Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
AWACSooner

Offseason Talk 2019

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, beboplar said:

First of all, he is not currently under contract with the Canes.  He is an RFA, so I am not sure how the collective bargaining agreement works with sign and trades in the NHL.  That said, he is about NHL ready, steady 3rd line RH shooting D man, so he has value.  While I would hope they could get a #2 for him, in the real world probably a #3.  As a value player, this is why I have pushed for his promotion for 2 years and wondered why they resigned TVR.

I assume you mean a third rounder. I don't know, but I agree with your point about promoting him. The problem with doing what is required to get these guys, then spending time and resources to develop them, then don't put them in the NHL but just dump them for a third round pick, or maybe even a second rounder, before they establish value, is lost value. Each time there is a little slippage on potential value. At worst it's systemically inefficient, and while each one might not be huge, they can add up. These are the guys Ron Francis built up and put into the system and guarded tightly. Now we just ship them off for low round picks? (If we do).

 

TVR has been good, and Faulk had a really good year last year IMO, but the defensive depth we have suggests to me that both of those guys could be moved and replaced with guys from the system. And we'd get cap relief too. Imagine if Faulk got us a "first rounder-plus" next year, and TVR got us a second rounder. We'd still have Slavin, Pesce, Hamilton, Fleury, McKeown, and pick one more, and we'd have three firsts and three seconds (possibly) in next year's super rich draft.

 

But if we trade McKeown? Third rounder? Maybe?

 

We may end up doing it, and right now we're so rich we can dump DeHaan for prospects and trade McKeown for a late rounder, and still probably get away with it, but it's not maximal value. Same thing with Fleury until we get him some NHL games to show himself. We lose potential trade value for these guys building up in the holding pattern.

 

Thing is, if we play Fleury and McKeown and they're ok but not great? They'll still have more value as a guy with X NHL games, and we still have a next guy to bring up.

Share this post


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

I have been a fan of McKeown since his acquisition from the Kings, so I hope this signing does not affect his status.

 

At the moment he isn't signed so I think his status is already uncertain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slapshot02 said:

I dont think he was complaining.

But, and I'm just guessing here, I can see why he's looking so goofy? I mean, look at what he's holding in that cup?

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


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

 

At the moment he isn't signed so I think his status is already uncertain

I am referring to Priskie's signing and how it affects McKeown.

Share this post


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

I assume you mean a third rounder. I don't know, but I agree with your point about promoting him. The problem with doing what is required to get these guys, then spending time and resources to develop them, then don't put them in the NHL but just dump them for a third round pick, or maybe even a second rounder, before they establish value, is lost value. Each time there is a little slippage on potential value. At worst it's systemically inefficient, and while each one might not be huge, they can add up. These are the guys Ron Francis built up and put into the system and guarded tightly. Now we just ship them off for low round picks? (If we do).

 

TVR has been good, and Faulk had a really good year last year IMO, but the defensive depth we have suggests to me that both of those guys could be moved and replaced with guys from the system. And we'd get cap relief too. Imagine if Faulk got us a "first rounder-plus" next year, and TVR got us a second rounder. We'd still have Slavin, Pesce, Hamilton, Fleury, McKeown, and pick one more, and we'd have three firsts and three seconds (possibly) in next year's super rich draft.

 

But if we trade McKeown? Third rounder? Maybe?

 

We may end up doing it, and right now we're so rich we can dump DeHaan for prospects and trade McKeown for a late rounder, and still probably get away with it, but it's not maximal value. Same thing with Fleury until we get him some NHL games to show himself. We lose potential trade value for these guys building up in the holding pattern.

 

Thing is, if we play Fleury and McKeown and they're ok but not great? They'll still have more value as a guy with X NHL games, and we still have a next guy to bring up.

I agree with all of that.  The issue is where do the Canes want to spend their money and how to do that efficiently.  Both Faulk and TVR are in the final season of their current contracts.  With value D men in the pipeline, you would think management will choose not to spend the money on Faulk or TVR.  I believe Nino has 1 year remaining, and Hamilton 2.  Those two guys represent possible investment subjects, Svech will definitely be in line for a big contract after his ELC is complete, and other players such as Foegele, Geekie, Necas, goalie(s) will need new deals.  The team is so lucky to have both Slavin and Pesce on team friendly contracts for a while.  It is a real accounting question.

