Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
remkin

Rating the Committee

POLL: Rate the Committee To This Point  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. How would you rate the total performance of The Committee to this point?

    • A: Excellent
      9
    • B: Pretty Good
      24
    • C: Average
      6
    • D: Poor
      1
    • F: Fail
      0


Recommended Posts

Thought I'd re-do a version of cc's poll from last year to include more moves.

 

Just to set the parameters, the team, by most accounts, over-performed last year. A few key plays the other way, and we miss the playoffs again. This is not a poll on how the team has done, but rather how the committee has done to move the organization closer the ultimate goal of yearly cup contention. 

 

I'm sure that I've missed some moves, but here is a list of some moves:

 

Early Moves:

 

Hired Brind'Amour as Coach

Traded Skinner for Pu and draft picks

Traded for Martinook

Traded Hanifin and Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland, Fox.

Drafted: Svechnikov, Drury, Sellgren etc.

Traded Rask for Nino

Picked up Mrazek, dropped Mongo to the AHL 

Signed McE

 

More recent moves:

 

Signed Aho (matched)

Signed Mrazek, after letting him test UFA

Got Haula for basically nothing

Traded DeHaan for the 2 Fors: Forsberg, Forsling

Bought Toronto's first round draft pick (Marleau).

Traded Adam Fox for 2 second round pick(s).

Trade Mongo for Reimer

Drafted: Suzuki, Kochetkov, Rees, Puistola, et all

 

 

This is also open for discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to vote pretty good. It is rare for me to with the highest score as it implies no room for improvement and we can almost always improve. The biggest miss for me so far, is actually a move you didn't list Rem. The committee has not been able to really been able to solidify the D problem. They have indicated a desire to flip Faulk. But have been unable to do so as of yet. 

Like many, I wish we had gotten more from the Skinner and Lindholm deals but I also realize there were external factors involved in each. Had Jeff completely waived his NTC I think we would have had a better return. And I think Fox would have signed if we had moved Faulk. I think Lindholm was the price to take Hanifin off our hands.

If we can flip Faulk for a top 6 forward, preferably top 3, then I think this next year is looking pretty bright for the committee. They somehow fleece Tampa or Toronto for one of their stars and I think the entire hockey world will have to start taking them seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny because when I went back to look at the last time this was polled and the poll was posted in late December. The mood was about at it's nadir. We were almost out of it and things not looking good. It was the darkest right before dawn. Little did we know then what was about to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been making progress which is a positive. They have made some crafty moves of which we have not seen for years. The off season is far from over but IMO we need to do more offensively than sign Haula. The committee all agreed we overachieved last year and needed some additional pieces. Hoping more is to come between now and October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My committee extends to marketing.  Particularly social media, which has kept the team in the news since Dundon was hired.  I'd give that an excellent if it was a separate choice.  Right now I have a hard time saying very good to everything, but collectively it's damn better than average given just two off seasons ago when we were packing for QC.  I give turtle neck high marks too for proving everybody mostly wrong.

 

Hope we aren't done adding to the team.

 

Very Pretty Good, so far.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say 'excellent' because as has been pointed out, this team was a couple games away from once again hitting the golf course in April.  But they didn't, and whammo.  I still shake my head over the Skinner deal, but pretty much everything else has been 'pretty good' or better,  I'm a little bummed that it's looking like i may not recognize 3/4s of the Chex when i hit my first game next season (partly due to a couple expected graduations but largely due to so many of the others bolting for apparent greener pastures), but that's life in the AHL.  I went with 'pretty good'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who is the committee? 2 AGMs plus our senior scout, head of scouting and goalie coach have left since the end of the year. Haven’t seen anything about replacing any of them. That leaves Waddell, Dundon, Dudley, Tulsky, RB and the former player agent whose name I don’t remember. I haven’t seen anything about replacing our head scout, any front office folks, an AHL coach or a goalie coach. I’m sure these hires take some time, but now would seem like the time you want your front office to be at peak efficiency, not seriously depleted. I would give them an above average grade for last year, but that is a very small sample size. If our goaltending regresses 10% this year, we are unlikely to make the playoffs. Sustained success is the measure of how the committee is doing, and the jury is still out on that. I would also give an incomplete for the lead up to year 2 as there may (hopefully) be more moves coming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave them an A. I did it based on grading each move and averaging them in a patented formula. I don't argue with those that went B due to not landing the big fish forward for a Dman trade. But my grade is based on moves made, not moves not made.

