Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

In-season trades and player moves

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, spyglass88 said:

 

I don't consider top-shelf's view on this a "conspiracy post" or "finger pointing." It's one possible explanation for what occurred, and a plausible one at that. If top-shelf is correct, then it perhaps explains more than just the Skinner trade. It points to some "culture" or "nostalgia" issues (or whatever you want to call it) that keep holding this organization back year-in and year-out. It signals that really changing the culture here may take more than just getting rid of JR and RF. 

You are of course entitled to your opinion  but  how is  this is not finger pointing    " Anyone paying attention knows Rod has not liked Skinner for a very long time, IMO because - much like Eric Staal - Skinner has natural ability as a player that Rod lacked, and therefore didn't have to work as hard off the ice as Rod did, to get results on the ice. I think that bias is why, when BP floated Skinner as C, Rod went to his buddy Ron to make sure it didn't happen. And so, the minute Rod got the bench, it was a foregone conclusion that Skinner would no longer have a place on it."    Seems like some finger pointing to me.

.. ALL i'm saying is the same stuff keeps getting repeated.. Brindamour, Cole, Williams, buddy this jealous this .. whatever...  blah blah blah.. posted more than a few times.. point made all could be possible.. 

I do agree totally with this:

"The problem with the org's management for years has been repeating the same mistakes. "

 

and 

" Either way, people have a right to vent. If you don't want to read it, don't read it."  

 

New Material needed maybe?

 

The same wild speculation keeps coming up over and over.. make up something new at least.

Edited by caryhurricanes
absentminded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all you meant by "finger pointing" was that top was bringing attention to a particular person or issue, then yes, it's finger pointing. But by mentioning it right next to "conspiracy theories," it's clear that you meant something more, just as your reference to "wild speculation" in your new post. 

 

Look, top can defend himself. My point simply is that his view should not be quickly dismissed. If he's correct, it would explain a lot. But it also would require some changes in our HC or by our HC for this team to be more successful.

 

This team has not reached the playoffs in almost 10 years, despite repeated promises that "this year it's going to be different." This team cannot attract elite talent either on the ice or in the front office, despite the obvious need for it. This team cannot seem to succeed, despite having coaches who've been very successful elsewhere. This team never seems to be able to use effectively the talent it has. WHY?

 

The answer to that question has been a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. If top wants to offer a plausible theory that explains at least part of the problem, then I'm fine with it. I'm not going to deride him for it.

Edited by spyglass88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a video recently, I think it was Elliott, but he said the asking price for Hamilton would be very high.

 

He threw out Kapanen, Brown, and the Leafs first round pick as an example.

 

Not saying I agree or disagree, just throwing stuff I hear out there.

 

Like someone else said above though, we trade away Lindholm and Hanifin and the two major players we get in return could be gone within a year?

 

That is Mickey-Mouse, grasping at straws, amateur night BS.

 

Just the fact that Hamilton’s name is out there again, doesn’t that affect his trade value in a negative way?

 

Losing Ferland would be a punch to the nuts. 🍑🤛🏻

 

.

Edited by Kyrule
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes, but (thinking out loud also) it could have worked the other way: On a team this young, give the kid who was challenged to change his game and did and was successful because of it the C, and let Willy back him up. I think in the end organizational nostalgia won out, and wouldn't be surprised if the inevitability of that is what prompted BP to move on.

 

7 hours ago, slapshot02 said:

And the C to a guy whose career is almost over compared to a guy whose career is still rising and has more longevity.

 

I thought Skinner should have gotten the C last season, and I wouldn't have minded him getting it this season if we were looking to re-sign him.  You're pointing out what could have been.  But my point was more towards the fact that almost no one can understand the committee's decision to dump Skinner as quickly as it did for as little as it got.  If there was some "alpha male contention" between Skinner and Willy I could see it contributing heavily to that otherwise confusing decision.  From 2 perspectives.

  1. Brindy considering the overall chemistry of the team once he decided to go with Willy
  2. by biasing Willy's feedback to TD as to some of the problems with the team. Because I believe TD likely sought Willy's input and probably gave it a fair amount of weight)

Again, not trying to justify the decision; I thought, think, and will continue to think it was a terrible one.  I'm just trying to get some understanding as to how presumably intelligent men made such a confounding one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot to catch up on after getting off work and making it to the cool bar here in Jacksonville tonight. One of the Storm Squad said Ferland is asking for "top line" money. Don't know what his actual numeric ask is, but I would assume he started on the high side.

