Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

Trades, Player moves and Free Agency

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, cclifford10 said:

 

I think I would use Faulk on the PP just not QB.  I would try him in the Ovi spot.

Yes please. Ever since he stopped backpedaling he's been useless atop the umbrella.

 

But here's the problem: We are trying to find a spot for one guy we're paying too much money when we've got a bushel of others on great or entry level deals who are as good or better. If I'm TD--a guy who has buttered his bread by knowing ROI inside and out--I have a fundamental, irresolvable problem with that because I'm essentially throwing good money after bad.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

All true. And as long as he's the seventh dman and only plays on the third pairing and sees no PP time when he dresses, by all means, let's keep him. But he can no longer take the slot of the kids we've developed specifically to get the wheel turning, the one that takes young guys, like we did him, develops them (like we did him), and they either live up to expectations to earn their payoff deal (he has not); agree that they have not met expectations and agree to a lesser deal than they might like (he will not); or we move them out and it's next cowboy up. He is refusing to be moved and refusing our offers.

 

I have a feeling TD is not going to pay a guy 4.8 million to sit in the press box/play on the third pairing, but if Faulk doesn't relent, that is his only choice. As a player with an NTC, Faulk can refuse waivers, and cannot be bought out, because the window for that has closed. It opened three days after the Canes arbitration case with Forsberg closed and lasted 48 hours. With no other pending arbitration cases that might close prior to the season to re-open that window, we couldn't buy him out.

 

If Faulk really wants to stay in Raleigh, it means, as far as I'm concerned, he's willing to delay for younger players the same chance he got at their age. That's totally permitted under the CBA, but that doesn't make it any less crappy to do.

 

Somehow you quoted OBXer in the box with my name on it. Not that I'm offended, just odd. Carry on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Somehow you quoted OBXer in the box with my name on it. Not that I'm offended, just odd. Carry on.

 

It's happened before, although I'm guessing this time it didn't involve a blocked member. Quirk in the system?

 

On 9/4/2019 at 4:59 PM, LakeLivin said:

 

Ruh? :huh:  CC, your post  quotes bd58's post, but it shows up as "LakeLivin said".  I wonder how that happened?.  

 

On 9/4/2019 at 6:29 PM, cc said:

Happens when “those who will not be named” are blocked. 😂 Not intentional.

Share this post


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

 

This is what drives me nuts. We focus on Faulk's flaws but not his strengths. He took 4 shots. More than any other Dman. He had 3 blocked shots. More than any other Dman. He skated on the PK. Lord knows he has flaws and turnovers are one of them but overall he didn't have a bad night.

 

Slavin and Gardiner had 1 turnover each.

 

There are three compelling reasons to trade Faulk. He has an expiring contract, It appears we won't be able to negotiate an extension and we have 5 top 4 Dmen and two of them can replace Faulk on the PP

I've thought on this quite a bit OBXer, and while I agree with your sentiment in the 1st paragraph, it's the 3rd which to me, at this stage in both the team's as well as this particular player's career which is the driving factor in the critical need to off load Faulk's contract. And yes, I'll admit I am one who focuses on his faults because they have been there for it seems forever since he was drafted, only to clear this past year. They were hidden though thru his years before last by his incredible ability to score on the PP, which he's either lost or teams now know how to neutralize?

 

But the dilemma now is that we've got 3 players (Slavin, Pesce and Hamilton) whose skills are greater than Faulk's in different and more valuable ways, all getting paid at levels unsustainable for team budget, particularly if Faulk seems to be unreasonable in expectation of his next contract in the context of theirs? So now, bottom line, which of Slavin, Pesce or Hamilton would you trade instead of Faulk?

 

To add to that, there is a logjam to bringing up very capable, albeit untried younger players to continue their development at this level. And, as top pointed out, at a much more team affordable salary?

 

So that's the conundrum, most of which is irrespective of how Faulk plays or doesn't play.Add to that. if we relieve this logjam by trading away the younger players, we give up cost containment at the expense of most likely undervalued potential. 

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I figured this latest hiccup with the quotes. For explanation only; OBXer posted,Rem quoted OBXer post, Top then  quoted a line from OBXer quote that was posted in Rems reply with the OBXer quote. Since the OBXer quoted line came from Rems post the software picks it up as Rems not OBXer.

