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

Free Agency Frenzy or Fizzle

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, MinJaBen said:

 

Yeah, Gagner is a huge loss for them. They were only able to pick up some scrub named Panarin to replace him...

minus

Saad

Gagner

 

Plus

Panarin

 

still equals loss in depth and scoring.  Again still good though.  As we stand they should be at least 2nd.  We'll see how Washington and Pittsburgh makes their crazy cap issues to make the roster work.  

Share this post


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

Plus, I am not sold on Landeskog at this point. He has had more than one bad year and a long contract at $6 million.

Please point them out. If you throw out last year, which you pretty much have to because the entire team was in the tank, he has been at or above (way above) .5 points per game every year of his career, and over 20 goals (or on pace, in the strike year). Rookies-of-the-year don't just forget how to play hockey.

 

28 minutes ago, remkin said:

I'd do Fleury and even maybe next year's first rounder and a B prospect for Duchene. Still have Bean in the wings.

If you were Joe Sakic saying that, terrific. But (at least so far) Joe won't do that deal.

 

Fleury is ready now, and with our addition of Dyke, I don't see much difference between sending Fleury or Hanifin--other than the fact that Fleury won't have to get paid as soon as Noah will. If it's Hanifin Joe wants, packaging him with the backup keeper he also needs (Cam or Lack, his choice) and a D prospect (Bean, McKeown, Carrick, again, his choice) for two guys with known chemistry to bring the scoring we need now makes a lot more sense to me than getting just one who may or may not gel as readily without his winger. But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landeskog's last 4 years points: 65 to 59 to 53 to 33. The guy was a #2 overall pick and many considered the 53 points a down year for him given his projections. But 33? Even on a bad team that's cause for concern. His contract would be a plus if his game is good, but a big negative if something has gone wrong. Some argue he's not been the same since his last concussion.

 

Hey, I could be wrong. If Francis, et all think it's just a change of scenery issue, then fine. 

 

BTW I really didn't see much of the Worlds. Did he look good there? 

 

I think Hanifin > Fleury, but clearly not everyone agrees. Do you think they're interchangeable? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should start talking about Jake Bean, not Fleury or Hanifin.  Jake Bean gets ignored here because we took a d-man last year instead of the offensive guy.  He stands head and shoulders (IMO) above Fleury and Hanifin in that he can actually make offense happen.  If he's developed properly, I see him being the more valuable player among those three long-term.

 

I laugh when I see him thrown in on trades like he was just another prospect in the likes of Carrick or McKeown.

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 7

Share this post


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

People should start talking about Jake Bean, not Fleury or Hanifin.  Jake Bean gets ignored here because we took a d-man last year instead of the offensive guy.  He stands head and shoulders (IMO) above Fleury and Hanifin in that he can actually make offense happen.  If he's developed properly, I see him being the more valuable player among those three long-term.

 

I'm with you, and he'll be a guy that can step in when one of the others gets too expensive, or very valuable in a trade scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bean gets forgotten also because most guys playing in Juniors do and Fleury is closer to NHL ready. Also Bean did not score a lot of points in World Juniors. Still I thought he looked very good and poised in that tournament, and he was underaged on team Canada too, and played a lot of minutes, all of which speak very well of him. To me that showed the poise and smooth of say Hanifin, and his junior points suggest more offensive upside. 

 

Personally I think Bean making Fleury expendable and more tradeable is the ideal scenario, but I value Hanifin more than most too (and think Hanifin will produce more offense than we've seen thusfar). In the long run though Bean's offense could well make him better.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many times its been said that you just don't know how a young defender's game will translate to NHL.  Look no further than Slavin, Pesce and Murphy to see the outcome.

 

The guys who are "next up" need to see NHL game action and speed.  Only then will anyone know their actual value.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 I think Hanifin > Fleury, but clearly not everyone agrees. Do you think they're interchangeable? 

No, but I do think they're about equal. The reason they're not interchangeable in terms of a trade is that Noah has two years in the league and really seemed to blossom into a top-four guy in the second half.

 

Despite my lumping him with Carrick and McKeown in my earlier proposal, I do agree with coastal that Bean is probably better than both. He may be better than Fleury and Hanifin. The only way I include Bean in a deal is if doing so brings back two elite NHL forwards this year. As far as I'm concerned, once Bean hits the A, he's untouchable--but if another team wants him now for what we need at the NHL level now, I think you need to risk it.