Share this post


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

I am referring to Priskie's signing and how it affects McKeown.

 

Exactly. McKeown could now be odd man out. Will we trade his rights, will he play RFA chicken, will he go to Europe or we could sign him but I think that is doubtful

Share this post


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

 

Exactly. McKeown could now be odd man out. Will we trade his rights, will he play RFA chicken, will he go to Europe or we could sign him but I think that is doubtful

 

I wish we could access the in depth Canes scouting reports on both Priske and McKeown.  Both are 23 yo. 

Priske: Hobie Baker finalist, led NCAA d-men in goals last year, team captain for 2 seasons. Possible future PP quarterback?

McKeown: Already proven successful at the AHL level.  Very gaudy +- stat the last 2 years in comparison to the rest of the Checkers (insert standard disclaimer). indicates very good 2-way game?

 

Given that McKeown could be viewed as already having success at a higher level than Priske, the Committee must be really high on the new kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

 

I wish we could access the in depth Canes scouting reports on both Priske and McKeown.  Both are 23 yo. 

Priske: Hobie Baker finalist, led NCAA d-men in goals last year, team captain for 2 seasons. Possible future PP quarterback?

McKeown: Already proven successful at the AHL level.  Very gaudy +- stat the last 2 years in comparison to the rest of the Checkers (insert standard disclaimer). indicates very good 2-way game?

 

Given that McKeown could be viewed as already having success at a higher level than Priske, the Committee must be really high on the new kid.

But are we sure that Priskie is in line to replace McKeown? Would it be conceivable that we keep both, and replace Fleury/TvR, Fleury/Faulk (riskier I know) or maybe TvR/Faulk (very doubtful that we'd give up both)? Training camp likely very critical to sort this out?

Share this post


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

But are we sure that Priskie is in line to replace McKeown? Would it be conceivable that we keep both, and replace Fleury/TvR, Fleury/Faulk (riskier I know) or maybe TvR/Faulk (very doubtful that we'd give up both)? Training camp likely very critical to sort this out?

 

No, definitely not sure, that's just the feel I get from this board.  Priske is on a 2-way contract and waiver exempt, so if the Committee let him know there's a decent chance he might start in Charlotte this season I could see them possibly going with both.  But as you point out, there would be a lot of risk with starting both in Raleigh, and to my mind McKeown will either be given (earn) a spot on the Canes roster or be traded.  I think we're still in for some interesting moves this summer. 

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

TVR has been good, and Faulk had a really good year last year IMO, but the defensive depth we have suggests to me that both of those guys could be moved and replaced with guys from the system.

 

Don't agree with the concept of moving prospects for what they usually return when they can't crack the lineup, as lost value.  We have McKeown's rights to 2023 so he won't be lost for nothing, if it comes to that.  Besides, we have two firsts, two seconds, and two thirds in the draft next year and the team stocked up similarly in the last draft. Guys are going to be regularly moved, even higher-end prospects.  It's a good problem.

 

At this point having TVR, McKeown, or Priskie getting regular top-4 minutes [on the right side] for 82 games seems like playoff suicide to me.  Maybe you meant later?  For now, we only have 4 top-4 defenseman. To me Priskie is just another prospect on the right side until he beats out a guy ahead of him. 

 

Should be an insane camp for spots.  Which is not too far off, thankfully.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

Don't agree with the concept of moving prospects for what they usually return when they can't crack the lineup, as lost value.  We have McKeown's rights to 2023 so he won't be lost for nothing, if it comes to that.  Besides, we have two firsts, two seconds, and two thirds in the draft next year and the team stocked up similarly in the last draft. Guys are going to be regularly moved, even higher-end prospects.  It's a good problem.

 

At this point having TVR, McKeown, or Priskie getting regular top-4 minutes [on the right side] for 82 games seems like playoff suicide to me.  Maybe you meant later?  For now, we only have 4 top-4 defenseman. To me Priskie is just another prospect on the right side until he beats out a guy ahead of him. 

 

Should be an insane camp for spots.  Which is not too far off, thankfully.

