It has been an oddly quiet week across the NHL. The league putting the muzzle on teams in terms of announcing any expansion draft deals with Las Vegas surely makes it seem quieter than it really is. And certainly there are a good number of conversations going on. Finally, deals for players that teams cannot protect are likely to push right up against the deadline as teams negotiate back and forth with Las Vegas and at least consider trading a player or two away to avoid losing them to the expansion draft.
Canes and Coffee’s long series of articles hit a crescendo this week with an article naming and ranking 10 targets to add a difference-maker at the forward position followed today’s Daily Cup of Joe which mostly through cold water on a whole bunch of other pretty good players because in my opinion, they do not fit what the Hurricanes need.
In the name of keeping The Coffee Shop lively during a long off-season, we have bandied around many of these names already, but with the post-season officially upon us, the Thursday Coffee Shop will use today’s daily post as a basis for considering a big list of potential top 6 forward additions.
Carolina Hurricanes polls
Please remember to click ‘vote’ after each individual poll response. Don’t forget the discussion questions way at the bottom.
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Loading ...
Discussion questions
1) Who do you really like as a difference-maker forward? Do you think said player will be available and for a price you would pay?
2) Maybe more practically, who do you like at forward when you consider both your rankings but also cost in terms of trade assets and contract?
3) What do you think General Manager Ron Francis WILL do? What do you think General Manager Ron Francis SHOULD do?
Go Canes!
1. Mine falls into the category of shiny things. But if we are going to trade a top D, then I hope that every team would at least be interested. So:
Ehlers–know he plays LW, but I think Teravainen would work at C if needed. He is young with tons of upside.
2. I really don’t think trading Slavin or Hanifin makes sense(Carolina doesn’t have the RD depth to trade Faulk or Pesce). So using prospects and picks the only realistic options seem to be Nugent-Hopkins and Eberle. They seem equally acceptable, with a slight advantage to N-H since he is center.
3. I think he exploits the market inefficiencies you identified earlier this week and finds the best option that doesn’t mean losing Slavin or Hanifin. And that is what he should do.
1) I remain very much against trading any of our top 4 D and would probably add Fleury to that as well. Look what Nashville did with a strong defense. If it were not for a very bad call I am not so sure they would not have won it. Our guys could be just as strong as they mature. I think trading a D is a mistake. I do understand that limits the forward we can get. SO be it IMO.
I could still see RF going for a D pre-expansion. Not sure it will work out but worth a shot. Even with picks I kind of doubt we would have what other teams would want for a top Forward. Colorado wants a D which I think would limit any of those players (assuming RF has the same position I do). Now cap space issue could open up some of the guys listed. Eberle, Galchenyuk, and Tampa bay. There are some teams who may want the picks.
2) My answer above pretty much covers what we practically may be able to get. We could flip a D we acquire, so that is an option.
3) RF will get the best deal he can. I just hope he does not hurt our future trading a top 4 D. Since he was so focused about building the D first, I would be surprised if he does that but he certainly knows the tradeoffs better then I.
1. Nathan MacKinnon is my first choice for a difference maker. I think that he will be available based upon the following logic. Colorado appears to have made Duchene and Landeskog available, why wouldn’t they consider a deal for MacKinnon? If they want Hanifin as part of the deal, then I would be happy with whatever Ron Francis’ decision would be. Just based upon my own intuition I would not do such a deal but it would be a very hard decision to turn it down.
2. ctcaniac mentions Ehlers and I know he can score. I hadn’t considered him but maybe he is worth looking into. He’s young but I’m not sure about his overall game. I like going after Anisimov from Chicago because I think we could get a better deal’ i.e.; get him for a price we would want to pay. I feel this way because Chicago according to all I read has to free up some cap space and needs to replenish its defense. Thus Fleury to Chicago for Anisimov plus other assets (draft pick and/or prospect) would be something I think is doable. Icecobra points out he’s in favor of keeping Fleury. I would feel the same if RF has determined Fleury is ready for the NHL this year. If that is the case, I would keep him and pass on Anisimov as building a strong young defense is the starting point for success IMO. Also, let’s say Fleury plays in the NHL this year and pans out as a top 4 defenseman. Imagine how much his value on the trade market would be then. If we wanted to trade him then, he would bring far more in return as a proven top 4 defender.
