Speculation: Canes roster building thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

DougieSmash

WE'RE IN! WE'RE IN! YES! YES! WOO!
Jan 2, 2009
14,795
15,968
I'm little afraid that we may see sophomore slump from our young D next season - Hanifin, Pesce and Slavin. That's why we can't afford to trade Faulk and that's why we need healthy Wiz (and Hainsey). Not sure how close are Fleury and McKeown to NHL, probably Slavin and Chelios are more realistic option for action at the season start. Lowe and Jordan doesn't strike me for anything more than #7 D.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,254
38,757
Not sure that we'll see a sophomore slump necessarily, but it seems pretty likely that they'll continue to have some ups and downs just like this year. Just part of their process. As long as they don't tend to all have it at once, it won't have to be a big deal.

Faulk may be getting overrated a little bit, but he's a really good dman that we probably can't afford to get rid of at this point. I think we'll find a way to get some solid contributors on offense with picks, prospects, and depth signings, and that there is no intention of trading him barring a massive overpayment. It's something we can revisit in a year or two depending on how everything else goes.

I will say I think people are overrating the fact that Peters prefers having 3 RHD and 3 LHD as a reason though. He had guys play on their off side plenty when it was called for, and I'm sure if the overall team was better, he'd suck it up and do it again. Having a guy like Slavin who has played a good bit on the right is a good thing for our depth, or if we ever did end up making a Faulk move without sure replacements.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,661
37,944
colorado
Visit site
I don't think we're trading Faulk nor am I advocating it. There's just been a lot of talk on the main boards and the concept of what his value should be has been bandied about. I do believe his value is probably the highest it will ever be right now, so if you wanted to maximize that and get probably the best return you ever will for him now would be the time. A lot of people are on board with the hype around him, and the deal he's on has some time left on it. Also he had the explosion in the beginning of the year. He's hot right now. If we believed our d depth was going to keep growing and could find the right player to help the offense turn it around then it's something they should look at.

Personally I think we finally have a position of strength to build around. I wouldn't mess with any of the core pieces. If Murphy or someone like that can get us a young forward, or we add picks or other prospects to get a better one so be it. I agree with the notion that we have no idea what we really have in Hanifin/Slavin/Pesce. We may not know for sure after next season. Still have to factor in the other young guys who haven't hit the stage yet.
 

TheOllieC

cajun filet
Jul 12, 2013
13,478
2,965
Charlotte, NC
Well aside from shattenkitty and maybe Carlson, I would take any of the others. I don't feel like that's a sin to say?

That's fine, but not the point. They're all similarly ranked dmen with slight differences separating them. So if you think they should be considered #1 D's then Faulk is as well.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,661
37,944
colorado
Visit site
I don't rank Faulk with Weber or Letang. Honestly I don't rank him with McD either but people around here have turned on that guy recently. I still think he's a great player. I wouldn't take shatty over Faulk but I would look hard at Carlson maybe. I don't agree with you because I definitely wouldn't put Faulk even with a good portion of that list.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,254
38,757
I think Faulk is more or less a #1, and if traded should get a haul commensurate to that, especially considering age and contract. But I also don't subscribe to the idea there are like 10 or less #1 dmen like some do. I think that's silly. There may be that many or less elite #1 guys, but I think there are more that can reasonably play that role, and Faulk counts in my mind. As pretty much all of us, I don't think he's done growing his game yet as well.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,128
96,838
Not sure that we'll see a sophomore slump necessarily, but it seems pretty likely that they'll continue to have some ups and downs just like this year. Just part of their process. As long as they don't tend to all have it at once, it won't have to be a big deal.

Yep, I expect they will have their ups and downs and the longer they are in the NHL, the more stable they'll become. Francis did mention this either during the press conf. or in an interview. He said all 3 of the guys have a good head on their shoulders and he expects they'll put in the effort his offseason to minimize any sophomore slump.

I will say I think people are overrating the fact that Peters prefers having 3 RHD and 3 LHD as a reason though. He had guys play on their off side plenty when it was called for, and I'm sure if the overall team was better, he'd suck it up and do it again. Having a guy like Slavin who has played a good bit on the right is a good thing for our depth, or if we ever did end up making a Faulk move without sure replacements.

Having to do it and wanting to do it are 2 different things though. The Canes, for much of the season had no choice. Wiz was injured on day 1 leaving 2 NHL (Faulk/Murphy) and 1 AHL(Pesce) that could fill a RHD role. Then Murphy got injured and he had no choice but to play guys on their off side. Then Pesce and Faulk both suffered injuries later on in the season as well. I do agree though, he's not going to play a worse player just because he is a RHD. That was evident when they sent Murphy down and brought Slavin up in his place, because Murphy stunk. Still, even at the end of the season, Peters re-iterated that although Slavin did well on the right side, he said Slavin's offense suffered and re-iterated that he wants to get him on the left side.