I just see not being able to crack the lineup as different than it used to be in these parts. It's not necessarily because the player isn't ready, or that good. I'm not sure that McKeown would be that much of a drop off from TVR. I'm not sure that Fleury might not grow into more than we've seen if he got regular use on the bottom pair. But I do think that the return for either of those guys would be small now and McKeown and Fleury, IMO could be an effective, and cheap bottom pair right now, and maybe grow into more. I tend to think that other franchises undervalue other team's prospects unless they are top tier, highly touted or break out offensively. 

 

I do agree that we need to be careful changing up the D too much at once, especially top 4, and we already moved DeHaan. As much as I can see trading him, after the season Faulk had last year, and with DeHaan gone, there is risk in trading him, especially before we see what the guys below him can do. But we do have Pesce, Hamilton, and Faulk on the right, so the top 4 could be Pesce/Hamilton on the right even if Faulk was moved. But then Fleury would have to slide up to #4 on the left, and get better as the year goes on, because currently that would be a drop off, and in the middle pair it would be risky.

 

To me it's more about being careful not to push someone top 4 that's not ready for that. If not for the injury (and maybe even with it), I'd rather have moved Faulk than DeHaan. I really liked Faulk's season last year, but we seem to be far away from signing him, and DeHaan was solid on D, moving the puck out, and physical, and signed for longer. But that ship has sailed so now.

 

I also agree that camp should be just nuts in terms of what it would take for a guy not currently in the lineup to crack it sans injuries. It will take an overwhelming performance.

 

It's all a good problem to have, but also an unfamiliar one, especially this kind of depth on D.  We should be in good shape if TVR isn't ready or we need to bring a guy up for any other reason, and it should be a fun camp for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

At this point having TVR, McKeown, or Priskie getting regular top-4 minutes [on the right side] for 82 games seems like playoff suicide to me. For now, we only have 4 top-4 defenseman.

 

^

This.

 

I guess I’m in the minority but I’m not as keen on moving Faulk as others. Most people talk about our defensive strength, last year Faulk was a big part of that. The criticism directed at him before was well deserved, but he was very good last year, not just ok.

 

I think it’s assuming a lot that one of these unproven players are just going to replace Faulk in the top 4.

 

Like I said before we have a young, strong defensive corps. I’m not sure why people are so eager to change it up. There will be a battle for DeHaan’s old spot, and I’m not sure I’m comfortable with a battle for 2 spots (a third of our starting defense), especially when one is a top 4 position.

 

Also, if we trade Faulk what are we getting in return? More picks and/or prospects? No thanks. We could trade him for a forward but that hasn’t worked so far and there might not be any seats left at the table as it is.

 

Based on last year’s play the only way I trade Faulk is if he makes it crystal clear this is his last year in Carolina.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

^

This.

 

I guess I’m in the minority but I’m not as keen on moving Faulk as others. Most people talk about our defensive strength, last year Faulk was a big part of that. The criticism directed at him before was well deserved, but he was very good last year, not just ok.

 

I think it’s assuming a lot that one of these unproven players are just going to replace Faulk in the top 4.

 

Like I said before we have a young, strong defensive corps. I’m not sure why people are so eager to change it up. There will be a battle for DeHaan’s old spot, and I’m not sure I’m comfortable with a battle for 2 spots (a third of our starting defense), especially when one is a top 4 position.

 

Also, if we trade Faulk what are we getting in return? More picks and/or prospects? No thanks. We could trade him for a forward but that hasn’t worked so far and there might not be any seats left at the table as it is.

 

Based on last year’s play the only way I trade Faulk is if he makes it crystal clear this is his last year in Carolina.

 

Years ago I was one of the first on here  to criticize Faulk's defensive play, but I've got to mostly agree with your first paragraph.  All things considered, while we still had deHaan I could have seen moving Faulk for the right return, but now I'd want to see success at the NHL level from one of the yutes before making such a move.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

Years ago I was one of the first on here  to criticize Faulk's defensive play, but I've got to mostly agree with your first paragraph.  All things considered, while we still had deHaan I could have seen moving Faulk for the right return, but now I'd want to see success at the NHL level from one of the yutes before making such a move.

