• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

2017-18 Miscellaneous Canes News Thread

Elsker said:
You guys do understand that Skinner is UFA after this season and walks out the door to the highest bidder if we do not find an "acceptable" (full NTC) home for him before the season ends?

And how much do you really expect in return from a team that faces the same result unless he can be extended by them prior to season's end?

Certainly not a 1C. Nor a proven, legit starter in goal. No one's handing over that kind of an asset for a passing fancy.

A team that only knows for sure that it is adding a rental for the season is going to pay in futures. They're not looking to give up actual assets unless they are of the "bad contract" nature.

The time to have traded Skinner for real value passed sometime during the Francis era. That ship has sailed. It's damage control, salvage what we can, mode now.

Although futures can also be turned into current value by turning around and offering the same future assets or more (and we certainly have more) for some "Now" from a third team looking to shed salary and/or rebuild.

But some kind of one-for-one player-for-player trade where the return has remaining years and a non-onerous contract is just plain unrealistic. Ain't going to happen.


EDIT: Also, Skinner's mythical "30 goals" (achieved 3 times in 8 seasons) can be easily found by replacing the anemic production of Ryan and Stempniak with Necas and Svetchnikov, for starters, not to mention whatever left-shot winger comes back our way in a Faulk D-for-O trade.
Click to expand...

I don't think teams look at a guy with a year left as a rental. At the deadline yeah - they do. There's no reason a team getting him in a trade is thinking they can't resign him to another contract, and they have the inside track on that too. So, Skinner's value wasn't higher at the last deadline. At the deadline people give up futures for rentals because they're in the win now mode. During the offseason, they're looking at what makes sense for their roster for the upcoming season - so they're more open to giving up current assets to improve their overall mix or work out something relative to the cap or salary budgets. Teams that are buying at the deadline have a good mix already, and generally aren't going to give up someone that will help them win.

I think the idea that we won't be able to resign Skinner, or that we've reached some point of no return with regards to the next season is just not reality. If we want him, I see no reason he would not resign here. Now if we waste him again this coming season (and that's what we did last season) then probably not, but if we're somewhat successful, and he plays a key role in that, that makes a difference - then it becomes a question of affordability.

So one, I don't think his value is materially impacted by only having one season left - as opposed to two.

Two, I don't think we have to move him because we've shopped him hard.

Three, I don't think there's any reason to think there's not a chance he re-signs here.

That said, I'm not against trading him, and think it's likely that we will trade him if we get an offer for enough value, but I just don't see us dumping him for whatever we can get because somehow we hurt his feelings by what's been said. Heck if the return is a pick and a prospect, that's what it's going to be at the deadline.

The reason nobody is going to trade us a 1C or 1G for him is because he's not worth that, and he wouldn't be worth that if he had 3 more years on his contract. Teams don't trade those guys. They're rarer than a 30point 3 times winger with defensive responsibility issues.

I think there are 2 lines of thought that make sense with Skinner:

1. Brindy feels he can get Jeff to buy into what he has planned (and he probably already knows that answer) and that includes coming up with a role for Jeff that fits his skillset. Which means putting him on an offensively dangerous line.
2. We get an offer that gives us a better mix for what Brindy has planned.

I don't feel we're in damage control mode and I don't think we're in we have to dump him mode.
 
Elsker said:
You guys do understand that Skinner is UFA after this season and walks out the door to the highest bidder if we do not find an "acceptable" (full NTC) home for him before the season ends?

And how much do you really expect in return from a team that faces the same result unless he can be extended by them prior to season's end?

Certainly not a 1C. Nor a proven, legit starter in goal. No one's handing over that kind of an asset for a passing fancy.

A team that only knows for sure that it is adding a rental for the season is going to pay in futures. They're not looking to give up actual assets unless they are of the "bad contract" nature.

The time to have traded Skinner for real value passed sometime during the Francis era. That ship has sailed. It's damage control, salvage what we can, mode now.

Although futures can also be turned into current value by turning around and offering the same future assets or more (and we certainly have more) for some "Now" from a third team looking to shed salary and/or rebuild.

But some kind of one-for-one player-for-player trade where the return has remaining years and a non-onerous contract is just plain unrealistic. Ain't going to happen.