Having players on the correct side isn't a be all, end all, but it's clearly a preference with Peters as he's made that statement multiple times.
 

StormCast

Registered User
Jan 26, 2008
4,691
2,808
Raleigh, NC
To me, if he's clearly a "second-pair" guy you could find a number of teams where he's only the third-best d-man on the roster. I could only find two clear-cut ones.

If you are talking some nebulous notion of what the ideal first-pair d-man looks like in Craig Button's head and Faulk doesn't happen to fit into that box, that's his opinion to have - but it's one that's not really based on the reality of what NHL rosters look like ATM.
To me, getting worked up over something super-homer Stouffer said - as asinine as it was to classify Faulk as a 2nd pair D - is akin to other fans getting exercised over a Maniscalco-ism. They both have a gift for getting their mouth engaged before their brain. There is no reason for him to have followed Faulk closely enough to have a valid opinion, as evidenced by his quick citing of his +/-. Hell, even Friedman mispronounced Slavin's name.

Regarding Button though, his comment "I don’t see him as an elite #1, but as a solid #2 D-man..." as odd. Not that I disagree with him saying Faulk isn't an elite #1, he isn't, but to them drop him to a #2 which is incorrect IMO.

It seems a more likely verbal progression to say, which I would fully agree with, that Faulk isn't an elite #1 but a solid #1 nonetheless. Or I don't see him as a #1 but he's a solid #2. Not saying it was a typo or anything just a perplexing way to phrase it because he's jumping over a category, at least in the way I think about D's.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,661
37,944
colorado
Visit site
Well I think Button is calling him still a first pair guy, just not the top dog in an ideal situation. A number two still works the first pair obviously. I don't think Button is dropping Faulk to the second pairing on any team. I think he's just saying on a cup contender he'd rather have Faulk being the number two behind an elite guy.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,128
96,838
^^Yeah, I agree. Getting worked up over what guys (like Stouffer or Button) say, who are paid to give opinions and in their case, like to give controversial opinions to get people talking / paying attention to them, is an exercise in futility.

If 3 years from now if people are saying Hanifin is a #1D and Faulk is a #2, I'll be ecstatic.
 
Last edited:

The Stranger

Registered User
May 4, 2014
1,233
2,077
On another topic - Ryan Murphy - I know he had some poor performances last year, and I know the D is a position of strength for the club...and because of this, some are looking at him as a potential trade piece.

All that being said, when I watch him play live (less so when viewing on TV), I'm still a believer. His value would go up immediately on any team that is half-way decent in transition.

If they swap him for like-in-kind forward prospect I won't be mad. But I would much prefer they would keep Murphy and try to acquire a "stock-down" forward using one of their extra picks.
 

StormCast

Registered User
Jan 26, 2008
4,691
2,808
Raleigh, NC
Well I think Button is calling him still a first pair guy, just not the top dog in an ideal situation. A number two still works the first pair obviously. I don't think Button is dropping Faulk to the second pairing on any team. I think he's just saying on a cup contender he'd rather have Faulk being the number two behind an elite guy.
Correct, that's what he meant but he either said it or was quoted in an awkward way. Including the word elite seems superfluous. All he had to say is I him as more and 2 than 1. Stauffer though clearly called him a second pair D.
 

nobuddy

Registered User
Oct 13, 2010
17,994
97
Nowhere
Do you think John Carlson, Ryan McDonagh, Kris Letang, Kevin Shattenkirk, Shea Weber are #1 defensemen? If so then congrats, because by default you also think Justin Faulk is a #1 defenseman.

Aside from Letang, yeah this. Faulk is better than all of the rest of these.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,128
96,838
On another topic - Ryan Murphy - I know he had some poor performances last year, and I know the D is a position of strength for the club...and because of this, some are looking at him as a potential trade piece.

All that being said, when I watch him play live (less so when viewing on TV), I'm still a believer. His value would go up immediately on any team that is half-way decent in transition.

If they swap him for like-in-kind forward prospect I won't be mad. But I would much prefer they would keep Murphy and try to acquire a "stock-down" forward using one of their extra picks.

