The Path to Gabriel Landeskog
by JussiJuice on Apr 14, 2011 7:27 AM EDT
Email
PrintHere is my full-proof plan to acquire Skinner's BFF Gabriel Landeskog without sacrificing too many assets.
1st Trade:
To NJ: Zach Boychuk + 12th Overall Pick
To Carolina: Brian Rolston + 4th Overall Pick + NJ's 2nd Round pick in 2012
What I think this works:
NJ's biggest issue staring them in the face right now is simple: Re-sign Zach Parise. With already $50 million in Cap spent next year, they are going to have to make a big move to clear space for Parise's $6+ million as well as field a full team (that is even before you consider that their only goalie signed is a $5.2 million flailing Martin Brodeur). Trading Rolston and his $5 million in Cap for next year solves this problem in one fell swoop.
NJ is a Cup contender next year regardless, with Zach Boychuk added to their top-9 they will have a ridiculous amount of goal scoring. He immediately becomes their best prospect. I actually think this deal is a little overkill on the Canes part, but NJ doesn't have a 2nd or 3rd Round pick this year.
Why this may not work:
Simply put, the Canes may not want to pay Rolston's $5 million salary next year. Rolston is a serviceable top-6 forward however, defensively responsible, and only has 1 year left on his contract.
2nd Trade:
To Edmonton: 4th Overall + 2nd Round Pick + mid-level prospect (maybe Justin Shugg or Chris Terry)
To Carolina: 1st Overall
Why I think this works:
Edmonton is chock-full of prospects and as most experts have said, any one of the top-8 prospects this Draft could turn out to be the best NHL player. Darren Dreger has reported that the pick is in play and while Ryan Nugent-Hopkins is good, he is at least 1 (probably 2) more seasons of building mass in Juniors before he is NHL ready. Many reports say that Edmonton is higher on Sean Couturier who is NHL ready right now and better fits the mold of a giant Center that the Oilers could use.
If required, sweeten the pot even more with NJ's 2nd Rounder in 2012.
Why this may not work:
Edmonton is posturing and secretely in love with RNH, Larsson, Huberdeau, or Landeskog. Canes look to Colorado or Florida for the same deal.
Projected Lines next year:
Rolston's addition means Stillman is out.
Jokinen - Staal - Cole
Landeskog - Ruutu - Skinner (This I would love to see)
Rolston - Sutter - Dalpe
Tlusty - Dwyer - Samson
Bodie
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I dunno...
Rolston is 38 years old, is he much better fit for us than Corey Stillman is?
The worst thing Jim Rutherford never did was no re-sign Ray Whitney to the team.
This isn’t about Stillman or Rolston. It is about securing a long term top-6, big, Swedish, power forward who is very vocal and leads by example. Plus he already has great chemistry with our new star Skinner and is good friends with him.
I wouldn’t want Stillman or Rolston on the team if I had a choice. But statistically they are very similar and Rolston is more defensively responsible (a better fir for the 3rd line).
by JussiJuice on Apr 14, 2011 10:06 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Rolston played well down the stretch
I’m not entirely sure that they will want to jettison him now.
by SouthernHockeyNutter on Apr 14, 2011 2:19 PM EDT reply actions
Ditto above. Plus, I think Edmonton would prefer a Ruutu or Sutter to a second rounder and a Shugg or Terry… I don’t think it’s lucrative enough for Edmonton nor fills their needs.
Either way—too expensive. And to me, desite his Junior play, I’m not confident Ladeskog would crack the roster next year, and you’ve then given too much away to get him…
What do you give away? A 2nd rounder and Boychuk for Landeskog. Maybe if you saw Skinner and him play together the season before this you’d be a little more willing, they are great together.
As for edmonton… moving from 4th to 1st in a year where there is no real dominant talent and the consensus #1 Ryan Nugent Hopkins needs at least 1 more Junior season to bulk up nor really fits their real needs is not worth that much. Sean Couturier is a much better fit for the Oilers, he can step in next year, and he can be had at 4th Overall.
Pretty much and NHL news site will tell you that there is very little separating RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Couturier, and Strome. Any of them could turn out to be the best player.
by JussiJuice on Apr 14, 2011 3:44 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Anything can happen in the draft, but here’s what I’m thinking.