EDIT: Also, Skinner's mythical "30 goals" (achieved 3 times in 8 seasons) can be easily found by replacing the anemic production of Ryan and Stempniak with Necas and Svetchnikov, for starters, not to mention whatever left-shot winger comes back our way in a Faulk D-for-O trade.
Click to expand...

The ship has sailed part could be no further from the truth...you make it sound like Skinner has next to no value, which is nonsense. To call Skinner a passing fancy...come on Elsker, goal scoring of Skinner's ilk is hard to find in the NHL, big deal that he has one year left on a contract, these players do not want to be traded just to pick a third city in free agency a year later and uproot their lives, any team he may get traded too would be keen on keeping him long term. To say Skinner's goal production can be easily replaced is also a bit of a stretch.
 
And, unless the return for him makes us better than his contributions, wouldn't we rather ADD to his goal production rather than just replace it?
 
You can knock Skinner's game in a couple different areas but one place you can't is in scoring goals. Feel free to sort this any number of years you want (change URL), but Skinner is always in the top 20 or so since he has been in the league. Over the last 3 years, he is tied for #12 in the NHL in goals scored. He has value, and the Canes will not get equal return due to the circumstances. It is in the Canes best interest to repair the relationship with Skinner.

https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/last-3-nhl-seasons-players-stats.html
 
CarolinaPen said:
You can knock Skinner's game in a couple different areas but one place you can't is in scoring goals. Feel free to sort this any number of years you want (change URL), but Skinner is always in the top 20 or so since he has been in the league. Over the last 3 years, he is tied for #12 in the NHL in goals scored. He has value, and the Canes will not get equal return due to the circumstances. It is in the Canes best interest to repair the relationship with Skinner.

https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/last-3-nhl-seasons-players-stats.html
Click to expand...


What that list also shows is that in the last 3 seasons, Faulk is absolutely dead last in +/- in the entire league.
 
If then Canes wanted, they could very well be looking to negotiate a new contract, but there’s been no indication that’s going to happen.
 
Dreger retweeted something from Aaron Ward a little while ago indicating that Canes assistant GM Ricky Olcyzk is leaving the org and likely heading to Toronto.
 
cmaleski2 said:
Dreger retweeted something from Aaron Ward a little while ago indicating that Canes assistant GM Ricky Olcyzk is leaving the org and likely heading to Toronto.
Click to expand...

Not surprising. Krepelka pretty much took over Olcyzk’s responsibilities.
 
Yeah ... they hired over Olcyzk a while ago. Fairly certain he was given one of those "go find another job" do-to lists once our front office staff was finally set.
 
After the big trade and the de Haan signing, there is no doubt about Dundon and crew's effort to put a winner on the ice immediately. You can see why GMRF was fired by Dundon if Francis was still trying to sell slow and steady. The defense is poised to be substantially better than it was last year. That's great, mission accomplished there.

Now the question becomes the offense from the forward position and the goaltending. While there are some pundits already suggesting that the Canes might be better off retaining Faulk, the forward mix is still a mess, especially down the middle. I don't see how we keep Faulk when he is likely the most effective trade piece we have to try to get ourselves a legit NHL center. Then of course there is the question on SKinner and what ends up happening there. The forward mix definitely still needs work and changes are almost certainly coming still. Even after those changes happen, if you think about our projected lineups, we are going to be relying Necas, Svechnikov and Zykov to deliver on their promise as point producers....immediately. Sure we added Ferland, and he scored 20 goals last season, but he likely going to end up no better than a wash from what Lindholm would have put up in terms of goals. Martinook? Yeah, he will throw some body checks. Nothing else has been done to improve our goal scoring from the forward position other than letting Stempniak and Ryan walk and, at least for now, replacing them with Zykov, Necas and Svechnikov. If those 3 kids all deliver their upside immediately? Well then, maybe we can score enough goals to win. Obviously there is a lot of risk there. This is why I'm worried about trading Skinner. If you don't replace his goal scoring immediately as part of trading him (or as part of a combination of trades including Faulk), you are effectively putting our success on the backs of 3 rookies and their ability to produce a lot of offense. Even if you keep SKinner that risk is still there.

Yes, it will be very very exciting to have 3 talented, potentially high scoring rookies in the starting lineup. But man, that is a pretty nerve-wracking way to try to win this coming season.

