Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
raleighcaniac

To Trade, or not to trade

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, danimal-ch1 said:

Man Debbie downer you just ruined everything for me.  I'm not even gonna watch the game tonight.  You are pretty much right but its really not that bad.  Every team has their list of stuff thats struggling at the moment.....except Tampa Bay.  

 

Lol yes.  We’re still in it despite all of our flaws, and for the short term we don’t have to be perfect, just good enough.  The problem is there will need to be at least 3 five game win streaks needed at some point, and I don’t see it in this team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see this team being consistent enough in any area to go on a five or six game run. 

 

Right now this team has to play an almost perfect game for a win.  The Canes can't steal games.

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ek rumoring that Wayne Simmonds could be available? Could he be a possibility for our long lost power forward we've craved since E Cole retired? I'd sure rather him than Evander Kane.

Share this post


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

Ek rumoring that Wayne Simmonds could be available? Could he be a possibility for our long lost power forward we've craved since E Cole retired? I'd sure rather him than Evander Kane.

 

I'd definitely take a piece of that action.  I could do a deal involving Simmonds for Lindholm and some change.  Don't trust Ek, but I'd love Simmonds here.

Share this post


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

 

I'd definitely take a piece of that action.  I could do a deal involving Simmonds for Lindholm and some change.  Don't trust Ek, but I'd love Simmonds here.

Man...Simmonds is a HUGE disappointment for the Flyers this season...worse than Rask for us.  I'd definitely trade for him though...we know what his potential is.

 

Lindholm and Rask for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Whaler1 said:

Once Lindholm and Rask win a fight or two I could see Hextall mildly interested. 

Don Cherry (say whatever you want about the guy) doesn't think the "sweetheart" club with these guys will fight either.  This is from last night's Coaches Corner.

 

When talking about Leafs not playing Matt Martin he mentions the "sweethearts" in Carolina.  See just after 3:15 and again just after 3:45. 

Share this post


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

Man...Simmonds is a HUGE disappointment for the Flyers this season...worse than Rask for us.  I'd definitely trade for him though...we know what his potential is.

 

Lindholm and Rask for him?

NO WAY.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins 'name is now reemerging? That would be another I'd strongly consider, and on our side is the fact that we could absorb his 3 yr contract. Wonder what/who that would take?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 9:46 PM, AWACSooner said:

Man...Simmonds is a HUGE disappointment for the Flyers this season...worse than Rask for us.  I'd definitely trade for him though...we know what his potential is.

 

Lindholm and Rask for him?

???? Not sure about a huge disappointment. Simmonds has 14 pts and on pace for his typical 50+ pt season. A very similar pace to last year. Rask sitting at 7 pts which includes 2 pts from yesterday.  Trading Lindholm and Rask for Simmonds would be a huge overpay for a 29 yr old right winger and offers us no gain. BTW Lindholm is on the same pace as Simmonds for pts per games played. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindholm and Rask for Simmons?  I'll pass on that.  I'd like Simmons, but wouldn't that be one step forward and two steps back?  I know Rask is in the doghouse, but still.

Edited by super_dave_1
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins 'name is now reemerging? That would be another I'd strongly consider, and on our side is the fact that we could absorb his 3 yr contract. Wonder what/who that would take?  

To me RNH is a very interesting enigma. He has never lived up to his hype and has never had that break out year. He has been around since 2011 and his highest point production has been 56. At 6 mil a yr  IMO he is overpaid but let's remember he is only 24 yrs young. His contract is thru 2021 and we could cover it easily. I'd be interested in giving him a shot since he is only 24 and his contract is in place for 3 more years. The question is what would it take to make it happen? I'm betting it would not be as much as some may think. Edmonton has a ton of contracts coming due in the next two years and will have to clear some space.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly slapshot. We also seem to have had a pretty good relationship with Oilers since 05-06,but not sure if that continues? And since they do have contracts coming up that might be "off the charts", could mean 2 things. 1st, they may not require us to trade a roster player for RNH, but could settle for cheaper, meaning a good prospect and draft pick. And 2nd, could also further our relationship for anything in the future?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 1st, they may not require us to trade a roster player for RNH, but could settle for cheaper, meaning a good prospect and draft pick. And 2nd, could also further our relationship for anything in the future?

Yes sir. Could be a combination of a few picks plus a prospect. Give the guy a fresh start.

Edited by slapshot02
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a bit cool on RNH, but he is having a bit of a breakout this year at .7 ppg and 27 goal pace. It's a small n value, and he's not likely to ever be the true 1C, but he is better than Ryan, and at least as good as Rask. As always it would come down to what we'd have to give up, but I'd be more open to it than before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Oil this season, RNH is currently 2nd in goals with 8 (to McDavids 10) and 3rd in points (behind McDavid and Drai).  He's on a 27g, 58p pace for the season.   Oil fans say that last year he was asked to play a shutdown role (and did a decent job at it) which limited his offensive output.  Even though the Oil are probably going to need to shed salary soon, if they trade RNH for futures they're basically giving up on the season, and I can't see them doing that to the fans this early.  So while he might be "gettable", I'd be surprised if it were for futures; I'm guessing that Oil mgmt would be looking for a shake-up to prompt a run at a playoff spot before it was too late. 