 

LONG POST WARNING: Each eval is short, but this is a lot of moves, so this gets long.

 

Early Moves:

 

Hired Brind'Amour as Coach: A. I can't really imagine much more from this rookie coach. He got this team to believe, even when the chips were down. He did what he said he was going to do: get guys to play within structure, but also loose and making plays. Fixed the Captain debacle perfectly. Supported guys while also keeping them on the path.

 

Traded Skinner for Pu and draft picks: B. Skinner had them locked into one team (on JR). Now we're not paying Skinner $9.2M for 8 years. The second rounder ended up being Pyotr Kochetkov, could be an elite goalie (if so, this becomes an A, and I think that is more likely than not). Allowed culture change. This deal has aged well, and probably becomes an A.

 

Traded for Martinook: A. Got him essentially for Marcus Kruger. (Plus, I was in an elevator with DW when he was making this trade). Martinook put up 25 points and 15 goals vs Kruger (year before projection over 82): 10 points, 3 goals. And massive locker room plus, as well as huge on-ice grit.

 

Traded Hanifin and Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland, Fox. B. This one is really incomplete. Hamilton has really turned into all of that, but so did Lindholm on the other side. We lost Fox, but will have to wait to see what happens with that (those) second round pick(s). Ferland was key early, but only one year of him. But the team needed that at a key time. This one has to still play out, but losing Fox after the 99% keep him comment, keeps this a B. 

 

Drafted: Svechnikov, Drury, Sellgren etc. A. This is also incomplete, since Svech was a no-brainer. Still, some GMs screw up no brainers. But it's incomplete because we need to see what becomes of Drury especially, since all other picks were 4th round or later (Sellgren looked good in Charlotte). Any draft that gets us Svech is an A in terms of effect on team.

 

Traded Rask for Nino. A++++++. OK, Nino will most likely cool off, and maybe even regress a lot. But so far, "holy one sided thievery Batman!". This has to be one of the biggest heists in a few years of NHL trades. We needed to basically get Rask's salary off the books, and instead got a key top 6 forward. 

 

Picked up Mrazek, dropped Mongo to the AHL. A. Mrazek was a gamble, but the committee got it right. Was it luck, or did they see something everyone else missed? Either way, it's an A. Now that he's re-signed just reenforces that. (unless he regresses, but can't read the future). Dropping Mongo early was not as easy as it seemed. After the offseason workouts and positivity, and his salary, could have easily rolled him out there a few more times. If we did, good chance we miss the playoffs. 

 

Signed McE. A. OK, this one, like drafting Svech, was pretty easy. But they did it, and it worked, so it's an A. 

 

More recent moves:

 

Signed Aho (matched): A. OK, stay with me here. I contend that sans offer-sheet we sign him, maybe for 6 years at the end of the negotiations. We were not low balling any more than other teams who still have not signed their RFA's. But Montreal went outside the lines and threw a wrench in. So really the rating is how we handled it, and how it ended up. We handled it flawlessly and it ended up pretty well as other teams risk their star RFA's sitting out, and ours is signed for 5 years, and Aho says it's always been us he loved.

 

Signed Mrazek, after letting him test UFA. A. This one is very incomplete. I almost went B here because I wanted Lehner. But goalies....who knows? Mrazek gets back to his game of Feb-April and most of the playoffs? Top 5 goalie. (17 games, save % around .940). But Lehner was close to #1. He has the risk. And Mrazek had a great chemistry here, and who knows if Lehner preferred Chicago. I'd go B+ if it were an option, but considering the chemistry and the upside, and the other possible outcomes if we whiffed here, gotta go A.

 

Got Haula for basically nothing. A. OK this one is incomplete. We haven't even see Haula skate in a scrimmage yet. But the upside of this move is just south of Nino for Rask.  His last full season he put up 29 goals and 55 points. Nino: 23 goals, 53 points last year. Assuming JWilliams re ups, then Haula could be flanked by TT, JWilliams, Nino, Svech. He should be able to produce with them.

