Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off-Season 2018

Recommended Posts

Seven years for any Pro minus maybe the 1%ers of talent in the league is a crazy deal and EKs not a 1%er.  From EK’s or any players perspective however it’s a grand slam for major $ and certainty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank the hockey gods. My hockey junkie withdrawal symptoms are already disappearing.

 

FYI it was a league wide problem. I'm just happy they fixed it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was something wrong with my phone.

 

To be back on topic, for those that don’t know the combine is going on in Buffalo this week. Not a big deal but interesting.

 

Svechnikov has 11 interviews scheduled. I found this a bit troublesome until I learned that Dahlin has 9 scheduled for the week.

 

Also there is an article that recently came out called “5 questions with Andrei Svechnikov.”

 

One of the questions basically said it looks like you will be drafted by the Hurricanes, what do you know about them.

 

He pretty much said we are a young team on the way up, it would suit him well, it would be an honor, etc., pretty much the standard stuff.

 

Said he believes he will be/is ready for the NHL next year.

 

Sounds like he reallly is close to his brother.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may need rehab.  I was having flashbacks and nightmares of swimming in a storm to some mythical island.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while we were gone the team re-signed  defenseman Trevor Carrick to a one-year, two-way contract. The deal will pay Carrick $700,000 on the NHL level or $80,000 on the American Hockey League (AHL) level during the 2018-19 season, with a guarantee of at least $95,000.

 

 

He had a pretty good year in Charlotte and should get a look at training camp

Share this post


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

They better have flags 

And they better be correct...not this tropical storm crap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, bluedevil58 said:

Is Noah Hanifin  ot wanting to resign here or is this just a rumor?

 

Rumor as I haven’t seen anything from Hanifin or his representative.  People are wondering since Francis was willing to move him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL posted an article about the Canes off season plans:

https://www.nhl.com/news/carolina-hurricanes-likely-to-make-changes-says-gm-don-waddell/c-298865552

 

I was surprised to read Don call out the goalies for our underperforming season. I'm not savvy enough to argue the validity of that statement but I thought he was more blunt than GMs usually are. I'll take that as a positive. If culture change is what we need, then having some balls at the top to help right this ship is good news. Also, he strongly hints at drafting Svech, which is also music to me.

 

 

Edited by Bing_Chow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bing_Chow said:

I was surprised to read Don call out the goalies for our underperforming season

 

Bing, Thanks for posting that link. Waddell has been pretty consistent it what he has been saying. At the same time he seems to be hedging his bets in case a deal can't be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bing_Chow said:

NHL posted an article about the Canes off season plans:

https://www.nhl.com/news/carolina-hurricanes-likely-to-make-changes-says-gm-don-waddell/c-298865552

 

I was surprised to read Don call out the goalies for our underperforming season. I'm not savvy enough to argue the validity of that statement but I thought he was more blunt than GMs usually are. I'll take that as a positive. If culture change is what we need, then having some balls at the top to help right this ship is good news. Also, he strongly hints at drafting Svech, which is also music to me.

 

 

Waddell

On goalies:  ". . .so I think that's an area that we really have to address. We have lots of balls in the air right now to address that position."

 

On #2 oa:  "I've gotten a lot of calls and what I've told teams is, we're keeping the pick. If you want to present something to me, it's my role as general manager to listen to what you have to say. If someone wants to put a package together that we can't say no to, assets for the organization and where we're headed, we would look at it, but it's going to be very difficult for somebody to get that pick from us."

 

Good to hear his take on #2 oa and that they're actively working on the goalie situation.

 

Share this post


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

 

Bing, Thanks for posting that link. Waddell has been pretty consistent it what he has been saying. At the same time he seems to be hedging his bets in case a deal can't be found.

 

Honestly, I agree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the WSJ ran a short piece on a new paper that also shows the best time to pull the goalie if down a goal is......5:40. 

 

And a comparison showing how in all sports, especially football and hockey coaches almost never do the mathematically clear thing if it is unconventional and leaves them hanging for criticism. 

 

Here is the actual mathematical paper:

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3132563

 

Here is the WSJ piece.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-a-hockey-coach-should-pull-the-goalie-1527516852

 

Make of it what you will, but this is the second one I've seen that says the same thing, yet almost no NHL coach pull the goalie even close to 5:40, and even doing so much later than 5:00 can draw intense second guessing of the coach, as we know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Waddell and goalie talk.

 

So if he did the political thing and said: "The goalies were fine.  The team is bad."  It would have looked like the interview with the Iraqi foreign minister denying the bombs that were dropping in the background.  It cannot be denied.  That position had severe problems.  It is about time it was admitted openly by management.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, OBXer said:

And while we were gone the team re-signed  defenseman Trevor Carrick to a one-year, two-way contract. The deal will pay Carrick $700,000 on the NHL level or $80,000 on the American Hockey League (AHL) level during the 2018-19 season, with a guarantee of at least $95,000.

