Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off Season Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

Toronto fans would go crazy if that trade went through.

 

would I be crazy to say no to it?

I seriously didnt give it any attention based on our cap. This would entail multiple moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

 

Not a realistic option from a monetary perspective (real dollars as well as cap).

 

If Toronto is having trouble coming to terms with Marner, can you imagine what his contract negotiations with the Canes front office would be like, lol?  :o  And If the Canes didn't tire of the negotiations and trade him before he even signed, anything that he would sign would likely be a slap in the face to Aho and Turbo.  And hamstring the Canes negotiating position when Svech comes up for renewal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, super_dave_1 said:

Gotta have somebody to shove under the bus.

Whatever.

 

The guy had three abysmal years in a row and only last year began looking like he had a clue again until Hamilton got healthy and left Faulk's much-heralded "offensive contributions" in his dust. $5 million is a lot of money for a guy who's supposed to score goals but doesn't and can't protect the puck in his own end.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody shake me awake when anybody cares what happened 3 years ago.  I like what happened last year.  Faulk earned his AAV and then some in the playoffs, was reported on multiple occasions to be a leader in the room, and to tarnish that with past hyperbolic history seems irrelevant to me. 

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


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

Somebody shake me awake when anybody cares what happened 3 years ago.  I like what happened last year.  Faulk earned his AAV and then some in the playoffs and to tarnish that with past hyperbolic history seems irrelevant.

 

 

Making sensible statements only leads to unwanted attention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Making sensible statements only leads to unwanted attention.

 

At some point you just have to realize there are player haters out there and move on.  Nothing will be good enough because that player somehow kicked their granny down into the creek.

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Somebody shake me awake when anybody cares what happened 3 years ago. 

Coastal, I loves ya, but please get my words right. Step one is actually quoting them in replies.

 

It was three straight years of suck, which only (partially) ended last season--after we went out and got a guy in Hamilton who actually does what RF tried to sell us on Faulk doing, to put the fear of God in him--and actively shopped him for good measure. And even then it was a marginal improvement. He still shoots into shinguards because backpedaling to open up shooting lanes is apparently too much work, he still coughs up the puck all over the sheet, he still shoots glove side shelf against the best glovemen in the game, and he still makes really poor pinching decisions. If we were paying him $2 million and he were slotted 5-6 I wouldn't care. But we're not, and he isn't. 

 

We talk a lot here about accountability and getting the value you're paying for, so I'll close with a claim parallel to yours about "player haters": Some guys are just fanboys and refuse to see the forest because they're so enamored of one tree. I'll even own having done so myself with Skinner, and suggest that maybe you are, now.

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Whatever.

 

The guy had three abysmal years in a row and only last year began looking like he had a clue again until Hamilton got healthy and left Faulk's much-heralded "offensive contributions" in his dust. $5 million is a lot of money for a guy who's supposed to score goals but doesn't and can't protect the puck in his own end.

Except you can explain those 3 season on misuse by the former coach (or at least not fitting in his system) and last year he not only protected the puck in his own end he bailed out goalies a few times. It was night and day from the prior years and the only difference was the bench boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to everyone involved, why are we still rehashing the same arguments about Faulk's play from 2-4 years ago?  Last season wasn't divisive enough so we're going to continue to reach back because we miss the old snarky arguments?

Share this post


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

With all due respect to everyone involved, why are we still rehashing the same arguments about Faulk's play from 2-4 years ago?  Last season wasn't divisive enough so we're going to continue to reach back because we miss the old snarky arguments?

Statistical trends vs what could be a one year aberration.  If it turns out not to be, then it’ll be a whole new discussion this time next year. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, AWACSooner said:

Statistical trends vs what could be a one year aberration.  If it turns out not to be, then it’ll be a whole new discussion this time next year. 

This was my point in all of this. Skinner had two really good (for him) years where he offset his defensive liabilities at least some (not sure Brind'Amour would agree), but then regressed big time his final year. The reason it matters, IMO is because Faulk has one year left, and we have at least 3 NHL defensemen in the AHL, possibly 4, with no place to put them. It would be worth knowing if the future Faulk, the guy potentially signed to a long term deal, will be the Faulk of last year or the Faulk of the 4 before that. Those that have always liked Faulk presumably wouldn't find it much of an issue since they don't buy that Faulk was ever a liability. But to me it would be the issue if we plan on keeping him. 

 

I can get behind the Faulk of last season, but not the Faulk of the 4 before that, even with his goals. Last year was the most recent, which is good, and the team and coach are the same, so I'm not really too worried about Faulk, but 4 of the past 5 were not good enough, especially with guys pushing up. 

