Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
gocanes0506

Come one and all to "discuss" the Skinner Trade (and only here)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DevildogKodi said:

Top, I think the disappearance of the Staal line has to do with his linemates. Particularly Foegele, who is massively on the wrong side of +/- compared to the others and has massively cooled off. Giving our coach the benefit of the doubt, I wonder how much of our cool off is younger guys starting to hold the stick too tight after realizing how much was dependent on them. Slavin is having a bad start to the season, the Finns have cooled off after a great start, and the PP has yet to put it together.

Rod said something about the young players, including Aho by name, needing to take a breath and make plays in close to the net rather than being tense and slamming it home. Could that be where Foegele and Zykov's games disappeared to? Could it be that the team has gotten tentative after realizing how exposed they have been leaving the goalies and D end of the game?

Everything you say makes sense. But ignoring +/- for a minute (yes, I actually do that, more often than not in fact) I'm not seeing tentative youth. I'm seeing tentative veterans, specifically Staal and Willy. Foegele is trying to do it all on that line because, much like Skinner last year, his linemates can't match his speed. That's a coaching decision.

 

I think Zyke is being held back because Rod is not happy with his D-side effort. He has been markedly better on the PP, because that's when he's in his element. If Rod doesn't think he is playing enough D, he should do one two things: Accept that not every forward will be a Selke candidate and turn him loose on a top line, or (2) send him back to CLT until he's playing the way Roddy wants. Which, on a team starved for goals, would just be stupid--but less so than letting him watch from the press box, or only playing him on the fourth when he dresses. Again, a coaching decision.

 

We arguably have six top-six wingers, offensively speaking: the entire first line, Foegele, Svech, Zyke, and two that can bring top-six play, just not on a night-in night-out basis: McGinn, Martinook. (To be clear, Willy still has top-six chops, but we won' see them consistently until the second half. If he goes 110 percent all season and we get in, he'll run out of gas.)

 

I get Rod's desire not to overwhelm the rooks, and he's smart not to. But he could be rotating the five not on the first line through the second, so the wings have matching speed and energy. That alone would make that line an O threat, while Staal asserts his rank and keeps his wingers honest when it's time to transition back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Laughlin on XM this AM said that our shots on goal/game is at a historic pace. Either first or second in the history of that stat. 

 

If we could just finish a few of those, it could be something to behold. If only we had a finisher like Skinner....OK, that was just laying there, but I do think that is an issue. I think Svech will be that, but is currently finding that part still. And Aho can snipe decently, and TT has a deceptive shot, and Ferland is a solid finisher, but after that, not so much. (Just to make the point: Ferland cashes in. He is not a quintessential finisher, but he can solidly strike and place a puck. Given our shot generating machine, especially our first line, he is on a 41 goal pace just by cashing the chances that are there). 

 

I know that the Hurricane way has been to generate a ton of low risk shots, especially under Peters, who seemed to think winning the advanced stats game was like winning the actual game, but it does seem that Brind'Amour's version is generating more high danger shots. Not hugely more, we still fire at the crest a lot, but still more "grab the head, how did that not go in" chances. This implies that we have a relative lack of finishers to pot those chances. 

 

There are guys with the potential to be finishers, like Zykov, Foegele, Wallmark, (even Gauthier) but they are not there yet. So a trade might really help is what I guess I'm saying because while those types of guys might get there, we can't fall out of it waiting for them.

 

If this team game could finish a few more shots, and our special teams fall into the average range, and our goaltending falls into the average range....OK, a lot of "ifs" but really most of them are just asking for average, since our team 5/5 game is generating a historic amount of shots. Just harness a few more of them into goals is what I'm saying. That and "make a trade".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PamlicoPuck said:

Sabres have a guy with 14 goals already this season. Wish we had one...🤤

 

 

I'm happy with most of this team's moves over the summer.  The Skinner trade still leaves me scratching my head.  It's like 'the committee' made all of the complementary moves that could have made the team true contenders, and then gave away the exclamation point at the end of the sentence in return for a question mark.  I get changing the culture of the team, but i don't get trading away their most-gifted natural goal scorer and not even getting an also-ran roster player.  It's like they took 6 baby steps forward and then made a running long jump back and said 'psych!'.  Part of me hopes when the Sabres come to town, the Hurricane faithful are treated to a Skinner hat trick.  Yes, i'm a diehard Hurricane fan, but that trade was simply stupid, and it needs to be rubbed in the face of every member of 'the committee' who signed off on it.  Presuming the fact they gave the Sabres the missing piece to jump them in the standings for the first time since freaking 2013 isn't already rubbing it.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Sure, we all know he may not have turned in the same numbers if he were still here, but even if he were only on pace with last season's numbers (which is a safe bet, i think), i'm betting this team would have at least another point or two in the standings.

