With a nice jolt of excitement and optimism thrown in with the Scott Darling trade and signing, one of the slowest months of the offseason for non-playoff teams like the Canes is actually moving along fairly quickly. At Canes and Coffee, we are about one-third of the way through our ‘report card’ series that will grade every Hurricanes player who had a reasonable stint at the NHL level.
When writing and publishing these articles, I broke them into three general categories (with links for completed player report cards):
== The big three: Jeff Skinner, Jordan Staal and Sebastian Aho. (Their report cards will be next right after I finish the depth forwards.)
== The rest of the top 9: Victor Rask, Elias Lindholm, Teuvo Teravainen and Lee Stempniak.
== Depth/fourth-line forward pool: Brock McGinn, Phil Di Giuseppe, Joakim Nordstrom, Jay McClement, Derek Ryan, Patrick Brown, and Andrej Nestrasil (report coming Saturday).
If you go with my minority opinion that predicts that Francis will protect veteran Lee Stempniak in the expansion draft and instead expose and lose one of Brock McGinn or Phil Di Giuseppe, then the math goes like this.
The Hurricanes have seven top 9 forwards already in tow with hope and reasonable expectation that the team will add one more over the summer. That leaves one spot to be filled either internally or by a fairly inexpensive addition (think Viktor Stalberg and his $1.5 million contract or maybe at the extreme high end Lee Stempniak at $2.5 million from last summer).
With a good combination of older depth forwards, younger players now with NHL experience and the next wave of prospects descending on Raleigh this fall, I think it is within reason to build a capable forward roster with one big addition that adds proven scoring punch then either zero or just one depth players for cheap.
Today’s Coffee Shop hones in on building that depth part of Hurricanes’ forward ranks including filling what I consider to be the open #9 slot (not necessarily on the third line though, it is more about fit and skill set) and also building a solid fourth line mostly if not completely from what is already available.
So for a starting point, let’s assume that the first two categories (Skinner, Staal, Aho, Rask, Lindholm, Teravainen, Stempniak and one big addition fill 8 of the top 9 slots). Let’s also not guess who will be lost to the expansion draft and just use all of the players currently on the roster. With that, the polls and discussion questions focus on filling out the last slot in the top 9 and building a fourth line from the currently available options.
Don’t forget the discussion questions at the bottom of the page.
Carolina Hurricanes polls
Please remember to click ‘vote’ for each individual poll response.
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Discussion questions
1) What is your general approach to filling out the bottom 3-4 forward slots? Do you like an old fashioned tryout that awards slots (considering positions a bit) to the best players in preseason? Do you automatically allocate a slot or 2 to player development? Do you prefer a safe and sound fourth line that sees the kids developing by playing heavy in minutes in the AHL? Or…?
2) From each of three categories, who do you like best? (Category 1-Veterans; Category 2-Young players with some NHL experience; Category 3-Players with very little or zero NHL experience)
3) Do you have any other thoughts/comments related to the polls above?
Go Canes!
1) I have updated my opinion based on some quick (and not very extensive) review of AHL experience for other players/other teams. I was skeptical of AHL experience. But I admit I was biased and only considering the exceptions. It appears that playing between 40-100 games in the AHL is helpful for all but top-5 picks. So I think for all the Canes prospects heavy minutes in the AHL makes sense. Of course, Wallmark, and perhaps Zykov, are getting close to having spent enough time in Charlotte. I expect one or both of them to start in Raleigh. Also, you and Cory have convinced me that Foegele has something extra that would make him an ideal fourth liner next year. So my answer is that there should be pre-season competition, which I believe will lead to Wallmark and Foegele being on the team. I am not sure about “safe and sound” as my opinion is that the 4th line needs to have offensive potential and be able to play significant minutes. I see the future in Columbus and San Jose where all forwards played between 13-18 minutes per game.
2) 1-Nordstrom–veteran but still fairly young, showed that he has some offensive potential in 15-16, appears faster than the other vets, excels at PK. I would put Ryan a close second because he seems to be more consistent offensively. 2-McGinn. This is all “recency effect” due to the final game of the season. I try to admit my biases. 3-I pretty much only know what you and Cory write plus what is in box scores. Based on that Foegele. Roy is a close second because his numbers are the most impressive of the CHL group.