And of course, its a bummer there are no magic solutions to completely fixing the goaltending. It will be a shame if the Canes do all of this work improving the D, complete another deal or 2 to shore up the forward mix, and then still end up behind the 8 ball because of league worst goaltending. The thing about that though....I don't think Dundon and crew are going to waste any time at all pulling the plug on Darling or Mrazek if they prove incapable. I'm assuming they have a plan for the #3, be it taking a chance on Neds, or trading or signing someone else to be backup for Charlotte. I'm pretty confident we won't have to scream about not waiving and sending one of these goalies to the minors if they suck.
 
Yeah ... I still think a decent center balances things out nicely up front. That would free Aho from the physical demands of playing center and take some the risk out of starting the campaign with Necas centering a line. I understand the concern about trading Skinner, but again ... dangle Skinner and Faulk for a competent 2 way center with decent size and see what happens. Fixing the D and going into yet another season weak up the middle is a recipe for something very similar to what we've gotten the last two seasons.

And no. Derek Ryan was NOT that center. Just to make that plain.
 
SlapShots said:
And neither was Rask- can we expect to see Victor be more of a presence?
Click to expand...

My own expectations for Victor are low to non-existent but it sure would be nice if that guy could find his game and an acceptable level of give-a-crap again.
 
I agree that the changes up front don't point to a lot of extra goal production outside of what the rookies can do, however the improvement on the forward mix alone should lead to better goal production across the board - along with the additions/improvements on D. That said, we still need a center - or at least I'd be happier with a center.

What about the idea of dangling Faulk and or Skinner and maybe Mrazak for a goalie? Or a goalie and a Center? Or add a guy like Bean into that mix unless you think he's a diamond in the rough still...

I know, I'm dreaming - but fixing Center and Goalie at this point would seem to put us in position to not only make the playoffs but to maybe be in position to do well in the playoffs.
 
cmon3 said:
I agree that the changes up front don't point to a lot of extra goal production outside of what the rookies can do, however the improvement on the forward mix alone should lead to better goal production across the board - along with the additions/improvements on D. That said, we still need a center - or at least I'd be happier with a center.

What about the idea of dangling Faulk and or Skinner and maybe Mrazak for a goalie? Or a goalie and a Center? Or add a guy like Bean into that mix unless you think he's a diamond in the rough still...

I know, I'm dreaming - but fixing Center and Goalie at this point would seem to put us in position to not only make the playoffs but to maybe be in position to do well in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

There are two teams out there that have starters in goal that may be pushed to a backup role...Varlamov in Colorado and Schneider in New Jersey. Grubauer and Kinkaid both could be handed the starter jobs next year...would the Canes be better off with Varlamov or Schneider and move a tradeable asset out along with Mrazek?
 
The problem is that very few teams with a legit really really good #1 goalie have any intention of trading said #1 goalie, unless they have another #1. I don't see many real trade options out there. I'm sure if you make an overwhelming offer anything is possible, but do we really want to burn a huge amount of assets for a #1 goalie?

--edit in reaction to post right above mind---

We hopefully want nothing to do with injury prone (and possibly woman beater) Varlamov. I wouldn't want to take a chance on Schneider unless the Devils are eating a lot of his contract (they are not about to go helping us though, so that is probably not an option).
 
Last edited:
cmaleski2 said:
The problem is that very few teams with a legit really really good #1 goalie have any intention of trading said #1 goalie, unless they have another #1. I don't see many real trade options out there. I'm sure if you make an overwhelming offer anything is possible, but do we really want to burn a huge amount of assets for a #1 goalie?

--edit in reaction to post right above mind---

We hopefully want nothing to do with injury prone (and possibly woman beater) Varlamov. I wouldn't want to take a chance on Schneider unless the Devils are eating a lot of his contract (they are not about to go helping us though, so that is probably not an option).
Click to expand...

#1 goalies tend to stay put ... Lundquist, Crawford, Rinne, Rask, Price. To get one, you generally have to grow one at home or trade for a prospect or backup that is having trouble breaking through. Having a good one is a necessity. Having two good ones is never a problem. This should the Canes #1 personnel priority now until it’s solved, and it may take a few seasons to get it solved. We need a Plan A, B, C, D etc. and need to be thinking both short and long term because failure on this front is not an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Right now, Ned is our easiest path to a real No. 1 keeper. We need to be VERY careful with his development
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top