 

Idiots.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we start a Skinner complainer thread.  I come here for information, not constant irritation.

 

Oh, nevermind, it is the internet.  Irritation abounds.  Carry on.

 

For the record, I mostly agree with the irritation.  I just am cranky to be constantly reminded of it.  My wound keeps getting rescratched.  Remember, I predicted he will have a hat trick against the Canes.  Still holding to that.  There, poked your wound too.

 

Out.

Edited by wxray1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wxray1 said:

Can we start a Skinner complainer thread.  I come here for information, not constant irritation.

 

Oh, nevermind, it is the internet.  Irritation abounds.  Carry on.

 

For the record, I mostly agree with the irritation.  I just am cranky to be constantly reminded of it.  My wound keeps getting rescratched.  Remember, I predicted he will have a hat trick against the Canes.  Still holding to that.  There, poked your wound too.

 

Out.

I hear ya and I am one who still complains about the bone headed move.I need to let it go but ya know Boston fans still complain about trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinner wouldn’t have 14 goals with us at this point. He’d be at 4 and a minus 4 with Martinook & McGinn as his line mates.

 

He wouldn’t be on Aho’s line. Staal’s line is shutdown. Wouldn’t put Svech & Skinner together.  

 

Much like Staal, would have a low trade value at the deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wxray1 said:

Can we start a Skinner complainer thread.  I come here for information, not constant irritation.

 

Oh, nevermind, it is the internet.  Irritation abounds.  Carry on.

 

For the record, I mostly agree with the irritation.  I just am cranky to be constantly reminded of it.  My wound keeps getting rescratched.  Remember, I predicted he will have a hat trick against the Canes.  Still holding to that.  There, poked your wound too.

 

Out.

Good for you wxray1, and for the record, I'm okay with that trade. It's like a breath of fresh air. Saying that, and I'm sure that I'm the odd ball for feeling this way, None of us really can know how things would have worked out with Jeff's presence on this team? What we do have is a perfect example in Eric Staal's tailspin, and although I'm the 1st to admit that each one of us is an individual(thank goodness), who on here felt that if we'd resigned E Staal lo those many years ago, that he would have ever resurrected his career like he seems to have done in Minnesota? To my mind, Jeff, although younger that Staal at that impasse by several years, was trending in a similar direction. For me, I trust the process and the opinion of those who made this decision to look at the long picture, not just the trees in front of the forest. In no way do I think this was a hatchet job, or conspiracy to oust a player that Rod or whoever thought could not be brought back in the fold. Further, I'm convinced that something in the Canes/Skinner relationship was "sour", despite our tip of the iceberg view of this very charismatic player, and further, whatever that was, apparently someone or ones thought his influence could become derisive?

 

So guys, lets just move on from this. Jeff is undoubtedly going to score in bunches further driving that stake thru our collective hearts, mine included. But it's done, and as I have said numerous times before, I wish the young man well, and give thanks to have been able to have observed his formative years here for several years. What couda, woulda, shouda will always be there and only time will tell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, again, it's more about the lack of return than the move itself. I get that we shopped the heck out of him and this is what the market offered up, but I would argue, then maybe don't sell, and maybe the price goes up.

 

That said, I do think that this was, ironically, both a short term and long term move. Short term Brind'Amour did not want Skinner around camp or in the early season. But long term, the committee had a hard pass on re-signing Skinner to a long term deal. Skinner is going to hit the UFA market at an incredible 27 (and having JUST turned 27). Even if he had a mixed season, he's going to get paid. But none of the options are great long term:

 

Skinner stinks: Drags the team down with him, and no matter the salary we don't want to re sign him.

