Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off-Season 2018

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, bluedevil58 said:

 

He hasn't been able to develop chemistry with anyone though.  That's a concern. 

Skinner Rask Stemps weren't bad in 2016/17.  Skinner  37 goals 26 assists 63 points at a -3 for the year. Stemps 16 goals 24 assists 40 pts and a +2. Victor Rask 16 goals 29 assists 45 points and -10. 148 pts on that line. A line averaging close to 50 pts among  the three aren't bad.Skinner actually had chemistry with Stemos as he helped Lee's scoring both goals and assists.  Note that Rask was minus 10 and Skins minus 3. From an article in  2016 

The Second Line

Jeff Skinner and Victor Rask have developed some great chemistry over the past few seasons, and it would be foolish to think that will change in 2016-17.

Skinner exploded for an amazing run of 19 points in 20 games, including a pair of hat tricks in a three-game period, on a line with Rask

 

2015/2016

 Skinner 28 goals 23 assists 51 pts -2  Staal 20 goals 28 assists 48 pts +6  Verrsteeg in 63 games: 11 goals 22 assists 33 points -6. Skins also played with Rask who had  21 goals 27 assists 48 points and -6.  Again note that Skins was not leading the - category on these lines, It was Rask and Versteeg. 

 

What changed in 2017/18: Skins with Derek Ryan most of the year  Ryan 15 goals 23 assists 38 points and a -15.  Significantly lower than when Skins was partner with Rask or Staal. Add in PDG or Stemps a combined 22 pts it only get worse.

       
Edited by slapshot02
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the offseason one contemplates whether to sign up again. I went fishing today and decided to let the fish gods decide.  Fish, sign up, no fish, forget it.

 

Fishfinder said maybe,

 

IMG_0120.jpg.0e4b931796ed36ab8613925f2fe1f873.jpg

 

Cooler says hell yeah. 

 

IMG_0124.jpg.a9b381255c1252e23177cadbe8634222.jpg

 

Name that fish.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 7:48 PM, ChuckBurns said:

If you would rather resign Ward than keep Darling and try to obtain another competent backup/shared time goaltender, you are also basically saying you are willing to write off making the playoffs next season.

And you seem to think that allowing Mongo to stay between the pipes next season is going to get us into the postseason?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

During the offseason one contemplates whether to sign up again. I went fishing today and decided to let the fish gods decide.  Fish, sign up, no fish, forget it.

 

Fishfinder said maybe,

 

IMG_0120.jpg.0e4b931796ed36ab8613925f2fe1f873.jpg

 

Cooler says hell yeah. 

 

IMG_0124.jpg.a9b381255c1252e23177cadbe8634222.jpg

 

Name that fish.

 Leiostomus xanthurus ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 8:48 PM, ChuckBurns said:

If you would rather resign Ward than keep Darling and try to obtain another competent backup/shared time goaltender, you are also basically saying you are willing to write off making the playoffs next season.  No goaltender who has hopes to be our #1 is likely to sign here as long as Ward remains.  Further, I think the coaching staff will lean on Ward as a crutch just as they did last season and that will doom our playoff hopes no matter what you do with Skinner, Faulk, etc.

Disagree. Ward did not hold back Mongo. Peters kept coming back to Mongo but he could not put together 2 good games in a row, and had many dismal performances. Ward, used purely a a #2 early in the season, did well in that role. The problem with keeping Ward is that he has proven he can’t hold the fort as a #1. If we bring someone else we’d need to be sure they will succeed as a #1 so that Ward doesn’t end up there by default as with Mongo. I think Ward is finally the odd man out. But not because he held anyone back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't disagree that we should wait to see what the new brain trust decides to do and then evaluate.  But, it seems like everyone has already d3cided that Darling needs to be gone and Ward resigned without taking into account any of the repercussions of that or some of the coaching decisions last year that led to our current position.  As an example, in a game if Ward was suddenly jumped on for 2 or 3 goals, whether he was at fault or not, he was usually pulled.  But, when Darling struggled, even when it was the defense hanging him out to dry, they left him in to give up 8 goals and destroy any confidence he might have had due to a prior good start.  I am not laying all of the blame on the coaching staff, most of the blame is Darling's.  But, I continue to believe that actions taken or not taken by the coaching staff exacerbated the situation and helped destroy any of Darling's confidence.  And, given what happened to Khudobin and Lack, I think the coaching staff cannot be entirely let off the hook either.