 

On another board I proposed Faulk and Ryan for RNH, Matt Benning, and a 2nd.  Here was my thinking:

  • I'm projecting RNH at mid 20's goals and 55-60 pts per season going forward.  With the possibility of more, he's still only 24yo  
  • Benning is a young RH d-man that supposedly moves the puck well and is reasonably responsible defensively.  Sounds like he has a little upside potential and could hold down a spot on our right side for the rest of the season (or maybe even more).
  • I value Faulk as a very good 2nd pair d-man.  Very good offensively (he's not going to slump indefinitely), but below average defensively (decent at times, and better this season, but still way too many gaffs to let me trust him defensively when it counts).  Sorry Faulk fans, but that's how I see it. 
  • I've got Ryan in there because we'd need to open a roster spot for RNH and he could hold down a center position for the Oil the rest of the year.
  • Supposedly next year should be a strong draft, and with our recent drafting record, a (presumably low) Oil 2nd rounder could turn into something nice.

Couple more thoughts:

  • RNH isn't my ideal C target, but could he be enough to move our O to the next level if no one else more suitable is realistically available?
  • In general, the other board thought I was selling a bit low on Faulk and a bit high on RNH.  I guess my question is: what's an appropriate trade-off between perhaps slightly losing a trade but making your team better vs. doing nothing?
Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


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

I've always been a bit cool on RNH, but he is having a bit of a breakout this year at .7 ppg and 27 goal pace. It's a small n value, and he's not likely to ever be the true 1C, but he is better than Ryan, and at least as good as Rask. As always it would come down to what we'd have to give up, but I'd be more open to it than before.

I agree and was never a huge fan but I think he would be a goof fit. Doc is 30 and I don;t see him in the plans going forward. We have youth in the farm who may also push out Doc. Rasker? who knows if he is going to turn it around. I look at RNH as an insurance policy until the yutes are ready and at 24 he is still far from his prime. The guy could be a late bloomer and how great would that be if he was wearing our sweater at the time of a resurgence. Who knows perhaps a change in scenery can help him progress. 

Share this post


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

  So while he might be "gettable", I'd be surprised if it were for futures; I'm guessing that Oil mgmt would be looking for a shake-up to prompt a run at a playoff spot before it was too late. 

 

On another board I proposed Faulk and Ryan for RNH, Matt Benning, and a 2nd. 

Couple more thoughts:

  • RNH isn't my ideal C target, but could he be enough to move our O to the next level if no one else more suitable is realistically available?
  • In general, the other board thought I was selling a bit low on Faulk and a bit high on RNH.  I guess my question is: what's an appropriate trade-off between perhaps slightly losing a trade but making your team better vs. doing nothing?

Lake, you are probably right that they would not let him go for prospects and picks but I think it may depend on how much salary they want to shed. I think the trade you proposed would not even need a 2nd pick from the Oil. I read somewhere that if Edmonton were to let him go that they would at least want to shed 4 mil from the cap. The Faulk trade as described would not allow them to do that. Who knows? The 4 mil reduction was just a reporters speculation. I definitely think that RNH would make our lines better and produce more scoring. I agree that it is probably to early for any team to start shedding rosters and with the fire power that the Oil have they can still turn it around and make a run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the comments about going on a win streak further up, it doesn't take much for a team to get on a roll. That said, while streaks are exciting, what matters is winning enough games to make the playoffs, not whether the wins come in bunches.

Share this post


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

Re the comments about going on a win streak further up, it doesn't take much for a team to get on a roll. That said, while streaks are exciting, what matters is winning enough games to make the playoffs, not whether the wins come in bunches.

 

Hey, we found something we agree on!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tip, Top. 

 

Raise your hand if you don't like win streaks like all playoff teams tend to pull off every year.  .

 

It would be a good time for this team to have one.

 

 

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me Me Me!! I like the way we seem to want to progress, win 1/lose 1, or how about win2/lose 3, that works well, sarcasm alert. Of course a winning streak is necessary, other wise one stays in the .5oo range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even simpler, the cut line is drifting north of +4 and the Canes sit at +2 and need to jump over two teams with our magic beans not germinating over the last week. And two big Division games coming up.  I'm focused on a win streak.

 

Nobody raise their hand.  :threaten:

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the more and the longer the win streaks the better.  PK stated that we'd need at least three 5 game win streaks in order to be a playoff team.  Not to speak for top, but I interpreted his point to be, e.g.:

W, W, OTL, W, W, L, W, OTL  gets you the same number of points as

W, W, W, W, W, L, L, W

 

I'm all for the 5 game win streak, but I'd gladly take those 12 points either way.  Bottom line is that we need to do better, one way or the other.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...