If you missed it yesterday, I started into building the 2017-18 Carolina Hurricanes roster in earnest. Part 1 identified three needs (one already addressed with the addition of Scott Darling in net) plus a fourth that was option/less urgent.
Part 2 and to some degree part 3 will focus on sticking to the needs and priorities and avoiding the shiny stuff.
Large pool of NHL players available
What does that mean? The expansion draft will make an additional 20-40 players potentially available. The salary cap will continue to press down on some teams and force them to make players available to make the math work. And there is also the usual round of free agency. Because of this unique combination of factors, the summer of 2017 probably has the greatest volume of players at least potentially on the market than any year since the the summer of 2005. That was the season following the full-season labor stoppage that saw two years of free agents hit the market plus the initial implementation of the salary cap that forced teams to do deals.
With the volume of players available from free agency, pre or post-expansion draft options and salary cap casualties, one could literally go team by team and make short lists of players who have some value and could theoretically make the Hurricanes better in 2017-18. But per my article yesterday, going player by player and saying “What about this guy? Is he good?” misses the stage that the Hurricanes are at. The team is deeper in terms NHL-level players and also prospects who could be ready fairly soon.
Identifying and adding need-targeted difference-makers
The project for the summer of 2017 is not for General Manager Ron Francis to just opportunistically add a couple of any variety of middle of the roster players regardless of skill set or cost. Rather, the project for Francis is to strategically identify and add a couple difference-makers who address specific weaknesses and needs.
In adding Scott Darling, Francis did exactly that. He added a player from at or near the top of the list of options available to improve the Hurricanes’ goaltending which was near the bottom of the league last season as it has been for other recent seasons.
The next step is to add a player who can make a difference offensively. This is not a good checking line center. This is not a speedy, forechecking wing with ‘meh’ hands and finishing ability. And it is not a lot of other things that include good players. The need is fairly specific, and if one focuses on the need instead of all varieties of shiny stuff on the overstocked shelves this summer, the sorting process becomes easier and the targets clearer.
The blue line is a little bit trickier and the area where I will be curious to see where Francis’ head (and possibly budget) is. I am on record as thinking the team needs to step above the pretty well stocked and fairly inexpensive tier for 5/6 type defensemen and instead needs to shop one shelf higher in more of the 4/5 range. There are not enough pure top 4 defensemen to go around, but if Francis does decide to go this direction, there are a couple options. First, the expansion draft and teams generally only being able to protect three defensemen could make a handful of very good defensemen available for a reasonable trade price before the expansion draft. (Prices go right back up to market value once the expansion draft is over.) Alternatively, Francis and his scouting staff could try to find a borderline 4/5 who maybe costs a bit less coming off of a down season but is due to rebound and fits well in the Hurricanes system and with potential partners.
Regardless, over the next 3-4 weeks, something like 100 names of potentially helpful NHL players will be thrown out in the “What about ___?” conversations, but if one starts from matching players to needs, I think the list quickly falls by 75-80 percent.
Types of players who do not fit the primary need
At forward, I see two types of players who do not particularly fit the Hurricanes’ needs. First is pure sniper type wings who really need a playmaking center to be effective. My starting assumption is that the Hurricanes will only have budget, trade assets and wherewithal to add one top-end forward. As such, I am not a fan of adding a pure sniper. I just do not like the idea of taking a player who posts 55ish points playing with a playmaking center who generates bunches of scoring chances and then dropping into the Hurricanes lineup next to maybe Jordan Staal or Victor Rask. It is not inconceivable that the player has a decent season but still drops from 55-60 points to 40-42 simply because of getting fewer chances. Instead, I want the kind of player who generates offense in bunches both for himself and for his line mates. The goal is to add a 55-point player who does not need a ton of help to achieve that and equally significantly can boost two line mates.
At a basic level, I like players like Matt Duchene and Nathan MacKinnon who are do-it-all offensive centers, and I am much less fond of a player like T.J. Oshie who put up 56 points regularly logging ice time with Backstrom and Kuznetsov at even strength and on special teams.