Edmonton – I think Larsson is an option, but I think RNH is not what they are really looking for (I think they want a big center). Landeskog is another option, but I think they focus on center or defense. I think Couturier is more of there choice, but probably not at #1. I wouldn’t be surprised if they trade down, but stay in the top 5.
Colorado – I think Landeskog is their choice. They have a pretty good group of young centers and some potential on their blueline. What they are missing is some top wingers, Landeskog fits the bill.
Florida – I think Florida is definitely going after a forward. If Landeskog falls to #3, they grab him; if not, I think they look at RNH or Huberdeau. RNH might be a perfect center for the shoot-first Booth, if he stays around in Florida.
Pretty much either way in my mind, Landeskog isn’t falling past #3.
Here's the SKINNy, the All-STAAL game was CAMtastic!
I would forget the trade with Edmonton…. makes the whole deal too expensive and they would probably want more anyway (despite the parity at the top of the draft).
If Landeskog were still around for Jersey’s pick it might be worth thinking about a draft-day trade like your 1st trade…. I’m sure NJ would love to unload Rolston’s salary but for the Canes to have to pay it and give up Boychuk as well… still seems like kind of a lot when they will probably get a solid pick at #12 anyway.
If the Canes want to keep Skinner happy I say they should forget Landeskog and trade for Seguin instead ;)
The whole point of this would be to pair Landeskog and Skinner. For those who don’t know, Landeskog was Skinner’s winger for most of Skinner’s 70 goal Junior season and they are good friends. Landeskog even made a trip to Toronto just to see Skins play this year.
Id agree with what you said though… maybe it makes more sense just to wait and see if he falls to 4 which is very possible. I also agree we would still get a great pick at 12 if it didn’t happen. As you say the parity this Draft is very large. I just like the idea of Skinner and Landeskog reunited in Canes jerseys.
by JussiJuice on Apr 14, 2011 3:53 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If that were the Key to NHL success we should have traded up for all the Staals…
Mind you Eirc as #1, Jordan as #2 Centers would be Freakin Awesome with Marc on the back end…
I’m with ya… I only mentioned Seguin because Skinner was actually his winger on the Toronto Young Nationals before they were drafted by different OHL teams. Not serious about trading for him, though. If anything, Skinner has shown that he can produce with any linemates. Brad Richards would sure be nice, though…
Brad Richards would be nice indeed… Unfortunately I think it would take a new owner to score that prize. He wants to come here, but PK’s pockets aren’t deep enough to field that star-studded type of team.
if we don’t resign pitkanen, we’ll have plenty of money for Richards. Unfortunatley, most of our problems are in the backend.
There was a fanpost a while back from Matt5315:
http://www.canescountry.com/2011/3/7/2036975/notes-from-canes-u-graduate-session
Peter Karmanos was specifically asked at the Canes U graduation about Richards and shot it down. I don’t think it is going to happen, especially coming from the big boss himself. That quote screams to me “He is too rich for my blood”.
I know it’s not the sexiest pick, but I would mind trading up and selecting Couturier if it doesn’t cost too much. With his size (he should fill out more) and his potential, him and Skinner might make a good pair for the future.
Here's the SKINNy, the All-STAAL game was CAMtastic!
by PackPride17 on Apr 14, 2011 7:39 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Couturier was the consensus #1 of this Draft for a very long time for good reason. He was the only Draft Eligible Canadian to make the WJC tournament this year and had a respectable 3 points in 7 games playing a lowly role.
After Landeskog, many consider him to be the most NHL ready forward. He is big (6’4", 190+ lbs) and has been compared to Eric/Jordan Staal. He wouldn’t be a terrible backup plan to Landeskog if we were still able to move down to the 4th-6th spot. Trading Boychuk for a prospect like that seems like an ideal trade-off to me as it feels a vital need.
From what I read and saw, Couturier was invisible at the WJC when he was supposed to dominate.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Apr 17, 2011 7:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Historically 18 year olds are not given the ice time or roster slotting to make much of an impact. Taylor Hall was more the exception instead of the rule, he got constant top-6 ice time. Couturier didn’t have that luxury (plus he is no Taylor Hall, nobody in this Draft is). I never saw/ready anywhere that Couturier was supposed to dominate. The fact that he was the only Draft Eligible 18 year old on the team is an accomplisment in itself.
