If you voted early and did not check in to see how things finished up, I think voting in last Thursday’s Coffee Shop post was interesting. Voting was nearly unanimous in terms of identifying a top priority, but Canes and Coffee readers were pretty split in terms of which young defensemen they would/would not give up to add an impact forward and also split in terms of which forwards they preferred.
With June here, but the expansion draft still nearly two weeks ago, we are officially in what I termed ‘the calm before the storm’ for yesterday’s Sunday Canes Chronicle. Deals are possible now, but I think the fireworks start in earnest in the window in between the end of the Stanley Cup Finals and the start of the roster/trade freeze prior to Las Vegas making its selections. (You can find expansion draft and all of the other key NHL dates in the calendar article from Saturday.)
Without a ton of new news in the quiet period leading up to the potential fireworks, today’s polls and discussion questions are a collection of hypothicals from recent poll responses, Coffee shop discussions and comments/debates on other articles.
Carolina Hurricanes polls
Please remember to click ‘vote’ after each individual poll response.
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Discussion questions
1) If you could do one deal (that is reasonable), what would it be? And if the other GM (or agent if it is a free agent) plays hardball, how much more would you boost your offer before walking away and looking elsewhere?
2) Just for fun, what day and time does Francis do his next deal (not counting predictable stuff like qualifying restricted free agents), and what is it?
Go Canes!
1) Picking one deal is next to impossible. Since it should be “reasonable,” I think getting a UFA would be my one option. That way the cost and length are controlled and none of the future is sent elsewhere. I would add Justin Williams for 2 years at $7M willing to go to $8M if pushed. I understand he is going to be 36 when the season starts, but he hasn’t missed games the past 3 seasons and has been good for 20G/45P. Right wing is almost as much a need as center.
2) Friday at 4–that seems to be his favorite time, it has worked twice with Darling. RF trades for Hossa by sending Lack, a 3rd and keeping $1.75M of Lack’s salary. Because he also likes the addition of youngsters, RF gets Chicago to throw in Fortin or Noel.
Just as an aside about not wanting to give up prospects unless necessary. As a Canes fan, I also follow the Checkers with some interest. It would great to see these lines:
Kuokkanen/Roy/Gauthier
Smallman/Lorentz/Zykov
Saarela, Wallmark, Foegele
Of course, I expect Wallmark and at least one other in Raleigh. In any event, the Checkers should light up the AHL.
I tend to stay out of the speculative/hypothetical discussions by nature.
But since I first heard of the notion of keeping Lack and sending down to the Checkers, the idea has definitely grown on me.
Yes, he would be an expensive AHL goaltender. What made the Checkers so good were two veteran goalies in Leighton and McCollum. Eddie was solid in his two starts there and I think he would provide excellent goaltending. Add his veteran leadership to what will be a very young team as another angle of good.
What does Eddie get out of it? – a change to be “the man” in net, re-find his game by playing regularly and show that he belongs – all while making an NHL salary. And he stands ready as a proven commodity if Ward or Darling goes down.
I certainly wouldn’t buy him out – and it would have to be a pretty good trade (something I don’t think is coming) to turn down the benefits of having Eddie in Charlotte. Frankly, I think he was never given the opportunity to play to his best in Carolina and I think this is a win-win-win for everyone.
The risk is we lose him for nothing when we send him down, but that is better than buying him out.
It will all depend on the nature of whatever deal RF can spin.
I’d try picking up Zetterberg, and one of Detroit’s goalies, for Ward, PDG, and pick(s) at HIGH-NOON (very HIGH) Saturday!
Add some CA$H from Detroit into that transaction…!
Gonna throw this out there… Feel free to chew it up and spit it back out.
In regards to Detroit- Would anyone consider taking on the last 3 years of Franzen. He is currently on LTIR and may never play again (ie Pronger, Savard). He is only getting $4M in cash (2M, 1M, and 1M). Package him along with one of their high end prospects/already developed young NHLer. And give up a mid round pick or multiple mid round picks??
I mean, we have had some bad luck recently with acquired players actually making an impact on the ice… We ended up paying $7M in cash to Wis for 47 seconds of ice time, and then last season with Bicks MS diagnosis.
I’m thinking along the lines that Det needs to shed cap space and may want to rebuild it… so we can pick up the bad contract for a guy who will most likely never play on ice ever again, and pry away a top prospect or higher end young skilled forward for a draft pick(s)… am I crazy??
