Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
raleighcaniac

To Trade, or not to trade

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, slapshot02 said:

None of us know what is in RF's head and I would not want to be in that space.:P.Regardless of our recent uptick I think RF should simply look at Williams being a replacement for Stempniak since he has not seen any ice time.This basically results in no additional fire power added in the off season. RF simply needs to get back to a net add scenario.If he thinks he has a good shot now of making the playoffs now with what he has, why not add more to cement that thought and perhaps make a deeper run.

 

I'd like to see it, at least in theory. The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that Francis is not looking for a short term boost. He wants a piece that can help for a few years at least. OK, the other thing I'm pretty sure of is that as long as the team in winning and scoring, Francis is not going to lose his first big trade with an overpay. I don't disagree on either of those, but it does make a deal harder to find.

 

I would say these things make a deal less likely that we:

 

1. Need at least a multi year guy.

2. Don't need depth, but need a legit top 6 forward (harder to find, and more expensive in trade assets)

3. Are not as desperate to trade as we were, and Francis is extremely patient.

4. Are not as desperate to trade as we were, and Francis does not want to overpay.

 

JVR for instance. He would be a very nice addition to this team, and it can't hurt that we have his brother. But he's a UFA next year, so without an additional player or an signed extension, who would we trade for him? I agree with many on here though that he would be a very nice pickup.

 

I hope we find the right deal, but trades are hard and I think our recent play takes the foot off the trade accelerator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Jordan and Faulk are arguably our most polarizing trade bait topics, and of course our Co Captains, but that deal is just not happening. Francis is going to name these guys Co Captains, then move them both in one trade? Not Francis-like.

 

Jordan is the guy carrying the team now. Faulk? At the moment his C is looking a bit shaky from the outside anyways. Jordan is our leading point-getter and back to his usual spot atop our plus minus listing. He's not flashy, but he is a horse out there.

 

I think of these two titular heads of the team and the words "Overrated" and "Underrated" come to mind. Trade the overrated one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that scares me about a JVR trade is the impact it could have on him and his brother...re: Staal trade.  After we got Jordan, it seemed like he and Eric just coasted for a good deal of their time together.  I don't want to see a repeat.

Share this post


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

Bottom line: I'd love to get Landeskog, but no way do I see him as much of an offensive upgrade as you do, and nowhere near worth Faulk and Jordon (I see Soda as not much more than a throw in right now).  And if we're trading our best center, we better be getting a better one back.

Bottom line for me is we get rid of a Dman who only plays D when the spirit moves him and scores sporadically, and a #2C who is poised to become the same sort of millstone his brother was, thanks to the prior GM's over-generosity. At some point in the next six years, we're gonna have to deal him. That's a lot easier to do when somebody stills want him.

 

To me, given what we have in the D corps, Faulk is the throw-in. Although this is a coup from Joe's perspective, it solves several problems for us, and it's Staal who brings Landeskog back -- who, BTW, can also play center.

 

But as usual Lake, it seems we'll agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top, just flat out it's a terrible trade.  It doesn't make us better offensively or defensively, or on the pp.  This trade calls for trading our best offensive and defensive center, which is our biggest weakness, and a top 4 defensemen, for a poor man's version of Jordan Staal, and a LW which is our biggest position of strength, and I can't say that Landeskog is better than either Skinner or Aho.  I know your counter will be to put either Landeskog or someone else on their off-side, but it's not natural or proven to work.  And as others have said already, any trade that involves trade our current top players, let alone our two captains, needs to return a #1 Center, bottom line.

Share this post


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

a top 4 defensemen

Nope, sorry. He's a 5-6 on any other team, and is fast becoming that on this team. His offense is what kept him on the PP, and now that ship has sailed. 

 

I agree with everyone about Jordo. I think he's great. I just think Landeskog is four years younger and has shown he can play with Lindy and Rask. If Faulk alone would bring back Landeskog I'd do it in a heartbeat. I just don't think he can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This trade not only doesn't give us a top line, but it gives us a weaker top 9 forward crop, and a weaker D.   Even if your opinion on Faulk is true, which it isn't, he could still fetch us more than what you think.  And you can't say with a straight face this is the trade that puts us over the top.

Share this post


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

Legit points...the Staal trade still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, I guess.

