For those who are up for the longer version of this, I posted the set up, situation, needs assessment, etc. type of stuff in part 1 of this series earlier today. You can find that in the archives
HERE.
First, to be clear, these are NOT rumors. I have no sources that can feed me information on what might actually be happening in discussions. They are my personal speculation of what might make sense to consider.
Trade-wise the NHL season progresses through a couple stages with a fork in the road part of the way through it. During the off-season GMs try to build what they think is a good team. If they think they are reasonably successful at this, they enter the season wanting to just sit and watch things unfold for some time before tinkering with the original model. That usually lasts through October and into November. Somewhere about midway through this, GMs start to form opinions on what they have right, what they have wrong and where it looks like they might need help. Then somewhere around the quarter mark of the season comes the fork in the road. Teams that are playing reasonably well continue to assess needs and begin to consider trades but have the luxury of patience if the on-ice results are good. Teams that find themselves falling out of the playoff chase suddenly have a sense of urgency to do something to try to improve.
With an up and down November that saw the Canes just fall to 6th in the weak Metro Division, I think Canes GM Jim Rutherford has one if not both feet on the "urgency" side of the fence entering December. And with four consecutive playoff misses for a team that has not been rebuilding the pressure is dialed up a bit extra.
If/when Rutherford decides that the current team on its current path is not a playoff team (I think we are close if not there), there is an important flip in mindset. When things are going well there is a balance to measuring reward versus risk in deals which leans toward patience and not upsetting the apple cart that even if imperfect is moving forward. At the point where the season is headed the wrong direction, I think consideration of risk decreases significantly. The thought is that if the current team is not good enough, better to try something/anything else versus doing nothing. Again, I am not sure if the Canes are all the way there, but I think they are close. This flip in mindset spurs a "this could work" calculated risk taking approach to reworking the lineup.
So in my opinion with the Canes nearing that bridge where it is better to try something than do nothing, here are a list of potential trades that I think could make sense. Predicting specific trades is always low probability, so I think it is important to point out the common themes:
--The priority shopping list is a 3rd-line center (or possibly RW) to play with Jeff Skinner and a more offensive-oriented defenseman probably to slot next to Ron Hainsey.
--The available list is growing, but for me I think its order is Tim Gleason (just too big of contract for current role) and Jiri Tlusty in terms of players who will garner value, but my hunch is that the untouchable list does not include as many of the stars as people might think as reflected by the couple of low-probability blockbusters that I included. I am not at all surprised to see Tuomo Ruutu's name bandied around, but I think he has a good chance to stay.
I started with 12 deals but had to whittle it to 9 due to lack of time to finish writing this today. Cutting 3 probably slightly reduces the volume of backlash that I will get as it is. :-)
1: Jiri Tlusty to the Rangers for Michael Del Zotto.
Why it makes sense: The players are similar in a few key value respects. Both are playing on the last year of fairly inexpensive contracts (Tlusty $1.7M and Del Zotto $2.9M). Both are restricted free agents next summer. Both are still pretty young (Tlusty 25, Del Zotto 23) but with significant NHL experience. Both players had good 2012-13 seasons which provide value and hope, but both players are struggling so far in 2013-14. The Rangers could use more scoring. The Canes could use a more offensive defenseman.
Why it doesn’t make sense: The Rangers have okay mid-tier scoring types. It seems like they might be looking for more of an impact player, but then Tlusty was that last season.
2: Tim Gleason to ______ for prospects freeing up a roster spot and money to trade a 6th round pick to the Toronto Maple Leafs for John Michael-Liles with Toronto eating the maximum half of his salary.
Why it makes sense: Right now, Gleason is a seventh defenseman making $4M. The longer he stays in this situation, the more his value decreases (see John-Michael Liles). His skill set is also redundant with Bellemore who is doing a better job of what Gleason does than Gleason himself and also veteran depth in Mike Komisarek. The time for the Canes to trade him to at least unload the big salary and gain future flexibility on the defense and hopefully get some return is now. Liles is obviously a bit of a reclamation project, but he has the right skill set at least. Per my comments above, it at least makes it possible that he can help which for the right price (very little in trade and at only $1.9M if Toronto eats half his salary).
Why it doesn’t make sense: This trade scenario is complicated in that it involves two separate deals, requires someone to take the risk on Gleason’s sizable contract and requires Gleason to waive his no-trade clause. That is a lot of moving parts to essentially swap Gleason for a less expensive more offense-oriented defenseman.
3: Tim Gleason to Edmonton for Sam Gagner.
Why it makes sense: This is basically a swap of two underperforming players of different positions obviously that have similar contracts. Gagner is under contract for two more years at $4.8M and Gleason also for two more years at $4.8M. Gagner has his set of issues, but he would add a pretty good playmaking offensive center to slot next to Skinner to build a 3B line that is difficult to handle offensively. While the Canes would not sign Gagner at anything close to $4.8M, at least this way they get a forward who fits in the lineup for the chunk of money instead of a defenseman who does not. Similarly, Edmonton needs help defensively and seemingly in terms of veteran leadership. On top of the Andrew Ference signing this summer, Gleason would provide a grizzled veteran, leadership and another puzzle piece to try to make the defense work.