I also am not high on good depth scoring level centers whose strength is two-way play. The Hurricanes have exactly that in an elite version in Jordan Staal and a pretty good version in Victor Rask. Martin Hanzal and Nick Bonino come to mind as players who will be available this summer who will command a medium-high salary and who are good players but just do not fit what the Hurricanes need.
The Hurricanes need one player who can be a second scoring line likely to go opposite a line led by Skinner and to somewhat offset the fact that Jordan’s Staal’s line will likely be scoring-lite even if it is excelling at its primary job of eating up the hard minutes against the other teams’ best.
So show me a great two-way, defense-leaning centerman whose ceiling even if things go well is something like 45 points, and my inclination is to quickly admire his positive traits and and then equally quickly say no thank you. Show me a sniper type wing who lacks the ability to create his own offense but complements a great playmaking center, and I will similarly pass. And show me any forward, even if a good player, who does not at least have the potential to be a leader not just a complementary player on a newly-built scoring line likely with Sebastian Aho, and I immediately start looking to see if there are better options available.
On defense, my assessment starts with asking whatever contacts I have from the player’s 2016-17 team to see if they think the player is capable of playing in a top 4 role. If the answer is no, he quickly gets bumped down into the “depth defenseman” role that is a different need and price range.
But then there is the potential effect of market realities…
As much as I think Francis needs to stay focused and be willing to spend to improve the team, there are limits, and there is a point at which I step down a little bit in terms of how much I get and how much it costs.
A short list of players who easily fit the need who might be/could be/allegedly are available includes Matt Duchene, Nathan MacKinnon, Alex Galchenyuk and even a few more. But as I said in Part 1, if the cost is a young roster NHL top 4 defenseman, a first round pick and more, the tier below these players starts to look more interesting.
Is Ryan Nugent-Hopkins as intriguing as the players listed? No. But if the cost is a second round pick and lesser prospect because Edmonton knows they need to cut salary before next summer, then he becomes more interesting. Jordan Eberle is an even bigger compromise because he is not even a center, but again, at some price differential, he comes into play.
I think the key is that while not being as pure of a scoring catalyst as the other players noted, but the range of 60-65 points is at least within the realm of possibilities, and they do have the skill set such that with the right chemistry, they could be part of a first/second scoring line. If the market forces it, Francis might need to compromise a small amount on the level of play or possibly on contract/financials, but that is significantly different that just adding a good player who just does not even if things go well fit the team’s needs.
Depth is different and more flexible
In addition to trying to make the one or two remaining additions that are at the top of the needs/priority list, there is the possibility that Francis makes another move to add some depth. Think Viktor Stalberg and his $1.5 million contract for 2016-17. That is a different thing altogether. In the sub $1.5 million price range, Francis can be a bit more opportunistic and simply look for the best available player. He might want to add another penalty killer to the mix, but in general, such an addition could aim more at adding the best player he can for the price.
Other articles relevant to building the 2017-18 Carolina Hurricanes roster
Finally, if you were away in May, here are a couple more articles relevant to building the 2017-18 opening day roster. I looked specifically at 2017-18 salary math and then followed up with look at longer-term Hurricanes’ salary math. There will certainly be more as we get closer, but I already offered a few thoughts on the expansion draft. I also took a took a look at the Hurricanes’ free agents, some of whom could return and help fill out the roster.
What say you Caniacs?
The Thursday Coffee Shop will take on a similar theme, but here are a few questions for those who want to bandy stuff around here and/or before the Coffee Shop opens on Thursday.
Do you think I am wrong to write off good scorers like T.J. Oshie and others simply because of skill set?
What is the maximum you would pay to shop in the top tier of potentially available true scoring C1 or C2s versus stepping down a level possibly to avoid giving up a young roster defenseman?
Do you think Francis will be able to find and afford more of a 4/5 defenseman, or do you think he will have to settle for more of a 5/6/7? Do you think the team even needs a 4/5?