Stamkos only had 1 goal and 5 assists in the WJC his Draft year. Rick Nash only had a goal and two assists. Joe Thornton had two goals and two assists. The list goes on…
I wasn’t necessarily talking about points, just the good ol’ eye-test here, even if he was playing behind Schenn and Johansen (?).
Not necessarily disagreeing that he is a good choice at #1 (though, for the Canes, maybe it’s time to finally pick a D like Larsson), but just that his WJC was respectable (which, to be fair, isn’t exactly what you said).
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Apr 17, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
That first trade is highway robbery. What team in their right mind would move back in the draft AND give up a 2nd-rounder for a prospect? If I’m the Devils, I’m psyched about getting a strong player in the draft and the cap will work itself out later. Trading a 4 and a 2nd for a 12 and an AHLer seems just about backwards.
Our 12 plus our 2012 2nd rounder for the Devils 4 makes more sense.
Shedding Rolston’s $5 million in Cap is a huge part of the deal for the Devils. Being able to re-sign Zach Parise and fill out a decent team simply can’t be done without shedding a huge salary or giving up a lot of valuable depth. NJ put Rolston on re-entry waivers this season (NJ would pay half his salary) and didn’t even find a taker there.
The NJ Devils blogosphere and media is ripe with talk of moving up a bit in the Draft if someone was willing to fix their salary issues. Adding an elite prospect like Boychuk would be icing on the cake.
Being able to re-sign Zach Parise and fill out a decent team simply can’t be done without shedding a huge salary or giving up a lot of valuable depth.
Shedding some salary will be important, but it’s not as complicated or difficult as many seem to think for the Devils. If Bryce Salvador comes back, he’ll likely be moved or demoted to Albany, opening up $2.9m, and many suspect that David Clarkson will be shopped this off-season, opening up another $2.6m. Those two salaries should more than make up the difference in Parise’s new salary.
Moving Rolston would be desirable, but isn’t entirely necessary. Re-signing the two RFAs, Parise and Zharkov, gives the team 13 forwards under contract without even dipping into the AHL, but if Clarkson goes, there are several kids in the system who might vie for the 13th forward spot come training camp.
Besides, LW is not a position of weakness for the team. The top 3-Parise, Kovalchuk, and Tedenby-are buoyed by depth players like Clarkson and Pelley and the versatility of guys like Elias, Zubrus, Rolston that can all play Wing or Center.
Finally, despite his words to the media, I think Lou is ecstatic at getting a pick so high in the draft. While there are no generational talents available, the opportunity to pick this high and pick up a guy like Larsson or Couturier or Landeskog is not something he’ll give up very easily.
JJ,
I don’t think Landeskog will fall far enough for the Canes to acquire him, but if you are still intent on moving up in the draft; think Islanders! I will almost bet my house (again, I say ALMOST) that the Islanders would be willing to trade down in the draft. We might not even half to give up any prospect to get it. I think the Islanders MIGHT be willing to part with #5 for our #12 & #42. You never know until you at least ask the question.
Here's the SKINNy, the All-STAAL game was CAMtastic!
As you have said, Sean Couturier and I also believe Dougie Hamilton are both possible instant additions that could make the Canes better for years to come. Both might be available at 5.
A big power forward who can score with comparisons to Staal and a hulking shutdown D with some offensive flair. Those needs sound familiar.
by JussiJuice on Apr 15, 2011 10:15 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not sure about giving up anything to move up
People who were near the top in rankings earlier this season have dropped into the 20s, and vice versa. Oleksiak was in the 20s everywhere. Tyler Biggs was in or near the top 10. Landeskog was on top, now he’s not. Couturier was on top, now he’s not. Armia was great and then he was disappointing in the world juniors and now people say he’s looking great in a man’s league back in Finland. I think the presence of both Oleksiak and Ryan Murphy is destabilizing all by itself. You’ve got a Myers’ sized giant who came out of nowhere and is said to be a good skater and then you’ve got a phenomenally talented D-man who seems too small to play in the NHL. Where will they get drafted? And then there are all those scouts who say the only NHL-ready guy is Landeskog, but several of the other prospects will blow by him in two or three years. People say there’s nobody in the same class as Hall or Seguin this year – that’s why all the scrambled rankings. I read that Puempel is a great natural scorer like Skinner and somebody is going to get a steal with him, but he had hip surgery.