 

I'm not sure what can be done about it but will send it on to tech. The only way I can figure to work around is to go back to the original post

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't get into a who quoted what war (LOL).     At my age I have enough trouble keeping up with all the theories- opinions - facts- 2 cents worth - disagreements - barbs -  etc. and this is meant in fun so please don't attack.  

I have watched both preseason games and my 1st impression is that all players are on the same page when it comes to backchecking and forechecking....I am not sure which is which.    I love the relentless pursuit of the puck.  To me keep the puck as long as you can and the other team can't score.  So far so good.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Somehow you quoted OBXer in the box with my name on it. Not that I'm offended, just odd. Carry on.

Yeah, I saw that. Fixed, albeit a little clumsily.

 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, snuffy72 said:

when it comes to backchecking and forechecking....I am not sure which is which

Forechecking is done in the opponent's end to short-circuit their attempts to mount an attack. Backchecking is what you do once they've coordinated an attack and possess the puck in the neutral zone or your zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, snuffy72 said:

Please don't get into a who quoted what war (LOL).     At my age I have enough trouble keeping up with all the theories- opinions - facts- 2 cents worth - disagreements - barbs -  etc. and this is meant in fun so please don't attack.  

I have watched both preseason games and my 1st impression is that all players are on the same page when it comes to backchecking and forechecking....I am not sure which is which.    I love the relentless pursuit of the puck.  To me keep the puck as long as you can and the other team can't score.  So far so good.  

I agree completely. I think this is what I was seeing on that first home game. Sure, the guys weren't in mid-season form, but they mostly worked as a coordinated unit, which to me was a small concern with a few new guys out there. My biggest fear outside of hoping for good goaltending is just that the team takes too long to find that coordinated game they played the last 5 months. Yes, it was just one preseason game, but the basic structure and teamwork could be seen. Leaves me very optimistic. Plus, it is still technically possible that we don't give up a single goal all year, including preseason. So we have that going for us.

Share this post


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

I'm on it, what the hell did you do now?

Do I need to give you an excuse?

Share this post


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

Looks like McKeown is on his way to Charlotte

 

 

:thumbsup:.  I really don't want to lose McKeown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cclifford10 said:

So is there anybody on another team that is being held out this today?

I am being held out, but I am told it is because I am suffering from O L D.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Sara posted: 

More

People taking this seriously are the reason I go to therapy

So I'm thinkin' Ehlers is Sara messing with us.

 

When the committee keeps making big things happen her sarcasm is extremely hard to pick up on. I have full belief the committee could both get Ehler's and steal the bags from under Mo's eyes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all seriousness (pure speculation), find it hard to believe Canes have the cap to make an Ehlers trade work or that it would be realistic to trade 4 Laine in anything other than some blockbuster package. Jets obviously have the need but... I'm prepared to take an L on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Canesfanforever said:

I love the Trade .     I could go into detail on why I love it but then i would lose people in my train of thought .   So all im going to say is  I LOVE THIS TRADE ! 

Now THAT post made sense 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe we benefit this year from Faulk being gone. Maybe not. We definitely benefit from not paying Faulk's extension, but that wasn't happening anyways. My opinion is that outside of the distraction and the PP thing, we would have been perfectly able to just play Faulk this year and just lose him if the return was squat. I think we could have gotten under the cap with him. So, was Faulk a Skinnerian situation where he just HAD to go, no matter the return? I'd say no. So then, we needed a good return. 

 

Did we get it? That's the question. And it's very hard to answer. Due, presumably to Faulk's NTC, we did not end up getting Kase, or LA's first rounder, let alone a stud like Ehlers. Based on that rarified air, this is, for me, a bit anti-climactic. But upon further reflection, it was a deal worth doing. I'm sure it was the best deal that actually materialized, so it was: do this deal, or keep him. And though it's not as obvious as Kase or LA's first, in the end, it was better than Pu. 

 

I'll break this down into Edmundson and then Bokk.

 

First, the lower end of the deal. Edmundson. Yes, he's the NHL player, so maybe not a fair point, but who would really trade Faulk for Edmundson straight up? What I've gleened about Edmundson. He was actually a solid D man on a loaded D team. Corsica Hockey had him as St Louis' 4th most valuable D man, and they are stacked. He was tied for 7th on the team at plus 8, and really only one player was significantly higher. He also brings thump. He's a big fella. And we gave some of that away this offseason. He also kills the penalties, which sans Faulk could be a need. Apparently he had a couple of not great playoff games for the Blues, and he went to arbitration, which management seems to hate. This made him available. 