IT’S JUNE! IT’S TIME TO START BUILDING A 2017-18 PLAYOFF TEAM!
Go Canes!
1/ We’ve already filled the biggest need so even if nothing else major happens, I’m happy with our movement. (I believe something else major will happen, I’m just not sure what it’ll be.)
2/ Everyone expects there to be more than the usual amount of activity this summer because of LV, and I generally think there could be, but there is still going to be a clearing-price for all trades, and just because there is more liquidity doesn’t mean there is more value. That’s a fancy way of saying that the price for elite-difference-making forwards described above may still be too high. It’s still a very limited number of players and we aren’t the only buyer. If the price is too high, I’m perfectly happy filling another high-priority instead this offseason, i.e., the 2nd top-9 forward we all want.
3/ If we can’t/don’t get the elite Forward, it gives Aho and Lindholm another year to grow into the 1C role, which I believe they will eventually grow into. It’s a long-term game, and we are still a very young team. Incrementally adding talent is still the best option for sustaining a contender.
4/ I don’t discount the TJ Oshie-type player as much as you do, Matt. We need more grit and net-front on this team and Duchene/RNH, etc. doesn’t fill that need. The SCF’s is a Man’s game; we may have the skill, but we’re still lacking the muscle. We’re eventually going to need both. So if we can’t upgrade the skill this year, I’ll take the muscle now instead.
5/ I’m very mixed on trading a Top-4 d-man for skill. As much as I want to keep our young core together, I’m looking at the last four teams in this year’s playoffs: ANA, OTT, NAS, and PIT. The team with the most skill and the weakest backend is 2 games away from the Cup. ANA and OTT are watching it on TV. NAS, maybe the team with the best backend, is in real trouble and they obviously miss Ryan Johansen. Maybe that skill is worth more. If we can backfill with a serviceable 4/5 defenseman and our defense is no worse next year than this year, at least our goaltending should be better as an offset.
All that said: I’d reluctantly include a Top-4 D-man in a trade for the right elite Center (along with a package of picks, including a 1). If we can’t get it done, I’d add the next best Top-9 scoring option and use the savings to spend on a 4/5 defenseman.
Or, maybe we should just make a run at John Tavares and call it a day. He’d solve a lot problems are the way around 🙂
Tavares would be a great pickup in the right deal.
He’s an UFA
According to CapFriendly Tavares is UFA after 17-18.
1. I think you are right to concentrate on getting players with skill sets that specifically meets the Canes needs now. Most all contributors to this site have agreed to a number 1 goalie (accomplished), a top line scoring center (some don’t care if it is a wing), an experienced defenseman capable of stepping in and playing some top 4 minutes, and maybe some 3rd or 4th line depth scoring as being our needs. In considering players to fill these needs what are the other criteria? Most often mentioned by the experts (?) on this site are age of the player, length of contract required, and dollar commitment required. So, to answer your question, we need to concentrate on looking at players that have the skill sets we need and then see if they fit with our secondary criteria. I would tell management that I really don’t care to hear the emphasis you, Matt, place on cost. IMO we are past that with this team as far as Canes fans are concerned. Cost is irrelevant by itself. Cost is just one element in our established criterias. It should not nix a signing by itself unless it falls significantly outside our established criteria. What matters is sticking to all our criterias in regards to the skill sets (number 1 consideration) and our criterias for the other player related attributes (contract, age, etc.).
Establishing the criterias for players is the easy part. When you look at individual players to see if they meet our criterias, this is the difficult part. You mention Oshie. Does her meet our criteria. Let’s take scoring. On the surface he does appear to be an offensive force when you look at his goals scored. But an experienced hockey player evaluator might look at his over 20% shooting percentage and consider the linemates he played with and say his number of goals is unsustainable. If this is the case, he doesn’t meet our criteria of an outstanding scoring forward going forward in his career.