3) I think in terms of goals. For next season the Canes need to score 235 goals to be solid playoff contenders. Given the last half of this past year (specifically Aho, Lindholm, and Skinner) and the consensus that Rask, Lindholm, and Teravainen have upside to score more goals in 17-18 as does the entire D contingent, I think the team is close already. If I start from the point of Skinner/Aho again combining for 60+ goals, then the need is for 2 players to hit 20+ and 4 others to reach or exceed 15. That gets 165-170 from 8 forwards. If the other four can combine for 30-35 and the D for 35, the math works. If I am on the right track, then Carolina needs to find at least 2 players who can fit that 15+ goal role, or one who scores 20. That should be much easier and less costly/risky than focusing only on a 30-goal scorer or “top center.” In fact, two 15 goal scorers might come from both acquisition and development.
One other point, and maybe a topic for future discussion, given the team’s record of taking fewer penalties, how does/should that play into building a roster. I would be interested to see what the stat geeks say.
I come back to points I’ve made before (that everyone is probably sick of hearing from me):
1/ If hockey is a weak-link sport, then improving our depth is more important than adding to our top-end skill – and it’s also much more cost-effective. So I tend to agree with ctcaniac that we are much closer to having enough offense on our current roster than we realize, especially with the natural improvement we can expect in aggregate from our younger players, and would focus on added an offensively capable UTA (but not a top-6 scorer) to improve our overall scoring capability. Let BP figure out how to shuffle the lines accordingly.
2/ I’m not sure investing in an expensive Center is the best use of funds. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have a Duchene-type on the roster, but I’m not sure I’d be willing to pay the price in a trade, and I think it’s unlikely we win a bidding war for an UTA. (Having said that, the best argument against me here is that I’m not sure who plays Center on the top line unless we go find one; unless it’s Aho/Lindholm, which BP is against for now.)
3/ I’d like our 4th line to generate offense. I know that recently it’s been filled with defense-first players and penalty killers, but that may be more a function of our talent than BP’s real coaching interest. I would focus on Category 1/2 players to create a solid, responsible line with scoring punch. If a Cat-3 player earns his way on to the team, all the better.
Thanks dmiller for the reminder about strong/weak link sports. I commented on it several months ago–agreed that hockey seems to be weak link, then promptly forget the term and could not find it. So thanks for the reminder.
Curses dmiller. Today when you mentioned it I did an internet search and found an article about hockey weak link v. strong weak on Hockey Graphs and went down the rabbit hole. It is a hard core analytic site. This is the link for the strong-link weak-link article:
https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/14/strong-and-weak-links-talent-distribution-within-teams/
It is worth the effort–although it argues that hockey is definitely strong link. I tend to believe it. If for no other reason than one of the measures used in the Gini coefficient. My best friend was the senior economist at a public think tank and after the financial crisis he got me to go down the rabbit hole of economic theory. So I am impressed by using Gini to make a point about hockey.
In an event, my next month is probably going to be wasted on HockeyGraphs–so thanks!
Well, maybe I’m wrong about the weak-link idea. Including the goalie in the analysis may change things. Still, you can’t get away from results: other than the Kings, almost every Cup winner has at least one elite player.
I’m torn on this subject
That makes two of us.
LA might be the model for Carolina. when they won the Cups they had the near elite Carter, Williams and Kopitar, with a scoring D star in Doughty. Skinner, Aho, and Faulk could be our trio. They had strong supporting cast (Richards, Brown) the Canes will have (Staal, Lindholm,) If Darling can become some version of Quick, I would say it is a working formula.
Interesting stuff…I think part of it simply comes down to ice time with the best opportunity to score. There are only 6 slots on the power play (sometimes it can be 7 or maybe 8 if a forward plays the point but that just borrows from defenseman scoring) so at a basic level forwards slotted #7 or lower are at a disadvantage in terms of opportunity. And then when you factor in less ice time, at least somewhat lesser linemates and the simple fact that the 7th best player just isn’t as gifted, it pretty quickly becomes difficult to just add another 15 goal scorer.
Shorter version: It would be easy to create more 15 goal scorers if you could give them the same opportunity as the #3 forward, but you can’t.
That is also what makes a player like Viktor Stalberg more significant than a simple glance at the numbers would indicated. He had nothing for power play time, lesser linemates and fewer minutes and yet was on pace for 12 goals which is a bunch considering his situation in detail.