I like ct’s pickup of Justin Williams at the right dollars and term. No assets other than dollars and term used. Nice and clean. I would say the same for Zetterberg from Detroit mentioned by puckgod who might be a tad cheaper on the dollars and term side, but might require a couple of draft picks or a pick and a prospect. One player I really would like to obtain is MacKinnon from Colorado. I would start by offering Fleury, Murphy, our number 1 pick and McGinn (or DiGuisepe). If that was a no go by Colorado, then I would have to LOOK AT replacing Fleury with Hanifin to sweeten the pot (take that smirk off your face ironcaniac, I said LOOK AT).
I’m curious about MacKinnon…? It seems like an awful lot to give up… what is your thinking, cost justification, etc?
puckgod, I only suggest MacKinnon as an alternative to going after either Duchene or Landeskog who might actually be a more realistic target to obtain without giving up one of our top four defensemen (Hanifin). That is why I stated I would have to LOOK AT (meaning thinking long and hard) any deal for MacKinnon that called for giving up Hanifin before I could say for sure I would do it. Taken in the context of whether we could get a 1st line scoring center from Colorado (which seems to be what most are suggesting) here’s what I see in the 3 candidates:
1. Age: Mackinnon is 21, Duchene is 26, and Landeskog is 24
2. Scoring: MacKinnon is 20 goal scorer, Duchene has a slight edge in scoring, and Landeskog is about the same as MacKinnon.
3. Facdeoff; Duchene has decided advantage here while Landeskog and MacKinnon are slightly below 50% faceoff men.
4. Size and speed: All are 205-215 pounds and all are fast skaters.
5. Grit (use size); MacKinnon is a tough customer. Landeskog is tough, but does not use his size as much as MacKinnon. Duchene is a cream puff compared to the other two.
6. Defense: I’d give Landeskog a slight edge over MacKinnon. This is not a strong suit for Duchene.
I’m against trading one of our top four defensemen for anyone that is realistically available. My comment about Hanifin was more of a concession to ironcaniac that I would not, out of hand, dismiss including him in a trade if the trade was for a “ridiculously talented forward”. Of all the forwards being mentioned IMO the above three stand out as POSSIBLY being real good (not riduculously talented)(Crosby and McDavid fall in the latter category for example). Also, my hedging included (implied in the LOOK AT) an appraisal from RF, Peters, etc. (hockey people closer than I to knowing all the facts) having assessed that Fleury (or some other defenseman we currently have was capable of replacing (including has the same upside)Hanifin.
In summary, I really don’t think any one of the three Colorado players are of the caliber to justify trading Hanifin even straight up for. But, I do believe one of the three are amongst the best centers (have most positive characteristics)) being discussed as being available. And, if a trade for one of them was proposed, while I wouldn’t out of hand dismiss it, I would sure be needing someone (like RF, etc.) to further convince me to do the deal. I’m more inclined top go the dmiller route and go for a Zetterberg, Williams, etc. type to get some immediate scoring help and not messing with our defensive core.
Sorry for the length.
Hey RedRyder…Check out Wednesday’s DCoJ. I honestly did not just copy and paste your thoughts on MacKinnon into the article though I almost could have.
I did differ in saying that MacKinnon is one player (and maybe only one of those allegedly available) for whom I would begrudgingly include Hanifin in a deal. Per the first poll, I’m not the only one.
That said, I think it is important to say that I am NOT negative on Hanifin and not even 100% on this one which is a tough decision with pros, cons and good cases in both directions.
Thanks, RedRyder, I’m pretty much in agreement with you. If you were asked about your evaluation of TB’s Drouin, Palat, Johnson vs
Hanafin, would you feel the same(more or less)?
All three of these players would help the Canes. Drouin IMO probably is the best of the three because of his age and possible upside. Johnson is also a grade A player and in some people’s opinion is probably rated a better player than Drouin. I’ll say this, it’s a close call between the two. Palat, while an excellent player, IMO is not quite in the same class as Drouin or Johnson. IF, IF, IF…I were to make a deal involving Hanifin for sure it would have to be for either Drouin and/or Johnson. But, just knowing what I know right now (which in the opinion of even my closest friends ain’t a hell of a lot), I would NOT make the deal. If you added in some expert opinions (RF, Peters, puckgod (how’d that get in here), etc.) that said it was a good deal, then I would have to concede to those who know more hockey than I. I would be more inclined to deal for Drouin than any of the Colorado boys. It would be close in Johnson’s case. That’s because Johnson has excellent skills and plays with fire and a focus on winning. Durability would be a question in his case compared to that of Landeskog or MacKinnon who have less of an injury history.
One last point. I do believe our chances of getting one of the Tampa players for assets other than one of our top four defenseman is greater than getting one of the Colorado boys.