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

16 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

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?

Even if Roddy said that Skins trade is a mandatory requirement to accept the job, what would it change? I think Rod put his coach career on a line with accepting HC job and he had all the rights to at least ask whatever he wanted. If TD was not OK with that we would have a different HC.

We cannot undo that trade. All we can do is to provide feedback that will prevent TD and DW from making such kind of trades in the future

Edited by Bonivan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sources saying Skinner wants 8 years 9-9.5 million from going to FA.  :blink::coollaugh:

 

Yea right!.  He'll get his 9 million then go back to playing like the Skinner we know.  Glad we arent going to be strapped with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours 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.

Something about putting a number on it that brings that part of it home. Another concussion is a legit concern, but even putting that away, and even seeing the start Skinner is having in Buffalo, can you imagine handing Skinner an 8 year, $9 million/year contract this summer? Undoubtably require a NTC too (which is relevant when that contract goes bad and the only team the will take your salary dump is a bottom dweller that Skinner blocks a trade to). 

 

The risk is not just the concussion, but the return to soft Skinner. Now you have soft Skinner on a deal that he can tell the coach to stick it, and he gets back to the guy who not only loses puck battles and coasts back on D, but that is the same guy who also won't get that extra 2 feet closer to the net, so his scoring dips again. Years of dealing with the deals given to Cam and Eric, and with Aho and TT and Svech and Necas and D men to get paid, not to mention never having a top goalie, and we're going to lock into Skinner for 8 years with a huge chunk of our payroll. 

 

I'm all about spending right to the cap, but signing Skinner to that kind of deal would be massively risky, and what effect on the rest of the team to see a guy who refused to play the right way rewarded like that, and taking up that much of the team payroll? BTW, for all of Skinner's talent, he was a part of the very CandyCane image that people want to shed too, and even in his best years was part of a lot of losing and no playoffs.

 

Skinner is a special player, and when he's on, he's dynamic and game changing. But I don't build a team around him, which is what you're doing if you pay him like that. It's not just about money, it's about how you spend it. 

 

All of that said, we clearly "lost" that trade on purpose. Even Waddell had to know that a full year plus of Skinner was worth more than what we got.

Share this post


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

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?

Thank you top, and you make excellent points. i guess my feeling is how this all plays out past this year, as far as how astute vs ignorant the decision was to trade Skinner "low". I'll concede that IT APPEARS, what with the scoring prowess we likely all knew he would show, that the deal is extremely one sided. Of course the other unanswerable question, thus leaving us individually with our personal bias, is how Skinner would have looked this year with our team constitution, ergo, would he have a 3rd line phenom getting limited ice time and internally grousing about it, or would he have emerged like he's doing in Buffalo(ugh) and been on a tear?

 

The next question that others are mentioning, is WHAT THEN? 

Share this post


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

It was a salary dump plain and simple.  This team isn't going to spend the money.  So it will be stuck in a constant state of mediocrity.  Only hope is the team lands a generational talent via the draft which it did not do this off season sadly.

no team should pay Skinner 8.5-9 million, no team.

 

So if we dont pay him that much, I will gladly point and laugh at any organization that pays him that much.  he isnt worth more than 7.5 and it is a reach to pay him more than 7 million per.  He would be a top candidate for free buyout after another lock out at 9.5 million per.

Share this post


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

Thank you top, and you make excellent points. i guess my feeling is how this all plays out past this year, as far as how astute vs ignorant the decision was to trade Skinner "low". I'll concede that IT APPEARS, what with the scoring prowess we likely all knew he would show, that the deal is extremely one sided. Of course the other unanswerable question, thus leaving us individually with our personal bias, is how Skinner would have looked this year with our team constitution, ergo, would he have a 3rd line phenom getting limited ice time and internally grousing about it, or would he have emerged like he's doing in Buffalo(ugh) and been on a tear?

 

The next question that others are mentioning, is WHAT THEN? 

You make good points too, and I really don't want to dwell on the deal or return. I think there's wide agreement here that we really got hosed.

