I have hit a stretch busy and busy between weekday stuff and then a couple of booked weekends. But along the way, I have been doing a rambling version of writing that includes player and team assessments leading into how I would try to remold the team for next year. So I don't do the thing where I put up 2-3 of these on a reasonable schedule and then get sidetracked for 2 weeks, my hope is to mostly finish writing all of this, so I can then post it on regular schedule regardless of what happens to my free time. Hope is to start putting stuff up either end of this week or early next week.
Besides just checking in, the easiest way to keep tabs on my blog posts during the offseason is to follow me on Twitter at CarolinaMatt63.
But in the meantime, "Will the Canes get Marc Staal?" is obviously not an original thought in Canes or NHL circles. But I think a couple things are happening in unison that could make for a perfect storm for this situation.
So leaning on my lucky timing of ranting about the need to sign Semin some 14 hours before it happened, the current backdrop is this...
From a Canes standpoint, after getting off to a great start Jeff Skinner struggled during much of the 2013 season. His point totals were enough that there is offensive hope for him. The bigger issue, however, was his inability to fit neatly onto a 2nd line that has Jordan Staal penciled into the center slot for as far as the eye can see. And the first line of Tlusty/EStaal/Semin that it enters the 2013-14 season already written in pen. This slots Skinner somewhere on a 3rd line which is ideally a place where Coach Muller has said again and again he wants to get bigger and more physical. At the same time, the Canes blue line is a mess right now. The defense was horrid at times in 2013 and past Justin Faulk, I'm not sure any of it is written in pen right now heading into the offseason. The Canes clearly need at least 1 more top 4 defense first player to have some kind of chance.
From a Rangers standpoint, the team is built from the net out with Henrik Lundqvist first, a solid blue line second, team defense from the forwards third and then hopefully enough offense after that. Realizing that they needed more scoring punch to take the next step, they made a big move for Rick Nash. That deal has worked out pretty well, but somewhere along the way to integrating him and figuring out the new Rangers offense Marian Gaborik completely fell off the cart and is now gone. The Rangers do also have Richards who had an up and down season and got a breakout year from Derek Stepan and (at least early in the year) from Carl Hagelin, but I think I am right in saying that they continue to be a team leaning heavily on scoring balance and not needing too much because of their defense. And in terms of raw offense, you could argue that while they did upgrade the top scoring dog (swap Nash for Gaborik), they are more or less right back where they started with only 1 proven point a game type of player. There is nothing wrong with this balanced scoring approach. In some ways it should translate better to the playoffs than the alternative since it makes it hard to shut down via matchups. But that is the theoretical paper version. The reality as of right now is this. The Rangers are down 2-0 in their playoff series with Washington. They needed to score only 1 goal in regulation to win game 2 but were unable to do so and lost in overtime. And the team managed only 1 goal in a 3-1 game loss.
First, I don't pretend to be a great prognosticator of how this series turns out. I watched both games, and my impression is not that the Rangers are completely out of this series. Returning to home ice, any kind of win in game 3 could put this on the path to a long, 7-game series that could go either way.
But IF the series continues on the current path of the 1st 2 games which reads like this:
--The Rangers defense and goaltending is good enough to win games.
--But the team continues to fail to muster any offense, namely goal scoring.
--And it goes on to lose the series 4-0 or 4-1...
Then I think things could be teed up for a Jeff Skinner for Marc Staal trade.
Sure Marc Staal is a great defensemen and could make the Rangers even better defensively. But I think the strong regular season push to make the playoffs followed by (if it happens) a playoff series where the defense is solid would make a pretty strong argument that the Rangers can get by without him. And at the same time, I realize that you need to be careful not to overreact to a single playoff series, but a loss to Washington on the current path of "good enough defense but not enough goal scoring" could suggest that the Rangers could use 1-2 more scoring weapons. Ironically this is exactly where the Rangers were last year when they made a big trade to add Nash to a Gaborik and Richards mix only to then jettison Gaborik.
