Trade Deadline Expectations...

by HockeyHick74 on Feb 10, 2012 12:44 PM EST

Just some random thoughts about the roster and the looming trade deadline. Let me know what you think!

-Glad to see Jim Rutherford learning from his mistakes. Signing Gleason and working with Ruutu hopefully spell the end of his stubborn "no in-season negotiation" policy. I think his statements regarding Ruutu are sincere, but they certainly don't hurt with posturing in the event that they can't work out a deal. In the end Rutherford seems intent on not ending up with nothing, which again, is indicative of a lesson learned with Cole. It's been tough seeing his off-season moves bust, but kudos for the way he has owned and rectified those mistakes. In my mind he is still one of the best in the business.

-Tuomo Ruutu will be re-signed. Just my gut, but I feel strongly it will happen. I just hope it's for the right money. I would have a hard time swallowing a deal much more than 4.5 million per year or over 4 years in length. His durability the last few years has allowed him to shed the "injury-prone" tag but his aggressive style will certainly limit his shelf life. If he is resigned I would hope for more offensive production. Ideal scenario for me would be a 4 year, 20million dollar deal with Ruutu on the 2nd line potting 25 goal and 30-35 assists. He certainly has the skill and the drive. Should he not get signed, I can easily see LA giving up a 1st and a top prospect.

-Spacek and Allen will surely be traded, and I think the return for either could be greater than people think. I read somewhere that Allen could be that type of "We just traded for WHO?" type player that ends up being the final, important piece for a championship team. I agree. And Spacek, with his playoff experience, could easily end up fetching a 2nd and 3rd/4th round pick from a Pittsburgh or Chicago. Allen could, from a team like Boston or Philly, easily grab a 1st rounder or a top prospect.

-The speculation is fun, but with the deadline in general and the Canes in particular I have learned to expect the unexpected. I'm not a salary cap expert, but I feel like we could trade Allen, Spacek, and Ruutu (if need be) without taking back salary and still be above the cap floor on deadline day. That being said, other than UFAs, I expect the activity to be light and the returns to be picks and prospects. The draft is when the real dealing will happen. I think we will go in with a boatload of assets and come away with some great additions, both NHL-ready and prospects for the system.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think your points are well taken. In Ruutu’s case somewhere in the 4.5 million per year for 3 or 4 years would not surprise me and I would be ok with it (not that it really matters). If the dollar figure goes up I would expect the term to go down. Just my guess (I emphasize “guess”).

Allen will probably net us more than Spacek. I hate to see Allen go but understand we have a glut of defensemen now with more in the pipeline. Spacek IMO while an excellent player and good teammate appears to me to be very slow on the ice. He’s such a good person to have in the “clubhouse” , that it will be sad to see him go if he is traded or not resigned.

Overall, my expectation is in the offseason we will go after a bonafide free agent top six forward. Anything beyond that will be trades involving the myriad of bottom six forwards that we have such as LaRose, Nodl, Dwyer, Stewart, and Brent for prospects or draft picks. Of these I would prefer retaining Dwyer, Nodl, Brent, and LaRose in that order.

by FoxtrotSierra on Feb 10, 2012 3:54 PM EST reply actions

I don’t see Allen bringing in a first round draft pick, period.

by prplmnkydw on Feb 11, 2012 3:25 AM EST reply actions

Allen plus Boychuk (as an example) and a Couple More Random Thoughts

It’s conceivable that trading Allen (a 1st round pick himself) and Boychuk (a 1st round pick himself) could yield a first round pick in return. The only thing that is really certain about this trade deadline is uncertainty. I remain a supporter/advocate for Boychuk; but obviously he has not been making the kind of favorable impression on the organization that one would want a #14 pick to make. I still think the Hurricanes will re-sign Boychuk and will treat him like Tlusty, as a player with potential who needs more development.

My own take is that as much good as Maurice did for Tlusty and Harrison, he did harm to Boychuk; and to a much, much lesser extent Bowman. Bowman has much more to give offensively; but he has become a far better all around player under Maurice. Bowman, however, has the potential to be much more dominating as a scorer. Hopefully, as Muller and MacLean are able to work with the prospects, we’ll see the young forwards blossom. I’d like to see what Muller and MacLean can do with Dadonov.

I would not be shocked to see LaRose traded as part of a bundling of players at the trade deadline in exchange for draft picks. Yes, he’s an organization and fan favorite; but he also is not making a very strong case for being a player who is markedly better than the other bottom nine players on the team. LaRose is at his best during the grind of the playoffs and offers playoff experience. If one were to put on the hat of another NHL GM, LaRose is a low risk acquisition who could add some depth for a reasonable cost.

by abramsdoug on Feb 11, 2012 8:02 AM EST up reply actions

JR will underwhelm

He’ll re-sign Ruutu and position it as a huge win for a team that, with Ruutu, is poised to miss the playoffs for the third straight season.