 

In response to Rem (and sorry Rem, I'm too lazy to go back a page and pull your quote), the only reason Skinner was soft here is because his teammates were. Three concussions with zero response will do that to any player, let alone a targeted one (i.e., a rookie of the year). I'm no Slugs fan, but I'll promise you this: If anybody low bridges Skinner (or Eichel, or Pominville) in that market and there's no response from the team, the fans themselves will circle the visitors' bus with pitchforks and torches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the problem as I see it.  We don't spend any money.  Surely the entire front office are not idiots.  So, why did we get nothing for Skinner?  Because it was made known he wasn't resigning.  Why did all high caliber GM's pass and not even care to interview for our opening?  Because we don't pay.  Y'all we are 20 million below the cap with an owner that is far too meddlesome in operations and far too tight with the checkbook.  We have just enough talent to keep us in the picture, but no where near the commitment to win to put us over the top.  Harsh, but true.  PK did not care if we won.  TD?  Jury is out.  As for the fans?  Didn't renew and won't until a commitment is made, both front office, coaching, and personnel.  WTH are we doing with RB as the coach?  Just burning through another Canes' legend is how I see it.  It's pathetic.  You give me a few bill and the opportunity to buy the Canes and I promise you, I would hire whomever is considered the brightest GM hockeymind out there and let him do his job.  I'd ask questions to be sure, but not leading ones.  Sick and tired of 10-11th place in the East.  Suck or win ffs.

Share this post


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

Here's the problem as I see it.  We don't spend any money.  Surely the entire front office are not idiots.  So, why did we get nothing for Skinner?  Because it was made known he wasn't resigning.  Why did all high caliber GM's pass and not even care to interview for our opening?  Because we don't pay.  Y'all we are 20 million below the cap with an owner that is far too meddlesome in operations and far too tight with the checkbook.  We have just enough talent to keep us in the picture, but no where near the commitment to win to put us over the top.  Harsh, but true.  PK did not care if we won.  TD?  Jury is out.  As for the fans?  Didn't renew and won't until a commitment is made, both front office, coaching, and personnel.  WTH are we doing with RB as the coach?  Just burning through another Canes' legend is how I see it.  It's pathetic.  You give me a few bill and the opportunity to buy the Canes and I promise you, I would hire whomever is considered the brightest GM hockeymind out there and let him do his job.  I'd ask questions to be sure, but not leading ones.  Sick and tired of 10-11th place in the East.  Suck or win ffs.

Welcome OYC. You neatly summarize what many here have been feeling/saying.

 

Although the spending piece is somewhat complicated by the fact that we have to sign Aho, TT, Ferland, and hopefully a true #1 keeper in free agency this coming summer, I agree that the space we have is no less ridiculous under TD than it was under PK. My own theory is that TD is leaning too heavily on PK's advice right down to the management hiring decisions. TD basically TorpedoeD his chances of hiring top NHL talent when he fired Francis and the rumor about what he was willing to pay a GM started circulating.

 

Then he hires Rod as HC - a PK/JR-grade publicity/ST sales move if ever there was one - and accedes to Rod's insistence to get rid of Skinner--instead of telling his new coach, legend or not, to shut up, deal with it, and put Skinner with the talent he needs to be the player he is. I hear you on the possibility that Skinner refused to to re-sign, but there is too much evidence pointing to Ron and Rod as the drivers in his dissing last season to ignore:

 

- BP was gonna make him Captain; suddenly, we get Faulk and Staal.

- He was buried on the third line last year; despite notching consecutive career years in the prior two seasons. Just what Ronnie Franchise wanted, to guarantee a sub-par year and justify a lowball re-up.

- Then Ron was fired and Rod became coach. Imagine just for a moment that Rod insisted that Skinner be moved, and then listen to this: Roddy letting Erik Cole do the dirty work, just like when they played together. Case closed.

 

All of which is water under the bridge. What matters is where this org is now. Specifically: right where it has been.