2. As far as I am concerned, you can forget shipping off one of our top four young defensemen for any C1 or C2 unless maybe it is Crosby or Malkin. What is the sense in weakening a strong area to maybe fix some other need? IMO it doesn’t make sense. We’ve got a ton of young centers in our system. If we can’t get a scoring C1 or C2, then our fallback IMO is our system.
3. AFFORD a 4 or 5 defenseman? If we need one there is the money there to go after a viable candidate. You bring up the question of whether we can AFFORD and I am saying this franchise has to at some point get wise to putting a competitive team on the ice. We are at the stage where being competitive as a team out weighs saving a million or two on a player if we need that player to be more competitive. We don’t want to go hog wild throwing money and terms around, but we also don’t want to CONTINUE to penny pinch so we can limit the payroll. In the case of needing another 4/5 defenseman, IMO we don’t need to stress that. I’m willing to go with our young talent coming out of the system. Others on this site disagree with me on this and I will state if we can secure a Quincy, St John, Hunwick, etc. type for a few bucks, then fine. I limit doing this to a few bucks because it is not a top priority. If I’m going to throw a couple a million dollars around, I’m going to first do it to get our top priority which is a bonafide scoring top three forward. I don’t want to fall into the trap where I’ve blown all my money on secondary needs(?) and then can’t accomplish a primary need because I don’t have the money.
The sense “in weakening a strong area to maybe fix some other need” is that you want a balanced lineup with the neccessary level of talent at every position, not just a ton of talent at one position.
To use an extreme, hypothetical example, let’s say you have a hockey team with a top-4 d-corps of Zdeno Chara, Drew Doughty, Duncan Keith, and a healthy Kris Letang (lucky you!). But the best forward on your team is Riley Nash. Sure, you have a few forward prospects that may turn into good players, but they’re at least a few years away and you’d really, really like to win now. What do you do?
You set up a hypothetical which bears no relationship to the Canes current situation. Your hypothetical only is relevant if we were dealing with a totally inadequate group of scorers. You also summarily dismiss all our forward prospects as being “at least a few years away'” I don’t accept that premise as it really means we don’t have any forward prospects if the are a few years away. My view regarding the forward prospects was in the event we couldn’t obtain a bonafide top line scorer without depleting our top four defensemen or mortgaging the franchise, then we may have to fall back on the hope that amongst Roy, Zykov, Wallmark, etc. we will gain some scoring. Other teams have fallen back on their prospects. Look at Pittsburgh. How much did you hear about Sheary or Guentzel before they were brought up. They were given the opportunity to play and now look at Pittsburgh’s nice young nucleus of forwards. No trades or ridiculous contracts involved. ironman, we just differ on what each of us would give up to get another top end scorer. Whichever way RF goes on this, I’m not going to be disappointed or upset. If he determines that we are better off without one of our top four defensemen to obtain a top line scoring forward, then who am I to say he is wrong. Whatever it takes to win, I’m in.
There was a caveat that the hypothetical was extreme so it was not meant to resemble the real-life situation of any team. (I know of no team that has Chara, Doughty, Keith, and Letang or their equivalent as a top-4.) The hypothetical was meant to prove a point. You said “What is the sense in weakening a strong area to maybe fix some other need? IMO it doesn’t make sense.” I saw in that remark a teachable moment, so I put forth the extreme hypothetical to get you to see that there is sense in weakening a strong area to fix a weakness in another area.
Now if you would please be so good as to answer the question: Given a ridiculously talented d-corps and a ridiculously talent-deficient forward corps, what makes more sense to you if you want your team to make the playoffs? Stand pat or trade one talented defenseman for a talented forward?