Even those of you who are far, far better informed about junior hockey will probably agree that this draft is shaping up as a crap shoot. Why risk more than you have to when nobody knows what’s up with this draft?
I’ll say this: if the Canes do trade assets to move up, it will be very interesting to see who they think is worth the sacrifice.
by curiouscanesfan on Apr 15, 2011 5:30 PM EDT reply actions
I somewhat agree that this draft is a crap shoot. I haven’t really been very excited about this draft’s prospects. I consider this a weak draft because you are probably going to have a lot of NHL role players, but very few star players. Of course some guys are going to surprise me, but I wouldn’t be hurt to see the Canes trade their 1st round pick for a (young) quality NHL player.
Here's the SKINNy, the All-STAAL game was CAMtastic!
From what I have seen from a wide range of sources, there are 3 teirs:
1) 1-8: Nugent-Hopkins, Landeskog, Larsson, Hamilton, Couturier, Strome, Huberdeau, and Murphy
2) 9-15: Zibanejad, Siemens, Armia, Oleksiak, Beaulieu, McNeill, Bartschi
3) 16-50+: The rest is a crap shoot. So many personal positives and negatives on an individual basis that there isn’t really a good way to rank.
There is no real consensus in each teir who will become the best player. Very open ended. I think the Canes would be happy with anyone in the 9-15 tier. None are likely to be Stars, but all of them should make the NHL and contribute in some way. High-risk, high-reward picks would probably be Oleksiak, Armia, or Zibanejad for us. I wouldn’t mind us taking a flyer on a 6’7" monster or a Euro who hasn’t had the chance to show off in a more offensive North American game.
Why risk moving up though at the possible cost of Boychuk? To transfer existing assets into needed assets. As it stands, we don’t really need another smallish scoring forward… What we really need is a top-6 Power Forward and a hulking Defensive D.
I suppose we could just as easily try and find a solution outside the Draft. A trade for someone like Voracek or a massive trade for a guy like Weber or Bogosian would also accomplish that goal. The problem I see here is we have to pay these guys big bucks immediately. That just doesn’t sound like the Canes modus operandi to me.
It also depends on whether management wants to “rebuild” next year (at least until we are in a race for the 8th spot again) or make a serious Playoff run.
A truely believe we wouldn’t have to shell out too big of bucks for Voracek. He is a RFA and we could simply qualify him around the $2 to $2.5 million range. See how he works out before offering him a longer term deal. If he did trade for Voracek and give him a qualifying offer, we would have at least 2 more RFA seasons of him after the end of next season.
Here's the SKINNy, the All-STAAL game was CAMtastic!
by PackPride17 on Apr 15, 2011 7:03 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
we might as well trade boychuk since we never play him!!!! He needs to be on the 1st line with cole and staal next year for the whole year…trust me boychuk is the real deal like a patty kane
Kane’s a good player, but I am not a fan of his. I hope to god that Boychuk is not like Kane; if so, go ahead and trade him for a nice return.
Here's the SKINNy, the All-STAAL game was CAMtastic!
Disagree. If Boychuk can become half the passer that Kane is, Staal and Cole will put a lot more pucks in the net. Boychuk will get his share of goals too.
The catch is the “if.” We’ve seen so little of Boychuk in the kind of role he’ll have to play that he could be anything from a star to a bust. I think he’s going to be very good and has a chance to be a first liner, but I wouldn’t bet on it. I just want the Canes to find out and wonder if they’ll even try.
by curiouscanesfan on Apr 15, 2011 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
My comment about Kane was more about his personality and off-ice issues. Like I said, he’s a good player; but I actually would not want Kane on my hometown team (Toews – I’d take him any day of the week and twice on Sunday).