Skinner's Average: Still probably playing the soft, one way game (when he doesn't, he's not average), still gets paid more than we think he's worth.

Skinner Revives: Good for the team, but now his long term price goes way up (and not signing him becomes a distraction, and it becomes much harder to justify an in season trade, and we end up possibly getting literally zero return). 

 

I think that long term, the problem is that "soft, periphery, poke the stick into the scrum while leaning back" Skinner is always just around the corner. So we sign him to a 7 year deal at big bucks, then second rate Skinner comes back. That risk is just too high to take. And that only partially accounts for any issues in the room or on the ice aside from play. 

 

It was the right idea, but the wrong execution, IMO. But clearly the short term fears dominated the timing and the return was not great. Hey, that second rounder might be parlayed into a Nylander trade, or might be used to pick the next Aho, and that third rounder might be the next Slavin or Pesce, and Cliff Pu might rise up and surprise, but I think we should have gotten a first rounder at least, and had we held out might still have gotten that. That said, I get that if Skinner was a problem, then it also could have become a distraction. We got what we got, and it's done, and it still could work out.

 

The best way for the Committee to make us forget about Skinner is to pull off a deal for Nylander. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with the request to move on from discussing (or whining about, as the case may be) the Skinner trade when i feel it's still very pertinent to our season, but i will do so, after one last parting shot...

 

 

1 hour ago, remkin said:

The best way for the Committee to make us forget about Skinner is to pull off a deal for Nylander. 

 

 

If they'll do it for the low low cost of Cliff Pu, Buffalo's 2nd-round pick this year, and Buffalo's 3rd- and 6th-round picks next year, even better...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinner decision: Tom Dundon guided by Don Waddell. Rod May have had a hand, guided by his interaction with Skinner treated like a red headed stepchild by Peters, but I think our owner has made it clear he has the final say on everything. For the record, I agree with Rem that Skinner might not have been a good fit here long-term, but with a little patience, we should have gotten a NHL roster player or a first rounder, at least. He has run hot and cold from year to year, so someone may yet regret giving him a long-term contract after this year. Right now, though, we don’t look very smart.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Skinner decision: Tom Dundon guided by Don Waddell. Rod May have had a hand, guided by his interaction with Skinner treated like a red headed stepchild by Peters, but I think our owner has made it clear he has the final say on everything. For the record, I agree with Rem that Skinner might not have been a good fit here long-term, but with a little patience, we should have gotten a NHL roster player or a first rounder, at least. He has run hot and cold from year to year, so someone may yet regret giving him a long-term contract after this year. Right now, though, we don’t look very smart.

Living in the past will do no good. Have at it if it makes you happy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hockeybaby said:

I don't care what Skinner does with the Sabres. Our D can shut him down when we play them........Can't it?

Our goaltending sure as hell won’t 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mdover95 said:

Given the teams' history with former players, I would not be surprised if he does just that...and then I'd love to see TD's and DW's face with that Price Is Right fail tone dubbed over it.

 

I don't post very much as I'm in a place where I can't see games on any type of broadcast or stream (unless it's AFN...and they love whomever Doc Emery loves in any given week).  It's not hard to get an idea of how a game is going when I follow the board on game day, though, and I thank you guys for that.  I feel your collective pain from 9.5 time zones away...to the point that when I DO get to come home on rotation I think to myself, "Do I want to (probably) throw money away on going to a game in which I have no idea if they'll show up for 60 mins.....or to only see them lose?"  I did that in '16 when I went to see them play in VAN (where they blew a 3-goal lead and lost), EDM, and CGY. I'm definitely not a fairweather fan nor a post '06 bandwagon jumper (as I've been a fan since G'boro), but I do recognize futile mediocrity in a sports team when I see it, and even from this dusty mountainous bowl in Central Asia it's not hard to see.  It is so frustrating, almost to the point of wanting to migrate my fan loyalty elsewhere.  Still though, I'm a NC native (yes, there are some of us still in NC), and hope is hope.  You guys have better insights on this and I do enjoy reading them. 

 

I think there are 2 issues.  One that Gboro team and the teams that followed always had a great 1 - 2 center combo. Primeau-Francis, Francis-Brindy, Staal-Brindy.