Skill wise, Murphy is phenomenal. He is great skater, a good passer, good puck handler and he has a hard shot (although I personally think he takes to long to get it off from the point making is less effective than it should be). By all accounts, he should be a Gostisbehere type player. At times, you see flashes of that, but my view of him (more on TV than live), is that the problem seems to be his head. Either lacking in hockey sense or lacking in confidence, I can't tell, but he plays timid and doesn't take full advantage of his skill. It not only affects his defense, but his transition and offense as well, although I have seen improvement on that front. Early on, he used to skate it end to end, not utilize his teammates and end up just losing the puck down low or having to dump it, but he's improved on that.

If the guy can figure out how to put it all together, he could be a effective player for some team. I don't ever see him being a good defender, but as long as he's "adequate" AND can be really good in transition and offensively, he'd have a spot. I think it will be somewhere else though as I feel the team has kinda moved on from him (my gut feel based on reading the tea leaves). The fact that he has to pass through waivers as well gives even more reasons for why he might be traded this off season.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
Murphy is the kind of player that needs the puck to be effective. He doesn't look very good in open space in any zone. It seems like he's the type of player that was given free reign to carry the puck his whole life and is the equivalent of a guy that doesn't know what to do with his hands if he doesn't have pockets. And the problem is that penalty killers at the NHL level pressure the points more than guys at lower levels and even on the PP he doesn't have the time to assess the play that he gets at lower levels. In other words, his best skills don't play in the NHL because the pace is much faster. I'm not sure how I feel about his long term prospects anymore.
 

The Stranger

Registered User
May 4, 2014
1,233
2,077
If the guy can figure out how to put it all together, he could be a effective player for some team. I don't ever see him being a good defender, but as long as he's "adequate" AND can be really good in transition and offensively, he'd have a spot. I think it will be somewhere else though as I feel the team has kinda moved on from him (my gut feel based on reading the tea leaves). The fact that he has to pass through waivers as well gives even more reasons for why he might be traded this off season.

Murphy is the kind of player that needs the puck to be effective. He doesn't look very good in open space in any zone. It seems like he's the type of player that was given free reign to carry the puck his whole life and is the equivalent of a guy that doesn't know what to do with his hands if he doesn't have pockets. And the problem is that penalty killers at the NHL level pressure the points more than guys at lower levels and even on the PP he doesn't have the time to assess the play that he gets at lower levels. In other words, his best skills don't play in the NHL because the pace is much faster. I'm not sure how I feel about his long term prospects anymore.

His skating should allow him to flourish is the defensive scheme they are running. The key is for him to make a quick read with confidence and use his skating, which is exceptional, to gap-up and force a dump-in or turn-over. Conversely, if his partner forces a dump-in, his skating should allow him more time/space when he retrieves...and his zone-exit passing is pretty good.

He is still a risk/concern, but I hate for the team to sell at this point. It's sort of like a company with a stock at $100 that is rumored to be investigated by the feds for fraud. If the company is fraudulent, the stock is worth zero...the market typically will overreact and price the stock below $50. I'd much rather buy those equities with currency (draft pick) than with our own under-valued equity.
 

Roboturner913

Registered User
Jul 3, 2012
25,853
55,526
To me Murphy's problem is confidence, the kind of confidence that for some guys only comes with experience. He should have the speed to make up for his hesitancy though. What he really needs is more ice time, but he's probably not going to get it here now.

I really think his defense is getting better though, more than people think, there may be reason to give him another shot.

And I'm not saying he doesn't have to earn it, but I feel about him kind of the same way I feel about Lindholm, if you drafted him to be a certain thing for your team, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not give him a chance at being that thing. It's a waste of resources not to try.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,903
136,980
Bojangles Parking Lot
There's no point selling low unless we have a sucker lined up to overpay for him.

May as well let it play out and see if he ever gets it. But my hopes for him are very low at this point. He doesn't have the brain of an NHL player.
 

StormCast

Registered User
Jan 26, 2008
4,691
2,808
Raleigh, NC
To me Murphy's problem is confidence, the kind of confidence that for some guys only comes with experience. He should have the speed to make up for his hesitancy though. What he really needs is more ice time, but he's probably not going to get it here now.

I really think his defense is getting better though, more than people think, there may be reason to give him another shot.

And I'm not saying he doesn't have to earn it, but I feel about him kind of the same way I feel about Lindholm, if you drafted him to be a certain thing for your team, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not give him a chance at being that thing. It's a waste of resources not to try.
Agree with that POV. To Murphy's potential benefit is BP's strong preference to skate rather than scale pucks into the offensive zone, especially gaining entry on the PP, and nobody is close to Murphy in doing that. I think he can gain his confidence on the PP and that will translate eventually into 5on5 play.
 

