Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
LakeLivin

Offseason Talk 2020

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bluedevil58 said:

Did we just screw ourselves over by not going for a goalie?  Holtby, Fkeury, Lundqvist.  All on the market....  were on the .market. 


They did go for a goalie, Markstrom. They struck out. Probably a good thing too as his contract won’t age well.

 

Holtby had a sub .900 save percentage last year. Fleury has a $7.5M cap hit for 2 more years. Are either of these 2 really an upgrade over what they have?

 

They talked to Lundqvist. He turned them down.

 

Kuemper, the best option left, will cost at least a 1st round pick. They won’t trade a 1st for a goalie.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly we have talked with Arizona about Keumper and possibly Raanta. IMO there were only a few clear upgrades out there, and really, I think after Lehner signed, Markstrom was the only obvious, big time upgrade, and we reportedly made a pitch for him. IMO Lundqvist at this age is not a big enough upgrade, and Holtby actually hd TWO bad seasons. I heard that Washington gave up the most high danger chances against in the league, so maybe there is hidden value in Holtby, but not worth the risk vs what we have IMO. I remain hopeful that we keep trying with Arizona, maybe Columbus, or somewhere we haven't thought of yet, to make that upgrade. I think the committee knows we need to. 

 

Does make me think that while it is repeatedly pointed out that you don't draft goalies in the first round (and it's a valid point) because you can just get one in a trade or UFA, it also remains a fact that we have not been able to really make that work in a top goalie way....ever. The committee continues to try, and we'll see, but this remains an area of concern and despite being very happy with Jarvis and our draft, I still wish we could have gotten Askarov. OK, enough of that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wxray1 said:

The organization's decision made the organization look like a headcase.

 

I really don't know what "they" were thinking.  It was a damaging decision.

 

 

I think everyone, including the two co-captains, thought that decision was batdung crazy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Supposedly we have talked with Arizona about Keumper and possibly Raanta. IMO there were only a few clear upgrades out there, and really, I think after Lehner signed, Markstrom was the only obvious, big time upgrade, and we reportedly made a pitch for him. IMO Lundqvist at this age is not a big enough upgrade, and Holtby actually hd TWO bad seasons. I heard that Washington gave up the most high danger chances against in the league, so maybe there is hidden value in Holtby, but not worth the risk vs what we have IMO. I remain hopeful that we keep trying with Arizona, maybe Columbus, or somewhere we haven't thought of yet, to make that upgrade. I think the committee knows we need to. 

 

Does make me think that while it is repeatedly pointed out that you don't draft goalies in the first round (and it's a valid point) because you can just get one in a trade or UFA, it also remains a fact that we have not been able to really make that work in a top goalie way....ever. The committee continues to try, and we'll see, but this remains an area of concern and despite being very happy with Jarvis and our draft, I still wish we could have gotten Askarov. OK, enough of that..

 

The only legit elite goalie thia org has was Burke IMO.

Share this post


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

Truthfully i never bought the Skinner didnt play D argument anyway. Sure he didn't play in our D zone which was what Roddy wants, and I'm fine with him being moved. But if I'm not mistaken he was in the top 5 in takeaways the year before the trade. He played D he just did it in thr neutral and O zones. Again he wasn't a fit here but he wasn't a headache, he wasn't a bad player, and he wasn't traded because he was a flop. He was traded because he didn't fit the scheme, this and nothing else.

The only bad thing is unlike most of the moves the committee made we did not get value out of it.

 

 

His takeaway ability was excellent.  No, he wasn't the greatest at backchecking and/or guarding our own net, but he's not the only Cane to have ever been guilty of that.  What drove me crazy was that he seemed to be held more-accountable for his lack of defense and a certain 'offensive defenseman' or two.  To this day the concept of a forward being held more-accountable for defense than a defenseman in the same organization leaves me scratching my head.

 

Edited by realmdrakkar
typo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bluedevilcane said:

Not sure where you get he did not want to go to the AHL

Not sure why you are quoting me here bcc, as I just referenced Cff with his statement. You need to read back aways before you question me on this. I never said Skinner did not want to go to AHL, that was Cff statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 10:04 PM, Canesfanforever said:

But Skinner  was asked if he wanted to  spend a year in the ahl and he flat out told  the canes management  no

To show you, this was Cff statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, all of this time later and people are still talking about and defending Skinner. 
 

To me, that’s the real head scratcher.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was during that mini  Lockout season  when the Canes  asked Skinner if he wanted to play some games in the ahl   and then get brought back up if the NHL season were to start up .   Skinner said  no .    The Management thought it would be good for his development  , and  help him in some areas that he could of worked out   and once the NHL  Lockout  would end   he would of got brought right back up .    Sense he was on a one way contract they could   send him to the ahl   before  the leagues started to protect him  from waivers . 