 

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss: letting the dogs run the kennel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for conspiracy theories. A little fiction in the morning often is a good way to avoid the reality of the day ahead.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Welcome OYC. You neatly summarize what many here have been feeling/saying.

 

Although the spending piece is somewhat complicated by the fact that we have to sign Aho, TT, Ferland, and hopefully a true #1 keeper in free agency this coming summer, I agree that the space we have is no less ridiculous under TD than it was under PK. My own theory is that TD is leaning too heavily on PK's advice right down to the management hiring decisions. TD basically TorpedoeD his chances of hiring top NHL talent when he fired Francis and the rumor about what he was willing to pay a GM started circulating.

 

Then he hires Rod as HC - a PK/JR-grade publicity/ST sales move if ever there was one - and accedes to Rod's insistence to get rid of Skinner--instead of telling his new coach, legend or not, to shut up, deal with it, and put Skinner with the talent he needs to be the player he is. I hear you on the possibility that Skinner refused to to re-sign, but there is too much evidence pointing to Ron and Rod as the drivers in his dissing last season to ignore:

 

- BP was gonna make him Captain; suddenly, we get Faulk and Staal.

- He was buried on the third line last year; despite notching consecutive career years in the prior two seasons. Just what Ronnie Franchise wanted, to guarantee a sub-par year and justify a lowball re-up.

- Then Ron was fired and Rod became coach. Imagine just for a moment that Rod insisted that Skinner be moved, and then listen to this: Roddy letting Erik Cole do the dirty work, just like when they played together. Case closed.

 

All of which is water under the bridge. What matters is where this org is now. Specifically: right where it has been.

 

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss: letting the dogs run the kennel.

Hey Top.  I've lurked for quite a while and respect your posts, as well as many, many others.  I fail to understand how any sport's organization gets to the point that if fails to realize that we, as fans, simply want to compete.  We want to win, no doubt.  But, I'll settle with compete.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one money thing that sticks in my craw and seems almost beyond believable is that TD didn't want to pay market value for a GM. I'm not saying it's not true, but it's so ridiculously shortsighted that I just can't make sense of it. 

 

I operate on a slightly different take than saving money. I think TD wants total control. He is, essentially, hockey's Jerry Jones. He doesn't want to just sit back and approve moves, he wants his fingers into everything. If he undercut the salary of a potential GM, then I'm guessing it was cover to just not hire one. Supposedly the problem with Francis was that he wasn't interested in just being a member of the committee, and that is also probably reason #1 that up and coming GM prospects passed: They're already members of a committee as assistants, they are longing to drive the bus. TD said as much during the process, that essentially he was looking for a GM willing to be part of a collaboration, a committee if you will. He made that clear as much or more than any pay cut. 

 

So he kept hiring from within. I'm sure that each person kept on was given the ask: are you with our approach or not? If so, you're on the committee, if not, you're out. So nearly all hires are from within, or nearly retired friends. I think Waddell may be a better GM than I thought, but I also think TD likes that Waddell is a loyal committee member. 

 

This may or may not work, and it's his team, so he gets to decide. I think the jury is still out. The Skinner move was the first blatant misfire. I don't think it was purely about money though. I think it was about long term value, and of course that he didn't fit the new culture according to enough committee members and of course ultimately TD, who clearly chairs the committee that he also owns. I actually agree on that. Next year Jeff Skinner is going to get in the neighborhood of $8 million/year for at least 6 years, and maybe more, and probably a NTC to boot. He is only worth that if he's at Max Skinner. He has not been able to maintain that in the past, and especially not here in Raleigh. So moving Skinner actually made a lot of sense. The problem was that there was little market for Skinner at the time but we sold him anyways. It was a forced sale into a bad market. 

 

But most of the other moves of the committee have not really been that bad. I await one more move in this window where so many teams are on the edge of playoffs, and of course an Aho contract, and doing something with Darling. But TD inherited Darling from Francis, so he's cleaning up a mess there. It was not unreasonable to try to rehabilitate Darling, but it is unreasonable to not realize when it's just not working. But we shall see on that. 