 

It was a horrible trade.  Sutter, Dumoulin and a 1st (#8 overall) for a guy we could have gotten for free if we had waited 3 months (this was the strike shortened 2012-13 season).  I heard the argument that this move improved our playoff chances but we missed the playoffs anyway.  I've also heard the argument that he would not have been available at the end of the year.  A roster player, a prospect and the 8th overall pick for 46 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordans about what 4 years into his 10 year deal at $6 big ones a year?  He’s playing solid at the moment but what happens when he permanently slides? Who wants to be stuck with that deal that no other team will  touch. If he could be packaged in a deal this season I would be okay with that (based on what we’re getting in return). 

Edited by raleighcaniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let one of the 3 other 2C's we reportedly have slide into the 1C and 2C?  He's our only legitimate top 2 C.  If we got a 1C coming back then it would be worth it but what team would trade their 1C for our 2C?  Someone at the end of a deal who isn't looking to re-sign (and no, rem, I do not think there is any chance that Tavares leaves the Islanders).

Share this post


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

This trade not only doesn't give us a top line, but it gives us a weaker top 9 forward crop, and a weaker D.   Even if your opinion on Faulk is true, which it isn't, he could still fetch us more than what you think.  And you can't say with a straight face this is the trade that puts us over the top.

Look at Faulk's career numbers and tell me again how untrue my conclusions are.

 

Even if Rask didn't play with Skog and Lindholm (the instant first line I'm talking about) and centers Aho and TT instead, and Soderberg centers the fourth while Kruger nudges Ryan back to CLT and moves to 3C, here's something I don't think you can say with a straight face:

 

The current top nine...

Lindholm, Skinner, Aho, Rask, Williams, TT, Jordo, McGinn, Ryan

 

is as good, as young, and as tough as...

Landeskog, Lindholm, Skinner, Aho, Rask, Williams, TT, Kruger, and McGinn

 

That said, if Joe would take Ryan and Faulk for Skog and Soderberg, I'd be happy to keep Jordan for another two or three years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to hear other proposals. What current roster players do we have with enough value to other teams (the criterion which is too often ignored in fans' proposed trades) -- and which we're willing to part with? Do you quit on Rask (at 25)? On Lindholm (at 23)? Hanifin? Fleury? Maybe you offer up McGinn? 

 

This is the challenge of hockey trades. You've gotta give to get. We've needed scoring for a long, long time. We've also needed forwards up and down the lineup who are defensively responsible--but we've got them now. But you're not gonna solve the other problem without it hurting. I know my proposal is moot out of the box, because I don't think Jordo waives, at least not for CO. Nor do I think RF is ready to move him yet. If Faulk alone will bring back the guy we need, whether it's Skog, JVR, or someone else, I'm down. But I don't honestly don't think he does.

 

Share this post


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

I wouldn't bet all my marbles that 3 guys who played well together at a loser's tournament on big ice would do the same thing in the NHL going forward.

If Jordo and Faulk are "all our marbles" we're in much deeper doo-doo than whomever we get back can dig us out of.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Jordans about what 4 years into his 10 year deal at $6 big ones a year?  He’s playing solid at the moment but what happens when he permanently slides? Who wants to be stuck with that deal that no other team will  touch. If he could be packaged in a deal this season I would be okay with that (based on what we’re getting in return). 

 

This team goes to very bad if he is traded.

Share this post


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

 

C'mon Top, you know what I was referring to, but to remind you of your pluses (which I disagree with) here is the first one you listed.

 

I'm reminded why I never propose or comment on trade proposals.

Honestly, that's the way I read it. (Though in fairness, my defenses may be up a bit.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 that Jordo deal--yeah. I don't see RF riding out any more NTCs to the bitter end. Move him while he can bring value back, if not now surely within the next couple of years. He's about to turn into a pumpkin 30. Lindholm is seven years younger and does everything Jordo does, and (assuming we're keeping him), has to get paid next summer--as does Hanifin (see ya, Justin). And Aho and TT get paid the following year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the right return I'd move Hanifin, Faulk or Fleury. One of them only.

 

I'm drifting back into trade Faulk territory. I think he is a skilled puck mover and we would miss that. Aside from that though, the factors that tip the scale to keeping him (despite his d lapses) are his goal scoring and his right handedness. The goals are not coming though, and McKeown looked decent, and TVR has been pretty solid.