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


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

It was during that mini  Lockout season  when the Canes  asked Skinner if he wanted to play some games in the ahl   and then get brought back up if the NHL season were to start up .   Skinner said  no .    The Management thought it would be good for his development  , and  help him in some areas that he could of worked out   and once the NHL  Lockout  would end   he would of got brought right back up .    Sense he was on a one way contract they could   send him to the ahl   before  the leagues started to protect him  from waivers . 


He also could have gotten hurt and ruined his future earnings capacity. He didn’t play in the AHL that year because he was fearful of an injury, not because he was a head-case or any of your other made up reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spockrock said:


He also could have gotten hurt and ruined his future earnings capacity. He didn’t play in the AHL that year because he was fearful of an injury, not because he was a head-case or any of your other made up reasons.

It did not stop Fleury or  Necas  or many other players the canes  drafted ,    and got much needed  ahl  development for their NHL game .    Where did you hear  that it was over  his  fears of getting injured  and ruin his future earnings ? 

Share this post


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

It did not stop Fleury or  Necas  or many other players the canes  drafted ,    and got much needed  ahl  development for their NHL game .    Where did you hear  that it was over  his  fears of getting injured  and ruin his future earnings ? 


Fleury or Necas didn’t win the Calder Trophy as 18 year olds. That’s a ridiculous argument.

 

Not sure that’s documented anywhere, about the injury concern, but I recall that was the general sentiment. By the way, a simple google seach reveals that it was a “mutual” decision by team and player for him not to report to the AHL, what do you know? Another made up narrative shot down...

 

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/8436631/jeff-skinner-ahl-training-camp-not-play-league-season

Edited by spockrock
  • Like 2

Share this post


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


Fleury or Necas didn’t win the Calder Trophy as 18 year olds. That’s a ridiculous argument.

 

Not sure that’s documented anywhere, about the injury concern, but I recall that was the general sentiment. By the way, a simple google seach reveals that it was a “mutual” decision by team and player for him not to report to the AHL, what do you know? Another made up narrative shot down...

 

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/8436631/jeff-skinner-ahl-training-camp-not-play-league-season

Espn is going to put things lightly by quoting Rutherford  saying it was Mutual  .     That is what i like to call fake news !

   It was not mutual  ,  and    in the end  Skinner did not go .       Total Headcase ! 

Share this post


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

Espn is going to put things lightly by quoting Rutherford  saying it was Mutual  .     That is what i like to call fake news !

   It was not mutual  ,  and    in the end  Skinner did not go .       Total Headcase ! 


I think it’s obvious who the head-case is here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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


I think it’s obvious who the head-case is here.

I agree .     Also  why only single out Jeff Skinner  in defending  him  ?  I also mentioned   Semin was a headcase too .  

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


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

I agree .     Also  why only single out Jeff Skinner  in defending  him  ?  I also mentioned   Semin was a headcase too .  


Nothing to do with defending Skinner, more so calling out things you pull out of thin air and tout as facts. I’ll call out someone shoveling $&@t when I see it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

To show you, this was Cff statement.

You are right. I think I quoted from your post quoting CFF, if that makes any sense. But I think my point was correct. Skinner could not have played anywhere but the NHL or Canadian juniors the year after he was drafted. I don’t get anyone saying he refused to play in the A.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree .     Also  why only single out Jeff Skinner  in defending  him  ?  I also mentioned   Semin was a headcase too .  

You are not supposed to mention that last guy’s name on the boards. HWSNBN is his moniker.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You are not supposed to mention that last guy’s name on the boards. HWSNBN is his moniker.

Lmao    But we are all in  agreement that  HWSNBN  is a headcase ? 

Share this post


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

You are right. I think I quoted from your post quoting CFF, if that makes any sense. But I think my point was correct. Skinner could not have played anywhere but the NHL or Canadian juniors the year after he was drafted. I don’t get anyone saying he refused to play in the A.

It was not his  1st year  ,    It was  during the mini lockout when skinns  could of  went .   He opted  out by saying no .     What Rutherford  had to say on the subject is irrelevant . 

 

Share this post


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

It was not his  1st year  ,    It was  during the mini lockout when skinns  could of  went .   He opted  out by saying no .     What Rutherford  had to say on the subject is irrelevant . 

 

 

He was still 19.  And please, 'could have' or 'could've', not 'could of'.

Edited by realmdrakkar

Share this post


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

It was not his  1st year  ,    It was  during the mini lockout when skinns  could of  went .   He opted  out by saying no .     What Rutherford  had to say on the subject is irrelevant . 

 


Documented quotes going completely against your made up story are irrelevant? 
 

That sounds about right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

He was still 19.  And please, 'could have' or 'could've', not 'could of'.

Their 

There 

They're 

 

Thank you Grammar  police   .  

 

BTW   he was 20  ,  He was 18  in 2010 , the lockout happened in the  2012-2013 season   and return to play happened  in January  6th  2013  

Skinner would of been 20  , his birthday is in may the 16th ( birth year 1992 )  ,    he would  HAVE   been 20  that   year in 2012 . 

Edited by Canesfanforever

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...