Skinner Traded to Slugs

The value was low because there was a very short list of teams to which Skinner would accept a trade and he was a rental (would you offer a player up for a rental?).

There was no "wait for the trade deadline" option because the hive-mind had decided he had to go well before the start of the season, beyond the usual considerations regarding "what about injuries?".

Besides, no need to incrementally maximize because see NTC/rental diminishment of value above.

You get what you can and you move onward.

As for whether or not Brindy influenced the trade, take a listen to Dundon's 11-minute interview from Friday:
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/hurricanes/audio/17745912/

For those short on patience, Skinner references are mostly around the 7-minute mark or so.

Basically, Dundon doesn't want anyone playing for the team that won't play the way they want players to play. And apparently Skinner was such a player.

But take a listen and decide for yourself.

Look ... there's "low value". and then there's a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder and a 3rd round level prospect who I suspect will have trouble making our AHL roster this year. Forget about anything else because it's irrelevant filler. In fact, the way we've drafted, that 3rd rounder is probably irrelevant filler too.

That's LOW value.

You guys can excuse that all you want, but I'm not even going to bother. The only positive is that we aren't paying them to take the guy off of our hands. Staal? Who cares? We played the deadline game with Eric and got what we could, because at the trade deadline that's the name of the game. That was fair market for Eric's value at that year's deadline, as I recall. We don't know what the heck the fair market might have been for Skinner. And don't bother with the "Skinner shot down a bunch of trades or limited the markets" because by all accounts, we run exactly one deal by him for approval. One. The one we took. That dog won't hunt.

I'm happy Jeff gets to move on, but nobody's said a single thing that convinces me we did anything other than dump the guy like some sort of problem child when he's been nothing of the sort. And yeah, I get Dundon is hot to get rid of people he doesn't believe in. But you know what? There's a way to do that in a reasoned, professional manner. This was NOT that. This was stupid and short sighted.

Eric was exactly the same situation. Everyone knew there was only one team to which he would accept a trade, and that was to play with his brother in New York.

One buyer, low price. Two seconds and a prospect (Saarela) who may or may not ever see the NHL playing for us.

Elsker said:

Eric was exactly the same situation. Everyone knew there was only one team to which he would accept a trade, and that was to play with his brother in New York.

One buyer, low price. Two seconds and a prospect (Saarela) who may or may not ever see the NHL playing for us.

Click to expand...

Weird ... since he ended up signing a free agent contract somewhere entirely different ... of his own free will. I love how "everybody knows" stuff always seems to end up being mostly nonsense.

And where was that? Close to home. And at one heck of a discount.

I'm just at a loss as to how anyone thought we were ever going to get anything "of value" for a rental player that would accept only a "small list of teams" as a destination, and had a bit of a negative narrative trailing behind him.

Plus, all these teams employ scouts. And they presumably know what they were seeing. The same thing we all saw.

You're just not going to get a roster player in return unless it's a similar "change of hassles" kind of a trade. Your own rental player in exchange ("here, take ours and we'll take yours") with a bit of a narrative trailing behind them.

Fine. Be happy with that trade. It won't matter all that much either way.

But I'm going to stay grumpy and unless somebody does some real reporting on the issue, I'm pretty much done talking about the Fairy Tales with Tom and Donnie nonsense. Those clowns have next to no credibility with me after this episode. I'm back to "show me, don't tell me" mode.

Elsker said:

And where was that? Close to home. And at one heck of a discount.

I'm just at a loss as to how anyone thought we were ever going to get anything "of value" for a rental player that would accept only a "small list of teams" as a destination, and had a bit of a negative narrative trailing behind him.

Plus, all these teams employ scouts. And they presumably know what they were seeing. The same thing we all saw.

You're just not going to get a roster player in return unless it's a similar "change of hassles" kind of a trade. Your own rental player in exchange ("here, take ours and we'll take yours") with a bit of a narrative trailing behind them.

Click to expand...

