HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Notices

Jamie McBain and #35 for D Andrej Sekera

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-03-2013, 08:03 AM
  #301
bluedevil58
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
You guys are making the assumption that Ward is going to be fully recovered from his injury. That's a big assumption.....

bluedevil58 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 08:04 AM
  #302
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevil58 View Post
You guys are making the assumption that Ward is going to be fully recovered from his injury. That's a big assumption.....
He was pretty much fully recovered by May.....I'd be a lot more worried about EStaal being ready.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 08:06 AM
  #303
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaxing Joni Jokel View Post
Someone explain to me why it would be a good idea for our only defensemen with any offensive skill to be Justin Faulk and a 20-year old Ryan Murphy with four NHL games played.

I know that we've had too many puck-movng defensemen in recent years, but I think that trading Pitkanen officially swings it to not enough puck-moving defensemen. The defensive defensemen police apparently aren't satisfied that we've traded McBain and are letting Corvo, Bergeron, and Sanguinetti walk.
That's not entirely accurate, as you're overlooking Sekera. He my not score much and won't be your primary PP QB but he's a very good puck mover and outlet passer. Defensively he's pretty good too but if you had to classify him, he's a PMD with sound positioning.

The idea of moving Pitkanen is not get another bottom dwelling physical D but a guy who can play in the top 4. Obviously it won't be somebody with Pitkanen's skating or passing but someone who brings more physical presence but isn't a statue with the puck. That may be a pipe dream but with the new division alignment this D needs is still lacking and Pitkanen is the best bargaining chip even if you don't get full value.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 08:14 AM
  #304
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaxing Joni Jokel View Post
Someone explain to me why it would be a good idea for our only defensemen with any offensive skill to be Justin Faulk and a 20-year old Ryan Murphy with four NHL games played.

I know that we've had too many puck-movng defensemen in recent years, but I think that trading Pitkanen officially swings it to not enough puck-moving defensemen. The defensive defensemen police apparently aren't satisfied that we've traded McBain and are letting Corvo, Bergeron, and Sanguinetti walk.

As soon as Ryan Murphy struggles it'll be Bellemore time and we'll be going off the glass/around the boards on every breakout. Sounds like a great plan when you've got 30 million dollars tied up in your top six.
I agree with this. Faulk and Murphy are good young defensemen but they are not good enough to be the sole puck-movers on an NHL team. Pitkanen is the one defenseman we have who is proven in his role as the primary PMD and PP point man. If we move him, it better bring back an equally proficient puck mover or we are going to have serious issues getting the puck up-ice and our PP is going to be the worst in the league for a long time.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 08:18 AM
  #305
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormCast View Post
That's not entirely accurate, as you're overlooking Sekera. He my not score much and won't be your primary PP QB but he's a very good puck mover and outlet passer. Defensively he's pretty good too but if you had to classify him, he's a PMD with sound positioning.

The idea of moving Pitkanen is not get another bottom dwelling physical D but a guy who can play in the top 4. Obviously it won't be somebody with Pitkanen's skating or passing but someone who brings more physical presence but isn't a statue with the puck. That may be a pipe dream but with the new division alignment this D needs is still lacking and Pitkanen is the best bargaining chip even if you don't get full value.
I think the rub there is why would any team trade an affordable (because it would have to be) top 4 physical defenseman for anything the Hurricanes could realistically offer?

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 08:23 AM
  #306
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I agree with this. Faulk and Murphy are good young defensemen but they are not good enough to be the sole puck-movers on an NHL team. Pitkanen is the one defenseman we have who is proven in his role as the primary PMD and PP point man. If we move him, it better bring back an equally proficient puck mover or we are going to have serious issues getting the puck up-ice and our PP is going to be the worst in the league for a long time.
While a lot of this is accurate, Pitkanen is not good on the PP. He should be, but he just isn't.

I think I said this earlier, but the guy that would be perfect is Johnny Boychuk. Right handed, very physical, cannon of a shot, average at worst skater. Of course he's going nowhere, but that's the type the team would need to replace Pitkanen.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 08:27 AM
  #307
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
I think the rub there is why would any team trade an affordable (because it would have to be) top 4 physical defenseman for anything the Hurricanes could realistically offer?
Using Pits as the example, there are several reasons: a guy who's fallen out of favor, a team who signs a better D-D as a UFA, a team in need of prospects, a team in need of a PMD who can play on the PP, etc.