 

 

He had a pretty good year in Charlotte and should get a look at training camp

Under the radar, but not inconsequential. Should we trade a dman, especially a LHD, cough, Hanifin, cough. Carrick is one of our most NHL ready LHD, and especially if Dahlbeck moves on could be moved into the 6 slot, and Fleury bumped to middle pair. And what a contract if he plays NHL. He's solid and put up 11G and 44 points in the AHL by far tops for the Checkers. 

 

Add in McKeown's plus 34 on the right, and in theory we "could" trade both Hanifin and Faulk. Personally I'd be hesitant to trade both unless a solid vet D man was brought in, but we could go Slavin-Pesce/TVR-Fleury/Carrick-McKeown.  I get that would be a very young, pretty inexperienced D core, and TVR might be a stretch in middle pair, but if deals brought us the right pieces including a legit goalie, it would be passable. 

 

Even if not, Carrick is a nice depth guy. For him, he needs to get a shot soon because Bean will be hot on his tail for another LHD slot.

Share this post


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

if Dahlbeck moves on

 

Dahlbeck signed with the KHL so he is out of the mix

I can see Carrick paired with TVR on third pair

I can't see a combination of Carrick and McKeown replacing Faulk and Hanifin.

If Hanifin goes I think Fluery is paired with Faulk

If Faulk goes I think we go shopping

Where will Bean fit in all this. I don't know

no matter how you use it the +/- stat means next to nothing

 

Lets ask this. Why are other teams intersted in Hanifin. Why are other teams interested in Faulk. Because they are puck moving defensemen with a scoring upside that can anchor a powerplay. That is what every team wants. Sure they have to play a decent defense but not a light out defense. They are there to help make plays and score.

IMO you can trade Faulk or Hanifin but not both unless you can get a puck moving D-man with a scoring upside back or through another trade.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OBXer said:

I can't see a combination of Carrick and McKeown replacing Faulk and Hanifin.

 

 

Darned right they can't - no way in hell Carrick and McKeown can turn the puck over in the defensive zone as much as those two!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, realmdrakkar said:

 

 

Darned right they can't - no way in hell Carrick and McKeown can turn the puck over in the defensive zone as much as those two!

 

I love it. I needed a smile. Oh and give Carrick and McKeown a chance to learn. I'm sure they will figure out how to turn the puck over?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So the WSJ ran a short piece on a new paper that also shows the best time to pull the goalie if down a goal is......5:40. 

 

And a comparison showing how in all sports, especially football and hockey coaches almost never do the mathematically clear thing if it is unconventional and leaves them hanging for criticism. 

 

Here is the actual mathematical paper:

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3132563

 

Here is the WSJ piece.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-a-hockey-coach-should-pull-the-goalie-1527516852

 

Make of it what you will, but this is the second one I've seen that says the same thing, yet almost no NHL coach pull the goalie even close to 5:40, and even doing so much later than 5:00 can draw intense second guessing of the coach, as we know. 

I'm not poring over that paper; I edit doctoral dissertations IRL, so that would the opposite of enjoying my free time. That said, I'd (1) be interested to know if the study was controlled for momentum of the trailing team, and (2) bet that it wasn't.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to me the key question. No coach is going to leave a gaping net at his end of the rink if his team is producing sustained pressure at even strength. Sustained pressure often results in penalties to the opposing team, and thereby late-game power plays. Pulling the keeper with five minutes left, OTOH, increases the odds that a totally random clear will put the game completely out of reach.

 

Mathematical analyses are all well and good--until real-life circumstances that defy mathematical factoring rush in.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

Under the radar, but not inconsequential. Should we trade a dman, especially a LHD, cough, Hanifin, cough. Carrick is one of our most NHL ready LHD, and especially if Dahlbeck moves on could be moved into the 6 slot, and Fleury bumped to middle pair. And what a contract if he plays NHL. He's solid and put up 11G and 44 points in the AHL by far tops for the Checkers. 

 

Add in McKeown's plus 34 on the right, and in theory we "could" trade both Hanifin and Faulk. Personally I'd be hesitant to trade both unless a solid vet D man was brought in, but we could go Slavin-Pesce/TVR-Fleury/Carrick-McKeown.  I get that would be a very young, pretty inexperienced D core, and TVR might be a stretch in middle pair, but if deals brought us the right pieces including a legit goalie, it would be passable. 

 

Even if not, Carrick is a nice depth guy. For him, he needs to get a shot soon because Bean will be hot on his tail for another LHD slot.

Samuelsson was also a beast, and he and McKeown had an entire season together in the A. We are so rich with D it's not even funny, and it's a big reason that I believe moving out our supposed NHL-ready top pick of three years ago is much better for the D's future overall than giving him another three years to try and figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, OBXer said:

Because they are puck moving defensemen with a scoring upside that can anchor a powerplay.

And one of the top PPs in the league, to boot. NOT.

 

Other teams are interested because GMs often believe a change of scene will work a miracle. And who are we (or the stats) to convince them otherwise?

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...