 

Usually resulted in playoffs appearances every 1 to 3 years.  Then there us the goal tending.  Darling is just terrible and at this juncture you're living in la la land if anyone here ever thinks he will be a legit starter.

 

Last, we have very few 1st round picks on this team.  All the worthwhile ones: Skinner, Lindy, Hani, Staal have all been traded.  Not good or under utilized?  Based on Lindy and Skinner play as of late I am going with. and coaching.   Which I might add is what this team currently has.

Edited by bluedevil58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, caniac6 said:

Not that we need additional salt rubbed in the wound, but in addition to Skinner's great start, Lindy has 11 goals. Trades are not looking too good.

Apparently you are living in the past with me. Lindy had goals 10 and 11 yesterday. Hanafin had 2 assists. Hamilton really needs to step it up or it’s starting to look like this trade may not have been so great either. Lindholm is playing with Monahan (irony noted), Skinner with Eichel. Did we just not have guys to play with to bring out the best in Lindholm, or did he just blossom after signing that contract with Calgary? If Peters had Skinner in Calgary, he’d be playing on their 3rd line with Ryan and have 4 goals. BTW, Ryan got his second goal yesterday. How did we let him get away?

 

Share this post


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

Apparently you are living in the past with me. Lindy had goals 10 and 11 yesterday. Hanafin had 2 assists. Hamilton really needs to step it up or it’s starting to look like this trade may not have been so great either. Lindholm is playing with Monahan (irony noted), Skinner with Eichel. Did we just not have guys to play with to bring out the best in Lindholm, or did he just blossom after signing that contract with Calgary? If Peters had Skinner in Calgary, he’d be playing on their 3rd line with Ryan and have 4 goals. BTW, Ryan got his second goal yesterday. How did we let him get away?

 

 

I'm glad Ryan is gone.  My image of him was tarnished after multiple OT lossed due to him giving up the puck.  Skinner was the big miss and maybe Lindy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 4:36 PM, bluedevilcane said:

Skinner decision: Tom Dundon guided by Don Waddell.

You need to look at their public quotes. Cole and Rod were more than blunt that he didn't belong here. Both Waddell and Dundon said they loved what he brings and the excitement with which he plays. Rod took the HC job at whatever pittance our frugal new owner (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) offered--on the condition, I promise you, that Jeff Skinner would never besmirch the C he once wore.

 

Rod Brind'Amour is many things, and I love him for most of them--not least for being the guy who willed this org to a Stanley Cup. But the dude has an ego - and an arrogance - which are palpable, and which are exceeded only by those of his buddy Erik Cole. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2018 at 8:30 PM, bluedevil58 said:

 

I'm glad Ryan is gone.  My image of him was tarnished after multiple OT lossed due to him giving up the puck.  Skinner was the big miss and maybe Lindy.

The comment about Ryan was sarcasm. Agree on Skinner. Either we never had the right guys playing with Lindy to bring out his offense, or he just blossomed a year too late. The Lindholm/Hanifin trade was based on $$$$$ our owner was unwilling to pay. If we se-sign Ferland and if Hamilton wakes up, that one may still look okay. Skinner for an AHL bust and a couple magic beans is hard to swallow. Come to think of it, Skinner trade may have also been about money to some degree, as he is going to want to get paid after this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up about Skinner’s financial demands, I was just reading a Pens blogger on Hockey Buzz, and he cited a source that Skinner’s ask to the Sabres is 8 years at $9 to $9.5 million/year. Surely it would have been less coming off last year with us, but TD may have seen an aggressive approach from Skinner’s agent. We know how he handled that with Hanifin and Lindholm. I wonder if Buffalo or others are discounting Skinner’s concussion history. An 8 year commitment for even close to that kind of money could be a back breaker if he has a couple more serious concussions. Also wonder if the concussion history played into the Canes unwillingness to commit 7 or 8 high dollar years to Skinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the fact that Skinner disappeared for long stretches. It was evident that he didn't want to play here. It's his contract year, let's see if he continues this pace or next year reverts to the lazy play attitude.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bluedevilcane said:

To follow up about Skinner’s financial demands, I was just reading a Pens blogger on Hockey Buzz, and he cited a source that Skinner’s ask to the Sabres is 8 years at $9 to $9.5 million/year. Surely it would have been less coming off last year with us, but TD may have seen an aggressive approach from Skinner’s agent. We know how he handled that with Hanifin and Lindholm. I wonder if Buffalo or others are discounting Skinner’s concussion history. An 8 year commitment for even close to that kind of money could be a back breaker if he has a couple more serious concussions. Also wonder if the concussion history played into the Canes unwillingness to commit 7 or 8 high dollar years to Skinner.