And I reluctantly agree with you Lake, but to me that's not the issue. The issue is the logjam, as great a problem as it is to have, potentially demeans the value of the assets that are down the ranks from Justin. The conundrum in which we find ourselves is we have a player with good but arguably not great talent comparable to Slavin, Pesce and +/- Hamilton, who is about maxed out at his current pay level, sitting there about to become a UFA. Meanwhile down at the ranch, we've got unproven talent whom if traded bring bargain basement return, who might be as good if not better than said Justin at a much lower salary? As someone before mentioned, it all comes to asset management, and unfortunately there are no crystal balls to help with this dilemma. Trade Faulk and risk weakening the defense somewhat, or keep and those waiting their turn in the NHL start becoming disgruntled?

 

For me personally, and I am biased I'll admit, but I look at Long Term Asset Management, roll the dice, see what the yutes display in preseason, seek a good trade for a young forward like Marner and bid Justin a fond farewell. I know that opinion will get crucified by many, but that's the way I think makes the most sense, that is unless someone thinks Hamilton should be the sacrificial lamb? And I'll add one other thing, Faulk rebounds with his defensive abilities last year, but slipped even further in QBing the power play, which for years was his forte. I, and it appears several others, have long wondered why he remained on the #1 PP, and not Hamilton? Had that been sorted out last year, and it was found that Hamilton indeed was better in that role, I think the decision on keeping Faulk would have been a bit easier? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kjun as I was typing up a post about long term vs. short term you beat me to it. I'm not saying I fully agree with your opinion of what to do, but that you have laid out the debate IMO. We have built a pretty decent stable of probably NHL ready players in Charlotte, especially on D, but we also keep picking up D men in trades, like Forsberg, and UFA like Priskie. 

 

It is a "good problem to have", but it is also a thing that needs to be managed somehow. 

 

What I've seen from the organization so far is moving guys we don't really think hit the mark at the NHL level. But they've all been forwards. And one of the issues is that D men generally take longer. This is one legitimate issue that is hard to reconcile sometimes. Forwards are easier to evaluate IMO. So Zykov doesn't play D or other things well enough, Roy just can't put quite enough points up, Saarela is a one trick pony and a bit soft on the puck, trade. But D men, especially stay at home guys, are harder to determine if they're NHL ready. And even then, generally take a 2-3 full NHL seasons to really be fully ready, especially for playoffs. 

 

But how do you really know if your #7 overall pick is a bust or has some value if he can't get regular NHL ice? Or McKeown, who dominates AHL ice, etc. 

 

So we could trade them and wait for Bean and Priskie etc, and that may be the right move, but probably we don't get much for them. Considering how much time and effort went into getting and developing them, that just doesn't seem efficient. 

 

But all of that said, there is the valid point that we should not seriously weaken the present, which is filled with proven players. The most controversial of whom has to be Faulk. Since we have already moved DeHaan, moving Faulk would amount to moving two guys out of the top 4. This is the big problem. I see where Coastal is coming from. 

 

Teams can win cups with three strong D men, Chicago did it, but we don't quite have that kind of firepower up front nor the proven goaltending that they had (yet). So I agree that we need 4 guys in the top 4 that have proven they can do it, including in the playoffs. And with the DeHaan trade, we can't trade Faulk and say we have that, even with all of the promise sitting in the system. 

 

We have at least 6 guys (not including our current top 4) who we could safely (IMO) put into our bottom pair. But can any of them be a safe move into the top 4? That is unknown, and that, to me is the crux of the risk in trading Faulk, and why we probably won't do it, and shouldn't do it, at least not early. 

 

I think we need to see guys in camp. Some guys, (Priskie, Sellgren, probably Bean) need some more AHL time. But IMO we also need to get a couple of guys into the bottom pair in Raleigh to get them NHL ice time. Pre Camp I'd pick McKeown and Fleury, especially if TVR is at all recovering from surgery. But if a guy shocks and awes in camp could be that guy. But we need to find out what we have in at least a couple of guys before considering doing anything with Faulk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing. Justin Faulk stepped his game up a lot last year. This is a contract year, so I'm not sure how that will affect his game, but I would think it would help him a lot to play the same way. Still, guys can regress too. I like what Faulk brought last year. I've commented before, but when Faulk plays an even average D zone game and cleans up a few things transitionally, he is a very solid puck mover, especially 5 on 5. And I've gone on about how a guy needs around 200 NHL games as a D man to really get it, well Faulk has 559 plus now 15 playoff games. Last year he sure seemed to get it. That is a lot of experience. Really it's a lot of experience we now ice in our top 4. Dougie has 505 games, Slavin 309, and Pesce 289. Unless we put TVR in the top 4, the next guy up would be Fleury with 87 games and not a ton of minutes in a lot of those. 