Per your request, again I cannot accept your premise above that “Given a ridiculously talented d-corps and a ridiculously talent-deficient forward corps…” exists with the Canes. The Canes defense corps is young and HOPEFULLY still developing. It is not ridiculously talented IMO. It does not approach the d-corps of other teams in the league like Nashville, Minnesota, Anaheim, etc. It’s was real good LAST SEASON. Will it continue to develop? I and YOU don’t know and if it doesn’t we will be confronted with another deficiency. I think it will continue to develop to be an awful good group and don’t want to disturb that development. As far as your ridiculously talent-deficient forward corps is concerned, I just don’t think we are that bad. Again, I point out that you are using extreme examples that are not relevant to the status of the Canes IMO (in my opinion). Now, if you have a different opinion, fine. I just don’t agree with you and you have done nothing to change my opinion by using senseless, again in my opinion, examples to try to change my opinion. As I have stated previously, I can be wrong and if we do trade one of our ridiculously talented defensemen I hope it is for a ridiculously talented forward and you and I will both celebrate a good result.
I agree with most every thing RedRyder said, and still feel we’re being short-sighted about settling for an inadequate BU goalie…
money should not be the primary concern here.
First of all (apologies to Matt), I’m one of those guys who doesn’t see a screaming need for a #1C as much as I see the need for a consistent 55 point scorer to be added. There will be some guys who hover at the level or just below. I’d be much more inclined to lean toward adding 90 more points (which should translate into 30-35 more goals), but the addition needs to be net. By net I mean, I’m assuming we’ll lose Stempniak to Vegas.
If I’m proven correct then we could add a Top 6 winger and a Top 9 center (probably to man the 3rd line) and we should be fine. Give me a Landeskog, a Niederreiter, a Coyle, or a Palat (these would all assume a significant trade) and let it play out from there. Right now, if you assume that Teravainen gets a new contract we essentially have 4 lines with 2 players pencilled in. Skinner/Rask on one line, Aho/Lindholm on another, Staal/Teravainen on the 3rd line, and Nordstrom/McGinn or DiGiuseppe on the 4th line. Now you can flip those pairings around any way that you like (for instance, I really like the Aho/Staal/Lindholm line that showed up at the end of the season). The key point is that we need 4 more players (or 3 if you think both McGinn and PDG make the starting 12). I’d argue that we need a Top 6 wing (could be either LW or RW) and 2 productive 3rd liners, one of which may be a Checker or one of the guys graduating from juniors. Most of us assume the Wallmark gets the 4C role. To me that means that we need at least two forwards not currently in our system.
To get the Top 6 scoring forward, we almost certainly will have to give up our 2017 1st round pick plus either Hanifin or Fleury (maybe you could make an argument to substitute Gauthier or Saarela, but I doubt it). You might even have to add another asset. But in my mind, that’s what it will take. If that’s too much for you, then be prepared to sit out another year of playoff hockey. It’s not guaranteed, but it will be likely.
Anybody who says we need to spend money now and not worry about the future is being short-sighted at best and foolish at worst. We have 4 guys (Slavin, Lindholm, Pesce, Hanifin) that we don’t want to lose who will need contracts next season. Then Skinner and Aho will have to get paid, followed by Faulk over the subsequent two seasons. Assuming that Teravainen gets market value, we’ll realistically be able to add about $8 million to $9 million in forwards salaries (also assuming some rookies and low end depth guys are signed as well). If we sign a forward for $6 million and another forward for around $3 million, we’re going to be very close to a cap team by the 2019 season (and that assumes a slight rise in the cap).
The upshot is that we NEED to have a rookie or two step up. We’ll HAVE to mix in depth guys from our farm system. Otherwise say goodbye to Jeff Skinner and Justin Faulk, at a minimum. Ron Francis is doing the best he can with what was given to him. He’ll have to do even better as the years roll by.
While you have suggested a different approach to our needs than what I have expressed, you make excellent arguments for your ideas. You have sure done a pretty thorough job looking at the big picture and not just what happens next year. Very good writeup IMO.
I forgot to add, your last paragraph is right on point.
(RedRyder, I wasn’t able to reply to your last reply in your previous thread, so I’ll ask you here) I think you’re fighting the hypothetical a bit by insisting on applying the example to the Canes. By doing so, you’re missing the point of the exercise. So let’s simplify things.