I also think Boychuk could work with Staal & Cole on Carolina’s 1st line. It’s not like we are actually going to go out and get a true 1st line winger for Staal, so Boychuk would probably work. My main thought is that Boychuk’s potential currently holds value. Why not trade him for a more pressing need; like a sizable forward (Voracek) who has actually proved something at the NHL level? Of course Boychuk could develop into a better player, but he could also never reach his potential. And a 6’1", 205 lbs playmaking winger that will put up 45+ points a season has a lot more value than a 5’9", 175 lbs playmaking winger that MIGHT put up the same numbers.
Here's the SKINNy, the All-STAAL game was CAMtastic!
Right now, I figure the org knows more about Boychuk than any other team. So, if they have doubts, they’ll use him to acquire another asset while his trade value is the highest…before anyone else has a chance to scout him on our first line and right after a good playoff run in the AHL.
He’s got skills that will fit on some NHL team out there…heck, possibly even ours.
And, I’m with you on both a distaste for Kane and in coveting Toews. I’d trade Staal for him straight-up before the minute ends, only casually wondering about just how much garbage salary I’d have to take along with him to make the cap work for them and hoping I didn’t have to sweeten the deal too much. :-D
Here we are now...entertain us.
Draft??
My gut feeling is it’s more likely JR trades down than up! It’s doubtful we could find anyone remotely like skinner, who could be ready to play! (even as high as 4-6) … below 9 or 10 is a big guessing game, so why not go for quantity over potential quality??? another possibility is a trade for a prospect/ 2nd year power fwd, or D-man?
Charlotte
wouldn’t we have to see about moving some Charlotte offensive guys up on a more permanent basis (Dalpe, Boychuk, Bowman, etc.) before trading any of them for another offensive prospect? i would see us trading for/drafting d-men to refill that pipeline especially for when pitkanen walks
"We've got to look at this," Columbus general manager Scott Howson said Monday after exit interviews with the players. "Because whatever we have right now isn't working."
by Sergeant Stinky on Apr 18, 2011 7:12 AM EDT reply actions
This is especially true when this is considered a weak draft. SOme of our second rounders may well be as talented or better than many of the first rounders in this draft. This draft, especially compared to the last two, is not very deep at all.
I’d rather keep what we have and know. The top players in this draft we have no realistic chance of getting (fantasy trade packages aside). After them, it’s better to run with what we know.
it’s unlikely JR will draft a D-man in the 1st rd, and there’s no Goalies ranked high enough to consider, so that leaves picking a F… or trading down! that is what i think is likely, for two reasons – 1. at #12 there’s little quality difference over what’s available at 30, 40, maybe 50!
2. by trading down he can acquire at least one extra pick (maybe low 1st, or hi 2nd)… where he’s more comfortable taking a D-man, and where he might even take a goalie (which i think should be a priority, due to Wards imperfect back condition and dearth of topnotch goalie prospects)
- little quality difference over 30-50? Show me a forward in the 30-50 range that is comparable Mika Zibanejad or Joel Armia. Who is comparable to a 6’7" monster of a D with great mobility such as Jamieson Oleksiak in the 30-50 range?
CSS has Nathan Beaulieu ranked 5th Overall (above the likes of Sean Couturier and Ryan Strome) and he is projected in the 10-15 range by most. Duncan Siemens is one of the youngest players in the Draft and already 6’3", 190+ lbs. As a primarily shutdown D with a mean streak… He could be perfect for the Canes long-term (projects in the 9-15 range).
Once you get in the 20-25+ range, I think most would agree that there is such a variety of opinion that there isn’t much difference. At 9-15 or so there is a higher tier of player available.
Jussi
i understand your players ranked at 12-15 etc. would seem likely to be better than # 20, 30, etc…
but my point is because there’s so little consensus on that (and it’s a moving target as the kids develop) picking two guys ranked a little lower may increase the chances of getting a real good prospect!! a recent example is Faulk… 2nd rd pick, who may turn out to be a better prospect than guys taken in the 1st rd. also, i’m very leary of the “monster-type” players because for every pronger (who still developed very slowly) there’s 6 Valabiks who never will develop!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canes Country
Related FanShots on Canes Country
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