 

There is no question to me that if we're talking last year's version of Faulk, this year's squad, would see a significant step-off if Faulk were not in the top 4. Clearly Fleury wasn't ready last year, and TVR doesn't really feel top 4. It's too much risk IMO to mess more with the top 4, at least to start the season. 

 

The bottom pair? I don't know TVR's trade value, but the bottom pair would be the place to get some guys up here IMO, but with the loss of DeHaan, trading Faulk early, before someone showed they could step into the middle pair, would be a big risk. Thus the return on Faulk would have to be big to even consider it, and with only one year left, I doubt the return would be big enough to consider doing it. 

 

That said, as we face one year of Faulk vs no return, if, in the course of the year, someone does step up, it might still happen, and not just at the deadline.  A deadline move would be almost certain if things go badly and we're out of it, but since I don't see that happening, if we trade Faulk, it would be later, but before the deadline. I am guessing that we do not re sign Faulk. Not that we wouldn't want him, but he probably wants to be paid, and probably wants a NTC. With all of that talent percolating in the system, the NTC would be the sticking point for me, but I'm doubting he'd give it up. At some point, this could play into the whole thing.

Share this post


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

And I reluctantly agree with you Lake, but to me that's not the issue. The issue is the logjam, as great a problem as it is to have, potentially demeans the value of the assets that are down the ranks from Justin. The conundrum in which we find ourselves is we have a player with good but arguably not great talent comparable to Slavin, Pesce and +/- Hamilton, who is about maxed out at his current pay level, sitting there about to become a UFA. Meanwhile down at the ranch, we've got unproven talent whom if traded bring bargain basement return, who might be as good if not better than said Justin at a much lower salary? As someone before mentioned, it all comes to asset management, and unfortunately there are no crystal balls to help with this dilemma. Trade Faulk and risk weakening the defense somewhat, or keep and those waiting their turn in the NHL start becoming disgruntled?

 

For me personally, and I am biased I'll admit, but I look at Long Term Asset Management, roll the dice, see what the yutes display in preseason, seek a good trade for a young forward like Marner and bid Justin a fond farewell. I know that opinion will get crucified by many, but that's the way I think makes the most sense, that is unless someone thinks Hamilton should be the sacrificial lamb? And I'll add one other thing, Faulk rebounds with his defensive abilities last year, but slipped even further in QBing the power play, which for years was his forte. I, and it appears several others, have long wondered why he remained on the #1 PP, and not Hamilton? Had that been sorted out last year, and it was found that Hamilton indeed was better in that role, I think the decision on keeping Faulk would have been a bit easier? 

 

You make some good points Kjun (rem too).  I think the relevant principle can be summed up in Gretzky's quote about something that contributed to his success (paraphrasing): "I Skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it's been."  Somewhere not too far down the line it's possible that McKeown could be just as good as Faulk (who last season I saw as a very solid 2nd pair defenseman) at a fraction of the price.  I wish we had access to some of Tulsky's advanced stats, but in the absence I'll note that McKeown led the Checkers with a +30 this season and was second at +34 last season (standard disclaimer).  But Coastal's point is also a good one: these Canes are competitive now, and you don't want to overly risk hurting this season.  

 

I'm sure much of the rest of the league is rolling it's eyes and talking about "rich team" (depth wise) problems. Remember when the questions about our D revolved around Ryan Murphy, lol? :P

 

 

Share this post


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

These are the guys Ron Francis built up and put into the system and guarded tightly. Now we just ship them off for low round picks? (If we do).

Makes you wonder if Ron will try and get them when he starts up the Seattle team?

Share this post


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

Makes you wonder if Ron will try and get them when he starts up the Seattle team?