Stickpucker

Playmaka
Jan 18, 2014
15,019
35,912
Murphy is the kind of player that needs the puck to be effective. He doesn't look very good in open space in any zone. It seems like he's the type of player that was given free reign to carry the puck his whole life and is the equivalent of a guy that doesn't know what to do with his hands if he doesn't have pockets. And the problem is that penalty killers at the NHL level pressure the points more than guys at lower levels and even on the PP he doesn't have the time to assess the play that he gets at lower levels. In other words, his best skills don't play in the NHL because the pace is much faster. I'm not sure how I feel about his long term prospects anymore.

So....what does one do without pockets?
 

GoldiFox

Registered User
Apr 21, 2014
13,287
32,030
Agree with that POV. To Murphy's potential benefit is BP's strong preference to skate rather than scale pucks into the offensive zone, especially gaining entry on the PP, and nobody is close to Murphy in doing that. I think he can gain his confidence on the PP and that will translate eventually into 5on5 play.

This was Murphy's signature play in the OHL. End-to-end rush with the puck finishing with a favorable offensive zone setup or transition goal. He has the skating and puck-handling skills to do it in the NHL, but I have only seen him really utilize it half-way in exiting the defensive zone. Rarely did Murphy make a dynamic offensive transition play, the type of play that Slavin regularly executed well.

I have historically been very high on Murphy and tried to make plenty of excuses as to why his potential wasn't shining through, however this has waned significantly for me when I see a guy like Slavin making all the plays that Murphy should be making. A lot of those excuses start going out of the window.

As far as value goes, I think it is most prudent to keep Murphy and hope he can build some confidence and value as a sheltered 3rd pairing and PP weapon. This is if he can't be traded for a forward in a similar glut. Prime offensive opportunities will be sparse with the current group, but he is more valuable to the Canes as a 3rd pairing D with potential than a trade chip for a 2nd/3rd round pick.

That said I don't think Francis hesitates to put Murphy on waivers if he can't prove he deserves a spot. Competition for spots on the team doesn't seem to be affected by Draft position, which is a good thing.
 
Last edited:

Navin R Slavin

Fifth line center
Jan 1, 2011
16,158
63,260
Durrm NC
That said I don't think Francis hesitates to put Murphy on waivers if he can't prove he deserves a spot. Competition for spots on the team doesn't seem to be affected by Draft position, which is a good thing.

If Francis has to put Murphy on waivers, then he's compounding the mistake of not trading him.
 

NotOpie

"Puck don't lie"
Jun 12, 2006
9,196
17,596
North Carolina
His skating should allow him to flourish is the defensive scheme they are running. The key is for him to make a quick read with confidence and use his skating, which is exceptional, to gap-up and force a dump-in or turn-over. Conversely, if his partner forces a dump-in, his skating should allow him more time/space when he retrieves...and his zone-exit passing is pretty good.

He is still a risk/concern, but I hate for the team to sell at this point. It's sort of like a company with a stock at $100 that is rumored to be investigated by the feds for fraud. If the company is fraudulent, the stock is worth zero...the market typically will overreact and price the stock below $50. I'd much rather buy those equities with currency (draft pick) than with our own under-valued equity.

Ryan Murphy has a calendar problem that likely won't be solved in the next 12 months. He is waiver eligible and would easily be lost to waivers if placed on them. Next summer with expansion likely he easily gets plucked off of either our roster or the Checkers roster. There's simply "no room at the Inn".

Agree with that POV. To Murphy's potential benefit is BP's strong preference to skate rather than scale pucks into the offensive zone, especially gaining entry on the PP, and nobody is close to Murphy in doing that. I think he can gain his confidence on the PP and that will translate eventually into 5on5 play.

I would argue that all three of Slavin, Pesce, and especially Hanifin are equal to and/or superior to Murphy in offensive zone entries. All three demonstrated better decision-making on those entries and at least equivalent skill. I agree that Murphy's main issue is confidence which manifests itself in seemingly poor or slow decision-making. He was confident in juniors and he lost that against the higher level of competition in the NHL.

If Francis has to put Murphy on waivers, then he's compounding the mistake of not trading him.

100% exactly this.....Besides, which of Faulk, Hainsey, Wisniewski, Hanifin, Slavin, or Pesce do you sit so that Murphy can play and get his confidence up? I also think he's not a lost cause, just a lost cause here. For the most part, he actually did make noticeable strides after going down to the minors and then returning. More NHL ice time where he can make a mistake and learn from it will still be required with Ryan. The rewards for that patience could pay off beautifully, but I doubt that happens here.

So our only real option is to trade him as soon as we can. The closer it gets to training camp, the lower his value is. You package him with a pick to try and get a forward in a similar boat, period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->