Why it doesn’t make sense: This is the typical “You take my bad contract, and I’ll take yours” trade that hopes a change of scenery does wonders for both players. Sure, it can work, but it also requires both teams to take on a new/different contract for a bunch of money for a player that might now work out. Also, with Gagner signed for two more years, it puts a big salary in a C3 slot that the team might prefer to leave open for Elias Lindholm or even Victor Rask.
4: Tim Gleason, Riley Nash, a 2nd round pick and ____ to Florida for Brian Campbell.
Why it makes sense: I know. This one is completely off the trade banter radar and out of left field, but I actually think it makes more sense than 2/3 of what is being bandied around the internet right now. Brian Campbell is the premium version of what the Canes need. Ideally the Canes need is a right shot, skating/offensive/puck-moving power play capable defenseman who is good enough to be a top four defenseman. That has to be about the rarest commodity in the NHL. These players cost $4-7M and just are not available via trade. That is why Liles is even worth considering. Liles is risky, but he is also inexpensive and available. Campbell is a left shot, but otherwise fits the bill perfectly. He could also be a great similar skill set mentor for Ryan Murphy.
And with Florida struggling and mostly rebuilding, I think just about anyone on that team except for their young core is probably available for the right price. If Rutherford wants to go playoffs or bust in 2013-14 and is willing to spend the future to go after it, name another option who might actually be available who would be a better fit for what the Canes could use defensively? Exactly. This kind of player just is not available. I think Campbell probably ranks #1 in terms of balancing availability and degree of upgrade for improving the blue line offensively without a big setback defensively or a roll of the dice on a reclamation project.
Why it doesn’t make sense: Campbell’s $7.1M contract is daunting. The deal would only be possible of Florida took salary back in Tim Gleason. That actually might not be out of the question since Gleason’s leadership might be a decent addition for Floriday, but then is Florida’s rebuilding project really a place that Gleason would waive his no-trade clause for? Because of the no-trade clause, this deal might start to look like the Liles deal in which the Canes trade Gleason to somewhere to unload the salary and then make a separate trade for Campbell. The other complication is finding the right mix of futures to entice Florida. The Canes have a gap in between mostly untouchable youth (Lindholm, Murphy) and second-tier type of players (Nash, Boychuk, etc.). To get it done, the Canes would need to part with some futures of value, and I am not sure a collection of lower-tier prospects and a draft pick or two would get it done.
5: Cam Ward to Edmonton for Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (with a blockbuster like this inevitably requiring a bigger pool of players to get pulled in to even things up).
Why it makes sense: Yes. I realize that this is a “Wow!” kind of blockbuster and also completely off the radar again, but I actually think I would do this trade. For me it is simple. I just do not think the Canes are that much better in net with Cam Ward than they are with the other options. He has not truly been great since his great run in the 2009 playoffs. He is increasingly struggling to stay healthy. And to be honest, his backups have outplayed him of late. In no way am I saying that Ward is washed up, but I think downgrading modestly at the goalie position to add a young but proven top 6 type NHL forward could be interesting.
Edmonton and its fan base are growing impatient with the continued rebuilding project, and the goalie position is one of the biggest current struggles. For Edmonton, the fan base would love it, and it might even help solidify things. For the Canes, in terms of 2013-14, I am not sure moving to Anton Khudobin is really as big of a downgrade as some might think, and the upgrade at forward is significant.
Why it doesn’t make sense: This would be easier to do if the Canes had a goalie of the future in the system who looked to be a year or two away from taking the #1 goalie spot. They do not. Instead, the Canes would enter the mix of teams trying to get by on patchwork goalies until the next franchise player arrives out of nowhere. As evident by teams like the Oilers, Islanders, Flyers, etc. this is a treacherous road.
But could the Canes sign Khudobin for a couple more years for cheap leaving enough money to sign or trade for another experienced goalie to provide two decent options still for a couple million less than Ward is making?
6: _______ to Nashville for Matt Cullen. (Not sure if Nashville would prefer futures or a roster player like Tlusty but from the Canes side Cullen could fill a couple different holes).
Why it makes sense: Matt Cullen brings a versatile Jussi Jokinen-like skill set that could help address a couple of the Canes' issues. He is offensively capable and even in his late 30s has good enough wheels to hang with Skinner on the 3rd line. If Lindholm emerged at center, Cullen is capable of sliding to wing. He can play the point on the power play which would get at least one of the defense-first defensemen who do not belong there off the power play. And he is a known commodity in the locker room.
Why it doesn’t make sense: This deal largely depends on whether Rutherford is ready to just jettison Ruutu’s contract ($5M for next two years after 2013-14) and count the financial flexibility/decreased risk as part of the value of trading him. Personally, I lean toward being patient with Ruutu. His mix of physical play with enough skill is difficult to find, and he has shown signs of better play of late. While Nashville might want Ruutu’s physical skill set, as a budget conscious team like the Canes, I am not sure they would want to risk the commitment of $5M/year for two more years. This could have them looking more for futures which per the Campbell trade leaves the Canes trying to package up a collection of lower-tier futures or draft picks.