Khudobin had about 2/3 of one good season here, before falling off. The season after he left, he spent most of the season in the A, though he was good in a backup role again this year in Boston. He’s never proved he is able to be #1 anywhere he has played.  Lack spent most of this year in the A, and could not break into NJ’s lineup even when Schneider was injured.  Cam did not hold either of them back when they were here. But the ramifications of buying out Darling are serious and long-term, and that’s why I think he gets another chance and Cam walks. I’m certainly rooting for him to turn it around next season. I do think if he gets off to another abysmal start next year, we’ll trade for another goalie and Darling will go to Charlotte or be bought out. PK would not spend the money to do a buyout or send Darling to Charlotte. I think Dundon will if he has to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also never said we will make the playoffs if we stick with Darling.  If we get last year's Darling, I expect him to be waived and sent to Charlotte by December.  And if Nedeljkovic is doing good (or Booth), that goalie should be brought up to go with Hutton or Dell or Grubauer or whomever else was acquired in the off-season.  For that matter, I do NOT expect Darling to be anointed as number 1 before the season starts.  I hope there will be a true open competition for the spot.  My opinion is that Darling will bounce back and succeed.  But, I would put in place someone (or someones) if that doesn't happen so we still can make the playoffs next year.  But, I don't think Cam Ward can be one of those someones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ChuckBurns said:

top shelf is correct, I did not blame Ward for us missing the playoffs.  What I said is that the coaching staff, and Brind'amour was part of that staff, leaned on Cam when Darling's game collapsed.  And while they did continue to give Darling starts, he never had an opportunity, like Raanta did in Arizona, to turn it around by just going out there night after night until he either got it right or showed he will never be a #1 goalie.  So now, we are in the limbo of not knowing if he can perform at that level or not.

 

If we resign Ward and buyout Darling, name a goaltender hoping to be #1 who would sign here?  If you sign Hutton or some other free agent goalie as backup/1B, then you are expecting Ward to perform at least as well as last year.  And, you've added another long-term buyout which means you only have one more you can use for several years.  If Darling had been signed to a two-year deal, we could go your route and maybe get someone else.  And they could be as bad or worse than Darling.

The bottom line for me isn't that BP didn't give Darling a chance. I think he did, and Darling was bad much more than he was good. You can't say on the one hand that guys have to earn their playing time and then turn around and keep trotting a guy out there when he's that abysmal, and when his teammates have lost confidence in him. 

 

What I had trouble with is that RF didn't go out and get somebody when it was clear Darling wasn't going to be good enough, and that was clear long before the trade deadline, while the Canes were still in contention. I've said it before, but the Flyers were in the same boat, acted, and got in. That could have been us, and if The Committee isn't smart enough to have two goalies on the roster who can both handle a 50-game workload in case one crashes and burns, The Committee should also be prepared to miss the dance again.

 

For me, having Cam still in the mix would just be kicking our goaltending problem down the road, because if the past five years have proved nothing else, it's that he can no longer handle that number of games.  

 

The problem, of course, is Darling's contract. But it ceases to be a problem if Ned is one of the two roster goalies and we go out this summer and get a bonafide #1, by hook, crook, or checkbook. Then, unless Darling shows up absolutely primed both physically and in-game, and proves it by putting up goose eggs in preseason, he should be ticketed for the AHL, and Ned rewarded with an roster spot. A few months of riding the bus should be enough to motivate Scott, and if it isn't, it's time to buy him out.

Share this post


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

...and Skinner has had 8 years to show that he is more than a one-dimensional, one-trick pony......and an inconsistent one at that.

Dude. He was rookie of the year and had his two career years in two of the last three seasons, thanks largely to greatly improving his defensive game. Then he gets put with the NHL equivalents of a pylon and a bridge dummy last year and still puts up 49 points.

 

I'm fine with questioning everybody's worthiness for the roster, but let's at least deal in facts, which are that when he's had viable NHL talent to play with, Skinner has been one of the top wings in the game. What's been inconsistent is the club's willingness to get him that complementary talent. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Dude. He was rookie of the year and had his two career years in two of the last three seasons, thanks largely to greatly improving his defensive game. Then he gets put with the NHL equivalents of a pylon and a bridge dummy last year and still puts up 49 points.