On a different note, I recall hearing something about Aho wanting to focus on hockey when the season starting and not letting contract talks distract him during the season. Full disclaimer, this could be entirely wrong and me remembering incorrectly as we are in the final stages of our repair at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, caryhurricanes said:

You are of course entitled to your opinion  but  how is  this is not finger pointing    " Anyone paying attention knows Rod has not liked Skinner for a very long time, IMO because - much like Eric Staal - Skinner has natural ability as a player that Rod lacked, and therefore didn't have to work as hard off the ice as Rod did, to get results on the ice. I think that bias is why, when BP floated Skinner as C, Rod went to his buddy Ron to make sure it didn't happen. And so, the minute Rod got the bench, it was a foregone conclusion that Skinner would no longer have a place on it."    Seems like some finger pointing to me.

.. ALL i'm saying is the same stuff keeps getting repeated.. Brindamour, Cole, Williams, buddy this jealous this .. whatever...  blah blah blah.. posted more than a few times.. point made all could be possible.. 

I do agree totally with this:

"The problem with the org's management for years has been repeating the same mistakes. "

 

and 

" Either way, people have a right to vent. If you don't want to read it, don't read it."  

 

New Material needed maybe?

 

The same wild speculation keeps coming up over and over.. make up something new at least.

Or, you could not read it.

 

And it's not finger-pointing when the guy's own quotes support it. "Skinner has gotten away with a lot." What would that be Rod, having a life outside the weight room and the bike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing on Skinner this year, is a huge outlier shooting percentage. He is clearly either catching some breaks or getting set up for some easy chances. 

 

Career shooting percentage: 11.4 (including this year), this year: 21.5%. 

 

My guess is that he's working to get closer to the net too. But I haven't watched, so if anyone has, what is it? I'm sure Jack Eichel is helping with that too. 

 

Any sure, not playing with third liners, got that. But 21% is every 5th shot goes in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW our team shooting percentage: 7%. Roughly 1 per 14 goes in. 

 

I have to think that has gone up over our streak though. 

Share this post


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

One thing on Skinner this year, is a huge outlier shooting percentage. He is clearly either catching some breaks or getting set up for some easy chances. 

 

Career shooting percentage: 11.4 (including this year), this year: 21.5%. 

 

My guess is that he's working to get closer to the net too. But I haven't watched, so if anyone has, what is it? I'm sure Jack Eichel is helping with that too. 

 

Any sure, not playing with third liners, got that. But 21% is every 5th shot goes in. 

He has had a lot of highlight reel goals too.  His confidence is through the roof and we all know his skill,  so combine those two together and he just can't miss this year. Whenever he was at that confident place with us he would deke around 3 guys and score every night.  Well he has been at that place all year with no slumps.  Carolina makes even the best of em slump several times a year for the last 10 seasons. 

Share this post


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

Or, you could not read it.

 

And it's not finger-pointing when the guy's own quotes support it. "Skinner has gotten away with a lot." What would that be Rod, having a life outside the weight room and the bike?

Nope no finger pointing by you. :)  LOL   Seriously .. you seem to have a serious grudge against certain old players.  That one had me laughing though.   .. "weight room and the bike".. nice one.  

 

As far as trades and all that which is I guess what this thread is about... 

 

Sad to hear Ferland and the canes have not talked in a month.. and that he's likely to be dealt, last I saw was a report the price is 1st round  pick  and prospects....no idea how accurate that is.

Hamilton.. love that he's scoring a few but his D is bad... really bad.    

Yikes on that trade! 

LIndholm and Skinner how much better would the team be if they were still here?  

 

Personally I'd Trade Hamilton before anyone else.. but as many have said.. that would make that trade even worse than it is now and probably not likely to happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, caryhurricanes said:

Nope no finger pointing by you. :)  LOL   Seriously .. you seem to have a serious grudge against certain old players.  That one had me laughing though.   .. "weight room and the bike".. nice one.  

 

As far as trades and all that which is I guess what this thread is about... 

 

Sad to hear Ferland and the canes have not talked in a month.. and that he's likely to be dealt, last I saw was a report the price is 1st round  pick  and prospects....no idea how accurate that is.

Hamilton.. love that he's scoring a few but his D is bad... really bad.    

Yikes on that trade! 

LIndholm and Skinner how much better would the team be if they were still here?  

 

Personally I'd Trade Hamilton before anyone else.. but as many have said.. that would make that trade even worse than it is now and probably not likely to happen.