7: Modest futures and/or Riley Nash to Calgary for Mikael Backlund.
Why it makes sense: Skill set-wise, Backlund fits what the Canes need for a third-line center as a playmaking type with enough speed to play at Skinner’s pace. With Calgary ready to give up on him, he should be available for a modest return at this point. He represents a potential complementary piece for the 3rd line on the cheap.
Why it doesn’t make sense: The but is that he is not a proven NHL scorer and just has not worked out. To put it in Canes terms, he is the Zac Dalpe or Zach Boychuk of Calgary with a high-end skill set and potential but just not having put it together at the NHL level yet and now 24 years old. He looks more like another thing to try which could work than a sure thing to be any better at third-line center than the other options. With the Canes falling in the standings, I am not sure December is the time for another “could work” experiment. My hunch is that Rutherford would prefer an addition with a higher probability of success.
8: Tim Gleason to Dallas for futures.
Why it makes sense: With Stephane Robidas out four to six months with a broken leg, the Stars need to add something on defense. I am not sure that Gleason and his $4M/year contract for two more years will be first on the list, but he could be one of the most available and cheapest in terms of trade assets required to get him.
Why it doesn’t make sense: Dallas is on the outside of it but still hanging on in the playoff chase. Playing for today would suggest that Gleason could fit, but playing a bit more for the future would prefer adding a rental type player signed only through 2013-14 (or longer term at a lower price) versus adding a big contract in Gleason. The rental player could help push for 2013-14 and if it does not work out be re-traded at the deadline to get an asset back.
9: Jeff Skinner and Jiri Tlusty to New York Rangers for Marc Staal plus another NHL forward plus ____.
Why it makes sense: Marc Staal could be the right shot second pairing defenseman that the Canes need. He is not pure offense and power play capabilities but would be a big upgrade to Bellemore’s skill set in these areas. On one hand, the Canes can continue to wait as Marc Staal creeps closer toward free agency and signable without having to also trade something to get his rights. But per my comments above, I think the combination of four years of no playoffs and the recent attendance dip makes summer of 2015 for Marc Staal look real, real far away. And a couple things are converging.
First, both Staal and Skinner are both healthy at the same time which is a rarity of late. Second, after a solid start both offensively and defensively before his injury Skinner has taken a couple steps back toward Muller’s doghouse with a couple lackluster defensive efforts. If the trade gets a little bit bigger and the Canes net a forward who might fit better (than Skinner) or play better (than Tlusty in 2013-14) in a third-line forward slot it makes the loss of Skinner maybe easier to take.
Why it doesn’t make sense: First, Skinner is a lot to trade for an asset that you might get for free in another year and a half. Also, the Canes might be able to get more of the offensive skill set they need in that second pairing slot for a lesser player with a more offense-leaning skill set. Finally, the Rangers seem more keen on trying to get a decent forward in return for Del Zotto (see trade No. 1 above). With more winning despite some issues at forward, the Rangers have the luxury of patience maybe unlike Rutherford.
My preference is to be patient with the Marc Staal thing. I would consider paying a small price next season to get him early, but lean toward just waiting.
If I was GM (and coach I guess), I would do the following:
1: Try Ruutu in the C3 slot. The other alternative would be Rask, but I have not seen enough of his play to judge whether he is ready. It can’t hurt and giving up a stubborn “this is how I picture it working” to think outside the box could yield surprise results.
2: Make the best available trade to unload Gleason’s contract sooner rather than later. He is a $4M/year seventh defenseman who is a minimal if any upgrade over much cheaper options for his physical, stay-home style of play. I am fine with taking a modest collection of futures at this point if that is all he is worth because the bigger gain is the financial flexibility both in 2013-14 and going forward.
3: In terms of trades, the deals I like the most are a Brian Campbell deal if the team can work a salary offset in the deal (ideally Gleason but I guess Ruutu is the other option) and also the Tlusty for Del Zotto deal because of its relative simplicity. Minus Campbell or a better option for an offensive defenseman, I have seen enough 2013-14 Canes hockey to convince that the current path is not a playoff path which has me willing to gamble a bit on a lesser number four defenseman like Liles for the right price.
4: I know the Cam Ward deal differs from the path that we as Canes fans have been on for seven years now since the Cup win, and it is definitely a make or break kind of move with risks, but if I were Jim Rutherford, I come back to thinking that the short-term downgrade in net would be small compared to the possible upgrade made by the acquired player.
Per my comments that started this blog, I think we are deep enough into this season that if Rutherford wants to push for the playoffs there are upgrades that need to be made. I will be surprised if we do not see at least one deal in the next two weeks.
What say you Canes fans? Do you like any of these deals? Is it crazy to put Jeff Skinner and Cam Ward into the trade mix? Is the window on Tim Gleason having value already closed? Am I right to want to be a bit more patient with Tuomo Ruutu?
Twitter=@CarolinaMatt63
Go Canes!
Matt on Google+ 
Carolina Hurricanes Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»