 

I guess my take is that TD wanted total control and involvement at what for most owners is a micro level. The team had to and still has to get out of bad contracts, and has to sign some key guys soon, and needs cap space for that, and to make further moves. It is still very possible that TD is el cheapo, but for me, it is not proven yet. If he signs Aho, moves Darling, and adds another substantial piece soon, then maybe not so much. But we shall see. Things can still go either way for this team this year, and in the future. But whatever happens, good or bad, it's on the committee and it's chairman, directly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The one money thing that sticks in my craw and seems almost beyond believable is that TD didn't want to pay market value for a GM. I'm not saying it's not true, but it's so ridiculously shortsighted that I just can't make sense of it. 

 

I operate on a slightly different take than saving money. I think TD wants total control. He is, essentially, hockey's Jerry Jones. He doesn't want to just sit back and approve moves, he wants his fingers into everything. If he undercut the salary of a potential GM, then I'm guessing it was cover to just not hire one.Agreed, he never wanted one. Supposedly the problem with Francis was that he wasn't interested in just being a member of the committee, and that is also probably reason #1 that up and coming GM prospects passed: They're already members of a committee as assistants, they are longing to drive the bus. TD said as much during the process, that essentially he was looking for a GM willing to be part of a collaboration, a committee if you will. He made that clear as much or more than any pay cut. Yes other GM's

and RF wanted nothing to do with the "committee" since it really doesn't exist. The existing committee is all inbred and yes men to the owner.They are part of the committee as long as they agree with the owner. If you disagree more than agree you will not be on the committee long term.  So he kept hiring from within. I'm sure that each person kept on was given the ask: are you with our approach or not? If so, you're on the committee, if not, you're out. So nearly all hires are from within, or nearly retired friends. I think Waddell may be a better GM than I thought, but I also think TD likes that Waddell is a loyal committee member. 

 

This may or may not work, and it's his team, so he gets to decide. I think the jury is still out. The Skinner move was the first blatant misfire. I don't think it was purely about money though. I think it was about long term value, and of course that he didn't fit the new culture according to enough committee members and of course ultimately TD, who clearly chairs the committee that he also owns. I actually agree on that.I cannot envision an experienced GM or coach hired from the outside and part of the committee agreeing to letting your highest goal scorer go without a return. An experienced GM would of highly suggested keeping his goal production for the year and if you want to go in another direction next year(salary/attitude)...fine. TD doesn't really want to be questioned by seasoned hockey ,minds..Next year Jeff Skinner is going to get in the neighborhood of $8 million/year for at least 6 years, and maybe more, and probably a NTC to boot. He is only worth that if he's at Max Skinner. He has not been able to maintain that in the past, and especially not here in Raleigh. So moving Skinner actually made a lot of sense. The problem was that there was little market for Skinner at the time but we sold him anyways. It was a forced sale into a bad market. It made sense for TD as he only saw Skinners worst year and already made a decision he was not going to resign him especially for a big raise. He saw enough and didn't like what he saw.

 

But most of the other moves of the committee have not really been that bad. I await one more move in this window where so many teams are on the edge of playoffs, and of course an Aho contract, and doing something with Darling. But TD inherited Darling from Francis, so he's cleaning up a mess there. It was not unreasonable to try to rehabilitate Darling, but it is unreasonable to not realize when it's just not working. But we shall see on that. 

 

I guess my take is that TD wanted total control and involvement at what for most owners is a micro level. The team had to and still has to get out of bad contracts, and has to sign some key guys soon, and needs cap space for that, and to make further moves. It is still very possible that TD is el cheapo, but for me, it is not proven yet. If he signs Aho, moves Darling, and adds another substantial piece soon, then maybe not so much. But we shall see. Things can still go either way for this team this year, and in the future. But whatever happens, good or bad, it's on the committee and it's chairman, directly.It's on the owner as the committee doesn't exist. Again the committee is a combination of inbred yes men who will not disagree with the owner. Can you imagine an experienced GM and coach challenging an inexperienced owner's thoughts on multiple occasions.It would look like a Macy's revolving door for the "committee"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m glad peters never used Skinner in OT the last few seasons for some reason that no logical person can figure out. He only has 2 or 3 OT winners so far this year.  