 

both are well above their career shooting percentages.  Based on our roster and needs, I dont know that either would do anymore than their career numbers. Lind would have 10 goals and Skinner 13 (assuming shot numbers are the same but I doubt either would have as high number of shots on this squad).  Subtract Dougie's 6 and Ferland's 12 and we already close to even for the year.  On top of that with Skinner here, Svech would be further down the depth chart so, I would venture to say he'd have less goals too.  We would really be close to even at that point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, caryhurricanes said:

LIndholm and Skinner how much better would the team be if they were still here?  

 

 

IMO, not a bit.  I'd wager to say Lindholm would be pretty much where Ferland is now pointwise (but i'd flip the numbers to where he'd have more assists than goals, as is more-historically accurate), and while we'd have a little more netfront presence, we'd have less physicality.  Hamilton and Hanifin, meanwhile, are both defensively-terrible defensemen who make questionable plays in the defensive zone and try to redeem themselves by being offensive - where, bad as i think he is in most aspects, Hamilton is currently and has historically been better at scoring than Hanifin.  Of course there's no way to know for sure, but in much the same way people say Skinner wouldn't have as many points here as he has in Buffalo, i don't think Lindholm would have as many as he has in Calgary either.

 

I still call the trade a wash, from a Canes perspective.  We traded 2 guys we probably weren't going to re-sign for 2 other guys who we may not re-sign, with fairly-similar historical stats on both sides.  All my opinion, of course.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on that trade, not that we could actually forget, but Adam Fox is just blowing up NCAA Division I Hockey. He is #2 in the country in points at 1.62 points per game. Not the #2 D man, #2 overall, and just a hair behind #1 a forward at 1.71 ppg. 

 

The #2 D man is #11 overall at 1.25 ppg, and the #3 D man is #18 overall at 1.19 ppg. Quinn Hughes, Jack's brother, and the #7 NHL pick overall last year, is next at 1.18 ppg. 

 

Again, Fox is 1.62 ppg. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of the talk about the bad trades last off season, the current team seems to me to have something Canes teams have lacked for a long time, some imposing hitters.  Both Ferland and Martinook have brought a physical presence that is an element the team needs to maintain going forward.  Neither Skinner nor Lindholm nor Hanifan brought that element.  It is alarming to read that they may have to move Ferland due to his unrestricted FA status and the parties being miles apart in negotiations.  Hopefully, that can be sorted out and he gets a contract extension.  If not, they need to add other physical players to the mix.  

 

Hamilton and/or Faulk appear to be tradable assets, especially considering Fox is a defensemen they can add to the mix.  If they have to trade one or both of them, along with Ferland, get some physicality back.  Sign Fox when his collegiate season ends, and insert him right into the lineup.  This team is close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never a fan of the Calgary trades, but we are undervaluing what we really got in return.  We traded Lindy and Hanafin for Ferland, Hamilton, Fox, DeHaan, and whatever we get out of one or two excess RD.  One right now and two if Fox signs, which I expect we will try really hard to do as soon as Harvard's season is over.  If he won't sign then, it's safe to assume he won't sign at the end of the season.  In that case, I expect we will trade him to somebody he will sign with.

 

Calgary                                 Carolina  

Lindholm                               Ferland

Hanafin                                 Hamilton

                                              Fox

                                              DeHaan

                                              Trade return for top 4 RD

                                              Trade return for another RD if Fox signs and trade return for Fox if he does not sign

                                              Trade return for Ferland if he does not sign

 

 

                                       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AWACSooner said:

UFA signing from the Isles

I know AWACS, I was responding to cclifford and his post that implied we picked him up in the Calgary trade.

Share this post


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

I know AWACS, I was responding to cclifford and his post that implied we picked him up in the Calgary trade.

 

I am saying that, in a way, we really did pick him up in the trade.  We freed up the spot in the lineup and the money to sign him.  Without that trade, he's not here.

Edited by cclifford10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cclifford10 said:

 

I am saying that, in a way, we really did pick him up in the trade.  We freed up the spot in the lineup and the money to sign him.  Without that trade, he's not here.

Yah, cause we were soooooo close to the salary cap before the trade 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yah, cause we were soooooo close to the salary cap before the trade 

 

Nothing to do with the cap.  We would not have paid another top 4 LD if we had paid Noah.

 and DeHaan probably would not have signed here without an obvious top four role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point that there was a bigger plan is fair. We've drafted multiple first round D men, gotten a pair of amazing late rounders in Pesce and Slavin, picked up DeHaan, and Hamilton, and even gotten Faulk playing solidly, have some decent D men in Charlotte, and even hopefully have Fox out there. But we have not been able to close the obvious D for O trade(s). 

 

If the committee pulls off two D for O trades and gets dynamic forwards in here, it will suddenly look very different. 

 

And so we wait.

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...