You basically have $4.5M to play with and if you throw in a pick or prospect, something like that could seal a deal. Is it likely? Probably not but then again, as I stated, I'd overpay to get a better mix in the D corps. This team has recently been over-matched when going up against the new division rivals who are significantly more physical than the Tampas, Floridas, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
While a lot of this is accurate, Pitkanen is not good on the PP. He should be, but he just isn't.

I think I said this earlier, but the guy that would be perfect is Johnny Boychuk. Right handed, very physical, cannon of a shot, average at worst skater. Of course he's going nowhere, but that's the type the team would need to replace Pitkanen.
Absolutely agree. It seems with Pitkanen absence from the lineup makes the fans' heart grow fonder. To say he's indispensable because he's the best puck-mover misses a key point. He can't play every shift and he often gets to causal with the puck anyway.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 08:49 AM
  #308
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
While a lot of this is accurate, Pitkanen is not good on the PP. He should be, but he just isn't.
But he's the best we have, now that we've jettisoned Corvo and Bergeron.

Whoever we bring in to replace him HAS to be a PP point man, or else we're putting everything on Murphy. Faulk's stone-handed passes and telegraphed one-timers haven't been getting it done and I don't see that changing. What else is there? Harrison? Sekera?

Quote:
I think I said this earlier, but the guy that would be perfect is Johnny Boychuk. Right handed, very physical, cannon of a shot, average at worst skater. Of course he's going nowhere, but that's the type the team would need to replace Pitkanen.
I REALLY REALLY like Boychuk and would be thrilled if we got him, but he can't play Pitkanen minutes. He's a second-pair guy all the way, and prone to the same goofy mistakes that we see from Harrison when he gets overused.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 09:17 AM
  #309
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I REALLY REALLY like Boychuk and would be thrilled if we got him, but he can't play Pitkanen minutes. He's a second-pair guy all the way, and prone to the same goofy mistakes that we see from Harrison when he gets overused.
But what is Pitkanen? A second-pair guy. He only logs those minutes because he takes over the periodic shift on a depleted bottom pair. He rarely goes up against top lines and also makes either goofy or indifferent plays. Boychuk would be an excellent second pair guy.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 09:20 AM
  #310
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
^ I'm not advocating Boychuk as more than a #3.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 09:22 AM
  #311
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
^ I'm not advocating Boychuk as more than a #3.
Agreed, and I'd put him in the 2nd pairing in a heartbeat.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 09:50 AM
  #312
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormCast View Post
But what is Pitkanen? A second-pair guy. He only logs those minutes because he takes over the periodic shift on a depleted bottom pair. He rarely goes up against top lines and also makes either goofy or indifferent plays. Boychuk would be an excellent second pair guy.
Pitkanen's career TOI:
16:35
23:43
24:33
24:07
24:48
27:23
25:01
22:18
22:49

Boychuk's career TOI:
17:39
20:30
20:37
20:24


Setting aside the semantic first-pair/second-pair argument, there's a very clear difference between the level of responsibility that Pitkanen has handled ever since his rookie year and the level that Boychuk is at now.

I watch both of these players closely and I'm telling ya... Boychuk cannot replace Pitkanen. One is a racehorse, the other is a mule. Given equal minutes, Pitkanen would outplay Boychuk by a very significant margin.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 10:03 AM
  #313
Mr Whipple
Charmin Soft
 
Mr Whipple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Greenville, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 517
vCash: 500
Unfortunately we're pretty much stuck where we are on defense right now. Unless JR makes a blockbuster trade (Skinner for Marc Staal?), there really isn't anything that can be done to truly improve the defense more than this trade did.

To get a better player than what we've currently got it means a higher paid player. We don't have room for that unless we unload a contract. Trading any of the D would only be a lateral move at best. We don't have much we can add in to get back better than we give.

Let's not forget that this team was rolling with a much worse (on paper, at least) defense last year before the injuries. You can try saying we'll be in a tougher division, but we were beating these teams last year and losing mostly to Tampa and Florida. So hopefully the team will pick back up where it left off before the injuries and stay healthy this season.

Bigger changes will need to come in the future when we get some more room as the cap goes up.

Mr Whipple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 10:04 AM
  #314
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Pitkanen's career TOI:
16:35
23:43
24:33
24:07
24:48
27:23
25:01
22:18
22:49

Boychuk's career TOI:
17:39
20:30
20:37
20:24


Setting aside the semantic first-pair/second-pair argument, there's a very clear difference between the level of responsibility that Pitkanen has handled ever since his rookie year and the level that Boychuk is at now.