 

I'm fine with questioning everybody's worthiness for the roster, but let's at least deal in facts, which are that when he's had viable NHL talent to play with, Skinner has been one of the top wings in the game. What's been inconsistent is the club's willingness to get him that complementary talent. 

 

Over his eight year career Skinner has averaged 47 points per season and a -12 rating. If you take out his rookie season, it gets worse. He sees regular PP time. I’ve already talked about his other deficiencies.

 

You aren’t going to convince me that Skinner is one of the “top wingers in the game” regardless of who he plays with. I’m not going to convince you (or others) otherwise, so it is a moot point.

 

We agree on one thing though, and it was an astute observation on your part. Skinner is at his best when he plays a better defensive game. I don’t know if defense is leading to offense, he is more engaged, or what, but I would love to see it come back.

 

I think Skinner can be that player again (and more), and like I said I hope that as we improve as a team, everyone will look better.

 

One thing I have been meaning to say about Skinner is that if we do trade him, it has to be for a player that is ready to come in and contribute immediately. No picks. No prospects. No salary dump/considerations.

 

Looking at the proposals out there so far, I haven’t seen one that I would pull the trigger on. With (hopefully) Necas, Svechnikov, and possibly some other help coming, I could see the Canes actually having a good offensive team. I think Skinner could be a big part of that. So despite my comments, I’m not necessarily thrilled about trading Skinner because I think the return will be underwhelming, and he has the potential to do great things once the team as a whole gets better/more confident/more used to winning.

 

I’m sure whatever we do though, it will probably end up being the wrong thing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

But it ceases to be a problem if Ned is one of the two roster goalies and we go out this summer and get a bonafide #1, by hook, crook, or checkbook. Then, unless Darling shows up absolutely primed both physically and in-game, and proves it by putting up goose eggs in preseason, he should be ticketed for the AHL, and Ned rewarded with an roster spot. A few months of riding the bus should be enough to motivate Scott, and if it isn't, it's time to buy him out.

I gotta say that while Ned made big strides this year, I'd like to see a little more AHL mastery before putting him in the NHL. That .903. save percentage is just not there yet IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyrule, you said that Skinner has averaged 47 points per season in the eight years that he has been in the league.  That would include the lockout shortened season (42 games) as well as one year where he suffered two concessions (I think it was two) which reduced his games played to 64.  And while everyone is lamenting his -27 plus/minus rating last season, he was -3 in 2016-17 and -1 in 2015-16.  Trading him now would be selling low, just as it would be for Faulk.

 

Now, it may be that a trade of one of these two players will happen this off-season, but we should not trade both.   We should also wait until after we make our first round selection if we do a draft deal.  And I agree we need to make a trade for NHL roster players rather than futures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Kyrule, you said that Skinner has averaged 47 points per season in the eight years that he has been in the league.  That would include the lockout shortened season (42 games) as well as one year where he suffered two concessions (I think it was two) which reduced his games played to 64.  And while everyone is lamenting his -27 plus/minus rating last season, he was -3 in 2016-17 and -1 in 2015-16.  Trading him now would be selling low, just as it would be for Faulk.

 

Now, it may be that a trade of one of these two players will happen this off-season, but we should not trade both.   We should also wait until after we make our first round selection if we do a draft deal.  And I agree we need to make a trade for NHL roster players rather than futures.

 

True. For the lockout year if I project his point pace, assuming he played all 82 games, I think that would bring his point average to about 50 per season. He had 49 points last year in a “down year”, but in truth that is about average for him. In the lockout year he also managed a whopping -21 in 42 games. He almost had more minuses than points, and iirc that is the year E. Staal, Tlusty, and HWSNBN lead the league in +/- for awhile before falling off a cliff. If we project his points, then we must also project his +/- which would be about -40 for the season.

 

As for the games missed due to concussion I don’t factor that in because if you are not available to your team then it is what it is. It sounds harsh but staying healthy is part of consistency. I’m just glad that Skinner has been healthy for an extended period of time. There was a time there when every time he got hit I thought this might be it for him, and I’m sure it was on his mind (no pun intended) as well as much as players try to deny/downplay it. I give him a lot of credit for working through it, speaking from experience head injuries are damn scary......and I didn’t have 200 pound men moving at high speed trying to hit me when I recovered.