 

Traded DeHaan for the 2 Fors: Forsberg, Forsling: C. I really wanted to give a D here, but the DeHaan shoulder kept it to a C. He may be ineffective even when back. I think this was a panic move. The committee was afraid of the music stopping and we had no goalie. Forsberg was insurance if without DeHaan, the yutes aren't ready. These feel like lower tiered players. This one is incomplete too, since it's' possible that the committee, who saw the goods in Mrazek, Martinook, etc. might see more in Forsberg/Forsling than seems apparent. But this is still IMO, the only highly questionable move the committee has made. 

 

Bought Toronto's first round draft pick (Marleau). A. We can't buy high end UFA's. How about buying a first round pick? Here's the thing. This will almost certainly be in next year's historically deep draft. When the draft comes around, suddenly GM's grip these picks with an iron fist. "Oh, we'll trade down. If someone offers us their first born and half of their team". But now, a year ahead, a GM will basically sell it for cash. This is how you get extra first rounders. And we lost no picks, prospects or players. We can trade this pick too.

 

Traded Adam Fox for 2 second round pick(s). C. I'd like to go D here too, because Adam Fox is exactly what we need and we whiffed. But we did get one, maybe two 2 second round picks, and like with Staal and Skinner, we were limited to one team to deal with. And I guess 2 second rounders is better than a kick in the cods. But losing Fox still feels like the kick to me.

 

Trade Mongo for Reimer. A. Mongo salary off the books with no buy out, and an NHL proven back up with upside along with two goalies pushing up (Ned and Forsberg). Reimer's .900 last year was an outlier. He was .920 over 42 games the previous year and is .913 over 338 NHL games. Any kind of bounce back and he's a good back up. Not, we look at Ned or Forsberg.

 

Drafted: Suzuki, Kochetkov, Rees, Puistola, et all. A. Very incomplete, but the first two guys on that list have upside well beyond where we got them, and there is a lot of skill below them too. We got a lot of picks in this draft. I think Kocehetkov is the highest upside goalie we've ever drafted (yes, including Cam Ward), and Suzuki dropped in the draft on things that I think our system can drum out of him, but has huge upside skill. We have enough depth now for him to follow the Gauthier/Necas route: Go to the AHL. Earn your AHL ice time by playing the right way. Earn your NHL shot by playing the right way and putting up points. 

 

So on analyzing the moves, the GPA comes out as an A-. Since this poll does not allow that, it's an A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rem, I have to ask if you see any cause and effect between having to trade Fox and moving DeHaan out?

For me, I think moving DeHaan was as much about the logjam of D as concern over shoulder with the cap savings being a larger factor overall. We have 2 first round D picks that need playing time ASAP if we are going to get value from them. And if we didn't move DeHaan then we would have a hard time signing JW and our RFA's not too mention we weren't sure what the price for Aho was going to be at the time. I know you said you weren't grading them on moves they didn't make, but Fox and DeHaan are both casualties of the lack of flipping D "Faulk" for O and I arrived at about the same grade you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I'm not to impressed.  We are going back on the ice with the same team as least year except add Haula minus Ferland.   The boys ran out of gas after using all their heart and soul for the playoffs.  They needed at least 1 or 2 serious firepower forwards added and after the success and money made by TD last year they should have made sure that happened.  The energy and excitement we would have at the start of the season would be huge if they made a couple trades or additions that loaded up our offense.  They did not, as usual.(It's not over yet and maybe they will but seriously doubt it)  Also the "Aho" debacle may or may not ruin his chances of ever being a "loved star" here or playing with all his heart here again.  They should have avoided that instead of playing chicken with our only 30goal scorers agent. They made some good moves but not any great moves or franchise changing moves like NJ did, NYR did, etc......    We will see if this team can find that heart again and hope the skill increases on some young guys so we can get a PP goal now and than. Other than that, the same ol mediocre moves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danimal, I understand your concern. But comparing us to NYR and NJD is a little unfair as they won the lottery and are hugely desirable locations. The Canes got lucky with winning the #2 pick, but even with that they are still remaining committed to building the team through the draft rather than trying to buy a team ask Columbus how that is working next year.

As for our chances this coming year, I think we are looking a little better than last year atm. The team spent half of last year trying to figure it out, then the other half not being able to afford mistakes. This year, they know what they can do when they play their game. If they get to it from the start they won't be so gased from having to play near perfect later. In the end, there are no guarantees which is why they place them up and we cheer like crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DevildogKodi said:

Rem, I have to ask if you see any cause and effect between having to trade Fox and moving DeHaan out?