 

Overall, I'd still probably trade Faulk in an ideal world, (part of this is just that we have three other very good D men in Slavin, Hamilton, and Pesce to add yutes to) but...with one year left on his contract the return will not be great, and ideally the D would be in a better position to move on from him if McKeown and Fleury get some more NHL ice time, ergo next year. If we trade Faulk this year, I suspect it would be, like TVR, for futures because we really don't have room for more forwards right now. I wonder if Faulk could fetch a first rounder.

 

Since we moved DeHaan, it could be a bit risky to move another key veteran from the D right now. Since IMO Faulk was a positive contributor to our game last year, I'd keep him, at least to start, and if he plays like he did last year, he will be a positive force. 

 

The only exception would be if we moved Faulk for a very accomplished PP quarterback, but those don't grow on trees and would be hard to find. Faulk's bomb on the PP is great, but he's not a true QB back there, yet seems to lock down that position on the first unit. Given our other potential upgrades on the PP, a really good QB could boost our PP substantially.

Share this post


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

The only exception would be if we moved Faulk for a very accomplished PP quarterback, but those don't grow on trees and would be hard to find. Faulk's bomb on the PP is great, but he's not a true QB back there, yet seems to lock down that position on the first unit. Given our other potential upgrades on the PP, a really good QB could boost our PP substantially.

 

If we can find a PP QB (maybe it's Bean), we could use Faulk in Ovechkin's office on the PP.  That would be the best use of his skill set. 

Share this post


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

I'll even own having done so myself with Skinner...

 

HA!

 

I knew it. 😛

 

Sorry top, I couldn’t resist. Have a great weekend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We talk a lot here about accountability and getting the value you're paying for, so I'll close with a claim parallel to yours about "player haters": Some guys are just fanboys and refuse to see the forest because they're so enamored of one tree. I'll even own having done so myself with Skinner, and suggest that maybe you are, now.

 

Ha ha, fair enough.  He's really not even close to my favorite player, just always thought he got more than his share of bad press around here, and even now when he had what I consider a pretty fine season and playoffs.

Share this post


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

why are we still rehashing the same arguments about Faulk's play from 2-4 years ago?

Simple- its called the Hockey Doldrums.  The only cure is the start of next season. LOL

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

HA!

 

I knew it. 😛

 

Sorry top, I couldn’t resist. Have a great weekend.

Of course you could have. 

 

But WHY??? :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Those that have always liked Faulk presumably wouldn't find it much of an issue since they don't buy that Faulk was ever a liability. But to me it would be the issue if we plan on keeping him. 

Precisely. If he can build on last year, I'm in. If not, I think we move him at the deadline or sooner.

 

22 hours ago, cclifford10 said:

 

If we can find a PP QB (maybe it's Bean), we could use Faulk in Ovechkin's office on the PP.  That would be the best use of his skill set. 

I've been saying for years we should have made him an RW.

 

On 7/19/2019 at 6:39 AM, Derailed75 said:

last year he not only protected the puck in his own end he bailed out goalies a few times. It was night and day from the prior years and the only difference was the bench boss

I agree with the second sentence and the second half of the first, there were times he looked more like Mrazek than Mrazek. But he still coughed up the puck in all three zones a lot more than any Dman who has played in this league as long as he has, and has been to two ASGs, should.

 

All of the above being said, I do believe that last season will help Justin get his mojo back. It's hard enough to turn things around all the way after one off season. After three (four by Rem's count) you have to wonder if you'll ever regain the confidence it takes to play well. Faulk took a big step toward doing so last year. His shots were on target a lot more often than they had been for years, and my guess is that retaining his spot on the #1 PP unit was as much about Roddy giving him a vote of (and helping rebuild his) confidence as anything. Now that his shot accuracy is back, hopefully he'll start moving to create shooting lanes--because when he was really pumping in goals there a few years ago, that was a key part of it.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucic traded to Flames for Neal.  Wonder if Tkachuk could be had. Canes probably couldn't afford him. He could be the physical presence the canes could use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an Athletic article today.......

 

According to 10 years worth of results provided by the NHLPA, 27 players have gone to an arbitration hearing since 2009. Within three years, 21 of those players were on different teams. And often it doesn’t even take that long — 16 of the 27 were on new teams within two years and 13 of the 27 were on new teams within one year.

Share this post


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

From an Athletic article today.......

 

According to 10 years worth of results provided by the NHLPA, 27 players have gone to an arbitration hearing since 2009. Within three years, 21 of those players were on different teams. And often it doesn’t even take that long — 16 of the 27 were on new teams within two years and 13 of the 27 were on new teams within one year.

McGinn and Forsberg probably weren’t staying past 2 years either way 

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...