 

To be back on topic Skinner averages .65 points per game over his career. That projects to 53 points per season IF he played all 82 games. That is still far from elite imo when everything else is considered. He also averages about -16.5 if my math is correct (which it may not be) per 82 games. Remember that I projected his plus/minus for the lockout year just like I did with points.

 

A 35/36 year-old Justin Williams had 51 points and was -9 last year in 82 games. Would you consider that to be elite? Williams also brings a hell of a lot more to the table in general.

 

Having said all of this, I made my feelings about trading Skinner known above. Like I said, I’m sure whatever we do with Skinner or Faulk will haunt us.

 

P.S. 

I agree that we would be selling low. Also, thank you for posting in a mature and intelligent manner. I don’t mean to come off as a jerk, I’m just putting numbers out there for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome.  I like Skinner and Faulk (I have a jersey while Chrissy has one of Skinner, I tend towards defensemen while she gets goalies and forwards), in fact, I wouldn't mind Ward in a backup role as long as we had someone guaranteed as a #1 next year.  Given Darling's contract, I don't see that happening.  Also, because of Darling's ability to bounce back from adversity, I think he will turn it around next season, but if not, I do want someone else in place who, coupled with Nedeljkovic or Booth, could at least get us to the playoffs.  And, I don't want to try to make a midseason trade to find that someone.

 

I'm not against trading Faulk or Skinner.  And if either or both do not fit into the team's future plans, then they should be traded.  I don't want to trade unless we get comparable players back.  We have a strong prospect pool and some of those guys will be on the team next year.  We keep bemoaning the fact that we have such significant roster turnover year to year, and now we're talking about making it worse with trades that don't, in my opinion, make the team better, just to trade away players who have become the whipping boys for 9 years without playoffs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kyrule said:

We agree on one thing though, and it was an astute observation on your part. Skinner is at his best when he plays a better defensive game. I don’t know if defense is leading to offense, he is more engaged, or what, but I would love to see it come back.

I know we agree on it. I guess what I'm surprised that we (apparently) disagree on are the reasons why, first and foremost that when you are the lone offensive force on your line - as Skinner was this entire season - your ability to help in the d-zone is going to suffer. 

 

That's in stark contrast to the prior two seasons, from the moment BP suggested he might get benched if he didn't find other ways to help the team. That's the Skinner I want back and that you do too... but I can't just ignore the fact that Stemp was gone and PDG is not anywhere near his level, that Rask was hurt much of the year and could only muster fourth-line hockey, and that Ryan absolutely disappeared for something like 30 games. 

 

As for defense generating offense, it absolutely does, and I think Skinner's prior two years testify to that. I just think that after remaining a top offensive player in the league for the first 20 games - despite lacking the caliber of players he had alongside him in those prior years - he started to feel the drain of trying to do it alone every night.

 

Was there also an element, having been challenged in the 2016-17 season (along with everybody else on the roster) to make their best case for the captaincy, and surpassing the career-best numbers he put up just the year before, then not getting the C, of "what the heck do I have to do"? Who knows. But he'd jumped through that hoop, corrected his lack of D responsibility - in short, completely bought in to the role BP needed him to play within his system - and then he loses the captaincy to his two, and the team's, least-vocal-on-ice Alternates.

 

But even throwing out the facts in that last 'graph entirely, the correlation between the lack of offensive talent on his line this year, on a par with that he had in the prior two, is, on its own, enough to say "Thanks for the 49 points, you've proved the importance of getting you better line-mates."

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing together some thoughts on Skinner. On the point about him playing better when he plays better defense by Krule and Top, I do hear a lot from various experts that the offensive game follows the defensive game. In this case they are specifically mentioning that supporting the d play and moving the puck out leads to possession and chances for that same player on that same shift. I have no idea if it's factually true, or a truism that benefits the coach getting a guy to play defense. But my theory is the other way. That is that when Skinner is fully engaged he does things right. That means that little extra effort leading to better shot on offense, and making more plays on defense too. 

 

This is really borne out by his play post concussion and it makes so much sense. Post concussion it is natural to pull back at least a little. It's dangerous out there, and you just came off of not only a long absence from the game but a seriously miserable time trying to recover, and a potentially career ending situation, and one that can affect your life. It's sort of amazing these guys go back out there at all if they've had multiple concussions. I cannot blame him for pulling back even instinctively. But if you watch his play, and if I recall correctly, his production, in the period after returning from those concussions it bears out. He is not anywhere near as effective. There is a fine line in the NHL. I heard Brind'Amour say it at a lunch. The NHL is so good that if you are off just a little or your confidence wanes just a little, the league will eat you up. 