I watch both of these players closely and I'm telling ya... Boychuk cannot replace Pitkanen. One is a racehorse, the other is a mule. Given equal minutes, Pitkanen would outplay Boychuk by a very significant margin.
But he doesn't need to replace him in terms of role, that's not the point. I'd like to see him replace Pitkanen because what he brings is more of a need for this D corps, especially with the match-ups in the new divisional alignment.

With Faulk's continued maturation and the addition of Sekera (a very good if underrated puck-mover), Pitkanen doesn't need to play those kinds of minutes. Besides, given the amount of minutes logged by Chara, your second pair guys aren't going to rack up huge minutes. Also Pits' huge PP minutes will skew his TTOI.

In other words, I'll stick to my guns that it's a better option all things considered.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 10:14 AM
  #315
halleJOKEL
strong as brickwall
 
halleJOKEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NC
Country: United States
Posts: 4,685
vCash: 500
Pitkanen could defend circles around Johnny Boychuk. Are you people being serious right now?

halleJOKEL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 10:22 AM
  #316
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormCast View Post
But he doesn't need to replace him in terms of role, that's not the point. I'd like to see him replace Pitkanen because what he brings is more of a need for this D corps, especially with the match-ups in the new divisional alignment.

With Faulk's continued maturation and the addition of Sekera (a very good if underrated puck-mover), Pitkanen doesn't need to play those kinds of minutes.

Faulk is not a puck-mover and putting him in that position would not be good for his continued maturation. If anything, it would come at the expense of things he's actually qualified to do -- positional defense, and setting up as a shooting option.

That leaves Murphy (a 20-year-old rookie) and Sekera as the guys handling the puck for all of our ES and PP play. That's not going to work.

That's not even touching the fact that, again, nobody else in the lineup is capable of absorbing the minutes that Pitkanen skates. Faulk would be the only player in the lineup who has skated over 21:12 in a season in his career, and Faulk was already logging 24:00 last season. Those extra minutes would inevitably go to Gleason, who's already been exposed as over-extended in his current 21-minute role.


Quote:
Besides, given the amount of minutes logged by Chara, your second pair guys aren't going to rack up huge minutes.
That's not why Boychuk hasn't been given more ice time. He simply isn't capable of shouldering the load. Again, it's comparable to Jay Harrison who is fine with 16 minutes a game but horrible with 20. Boychuk is a notch up from that, but he is not a guy you send out for extensive TOI.


Quote:
Also Pits' huge PP minutes will skew his TTOI.
And those minutes would now be going to players who are even worse on the PP. It doesn't make sense.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 10:56 AM
  #317
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
So what is the Canes PP going to look like during the 20 or so games Pitkanen misses? Even if he stays healthy and plays 80 games there is no gurantee he doesn't lose a step after his surgery. That injury is no joke and I'm just not comfortable counting on a guy to eat up all those minutes when I can't be confident he's going to be on the ice.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 11:00 AM
  #318
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
So what is the Canes PP going to look like during the 20 or so games Pitkanen misses? Even if he stays healthy and plays 80 games there is no gurantee he doesn't lose a step after his surgery. That injury is no joke and I'm just not comfortable counting on a guy to eat up all those minutes when I can't be confident he's going to be on the ice.
Unless they can trade him for someone who eats those minutes and knows how to run a PP, they don't have much of a choice but to just suffer through it.

I'd rather have Pitkanen for 60 games than an inferior replacement for 82. There is no way we're going to make the playoffs with Murphy, Sekera, Faulk and Harrison as our PP engine.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 11:05 AM
  #319
Metro Misfits
Misfits of the Metro
 
Metro Misfits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Isle of Misfit Toys
Country: Somalia
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Jeff Skinner + Something for Marc Staal. + Boyle.

This trade still makes the most sense.

Lindholm can play and be sheltered along with Rask.

Staal / Staal / Lindholm or Boyle / Welsh or Nash down the middle.

Pit / Staal
Sekera / Faulk
Jay / Timmy
Murphy

Metro Misfits is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 11:16 AM
  #320
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Unless they can trade him for someone who eats those minutes and knows how to run a PP, they don't have much of a choice but to just suffer through it.

I'd rather have Pitkanen for 60 games than an inferior replacement for 82. There is no way we're going to make the playoffs with Murphy, Sekera, Faulk and Harrison as our PP engine.
It just seems odd that you're advocating keeping Pitkanen partially on the grounds that we need him for the PP when he's been the QB on what is already an abysmal PP. not to mention that he's played 40% of the teams games over the last 2 years.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 11:26 AM
  #321
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
It just seems odd that you're advocating keeping Pitkanen partially on the grounds that we need him for the PP when he's been the QB on what is already an abysmal PP. not to mention that he's played 40% of the teams games over the last 2 years.
I'd rather have Pitkanen QB'ing a weak PP than have Sekera QB'ing an egregiously horrible PP. There's no sense in changing a problem area by making it worse.