I just don't see if that way. I'm not sure where anyone gets anything like Skinner being a hassle, and I didn't see where he restricted it to a very short list. If they felt like he needed to go, then let's hear why they felt that way. It's not as a rental if you have a full year left - it's not as good as multiple years left, but for many teams that "rental" factor is a plus since they are only locked in for one season before they can re-evaluate. The worst you can say about Jeff is he didn't fit in our system with BP, but then again that seems to have been the case with a good number of guys.

For whatever reason, they felt like they HAD to pull the trigger now and take less than what I expect is market value for him to make it happen now. OR, if that's market value for him, then what factors make it so low because I was frankly shocked by it, and that we'd take it. He's more valuable on our roster for one year than what we got back - unless it's been decided we don't want him on the roster, and Dundon said specifically if we couldn't get what we felt like was fair value for him we were happy to keep him on the team. So ask the freaking questions Adam and Joe or whoever else.

I'm not happy with the Skinner trade. BUT, I certainly wouldn't be happy keeping players around that don't at all fit into what the Canes want to do here.

Look at it this way JB...Brind'Amour apparently is about to seriously kick asses when it comes to be responsible at both ends of the ice. After watching Skinner half ass backcheck for his entire career, I suspect the chances of Skinner not being benched by Brindy were not great. As was already suggested here by a few other folks, accountability and earning your ice time is going to be a bedrock to what we demand going forward. When those comments started coming out near the end of the season, I immediately stated that most of those comments were basically saying 'Skinner is a goner'.

No matter what slight spins we might have heard about entering camp with him, Skinner was never going to be given a chance to be called out by Brindy. Holding on to him wouldn't have guaranteed a better deal. I don't like the return we got, but getting rid of Skinner was basically a top priority. You don't have to agree with that or like the reasons ($6 million, minus 'a lot', streaky, doesn't play D) or the return. I'm merely suggesting that if Skinner really was deemed as a player that 100% could not fit with this team going forward, then trading him away had value in itself. Sitting there at camp with a guy you don't want, on the cusp of paying him $6 million in a walk year with him holding a full NMC? That would have been a really bad spot to be in.

I don't like the trade return. I would have rather we tried to see if Skinner could work with the new boss and mandate. But I definitely wouldn't have wanted him hanging around if we had deemed him a complete misfit for what we are building, which apparently Canes management decided he was.

Elsker said:

And where was that? Close to home. And at one heck of a discount.

I'm just at a loss as to how anyone thought we were ever going to get anything "of value" for a rental player that would accept only a "small list of teams" as a destination, and had a bit of a negative narrative trailing behind him.

Plus, all these teams employ scouts. And they presumably know what they were seeing. The same thing we all saw.

You're just not going to get a roster player in return unless it's a similar "change of hassles" kind of a trade. Your own rental player in exchange ("here, take ours and we'll take yours") with a bit of a narrative trailing behind them.

Click to expand...

I get where you may be coming from with your argument Elsker, but the shock and awe of the low return is not confined to just a bunch of Canes fans in here or even locally that support the team. Everything I have read on the trade everywhere has said the same thing, the return was abysmal and almost shocking around the league. The Hockey News had a great article today on discussing the return now for the Habs in a Pacioretty trade when you compare it to the Skinner trade. Pacioretty is four years older, better defensively than Skinner, but the production on offense is almost identical over the past 3 seasons between Patches and Skinner.

Speaking of defense, skinner led the league in take aways.

If Skinner's unfocused defensive liability got him traded prior to camp, why is Victor Rask not traded away as well, possibly for just a bag of pucks. I don't see how Rask fits the bill for playing the right way when he's about the laziest player on the roster. Does the guy even break a sweat?

cmaleski2 said:

I'm not happy with the Skinner trade. BUT, I certainly wouldn't be happy keeping players around that don't at all fit into what the Canes want to do here.

Look at it this way JB...Brind'Amour apparently is about to seriously kick asses when it comes to be responsible at both ends of the ice. After watching Skinner half ass backcheck for his entire career, I suspect the chances of Skinner not being benched by Brindy were not great. As was already suggested here by a few other folks, accountability and earning your ice time is going to be a bedrock to what we demand going forward. When those comments started coming out near the end of the season, I immediately stated that most of those comments were basically saying 'Skinner is a goner'.