Good points all, but everybody said a fourth could end Sid's career too, and when it came during the 16-17 playoffs, he skipped six games, then went out and won another Cup. I think Skinner ultimately (and gleefully) takes about $8-8.5 million--unless he gets to 80 or more points, which he is on pace to do. If it happens, all bets are off. Somebody will pay him, and will make sure he's the most-protected player in hockey.

 

By the way, Sabres/Pens just went final: Eichel unassisted at :45 of OT for the win, 5-4. Skinner with a primary assist on an earlier goal for his 21st point in 20 games. 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
typo

Share this post


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

You need to look at their public quotes. Cole and Rod were more than blunt that he didn't belong here. Both Waddell and Dundon said they loved what he brings and the excitement with which he plays. Rod took the HC job at whatever pittance our frugal new owner (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) offered--on the condition, I promise you, that Jeff Skinner would never besmirch the C he once wore.

 

Rod Brind'Amour is many things, and I love him for most of them--not least for being the guy who willed this org to a Stanley Cup. But the dude has an ego - and an arrogance - which are palpable, and which are exceeded only by those of his buddy Erik Cole. 

I'm sorry top, but there are things here that we'll just have to agree to disagree on. Public quotes we both know often lack honesty, and frankly double entendre in their utterance. Now I can accept that Cole and Rod can be/are hard core elitists of "their team" and likely found weaknesses in Skinner's game that they were critical of such that they "didn't think he belonged here". So on this I can buy what you're saying.

 

Where I vary from your inference is the conclusion that because Waddell and Dundon said "they loved what he brings and the excitement with which he plays", publicly, that those statements would imply that their advocacy of Skinner on the team, rather than just as possible, a statement to improve their trading position for him. Now I certainly don't have any proof of the correctness of this alternative suggestion, but only offer it as an alternative.

 

Equally, I think that Rod's acceptance of a "pittance" salary, and I have never seen the amount published, likely reflects his personal investment into his community and his likely comfortable monetary level, rather than any type of under the table agreement in exchange to off Jeff Skinner?   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm sorry top, but there are things here that we'll just have to agree to disagree on. Public quotes we both know often lack honesty, and frankly double entendre in their utterance. Now I can accept that Cole and Rod can be/are hard core elitists of "their team" and likely found weaknesses in Skinner's game that they were critical of such that they "didn't think he belonged here". So on this I can buy what you're saying.

 

Where I vary from your inference is the conclusion that because Waddell and Dundon said "they loved what he brings and the excitement with which he plays", publicly, that those statements would imply that their advocacy of Skinner on the team, rather than just as possible, a statement to improve their trading position for him. Now I certainly don't have any proof of the correctness of this alternative suggestion, but only offer it as an alternative.

 

Equally, I think that Rod's acceptance of a "pittance" salary, and I have never seen the amount published, likely reflects his personal investment into his community and his likely comfortable monetary level, rather than any type of under the table agreement in exchange to off Jeff Skinner?   

If it weren't for differing points of view, these boards would be pretty boring.

 

As someone who has worked in PR for a big chunk of his life, I understand the need to sometimes gild the lily to make what you're selling more attractive. But that still doesn't explain the idiocy of moving Skinner when they did. TD is a smart enough businessman - and even if he weren't, a big enough sports fan - to recognize when teams will pay the most for an asset they want. But let's say he was totally dense even about that. Waddell isn't. He surely knows that August is the month hockey execs head for vacation, and that pre-camp is a much better time to sell than when they are eager to get to the lake and fish before things start up again. The fact that he didn't wait tells me there was pressure from the haters to preclude Skinner even showing up for camp. Why else would a GM of Waddell's experience agree to cut the org's nose to spite its face like that?

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...