If anything, it's Muller's problem to figure out the PP anyway. He has more than adequate offensive talent to work with, yet somehow teams like Nashville and Phoenix ended up with better production. That speaks to a systemic issue that hopefully will be resolved with a full training camp.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 12:44 PM
  #322
Blown Away
Registered User
 
Blown Away's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misfit Semin View Post
Jeff Skinner + Something for Marc Staal. + Boyle.

This trade still makes the most sense.
Has Marc Staal completely recovered from the eye injury?

Blown Away is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 01:07 PM
  #323
Brock Anton
Deal with it.
 
Brock Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Westerly, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 12,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blown Away View Post
Has Marc Staal completely recovered from the eye injury?
He's never going to 100% recover from it.

Brock Anton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 01:10 PM
  #324
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Faulk is not a puck-mover and putting him in that position would not be good for his continued maturation. If anything, it would come at the expense of things he's actually qualified to do -- positional defense, and setting up as a shooting option.

That leaves Murphy (a 20-year-old rookie) and Sekera as the guys handling the puck for all of our ES and PP play. That's not going to work.

That's not even touching the fact that, again, nobody else in the lineup is capable of absorbing the minutes that Pitkanen skates. Faulk would be the only player in the lineup who has skated over 21:12 in a season in his career, and Faulk was already logging 24:00 last season. Those extra minutes would inevitably go to Gleason, who's already been exposed as over-extended in his current 21-minute role.

That's not why Boychuk hasn't been given more ice time. He simply isn't capable of shouldering the load. Again, it's comparable to Jay Harrison who is fine with 16 minutes a game but horrible with 20. Boychuk is a notch up from that, but he is not a guy you send out for extensive TOI.

And those minutes would now be going to players who are even worse on the PP. It doesn't make sense.
Faulk is not in Pitkanen's league as a puck-mover but he is most certainly a puck-mover. He came up as an offensive-D who is trying to round out his D game. To say otherwise is simply wrong. Keep in mind too that you don't have to just skate the puck out of your zone, and he is a good, accurate outlet passer as well (so is Sekera).

Boychuk wouldn't be asked to provide extended TOI in the second pairing. Not sure where that logic comes from. It's hardly asking a 3/4 to shoulder the load. Keep in mind too that Pitkanen's overly long shifts also drive up his TTOI/g. And keeping Pitkanen around because he QB's a lousy PP is akin to "we like our group."

Bottom line is the D made it too easy on teams last year. It's somewhat improved with Sekera but needs more. If that's at the expense of Pitkanen so be it. He's hardly a linchpin.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 01:32 PM
  #325
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormCast View Post
Faulk is not in Pitkanen's league as a puck-mover but he is most certainly a puck-mover.
If Faulk is now considered a puck-mover, at least half the defensemen in the league also qualify. The point isn't to have a guy who can pass a puck from point A to point B, it's to have someone who is actually in the upper echelon at doing it. Faulk is most definitely not in that category, and neither is anyone else in our lineup unless Murphy is indeed the next big thing.


Quote:
Boychuk wouldn't be asked to provide extended TOI in the second pairing. Not sure where that logic comes from.
The logic is simple. Presumably you want Faulk on the first pair. You've assigned Boychuk to the second pair. Clearly Harrison and Murphy would constitute the third pair in this scheme (at least I hope so, because god help us...).

So you are putting one of Gleason or Sekera on the first pair, correct? Which of these players has shown any indication that he can handle first-pair responsibility?

There's a reason that Pitkanen has eaten 23-24 minutes a game over the long term and in three different cities. He is capable of doing it, even if it's not ideal. We only have ONE other defenseman (Faulk) who is capable of it, and he is also not ideal. Trading Pitkanen for Boychuk might strengthen our depth but it would come at a severe cost to the top of the lineup.

Quote:
And keeping Pitkanen around because he QB's a lousy PP is akin to "we like our group."
But again, you are trading him for a player who can't QB a power play... period. So now it's down to Faulk (who can't QB effectively), Murphy (a rookie) and Sekera (never been on a top PP pair) to handle that responsibility. How does that improve the PP?


It's fine to want to address a need, and I agree that Boychuk would be a huge acquisition for this team, but what you're proposing here really doesn't add up as an improvement to the lineup. It's just a slight stylistic change in our middle pair, at the expense of a top-pair guy.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.