For me, I think moving DeHaan was as much about the logjam of D as concern over shoulder with the cap savings being a larger factor overall. We have 2 first round D picks that need playing time ASAP if we are going to get value from them. And if we didn't move DeHaan then we would have a hard time signing JW and our RFA's not too mention we weren't sure what the price for Aho was going to be at the time. I know you said you weren't grading them on moves they didn't make, but Fox and DeHaan are both casualties of the lack of flipping D "Faulk" for O and I arrived at about the same grade you did.

My main problem is that I have this notion that we would be able to get at least one notable, bonafide top 6 forward, ideally top 3, for some part of our D depth. We have yet to do that. I thought DeHaan would bring back more than what appears to be two depth players. Maybe the injury played in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to have a hard time with this for the next 3 years.  Why you ask?

 

well.....

 

this team is going to be one of the youngest teams over the next 3 years.  We lose Ferland’s age bringing us “up” this season and replacing him with a 20 year old. CdH was moved and will be replaced with an early 20s defender.  Williams will presumably come off next season to be replaced with a 21-23 year old. TVR, the oldest defender, will presumably leave after this season.  Reimer will be replaced with Ned. Even our 4th liners will presumably be as many youngsters as grizzled veterans.

 

I lead with that because this team’s performance will bounce around. Much like our improbable 3 month run from worst to playoffs. We’ll be very capable of the playoffs next season with or without Williams.  Will all the young players produce enough to get is there, consistently?  No one knows.  A young player’s defensive breakdown might cost us a game or ten.  All the youngsters might catch fire and we average 3.5 goals a game, ending with 105 points.  Qp5 points might squeeze us in next year knowing the Metro.

 

 The management team has to use the young players. We didn’t build it up for nothing. At the same time it could lead to varying results in the standings. 

 

At this point a B+.  Aho is signed cheap although it wasn’t their doing, we got another top 6 player on the roster, Mrazek is back, we got an experienced backup while moving Darling WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED, and we should be able to utilize our deep prospect pool with plenty of insurance. We got an extra 1st rounder in a deep draft.

 

I cant give an A because I am not sold we are getting into the playoffs with our current roster.

 

although, i want to give Tom an A for actually spending money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average.. with a move to pretty good if we get a legit scorerer.

 

We got very lucky with the goalie situation last year- could have turned out very different in most years.

 

We still needed all season to make the playoffs also keeps from a "very good".. make the playoffs again and also move up in rankings

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

Im going to have a hard time with this for the next 3 years.  Why you ask?

Think positive- have a GOOD time over the next 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 2:06 PM, Danimal38 said:

We are going back on the ice with the same team as least year except add Haula minus Ferland

This is incorrect.  All our yutes are 1 year more experienced.  Both this team and the Checkers have experienced success.  This cannot be discounted and having familiarity will help compared to early last year when they all were feeling things out.  This is double for Roddy.  Its way more than numbers on a page.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average was the grade i gave the committee, they haven't went and got any physical player. They loose Ferland and my opinion they haven't replaced him.  If the committee doesn't improve on the physical play i do not believe the canes make the playoffs this coming season.  Someone posted in the Off season and trades that the nhl was going smaller and faster.  The two teams that played for the cup were 2 of the biggest and physical teams in the  nhl. Smaller and faster got Tampa and Pittsburgh an early out.  If they go out and get a physical player or two i would give the committee a grade of pretty good and a better chance of making the playoffs this coming season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing about this losing Ferland thing. Ferland was lost multiple times during the season and the team didnt really miss him all that much. He is an injury prone guy that would take up a roster and cap space and not play a lot of games. They dont have to replace him

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Derailed75 said:

I keep hearing about this losing Ferland thing. Ferland was lost multiple times during the season and the team didnt really miss him all that much. He is an injury prone guy that would take up a roster and cap space and not play a lot of games. They dont have to replace him

The team played pretty well without Ferland, but his 17 goals and 40 points were 4th and 5th on the team for forwards, despite missing 11 games. His 2.6 hits/game were the most on the team, and his hits hurt the other guys and lead to turnovers. I agree he is not essential, but we do need to replace those points. And certainly some on here think we need to replace those hits too. 

 

It is a reminder that hockey is a human business, and sometimes things just get messed up. 