Possibly if he really liked one of them. I was mainly referring to the idea of us trading higher end prospects. It will be interesting to see if Roy or Saarela end up doing anything in the NHL, but I'd consider them subprime prospects. My main point was trading high end guys and long developed D prospects. But I guess the flip side to the aversion to trading guys from Charlotte is that despite our depth of prospects, they can't all make the NHL in a meaningful way, and if they are added into a trade for a legit, young player, that is part of the business and can work out. Particularly if we hold our most skilled prospects tight.

 

A great example is us trading Roy and a conditional 5th rounder for Haula. I don't know if we re-sign Haula after this year, but this is a guy that could be huge for us this year, whereas I really don't see Roy being a hit in the NHL. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

For me personally, and I am biased I'll admit, but I look at Long Term Asset Management, roll the dice, see what the yutes display in preseason, seek a good trade for a young forward like Marner and bid Justin a fond farewell. 

A young forward like Marner would require a lot of flesh going back with possible draft picks added as well. The Cap clearing required for said player would require multiple players of value to even clear room for the addition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And I reluctantly agree with you Lake, but to me that's not the issue. The issue is the logjam, as great a problem as it is to have, potentially demeans the value of the assets that are down the ranks from Justin. The conundrum in which we find ourselves is we have a player with good but arguably not great talent comparable to Slavin, Pesce and +/- Hamilton, who is about maxed out at his current pay level, sitting there about to become a UFA. Meanwhile down at the ranch, we've got unproven talent whom if traded bring bargain basement return, who might be as good if not better than said Justin at a much lower salary? As someone before mentioned, it all comes to asset management, and unfortunately there are no crystal balls to help with this dilemma. Trade Faulk and risk weakening the defense somewhat, or keep and those waiting their turn in the NHL start becoming disgruntled?

 

For me personally, and I am biased I'll admit, but I look at Long Term Asset Management, roll the dice, see what the yutes display in preseason, seek a good trade for a young forward like Marner and bid Justin a fond farewell. I know that opinion will get crucified by many, but that's the way I think makes the most sense, that is unless someone thinks Hamilton should be the sacrificial lamb? And I'll add one other thing, Faulk rebounds with his defensive abilities last year, but slipped even further in QBing the power play, which for years was his forte. I, and it appears several others, have long wondered why he remained on the #1 PP, and not Hamilton? Had that been sorted out last year, and it was found that Hamilton indeed was better in that role, I think the decision on keeping Faulk would have been a bit easier? 

While I'm not going to outright disagree with you keep in mind the sports world is completely different then standard businesses. While players are in fact assets you also have to consider the following team chemistry and most importantly window of winning. You also have to realize in business if your slated goal is 1 million and that year you make 1.5 if the next year you make 1.25 it's still good. In sports there is one winner. So if you remove a part "for the future" you better be certain it doesnt hurt the present, unless of course you are rebuilding a cellar dweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Derailed75 said:

While I'm not going to outright disagree with you keep in mind the sports world is completely different then standard businesses. While players are in fact assets you also have to consider the following team chemistry and most importantly window of winning. You also have to realize in business if your slated goal is 1 million and that year you make 1.5 if the next year you make 1.25 it's still good. In sports there is one winner. So if you remove a part "for the future" you better be certain it doesnt hurt the present, unless of course you are rebuilding a cellar dweller

Derailed, believe me when I say that referring to players as "assets" causes about the same reaction in me as scratching one's fingernail across a chalk board, I despise doing it as it's so demeaning. Thus I totally agree with your statement "sports world is completely different than standard business", but that's the current vernacular? And I'm basically on board with several posters who responded to my original post here, just that somehow we all have to separate emotion from practical. It's argued that trading Justin could hurt team chemistry and I do not disagree, yet the same argument was floated when Aho signed his Offer Sheet? 

 

Slap makes the point about Marner's cost and I also recognize that but was not specifically pointing at that player, just someone promising like him.

 

Finally, the point was made that it is likely debatable that Faulk is resigned, and I agree, BUT when is it reasonable to pull that plug, preseason, midseason or after season is over? Surely we'll give up a vast amount of experience when it happens, and I'm not saying that it's paramount to do it now but the time is coming and Francis lost his way by clutching too tightly?  

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...