 

We are a better team with Pesce/Faulk/TVR on the right vs Pesce/TVR/McKeown. But we are looking so good on the left, that we could get it done with the former if it brought back a top forward.

 

Fleury looks really really solid, and Hanifin is more uneven, but has more upside. But Fleury looking so solid (and having pretty good depth with Carrick and Dahlbeck (who is better on his natural side), and in the long run Jake Bean coming up, that moving one of Hanifin or Fleury could be done. The theoretical problem with moving Fleury is that he likely doesn't get as much return as he is not established. We don't want to trade low, and the return we need is high end, so the deal itself may not bee there. The problem with Hanifin is his still very high end upside. Might still become a top NHL dman. Still, might have to break an egg to get the omlet made, and it always comes back to return.

 

What really makes any of these deals possible is Slavin/Pesce. With that top pair locked down, we can lose a guy below them.

 

NHL on XM guys are recently going on and on about the huge value of good young D men: "everybody wants them". So the return on say a Hanifin, or possibly Faulk, could be an elite youngish forward. It all comes down to which forward comes our way. If it's the right guy, then we could handle moving any of those three IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 5:59 PM, remkin said:

 

 

 

JVR for instance. He would be a very nice addition to this team, and it can't hurt that we have his brother. But he's a UFA next year, so without an additional player or an signed extension, who would we trade for him? I agree with many on here though that he would be a very nice pickup.

 

I hope we find the right deal, but trades are hard and I think our recent play takes the foot off the trade accelerator.

This is where I would like to see RF surprise me. All of his moves have been very calculated and to this point have been successful but the big trade has been missing. I'm not saying he has to turn into a river boat gambler but at some point take a chance. I originally thought we needed to have a trade and sign for JVR but the more I think about it I don't think it is a must. If we could get JVR without a sign straight up for Faulk he should pull the trigger. It is early enough in the year we should be able to gauge if he wants to sign here as time goes on. The key is to make a very reasonable offer.If we cannot sign him and if we are not in the mix come playoff time there will be teams lining up for his services for the playoff push. If we make the playoffs and JVR still wants to  test the market at least we shed Faulk's contract and open the door for something larger in the off season. It's mot a calculated  move for RF and he's unlikely to change but I'd like to see it. 

Share this post


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

Look at Faulk's career numbers and tell me again how untrue my conclusions are.

 

Even if Rask didn't play with Skog and Lindholm (the instant first line I'm talking about) and centers Aho and TT instead, and Soderberg centers the fourth while Kruger nudges Ryan back to CLT and moves to 3C, here's something I don't think you can say with a straight face:

 

The current top nine...

Lindholm, Skinner, Aho, Rask, Williams, TT, Jordo, McGinn, Ryan

 

is as good, as young, and as tough as...

Landeskog, Lindholm, Skinner, Aho, Rask, Williams, TT, Kruger, and McGinn

 

That said, if Joe would take Ryan and Faulk for Skog and Soderberg, I'd be happy to keep Jordan for another two or three years.  

 

I'm not getting into a plus/minus debate, we just disagree on how we view Faulk.  But regardless, any deal that involves Faulk/Landeskog will still leave us with too many LWs and not enough D.

 

12 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

I'd be interested to hear other proposals. What current roster players do we have with enough value to other teams (the criterion which is too often ignored in fans' proposed trades) -- and which we're willing to part with? Do you quit on Rask (at 25)? On Lindholm (at 23)? Hanifin? Fleury? Maybe you offer up McGinn? 

 

This is the challenge of hockey trades. You've gotta give to get. We've needed scoring for a long, long time. We've also needed forwards up and down the lineup who are defensively responsible--but we've got them now. But you're not gonna solve the other problem without it hurting. I know my proposal is moot out of the box, because I don't think Jordo waives, at least not for CO. Nor do I think RF is ready to move him yet. If Faulk alone will bring back the guy we need, whether it's Skog, JVR, or someone else, I'm down. But I don't honestly don't think he does.

 

 

I suggested that we should've traded traded for Duchene, who wouldn't have cost Carolina any roster players, has severely outscored Landeskog, and covers a position of weakness.  Your response was he was a toothpick (who he's roughly the same size as Skinner and Crosby), and/or was of the same mold of a two-way center like Staal.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...