 

18 goals in his last 18 games.  Not too shabby.  This trade may go down as one of the worst in NHL history. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iceman11 said:

I’m glad peters never used Skinner in OT the last few seasons for some reason that no logical person can figure out. He only has 2 or 3 OT winners so far this year.  

 

18 goals in his last 18 games.  Not too shabby.  This trade may go down as one of the worst in NHL history. 

Would like to know who convinced T.D. that Skinner had to go... Cause right now, that person or person's credibility looks unstable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're probably at the point where we need a dedicated Jeff Skinner thread in the 'around the NHL' forum for this type discussion, but i'm in total agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jeff Skinner signs with Buffaloe long term  which i have no doubt he will  then the only ultimatum  is to  FIRE DON WADDELL !   i can't say it enough how much i hate don waddell !  maybe less than islander fans hate milbury  but  still  i cant believe this team is going in the right direction as long as he  is the gm for this club ! 

Share this post


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

Would like to know who convinced T.D. that Skinner had to go... Cause right now, that person or person's credibility looks unstable...

 

Our glorious and unqualified head coach is who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took a look at the stats for Lindholm and Hanifin   and compared them to  Ferland and Hamilton   and  it's still early in the season  but  Lindholm and Hanifin are doing better stat wise than  Ferland and Hamilton .   The question  is Did the Hurricanes need a shake up ? Obviously i think the Canes could have got Ferland  without Sacrificing so much  as for who  we could have traded instead  remains to be the question .   

 

Everyone knows about Skinner so  im not going to go there  because we have yet to see the full results of  who we will get in the future for those draft picks . 

 

but i feel in  some way  to those who disagreed with me before the season started  all i have for them is this .

 

  

 

Share this post


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

 

Our glorious and unqualified head coach is who.

Im about as sure as you of your answer that he wasnt the only opinion in the room.

 

TD had time with Francis, Waddell, Peters, Smith, etc, etc to ask about opinion of players.  Who was a locker room fit, who needed a change of scenery, who wasnt putting out 100% every game, who should be captain, etc.  

 

In the end, Skinner's production is making us look bad.  At the same time, Skinner wouldnt be putting up these kind of numbers with Wallmark/Bishop/Roy/Rask as his center. Yes those would be his centers as he wouldn't play on the one shutdown line with Staal or play with Aho because needs to gradually work into being a center.  Its a dang if your do and dang if you dont scenario and we are losing out.  Pu isnt setting any brown paper bags a blaze so far and we have to wait to see who we get with the 2nd rounder.  If we get another Aho then we will forget about Skinner and his 9 million AAV in a couple of seasons.  In the end we could have held on to him and hoped to trade him for a couple of 2nds because he struggled again this season (much like Staal at the end of his Canes career).  

 

 

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


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

Would like to know who convinced T.D. that Skinner had to go... Cause right now, that person or person's credibility looks unstable...

A Committee conspiracy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gocanes0506 said:

In the end we could have held on to him and hoped to trade him for a couple of 2nds because he struggled again this season (much like Staal at the end of his Canes career).

 

 

...which would have been more than we got for him before the season.  I agree completely that he wouldn't be netting those same numbers here, but i do still think he'd be netting more than PDG/McGinn/Foegele, and in the process probably earning us another point or two on the season.  Even a single extra point right now would be very tasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I am not the author of this thread, and I'll thank the (self-described) moderators here to remove me as such, and to have the cojones to list their responsible compatriot as such. Funny how their pedantry ceases the moment they see a chance to dis someone, but is iron-clad should anyone else try it. 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

I've moved over older posts about the trade here so we can discuss actually hockey in the in-season thread.

Because Skinner tearing out the back of nets all over the league is not "actually hockey," and his former Caneness is not "actually" Caneness. Whatever.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...