 

I don't know if we trade him or Fleury, but in the big picture, I like that we have switched to Gardiner as our smooth puckmover, and PP QB, then put Edmundson in the roll of limiting quality chances, and adding some physical intimidation, with no temptation to upgrade his role the way we had to with Faulk. I still wonder what we seem to not like about Fleury, but Edmundson/TVR could be a solid bottom pair, or Fleury can battle for the spot. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our D is much more balanced with Edmundson, and he kills penalties and doesn't shy away from the snarl.  Fluery and Forsling stay until TVR is ready, and Fluery hangs in as the seventh D-man (given his draft status), and Don Waddell retires to the smoking lounge for a while is my guess.

 

Now back to the 88 vs. 44 for the last open spot. :popcorn:

 

What a great time to be a Jerk.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee might have so much in riches and smart drafting that it can keep missing on the return for Skinner and arguably Faulk. Seriously, they might. It depends on how much consistent effort they can get from high end "soft" draft picks. But ideally they keep at least making "hockey trades" even if they can't Rask every trade. So did they miss on the return here?

 

Short answer: while they teased us with "winning the trade" possibilities, in the end, I think the deal was worth doing.

 

Long answer:

 

So, for this trade to return a reasonable return for Faulk, Bokk is the key. I love trying to follow prospects, but it is nearly impossible really. So the next best thing is to follow people who follow prospects. The Athletic's Corey Pronman is one such person. He used to do it for ESPN too. 

 

He has Bokk as the #50 best prospect in all NHL systems. Which he rates as "Very Good" NHL prospect. To put that in context, that is where Jake Bean is. Bokk was quite a bit higher last year though at #21. 21 was "High End". He dropped because he's been inconsistent his first year as a pro, with questions about the 100% effort all the time thing. He is not a grinder. But even #50 is high (makes him roughly the second best prospect on many teams, in fact Pronman had him rated as the Blues #2 prospect). OK, enough about that.

 

Here's what he's been said to be by Pronman:

 

Highly talented, big time hockey IQ, and speed to be a great NHL winger. He had and up and down first pro season. High end skills. Outstanding, creative passer with soft hands and high level creativity. Decent shot. Very talented but needs more consistent effort.  (I would add that other scouts taut his skating).

 

I like that we are filling the coffers with a bunch of these high skill potential guys with "lower picks" and this trade. Suzuki, Honka, Puistola, and now Bokk are all very high end skill, IQ guys who need to figure out how to get to the consistent effort thing. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I like that these guys have these effort questions. I'm saying that picking late in the first, or second or third rounds, every player has questions. Get a bunch of skill. Coach them up. Even if two or three pan out, you've got what you need. (BTW we have balanced this some with picks like Rees and Drury who are work ethic guys, and Svech who is work ethic and elite skill combined (hence going #2 overall)). 

 

So, in the end, we did not get a proven stud or a high first rounder, but even with one of the NHL's best farms, we added another legit high skilled prospect. Not counting Gauthier's recent push*, Bokk (#50 overall) becomes our #3 prospect after Necas (#10) and Suzuki (#37). And Bean (62) and Puistola (83) rounding out the ranked guys. Futher, I see it as a plus that Bokk's potential had him #21 last year. If he hadn't fallen, we probably don't get him. But if his rookie year was an adjustment thing, he could shoot up above Suzuki even. 

 

I'd have rather had Kase or LA's first pick, but this works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After suffering an injury earlier in NHL training camp, defenseman Chase Priskie has now been assigned to Charlotte.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the wistful news department, Adam Fox has looked very good for the NYR. 

 

In the "glass half full" department, Fox has made the opening day roster, which greatly increases the chances that that second pick we got ends up being a second rounder instead of a third rounder (he needs to play 30 NHL games this season). 

Share this post


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

In the wistful news department, Adam Fox has looked very good for the NYR. 

 

In the "glass half full" department, Fox has made the opening day roster, which greatly increases the chances that that second pick we got ends up being a second rounder instead of a third rounder (he needs to play 30 NHL games this season). 

Thanks for update rem, now what will be interesting is to watch Fox vs Priskie's careers. And have I said how stoked I am for tonight?

  • Like 1

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...