Matt. I see your point. But it might be as much a combination of talent and system. Columbus: 1 35-goal scorer, 2 25-goal scorers, 3 17/18-goal scorers, 5 11/13 goal scorers. Nashville: 2 31-goal scorers, 1 23-goal scorer, 3 15/18 goal scorers, 4 10/12 goal scorers.
Both teams had two D with double digit goals.
My point being, the all four lines should be assembled to be skill lines. Your assessment of Stalberg is spot on. And I would mention Jarnkrok again as someone who fits the mold. He averaged almost twice as much PK as PP time and still managed 15G 30 points. If Nashville can’t protect him, I see him as ideal addition based on contract.
ct and dmilleravid are just a little bit more conservative than I but their thoughts are sure will taken. I just believe a big scoring center would not only himself bring more scoring, he would open up the ice for our other existing forwards thereby further increasing their goal scoring. As ct and david point out, we don’t want to mortgage the franchise for this player and I agree with them on this. I’m looking for someone like Josh Anderson from Columbus who is a big body, has shown goal scoring ability, and who Columbus may have to give up or lose him for nothing in the Vegas draft.
I have long been resistant to the notion of a “Big Addition”. We have too many quality young forwards coming up (the Checkers should be an offensive powerhouse next season). Get a BA if the loss in assets is not significant and if contract has the right term (short) and dollars (moderate).
1. Unless you have an All-Star in the making, like Aho, I don’t think you do player development at the NHL level. I think that Wallmark and Zykov have shown themselves to be very close to NHL ready. Wallmark showed what he can do as a 4th line center during his callup. And I think Zykov should be a 3rd line winger – a big body who plays in the front of the net shouldn’t be relegated to the 4th line, unless you do a major shake-up in numbers (which I think Peters would like to see by his comments).
2. I expect our 12/13 forwards to be one of McGinn/PDG and someone with more veteran experience, with Nordstrom and Wallmark.
3. With all the talk of our great young D, I am really impressed with our forwards. Some of them are ready to claim positions with the Canes. I don’t know how much tension there will be with Peters on record wanting more experienced player who “can play” as opposed to younger players trying to make their move. But I really don’t think we are far from a deep team both offensively and defensively. And I think within a year or two a number of the young players currently on the roster will no longer be in the organization.
Nice writeup with a really different prospective.
There is the regular season and then there are the playoffs. History is not kind to teams who do not have at least one super center and in fact, since the lockout no team has won the Cup without a stud center. For the Penguins, they have two world class centers which is one of the main reasons they’re Cup contenders every season. With most games going to lock-down mode with the goal differential typically one, the skilled players are able to make the plays that the average, or good player simply cannot make. Regular season it is not as much of an advantage because more goals are generally scored and there is more room for error but when a game comes down to a single goal, the super talented are going to be the ones that more often will score that goal. I’m all for adding team depth and increasing the skill level up and down the lineup but at some point, the Canes will need to add, or develop, a star up the middle to get to the ultimate goal.
Hard to argue with that.
I agree with Miller.
Tenininumee – there is actually a much more interesting statistic than “since the lockout no team has won the Cup without a stud center”. I read it about a month about and I am really fuzzy on the exact details. But over about that same period of time – which, BTW, is when the cap went in (and that is significant in this discussion) – no team (but one) has won the Cup without a top “N” draft pick. Whether N is 1, 2, or 3 I don’t recall. But in the post-cap period, you have to draft a #1 (to 3?) pick to win the Cup – because teams don’t trade those players away. It is an interesting problem.
But I agree with you – we do need one more top 6/9 – but how big an A and at what cost.
Good points and they fall in line with my thinking.
Makes sense – seems to be that is how you typically acquire the elite players. Tough to do through trade/fee agency without giving up either your future high picks or other core players resulting in at least in the short term, further extending the re-building process. Sports seem to have trends and cycles. Maybe the next cycle is total team depth and systems that negate star power and that will rule for a decade or so. Sure is easier with a stud though.
It won’t surprise anyone here that I’m not in agreement with ANYTHING that looks like a replay of the last umpteen years…
Of course we need even more than we have capspace… That said, I’ll have a fit if our capspace isn’t reduced drastically… A top line C (if one can be obtained) …minimum 2nd line, is a must-have! Another top-6 forward needs to be added (unless magic appears from last year’s 3/4 lines or prospects)!
Our 3rd pairing D needs an upgrade, AND after Darling our bu-goalie situation is anyones guess…we’ll have to see…eh?