He needs to package Boychuk, Rosie, and Spacek to a contender for a first or second rounder, or throw in McBain or Pitkanen for a legit scoring forward with a big salary.

"The Carolina Hurricanes will keep President and General Manager Jim Rutherford for at least four more years after resigning him to a contract extension that runs through the 2015-16 season."

by Capt. Stinky on Feb 11, 2012 9:17 AM EST reply actions

No, Chad is the engine that runs the team, or whatever JR said last offseason. Without him the team would be way worse off, like in 15th place or something

by Kahz on Feb 11, 2012 7:13 PM EST up reply actions

I think we will be trading a goalie. We have Mahalak playing awesome in Plymouth and Andersen lights out in Europe. Murphy is solid. Peters is a UFA and then there is Boucher. Muse can be an adequate back up in Charlotte. So something has to give and rather than lose one or two for nothing and the need to find spots for the young ones to play, I can see one being packaged up in a trade now or over the summer.

by sittler27 on Feb 11, 2012 10:04 AM EST reply actions

Goalies

At some point it will be interesting to see if one of the goalies can challenge Ward, although the thought tends to be heresy in Caniac Nation. Ward is clearly a top 10 NHL goalie; and is a goalie who has shown he can carry a team through the final accomplishment of the Stanley Cup. Like any player, if another younger player beats him out, he is subject to being traded. It’s a huge leap that I am not prepared to make other than to say it will be interesting to see how it transpires. I would Muse has been tremendous for Charlotte. Murphy had been great until he was hurt. Andersen has been amazing in Europe. Either Peters or Boucher or both may be traded.

One can look around the NHL and very, very few of the goalies have a Stanley Cup Championship ring. Still, for the purpose of pure hypothetical discussion, IF one of the kids overtook and surpassed Ward, the return on Ward in trade would be a blockbuster. I don’t ever see that happening and I truly believe Ward will retire as a Hurricane player. I throw out the idea for discussion only, not a prediction of the future.

by abramsdoug on Feb 11, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions

The heresy that is a “Cam Ward trade proposal” is worth a discussion. Yes, he is “the man” and I’m not proposing that we move Cam. However, players are assets to be maximized. If a blockbuster, overpayment type of deal involving Cam came down the pike, JR would be irresponsible to not consider it. I don’t think any of the kids are ready to step up and take Cam’s place…and may never be, but we have to consider such things as possibilities over the next few years.

The other option is to package one of our outstanding goalie prospects with another solid d-man prospect for a forward prospect/player.

by NotOpie on Feb 11, 2012 11:36 AM EST reply actions

Serious question: if the team were to trade Ward for a good package, then trade for Corey Schneider, would the team be worse off? They would certainly spending a lot less money in goal.

I think we have to accept that this is never going to be a big budget team, and thus stop spending so much money on a select group of players that continuously lead us to nowhere..

In my mind, one of Ward or Staal has to go. If they are both here and Ruutu is re-signed, you’re looking ~30 million on five players (those three + Gleason/Pitkanen) who have been here for nearly four seasons and resulted in exactly one playoff appearance.

It would be wonderful if we had a bigger budget and could add more core players, but if the current core is not working, why do we bring them back every year…usually at higher prices?

Oh, and trade LaRose.

by Kahz on Feb 11, 2012 7:11 PM EST up reply actions

Top Guys

I continue to believe that a team needs three top guys, goto guys, difference makers, whatever you want to call them, to do well in the playoffs. We have Ward and Staal, and in 2006 had Brind’Amour. Maybe Skinner will become our third guy. We can’t trade any of these guys because no one else is nuts enough to trade such people.

(Last time we were in the playoffs, Pittsburgh had three to our two. We were lucky to get that far with only two.)

Having “top guys/difference makers” doesn’t make as much difference through an entire season. But it’s self-defeating to lose a top guy in order to possibly get better in order to get in the playoffs, then fail in the playoffs for lack of that guy. There are other ways to get into the playoffs than losing what makes or breaks many teams in the playoffs.

by LewPuls1 on Feb 12, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions

How many years does this franchise need to miss the playoffs before Staal and Ward are dealt and a complete rebuild is done? I don’t have the answer but 2009 is the ONLY reason why this discussion might not be relevant imo. Also it’s more of a salary/franchise concern than personal, meaning I think they’re both A players, but do we have the bank and are we supplying them and are they supplying the team with what we need? that’s all.

by Cincinnati Reds on Feb 12, 2012 7:43 PM EST reply actions