 

The reason I said I'd send Hanifin versus Fleury is that Sakic is said to want a proven top-four guy for Duchene. I think it's still a little early to say Hanifin is proven, but he's right there. There's also how soon we'd have to pay Noah--a year earlier than Fleury. In other words, the max I offer Joe is Hanifin and Bean (and just to get him off the books, Lack) for Duchene and Landeskog. And no picks. 

 

8 hours ago, remkin said:

many considered the 53 points a down year

Who, exactly? He played only 75 games that year, Rem, so it was exactly the same pace (.70 ppg) as the prior year (.71), when he had 59 points in 82 games. I really think if you look at the stats more closely, you'll see the guy's had one truly down year, just like Duchene: the one just ended, largely because his GM is a *edit*.

 

I also believe McKeown has more potential than most here are giving him credit for. He's another guy making the jump from the O, the worst junior league in terms of defensive emphasis in Canada. Fleury (and Bean) meanwhile, have benefited greatly from playing juniors in the WHL. McKeown reminds me a lot of Tyler Myers (another WHL product), and though I'd move him now if he'd be the sweetener that got a major deal done, I think it's important to note that the one luxury having all these great D prospects gives us is the ability to let each develop at his own pace.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

No, but I do think they're about equal.

 

Who, exactly? He played only 75 games that year, Rem, so it was exactly the same pace (.70 ppg) as the prior year (.71), when he had 59 points in 82 games. I really think if you look at the stats more closely, you'll see the guy's had one truly down year, just like Duchene: the one just ended, largely because his GM is a *edit*.

 

I also believe McKeown has more potential than most here are giving him credit for. He's another guy making the jump from the O, the worst junior league in terms of defensive emphasis in Canada. Fleury (and Bean) meanwhile, have benefited greatly from playing juniors in the WHL. McKeown reminds me a lot of Tyler Myers (another WHL product), and though I'd move him now if he'd be the sweetener that got a major deal done, I think it's important to note that the one luxury having all these great D prospects gives us is the ability to let each develop at his own pace.

 

On Hanifin. I just dissent that he and Fleury are equal, but we may get to see if they both end up on the ice this year. I think Hanifin is underrated because we've seen his development Warts. He stepped up big at the end of the year. He has not put up a ton of goals, but had 5 more assists that Justin Faulk.  Bean may end up being the best, but he may not. Hanifin may be too. The way his skills have always looked and his total game looked after the deadline make me very optimistic that he looks very good this year and just keeps getting better, including more offense.

 

On Landeskog, I read a piece about him by a Colorado writer way back when we were first looking at him that raised the possibility that his game had dropped off, not just due the bad team, and this was way before Colorado went from bad to disaster. However, I have to admit, you do raise a good point. .7 ppg is first line, and that year he put up 53 was better production than it looks at first, and he hit 20 goals.

 

McKeown was said to be ready last year, but his year in Charlotte seemed pretty undewhelming. I have to think there may be more question about him being ready, but we don't here much out of Charlotte.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hanifin is going to be all that and then some I hope he can develop an NHL shot.  He didn't have one last year and that concerns me.  His shooting percentage was woeful.  For a big lanky guy his shot was weak and inaccurate.  Hopefully he can make some big steps in that regard this season.  He was caught out of position most of the year, a lot.  He certainly improved on that with some headier play the last couple of months when Faulk did most of the pinching, and that was without a doubt a good sign.

 

On McKeown, we signed TVR.

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read some of the posts about resigning players and I'm not sure I have it all down correctly but regardless, I sure like what Stalberg brought to the fourth line and special teams.  Man could that guy get up and down the ice.  Wish we still had him.

Share this post


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

I read some of the posts about resigning players and I'm not sure I have it all down correctly but regardless, I sure like what Stalberg brought to the fourth line and special teams.  Man could that guy get up and down the ice.  Wish we still had him.

 

Yeah, me too.  Not only was he great on the PK, he was a legitimate shorthanded scoring threat. Unfortunately it seems we finally got clarification that he couldn't come back until January of next year.  :(

 

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

McKeown was said to be ready last year, but his year in Charlotte seemed pretty undewhelming. I have to think there may be more question about him being ready, but we don't here much out of Charlotte.

I don't think McKeown is ready, and I could see RF adding him to a deal. I wondered why he was on the season-opening roster last year and was very disappointed when he didn't get a start on the trip west. But now I'm thinking it could have been for strategic reasons: RF can tell potential trading partners that McKeown made the roster.