 

In that sense, I do think it is reasonable in terms of predicting future output, to consider not only the time missed for concussion but the months after concussions as aberrantly low for him. And his potential is in line with his non concussion years. In this case there was no concussion. Something else was affecting him and causing a let up. But if it's just how he was handled, it would seem easier to fix than fearing for your head. And if that thing can be fixed, we have a potential 40 goal guy. And we are a team that still does not score enough goals to make the playoffs. So moving Skinner for a rough guy that doesn't score, while it may satisfy some, would not satisfy me. In fact it would be a big mistake.

 

I just think that teams are looking to "take Skinner off our hands" for a very low return, and it's hard to see that as being helpful enough to not try to fix him.

Share this post


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

I gotta say that while Ned made big strides this year, I'd like to see a little more AHL mastery before putting him in the NHL. That .903. save percentage is just not there yet IMO.

I agree--as long as Mongo is good enough in camp to keep Ned in the A. But if he's not, I think Ned has earned the chance to watch NHL hockey from rinkside while Mongo is given 20-30 games to get his act together in CLT. Maybe Ned gets three starts with the big club in that stint. So he gets another taste and sees what he still needs to work on, while Mongo gets rehabilitated (or bought out, at which point we pick up a decent backup to the true #1 we acquired in the off-season). Ned then re-joins the Chex for another run to and through the playoffs. 

 

Keepers are an odd breed. With rare exceptions (coughDraysonBowmancough), the worst NHL shooters tend to still be waaaaay better than the best shooters who are still in the A. So, the more gradually you can normalize the NHL experience for keepers, the better their chances of long-term success and eventual #1 status. Ned already has one shutout period in the NHL. If Mongo isn't ready at the end of camp, let Ned add a bit more experience, while figuring out whether Darling stays or goes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to know what the “average” GAA and save % are in the NHL vs. the AHL.

 

The only time I saw Ned for any stretch of games was at the World Juniors and he was outstanding. Very poised, Very quick. Very athletic.

 

Of course next to Lack and Mongo any goalie is going to look like a ninja.

 

I know the NHL and AHL are a whole different animal compared to the juniors but at least it was encouraging. It was nice to see him have a good year in Charlotte.

 

He did look a tad small the last time I saw him. I wonder if management got caught up in the “big goalie” trend. Looking around the league most goalies have pretty good size, but with Mongo and the Taco we took it to an extreme.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he could get the call up next season , i would try him during the preseason to see if he has  a good record in those games .  if he does then  keep him around  and try to ease him into some nhl games .  you never know how bad or good it might turn out . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 9:16 PM, coastal_caniac said:

During the offseason one contemplates whether to sign up again. I went fishing today and decided to let the fish gods decide.  Fish, sign up, no fish, forget it.

 

Fishfinder said maybe,

 

IMG_0120.jpg.0e4b931796ed36ab8613925f2fe1f873.jpg

 

Cooler says hell yeah. 

 

 

 

Name that fish.

 

If the fish gods don't help, there's always...

 

1977045768_8ball.jpg.cd283f293d748b4ab07b5c22971d44e0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it’s a pro’s job to get themselves ‘up’ for a game I think Skinner after 8 years is burned out playing for a loser and it shows in his numbers, further exacerbated by roulette wheel line mates who aren’t top end. It’s what was happening to Evander Kane (Thrashers, Jets, Slugs) until he got traded to a playoff team and his play went through the roof. I think that’s what would happen if Skinner was traded to a for-sure playoff team, and got reasonably permanent quality linemates. Same for Ryan O’Reilly playing on the Slugs. Canes will need to be an all that team next season for Skins to want to resign imo. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, raleighcaniac said:

Evander Kane (Thrashers, Jets, Slugs) until he got traded to a playoff team and his play went through the roof.

 

Let see what happens when he's traveling twice as far as he ever did in the East and weighing the attraction of an 82 game-schedule under an actual, tough coach, against heading to the beach.

 

The Sharks will be paying for a long, long time - in ways they haven't even considered - for this boneheaded deal. Count on it.

Edited by top-shelf-1

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...