Given a team (Team RedRyder) that has a ridiculously talented d-corps but a ridiculously talent-deficient forward corps, what makes more sense to you if you want Team RedRyder to make the playoffs? Stand pat or trade one of Team RedRyder’s talented defenseman for a talented forward on another team?
Again, I implore you to just answer the question and it will all make sense to you.
iron man, if the Canes were in the situation you have outlined, assuming your situation reflects that we missed the playoffs with your described situation, rather than stand pat for the next season I would make a move from my “ridiculously” abundant assets (defensemen) to bolster my area of “ridiculous” weakness (forwards). There is no disagreement with you on that point. Our difference is I don’t think the Canes are in that situation regarding either the defensemen or forwards. Your position is we are. Hey, we disagree. Am I right? Are you right? I’ll tell you this. No one has come beating down my door for hockey advice and some of my ideas even are subject to derisive laughter from my family and friends. So, you may have a leg up on me iron man. If RF follows your plan, I won’t be broken up because I do have more confidence in RF’s hockey acumen versus mine. Keep writing as your ideas are important to having a dialog. One last thought about your plan. Which d-man or men would you be willing to give up to get that ridiculously great forward? I could go with Pesce OR Hanifin if I had to.
From the start, I’ve zeroed in on your remark (“What is the sense in weakening a strong area to maybe fix some other need? IMO it doesn’t make sense.”) and have not really focused on anything else. As I said before, I saw that as a teachable moment and wanted you to see that there are indeed instances where it would be sensible to weaken one area of a team to fix another need. As you’ve finally answered my question and said that you would make a move, you have arrived at the correct conclusion and I commend you for it. The applicability to the Canes is irrelevant. The same principle would apply to a beer league team if trades were allowed.
You call me “iron man,” but here I’m more like the Mandarin. Ready for another lesson? 😉
No need to apologize for disagreeing with me. For most things, there is more than one valid/good opinion, and the whole point of having a comment section is for people to (respectfully always) bandy around different viewpoints.
I think Dmiller is the voice of reason. I agree with almost everything he said–especially the point that this has already been a successful offseason with the addition of Darling.
Also, NotOpie and RedRyder are correct that Carolina should expect some addition from the prospects. I think Wallmark and Foegele are good bets on the 4th line (definitely improvements from McClement and Nestrasil). Either Saarela or Zykov might add scoring.
So the need is one 25-goal scorer. It doesn’t need to be a center–I truly believe that is a one-year problem as Aho will be a 1C soon and Roy should be 2 or 3C. Seriously, if Wallmark and/or Saarela surprise, then by 2019-20 center will be an afterthought.
The question is where does the 25-goal scorer come from. I am ok with a veteran who is on the downside but still productive as that would be a bridge to the upcoming talent: Gauthier, Kuokkanen, and possibly the 1st rounder this year. Someone like Williams on a 2-year deal works.
All that said, I am of two minds about trading Hanifin specifically. I think Faulk, Pesce, and Slavin are off limits. If management thinks Bean will offer 95% of the same skill set in another year (two tops), then I think considering Hanifin for a straight trade for someone like Ehlers or Barkov should be considered. If the Canes’ brain trust thinks Hanifin is significantly better than Bean, then no trade involving a D-man is the correct position.
Because the one point I disagree with Dmiller about is what the playoffs reveal this year. Pittsburgh is two games away, but they were even with Ottawa for 7 games and 2 OTs. So having a team built from the blueline was actually vindicated this year. Seriously, the Canes have no chance of replicating Crosby/Malkin and then adding Kessel. And Washington with firepower equal to Pittsburgh and the best goalie in the game can’t get past the second round. So while Pittsburgh might show that top-end scorers win in May, the Capitals seem to prove even with a top goalie offensive fireworks are not always enough.
Better to look to Nashville, Anaheim, and Ottawa with superior top D. Carolina is already close and may be right there if Hanifin makes progress and becomes a PP quarterback.
Great discussion–actually glad I am not the GM.
It’s very reasonable to draw the conclusion from the playoffs you did. Like I said, I’m torn on the D-man question.