 

Personally I think we replaced the points with Haula, and probably more, but not the physical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll put this here since it reflects on what the committee has done and if it will be enough. 

 

We (self included) point out that this team barely made the playoffs last year. Therefore, with other teams improving we simply must add a big name forward to make the playoffs. But not so fast. I always have wanted to make that move, but really, especially if we bring back J Willy, we don't have to. The idea that we barely made it in the playoffs is really looking at it from one extreme.

 

First, we barely made the playoffs, but also barely missed 100 points (by one point). This was a ridiculously hard year to make the playoffs in the East. We made the playoffs in the West by 9 points. 

 

Second, after December, we were not just good, we were great, right up until we gave out vs Boston 4 1/2 months later. What is a better predictor of future success? The team before it figured things out under their new, rookie coach and went 16-17-5, or the team after it got it's stuff together and went 38-15-2 including two rounds of playoff wins? 

 

Third, the idea of needing heavy physical and our giving out after running out of gas, and a subpar PP needing upgrades, are pertinent to winning the cup, not really making the playoffs.

 

This team went 30-12-2 from January to the end of the regular season. Then went 8-3 to start the playoffs. That's 38-15-2 January-mid May. (39-15-2 if you count that win at the end of December). OK, selective to leave the Boston series out, but the ECF is pretty tough sledding for a team that most wrote off, and was gassed by then, so not really indicative of how we'll fair in the regular season.  

 

But take the playoff record out: Just look at the 30-12-2 to finish the back half of the season. 62 points in 44 games, projects to 116 points. Add in the first two rounds of playoffs and we get the same pace continuing: 116 points for 82 games. OK OK, add in the Bruins series: 108 point pace over the last 59 games of the season, including three playoff rounds.

 

What I'm saying, is not that we will put up 116 points next year. But that we don't have to. We don't have to be as good as we were from Dec - May. We have to be somewhere between the first half team that was on a 80 point pace, and the second half team that went on a 116 point pace. In fact half way between them is 98 points, which makes the playoffs most years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 2:06 PM, Danimal38 said:

At this point I'm not to impressed.  We are going back on the ice with the same team as least year except add Haula minus Ferland.   The boys ran out of gas after using all their heart and soul for the playoffs.  They needed at least 1 or 2 serious firepower forwards added and after the success and money made by TD last year they should have made sure that happened.  The energy and excitement we would have at the start of the season would be huge if they made a couple trades or additions that loaded up our offense.  They did not, as usual.(It's not over yet and maybe they will but seriously doubt it)  Also the "Aho" debacle may or may not ruin his chances of ever being a "loved star" here or playing with all his heart here again.  They should have avoided that instead of playing chicken with our only 30goal scorers agent. They made some good moves but not any great moves or franchise changing moves like NJ did, NYR did, etc......    We will see if this team can find that heart again and hope the skill increases on some young guys so we can get a PP goal now and than. Other than that, the same ol mediocre moves. 

I agree with some of what your saying.  However, this summer was our chance to put together a Stanley cup team.  It's obvious we are close, we just needed to add fire power.  We all know we have the pieces to make a huge trade.  Plenty of desired D men in the NHL and AHL level, as well as picks galore.  We used neither one of those pieces to try and bring a couple of 25 goal scorers here which is what we desperately needed to get over the hump and be a Stanley cup team.  The summer's not over so this may still happen.  Up to now though, I'm just not impressed.  Same team as last year.  It's going to be tough to sustain all year with the horrible power play and goal slumps by the usual guys like Aho, Staal, Willy. 

Best case scenario:  Aho and Svech 30goals plus.  Nino,TT,  25goals plus, Staal, williams, 20goals plus.   Worst case scenario, Aho,Svech 25goals, Nino, TT, 20goals, Staal Williams 15 goals.  And of course Mrazek has an amazing year and not an "off year". 

It could happen with this team but it will take the stars aligning perfectly and everyone having an outstanding season with no major injuries.  Or we could go out and make some aggressive trades to bring in what we really need.   

Share this post


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

This is incorrect.  All our yutes are 1 year more experienced.  Both this team and the Checkers have experienced success.  This cannot be discounted and having familiarity will help compared to early last year when they all were feeling things out.  This is double for Roddy.  Its way more than numbers on a page.

Sounds good, hope you are right!

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...