No matter what slight spins we might have heard about entering camp with him, Skinner was never going to be given a chance to be called out by Brindy. Holding on to him wouldn't have guaranteed a better deal. I don't like the return we got, but getting rid of Skinner was basically a top priority. You don't have to agree with that or like the reasons ($6 million, minus 'a lot', streaky, doesn't play D) or the return. I'm merely suggesting that if Skinner really was deemed as a player that 100% could not fit with this team going forward, then trading him away had value in itself. Sitting there at camp with a guy you don't want, on the cusp of paying him $6 million in a walk year with him holding a full NMC? That would have been a really bad spot to be in.

I don't like the trade return. I would have rather we tried to see if Skinner could work with the new boss and mandate. But I definitely wouldn't have wanted him hanging around if we had deemed him a complete misfit for what we are building, which apparently Canes management decided he was.

Click to expand...

Yeah, look ... I get all this and I don't want a guy who doesn't want to be here hanging around the roster either. I just don't think they did their due diligence on all options in trading him and I think the team is selling me a crock of crap with their version of events. You had until camp opens. I know that's not forever, but it's not right now either.

That BS low ball offer that we took ... is anybody trying to tell me there was some sort of clock on that garbage? We could have accepted that deal the night before camp opened and I absolutely guarantee that Buffalo would have given us the same bag of next to nothing. Or we sneak it in on an otherwise slow weekend run up in early August. I smell something. And it's not pleasing.

Speaking of defense, skinner led the league in take aways.

Click to expand...

Because he was constantly trying to pick off the puck in the neutral zone and head the other way.

So, when he missed (which was more than he succeeded) there goes his man with Skinner nowhere in sight of him.

That's the exact behavior that got him excommunicated.

If Skinner's unfocused defensive liability got him traded prior to camp, why is Victor Rask not traded away as well, possibly for just a bag of pucks. I don't see how Rask fits the bill for playing the right way when he's about the laziest player on the roster. Does the guy even break a sweat?

Click to expand...

I don't expect that Victor Rask's lineup spot is anything close to assured. He's already looking at playing on the 4th line, if he is lucky.

The difference with Rask of course is that he has 4 years and $16 million left on his contract. To trade him would require us to trade another asset of probably pretty significant value or us eating a lot of money (or both). That said, if our management and coaching staff is to be taken seriously, if Rask plays the way he played last season then he will be lucky to see 20 NHL games and could end up buried in the minors while Wallmark or Roy plays in that 4th line spot.

I'm taking the Canes at their word about accountability and no one getting anything they don't earn. Rask is directly in those crosshairs and I expect would have been long gone if it wouldn't cost the Canes so much money or assets to get rid of him. He might not make the NHL team out of camp if you believe what the Canes are saying. We will see.

I'm going to add to Elsker's comment about about Skinner's take aways. Almost all of those were offensive zone takeaways or neutral zone takeaways. Connor McDavid led the league in takeaways...that is just a result of him getting at forwards or Dmen in their own zone and getting the puck away from them. That has value but is definitely more a result of playing offense than worrying about keeping tabs on your man when the situation requires it.

There is way too much tape of Skinner not busting it back on D only to watch his guy skating right down the slot and taking a pass there because Skinner is barely in the picture. Its not just Skinner of course, but if you are getting paid $6 million, are only scoring 25 goals, are going -20 something when you are extremely sheltered in terms of zone starts and apparently have been asked to pay more attention to your D but haven't, and are a pending UFA...you might be traded for less than what your perceived market value is apparently.

I guess I would ask this question. If Skinner this season goes for, say 30 Goals and -30 for the Sabres+whoever trades for him at the deadline....just how big a contract does everyone think he is going to get? I know there was a lot of 'well Evander Kane got 7 years $49 million' discussion....but Evander Kane does a heck of a lot more than just score some goals out there while being massively sheltered with his zone starts.

