it is a valid a point as most believe it is. Yes, no team wants to lose a player for nothing, so they may explore trades. However, ALL teams WILL lose a player for nothing, so trading some for just pennies on the dollar will now just mean you will lose value on two players vs. value on one player. I think a good example of this thinking is the Wild. They likely have two defensemen they can't protect due to the rules (if they go 7-3-1 to protect more players). If they decide to trade one of them to "get some value", then they lose that guy for the next year plus probably lose the other guy they didn't trade. If they trade both, they have now lost two good defensemen from this years team, even if they got some assets back, which will hurt. It may make more sense for them to just keep them both, lose one, but be left with the rest.

 

This is a good point.  Hadn't really weighed that possibility.   I do think though that every team's situation is different, so some will decide to just lose the one guy while others may make a move.  We'll just have to wait and see as every team will be laser focused on their own situation and there may be some synergy between teams as a way out of situations.  A glut of guys at a position would tend to make it hard to protect all of them, and also makes it easier to lose one.  If you can improve a weakness by a trade at the same time it seems to be better than having nothing.

Share this post


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

There's a big difference between being out of the lineup due to injury versus due to idiocy. Do you really think there's the slimmest chance that BP tolerates Evander Kane for more than 17 seconds?

 

No.   I don't think it is BP either, our franchise has had a policy of avoiding players with questionable off-ice activities, and until we see that change I would assume it hasn't changed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me like it will all depend on the quality of the guys a team might have to expose.  I'm not familiar enough with other teams specifics, so instead of looking stuff up, for the sake of argument let's say this had happened a year later, when our d-yutes weren't exempt.  I couldn't see us giving up one of Pesce, Hanifin, Faulk, or Slavin for nothing.  Wouldn't we trade one of them for "non-vulnerable" assets (picks, prospects, or exempt players) and gladly lose a Dahlbeck?  And it seems like the return in such a trade would be effected by demand, which would most likely be down as compared to usual because any team acquiring one of ours would then have to expose one of their current top 3 due to the limited number of teams with "open" protection spots.  Seems like that would very much limit the number of potential trade partners. 

 

While we might not see "pennies on the dollar" type deals, I've got to believe there might be some very nice discounts available.  Similar to what happens when teams have cap issues, need to shed salary, but have limited options in part because the number of teams they can deal with is limited by their own cap issues.    

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...