 

As for Hanifin/Fleury, I think Fleury is going to fit right in after his year in the A. I realize RF had to make a decision on Hanifin, but I seriously doubt he drafts a college freshman again anytime soon, or at least brings one directly to the NHL. The age constraints and comparative number of games played (NCAA versus NHL) really conspired to hurt Hanifin for his first season and a half, and while he seems to have stepped up to bonafide top-4 status now, I'll always believe he'd have stepped right into that role if he'd had a year in the A. That's what I expect of Fleury, but we'll see soon enough.

 

Addition: And I second coastal's point on Hanifin's shot. It is really bad and wildly inaccurate. If he's going to add serious offense, it's gotta get a lot better.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fleury was the seventh overall pick 3 years ago, for crying out loud. If Hanifin is what it takes to get Duchene, I would do it and give Fleury his chance. We could also look for some short term insurance from the Vegas fire sale on defensemen, or in free agency. If Fleury alone would get the deal done, I'd be for it, but I suspect that has been offered and refused. I would not like to see us trade Fleury and Bean, or Hanifan and Bean. If a D prospect has to go, maybe Carrick. Reportedly, there are a lot of teams chasing Duchene, and if we drag our feet, he will go elsewhere, possibly in our division to the Islanders. A top 6 forward, preferably a center, was an identified need at the end of last season. We need to get this, or something similar done while the opportunity is there. Could Fleury in the second pair be worse than Hainsey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

Yeah, me too.  Not only was he great on the PK, he was a legitimate shorthanded scoring threat. Unfortunately it seems we finally got clarification that he couldn't come back until January of next year.  :(

 

 

What is this "clarification"?  Does that rule apply to signing a UFA?  I always thought it meant a team couldn't trade a player and then trade again after the expansion draft to bring the player back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about clarification either, but we keep making signings and haven't signed an additional top 6 guy yet.  I definitely wouldn't mind Stalberg back but at some point we're full-up on 3rd/4th liners and Charlotte defensemen.

 

And someone needs to slap me because every time i see the title of this thread i feel like i should respond with "fo shizzle".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And someone needs to slap me because every time i see the title of this thread i feel like i should respond with "fo shizzle".

 

my nizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 10:00 AM, top-shelf-1 said:

It's got nothing to do with it, IMO. RF is an HOFer, BP is known around the league as a great coach already, and the org is widely recognized as going in the right direction with great young talent. 

 

Ronnie made a great deal in the ExDraft and has made several others, but this is his next test: trading value for value. Let's see if he'll do it.

Top, every year big name FA's  make lists of teams they are willing to be moved to for their agents.  We have never been on that list for any big name. Reasons are what I stated above.  Plus the big stage, big city, star power thing.  Maybe, just maybe we will be on one of their lists this summer but honestly I think we look worse every year to FA's. In 06, 07 players wanted to come here because of quality of life, plus awesome fan base, plus we won the cup.  Not no mo.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, danimal-ch1 said:

Top, every year big name FA's  make lists of teams they are willing to be moved to for their agents.  We have never been on that list for any big name.

 

You get this from an anonymous source.  I'm smelling "fake news"

Share this post


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

You know this--how??

It always comes out eventually who was on the "list" of teams.  I might have exaggerated a little bit by saying "every big name".  But I can think of a few in the last few years that we wanted bad and we were  "not on the list".  I would hope J. Willy puts on his list, not sure anyone else cares too, however they know we got some money to spend so maybe.

Share this post


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

 

14 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

Yeah, me too.  Not only was he great on the PK, he was a legitimate shorthanded scoring threat. Unfortunately it seems we finally got clarification that he couldn't come back until January of next year.  :(

 

 

What is this "clarification"?  Does that rule apply to signing a UFA?  I always thought it meant a team couldn't trade a player and then trade again after the expansion draft to bring the player back.

 

Here are the tweets that address the issue more  directly than anything else I can find.  LeBrun says he got the info directly from NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly.   The language he uses is "can't be re-acquired" which to me would include re-signing a UFA as well as trading back.  But I could be wrong in my interpretation, or LeBrun might have used the wrong verb.  Either of which would be good, as I'd like to see Stalberg back. 

 

Pierre LeBrunVerified account @PierreVLeBrun

Have confirmed this with Bill Daly just now: There is no blanket rule prohibiting a team from re-acquiring player lost in exp draft already

7:43 AM - 26 Jun 2017
Replying to @PierreVLeBrun

The league just has to be satisfied it wasn't pre-cooked or part of a broader transaction that is attempting to circumvent exp draft rules

 
Replying to @PierreVLeBrun

The Jan. 1 rule is for players traded to other teams before the expansion draft; they can't be re-acquired prior to Jan. 1

Edited by LakeLivin

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...