One more thing on this topic. Please don't take anything I'm posting as my approval of the Canes group of forwards. Again I think its pretty insane to rely so much on 3 rookies in your top 9. To not have a somewhat of an established NHLer who can score 20-30 goals to replace Skinner is nuts. But looks like that is the plan. That's a very risky plan.

people make bad decisions all the time, like this trade. There is not always a "secret,hidden reason" for a bad decision. And "good media" cannot always find out that "secret reason" Rutherford and Karmanos made loads of bad decisions . I'm sure Dundon will make more of them hopefully not too many.

We don't have Toronto on Montreal or New York media, we never had that and we never will. I'm amazed the N&O still exists but I guess they are barely alive. However you can actually help the N&O by subscribing, I do it for my GF. (she worked there a while back) Every day a really small paper arrives at my house for 8 bucks a month. You can't even wrap a fish in it, except maybe a goldfish.

Peters said the same thing about accountability, saying he had the hammer; playing time if players didn’t play his way. Brave talk that he largely didn’t back up. Brindy was there for all of it and I suspect that he’ll back up the talk with action.

I am surprised he did not bring more in the trade - I guess I don't know if that's a reflection of his value in the league at this point of his career and contract, or if it's more a reflection of poor sales/negotiation by the Canes management.

I suppose if you really wanted him gone (and there could be very solid reasons for that not the least of which is $6Million) then that has value there too, but I still think they could have gotten more for him.

I don't know that playing the kids is a risk - it's not a sure thing, but we have so many darned kids that we need to play them or trade them - so yeah there's a risk there but there's a risk if you don't play them too. I wish we had another veteran center capable of playing the second line.

Rask is an interesting area of conversation. With all the talk about Skinner and Hanifan and Lindholm and Faulk, the team has been pretty quiet on him. Based on his performance the last couple years, he doesn't seem like someone you can count on to play a key role, but he definitely has the ability to do it. If Brindy can get him to play up to his ability and show some urgency out there, that kind of solves our center problem - big if, but we at least know he's capable of filling that kind of role if we wants too.

If you could slot Rask into 1C or 2C, that makes things look a lot better in terms of the kids having to fill the center slots.

Paulie Walnuts said:

people make bad decisions all the time, like this trade. There is not always a "secret,hidden reason" for a bad decision. And "good media" cannot always find out that "secret reason" Rutherford and Karmanos made loads of bad decisions . I'm sure Dundon will make more of them hopefully not too many.

Click to expand...

Asserting that the Hurricanes have been less that forthcoming about the circumstances of this trade is NOT the same as saying there's some secret agenda that's being hidden from the unsuspecting masses. A fair amount of what the Canes have said about this trade frankly doesn't add up with other reports, things they said earlier, or the actual circumstances. It's not hidden ... the issue is right there in your face. And asking that the local media to ask a few probing questions every now and then is hardly akin to asking for Woodward and Bernstein to attack the offices at Edwards Mill Rd. with investigative vigor.

Good grief. I guess I'll just call it a bad trade and shut up then. God forbid anyone complain about such a thing.

Dundon is right about one thing he said last Friday....all of this us going to look really bad if the team sucks this coming season. I will give them points for not being paralyzed by fear and allowing that to lead to inaction. It's been a long while since this team made this amount of significant roster changes. Right or wrong, bad or good we won't totally know until they drop the puck for real.

I don't think we are ever going to get a full honest answer with all of the details as to why it became a priority to remove Skinner at all costs. They touched on his pending UFA status...certainly that is part of it. But I doubt anyone is going to officially come out and say Skinner's play was tabbed as a huge unfixable issue and the best way forward was to remove him as an issue before we even get to camp (while saving $6 million in the process) I suspect Tulsky's analytics HATED Skinner as a player.

Yeah, still looks like a bad trade, but the Canes REALLY wanted Skinner gone apparently. We are not going to get every truth as to why and our media isn't going to dig it out of anyone.