There has to be at least some consideration that Marc Staal is down to 2 years remaining on his current contract and could leave for Carolina (or somewhere else) anyway after the 2014-15 season combined with the fact that they seem to be getting by without him. And there are not a ton of top-tier free agent options available this summer. And with the Canes missing the playoffs and having a hole on defense, Rutherford is clearly in a mode to wheel and deal if he can improve the Canes blue line.
Ironically, I think either outcome of 2013 playoffs could open the door for this discussion:
--If the Rangers follow the current path of losing via lack of scoring, might they be shopping for another offensive weapon for next year?
--If the Rangers right the ship, might this make an argument that they can get by just fine defensively minus Marc Staal and his $4M/year for the next 2 years plus a probable raise to keep him after that?
As a Canes fan, I think I am way at the low end of eating up the Staal brother excitement. I just really want playoff hockey again. It has been too long. And be it Marc Staal or someone else, at least 1 more top 4 defense-first defenseman seems like a minimum requirement.
My biggest fear is that Rutherford will way overpay for a deal like this. I like the aggressive decision to get Jordan Staal when the option presented itself. And despite the team's and Jordan's struggles in 2013, I still feel the same way long-term. But I do also think that Rutherford gave up too much. In offering up Brandon Sutter, I think the Canes gave Pittsburgh the absolute best possible (across entire league) replacement for JStaal. Sutter brought a proven 3rd line/checking line center who with even decent linemates would form a very good 3rd line that gave up very little. And the Pens got this in a young but experienced character player who (importantly) was under contract for $4M less than JStaal's next contract. Remember that the $, not at all quality of play were the reason that Pittsburgh had to trade JStaal. So with JStaal being the higher-end player, the Canes needed to sweeten the deal obviously. A mid-first round pick is a pretty good adder. A top-tier prospect is a pretty good adder. Both was too much in my opinion. The most important player in this deal was for Pittsburgh was Sutter. The Pens are not builidng for the future. The Pens HAD to get a 3rd line center for 2013, not some future year. When the Canes were able to offer that in return, they were almost assuredly the high bidder. And the clock was ticking on Schero and Pittsburgh. So why offer 2 top shelf sweeteners? I think Schero outdid Rutherford. I am obviously not privy to the GM discussions or what other offers Schero might have been trying to pull together, but with Pittsburgh needing a key replacement part for 2013, I don't see how anyone could have outbid Sutter+1 top-tier future+plus something else more random if the Pens really thought they needed more.
So getting back to the Marc Staal for Jeff Skinner scenario, I think it goes like this:
1) If the Rangers like Skinner, do want to add another offensive weapon and can look past the fact that he is still developing in other aspects of his game, then it's deal on.
2) If instead, the Rangers go the "We don't really like Skinner but we will take him as a small piece of a huge package for Staal" route, then I walk away, look elsewhere and remind them that the Canes have 2 brothers who will help a bit in the bidding war currently scheduled for summer of 2015.
If the Rangers are interested in Skinner, I do think the Canes need to offer something else in addition to Skinner, but if it is a king's ransom similar to the Jordan Staal deal, I pass and wait.
While I actually have nailed a few calls, trying to predict individual trades or signings is difficult. Regardless, Skinner is the player that jumps out as the key piece of any Canes trade to land a top-4 defenseman this summer. You have to give up something to get something, and with his struggles in general and inability to fit on JStaal's line, you have to figure this a possibility.
I think a quick Rangers playoff exit with a couple more games of "not enough goals" puts the ball on the tee for a Rutherford call to New York and then per my comments above have an in-depth June discussion.
What say you Canes fans?
--Is it time to finish the Staal trifecta?
--Is Skinner's upside and value marketing-wise to the fan base too much to let go?
--Who else might you target as a top 4 defenseman either trade or free agent-wise?
Go Canes!
Google 
Carolina Hurricanes Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»