3. ct and icecobra have got it right I think. I agree with their appraisal of the situation. I think RF will only make a deal if three conditions are met. We must get someone who will SOLVE a problem (scoring, etc.) and not create another weakness, the player will fit the Canes style of play, and we only give up a player(s) whose loss he is convinced won’t adversely affect the Canes this year or in the future. For example, if he can get that scoring forward HE wants for Fleury he will only do it if he feels Bean or someone else in the system can replace Fleury now. In everyday language, he’s going to cherry pick.
1/ I like Nylander the best among the options where we’ll be a to justify the price. I’d offer McKeown and a 2nd. I like Mckinnon the most but I don’t think he’ll be affordable.
2/ I agree with the he eral consensus NOT to trade any in our top-4. Just shop from second d shelf instead, which should be we stocked.
3/ I think RF will, I repeat will, get more offense without losing one of our top 4 (but maybe the names change). It may not be the name we want or from the list we’ve been discussing, but the team will improve at least as much as it’s improved over the past two seasons and probably more than that given all the assets he has and will likely spend.
That’s what I hope happens.
And I’d be just fine getting #12 back from MIN. More than fine with it.
Ok, I’ve said it. Again.
I will go on record agreeing with you dmiller. They have expansion problems and even though some folks here probably feel he underperformed (and he did for the big contract) he is still an excellent player. Just to start a rumor, NY may want to shed Marc. Not bad for a 4-5 D. Would that be something, the trio.
dmiller, I’m with you and icecobra on number 12. Forgetting about anything else he actually fits with what we need perfectly. I also like icecobra’s idea about Marc.
1st- Before making my selection(s)… RF got the goalie that most of us thought was needed, and it’s assumed he’s intent on getting an upgrade at forward. That said… I’m not sure how much of an upgrade he’s willing, or interested in acquiring, nor do we have the means to quantify possible selections. Sooo, my list is (TOP TO BOTTOM) Drouin, Kuznetsov, MacKinnon, Niederriter, and if none of these are DOABLE… I’D look at Zetterberg, one of NYR centers, Radulov, T.Johnson, Bonino, OR Hanzal.
One thing that I don’t think should happen, IS GIVING UP EASILY WITHOUT IMPROVING OUR FORWARD LINES!!
Drouin is out of the equation. Went to the Canadians.
puckgod, your evaluation probably is correct. Of your fallback choices I like Zetterberg and Tyler Johnson.
One more thing… the goalie situation seems better, so hopefully we will give up less goals… couple with that some improved scoring…and it’s nearly certain we win more games. That, at least should take the CANES to a higher level!! Eh?
I think you have the game plan down pat. The ball’s in RF’s court now to pull it off.
The Caps already acquired a player from Min to protect Ehlers.
Montreal trading for Druin (giving up a defensemen prospect and a conditional 2nd round pick) and signing him to a reasonable (6 mill per year for 5 years) deal is the steal of the week, I wish RF could have pulled this off using one of our prospects and an unconditional 2nd round pick (or conditional 1st).
I really hope this does not signal RF’s budget constraints or unwillingness to acquire a forward who is a difference maker.
I don’t want more family reunions for the Canes, #12 and #11 never worked out the way we intended,at a price tag of over $16 million, Mark is a defenseman who is on a rapid decline (great guy, great leader, but I think he is not the answer for what we need, plus we don’t want to help the Rangers out).
Bringing back #12 is always a nice thought, but he is not the catalyst we need on offense, it would be a secondary move.
I hope Mtl might be willing to trade Alex G now that they have Druin, and I am hoping something might be going on behind the scenes there.
him away
I wouldn’t trade Faulk, Slavin, or Pesce. I’d only trade Hanafin or Fleury for a legit #1 center. I’m hoping GMRF can work his magic on another cap strapped team this year.