Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/10/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Pretty much exactly what we anticipated HAPPENED - perhaps a year or two sooner than we hoped but it HAPPENED. Nice that he waived his NMC and I wish him well. He played hard for us and took a lot of beatings . Sorry to see him go BUT he has to go to make our team better. IMHO
  2. 1 point
    And why would Pears agree to it? Current speculation is that he is worth around $4M per season on the open market, so even if he loses $4M on his total contract via a buyout, he'll make it up in spades if he signs somewhere else this summer as a UFA. I know some people are having a hard time rationalizing this idea of a buyout, but there really is a strong possibility that Pears wants to move on and be bought out. A buyout puts him on the open market and free to sign wherever he thinks its the best situation for him, and also likely adds some money to his pocket with a multi-year deal in the $4M/season range. In contrast, if he stays in Anaheim he's looking at likely being a 3rd/4th liner and possibly even a healthy scratch from time to time, and then eventually hitting the open market as a slow-skating 36-year-old with bad knees. If he stays and then pots 15 or less in 2020-21, how many teams will be lining up to offer him a multi-year, buyout-proof 35+ contract? A buyout now is actually Perry's last chance at a multi-year "retirement contract". Otherwise his best case scenario is a series of one-year deals after the age of 35. So if Pears really does have that fire still in his belly to play for the next 3-4 years at a high level, the Ducks have to cut him loose now. It's truly in Perry's best interest.
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    I think that the fan base is well aware about the state of the Ducks, where Perry is in his career and understand why the team is moving on from him. Most will be sad because of what Perry has meant to this franchise but I don't think it's a terrible message that will anger fans or turn them away. One thing that the Ducks haven't been in the last 3-4 years is cheap. Plus, everyone pretty much agrees that vastly overpaid anyway and want to see what someone like Terry can do in his place. Perry wasn't just a top-6 or even first line. He was a franchise altering player and NHL star who was one of the best goal scorers in the league over a 10-year period. He got paid accordingly for that and for what it meant to the franchise. The cap hit isn't much of a problem. The Ducks aren't going to have any expensive free agents to re-sign after next season and will have $19 mil in space before accounting for the cap rising.
  5. 1 point
    He had won the Hart, Rocket Richard, a Stanley Cup and an Olympic gold medal while being one of the top 10 scorers in the league though. After 4-5 years of underpaying him for his production, the Ducks had to offer that term, money and NMC in order to keep him, knowing that his production would decline in his early to mid 30's and towards the latter half of his contract. As the cap rises, it becomes less of a financial issue as it takes up a smaller percentage each time that it goes up. Should the Ducks have let him walk or traded him instead? Teams usually do everything that they can to keep their superstar players and I would sign Perry 100/100 times under the circumstances. Even though they didn't win another Cup, I highly doubt that the Ducks win the 4 straight division titles, have 5 straight playoff appearances and 2 WCF appearances during Perry's current 8-year deal without him. It has just unfortunately reached the point that with the current state of the Ducks, it makes sense to move on from him. I have bigger issues with Kesler's and Eaves' extensions as well as Bieksa's than I do with Perry's.
  6. 1 point
    Buying him out isn't terrible if the money is being freed up to bring a better replacement in. What would be terrible, is if our GM's going forward haven't learned their lesson on long term, no trade, high salary contracts. 5 years should be the longest a contract can be and keep an NTC. Regardless, it should be two of three, but not all three (term, ntc, price) for ufa contracts going forward. They're way too much of a handcuff when all three are together.
  7. 1 point
    IMHO, if Ducks can't find a trade partner, they should ride him for at least one more season and they buy him out.
  8. 1 point
    Good comment. I think the word "unimaginative" fits better than "safe" as it applies to hiring Eakins. Dave Tippett would be a "safe" choice. Eakins isn't safe in that we have no idea if he'll succeed at the NHL level. He hasn't before. But I think we're all predisposed to think Murray is going to be unimaginative since that's the way he manages the roster and coaching hires. Need a coach? Not only hire a retread, hire a retread who's been Anaheim's coach before. Need to change your play style? Change it to the same style of whichever team just beat you in the playoffs. It's not always a bad decision to go that route (Carlyle notwithstanding), but it's not groundbreaking. Murray's not going to take advantage of any previously undiscovered inefficiencies in building a team that way. As for Eakins, I'm not sold. I don't think he'll necessarily be bad. He might be, but he's saying all the right things about his stint in Edmonton. His AHL record is good, but it's not great - a lot of playoff appearances, but fairly early exits. This is the first time he's been out of the second round with the Gulls. He did get to the Calder Cup championship in his third year with the Marlies, but he lost. I haven't been all that impressed with the Gulls' underlying statistics, although I haven't taken a deep dive and it's tough to analyze AHL statistics with all the roster turnover. When you hear the glowing reviews, it's almost always about how much players love playing for him. That's all well and good, but 1) NHL players are a different breed; they're not just happy to be there and 2) in all those glowing reviews there isn't much said about his ability as a hockey strategist. Lastly, Eakins has been the Gulls' coach for four seasons now. Kase is a success story, but aside from him, who has Eakins developed into an above average top 9/top 4 player for the Ducks? Ritchie has been okay, but hasn't reached what we thought his potential might be. What other homegrown forward has Eakins mentored who became a contributor for the Ducks? In the same vein, a lot of the young defensemen have seemingly stalled in their progress (Larsson, Wellinski, Megna) or they've gone to other organizations and immediately shown more success (Theodore, Pettersson). A decent amount of that might be Carlyle, but we haven't seen any of those young d-men come up and impress, and Eakins has to bear SOME responsibility for that. Larsson in particular has been disappointing. That's my case against Eakins. I honestly don't think he'd be terrible. He'll certainly be better than Carlyle, and there's a chance he's learned enough from his Edmonton experience to be good. But I don't think the evidence is there to pick him over another NHL assistant or AHL coach who has more to offer in the way of playing strategy. I've only read a few things on Lambert and I'd be inclined to take him over Eakins.
  9. 1 point
    I don’t know if I would call Eakins a “safe choice”. Sure he is doing great in the AHL but his NHL resume is lacking. I would think a “safe choice” would be for a more established NHL bench boss, the more wins the safer. At this point I would classify Eakins between risky and safe but def not safe and not totally risky either. I guess the only reason he would be considered safe is due to him already being part of the organization? I also wouldn’t classify Eakins under the old school regime either, he’s too young to be there. Coach Q, RC, BB and all the other older coaches would be considered old school I think. I don’t know enough to make an argument for or against a coaching candidate but Eakins does seem like a decent enough choice considering the above way of analyzing the situation. He also knows the players too, I would think that weighs more in his favor. Also I have no problem rewarding in-house talent with promotions especially when he has been doing a great job with the Gulls thus far. He would also come in much cheaper than a coach with more NHL experience. I would like to hear more on why people would NOT want to hire him as opposed to hiring him to help sort out the analysis.
  10. 1 point
    My thoughts on this are probably worth zero since I've never been in a professional hockey locker room or on the bench of a professional hockey team, and its also hard to get a feel for how a coach runs the room just by watching games. I also have no idea what kind of a system Lambert would implement here once he's running his own show, and I honestly haven't seen enough Gulls games to have a strong grasp of what Eakins is running these days either. Tactics aside, they both seem very well liked by their players, although in Eakins case we're talking about kids and career-AHL players and in Lambert's case we're talking about guys who have actually played for and won a Stanley Cup. With that, I do prefer Lambert's resume, simply because of his NHL experience. Eakins has been a decent AHL coach, but he has never seen NHL playoff ice from behind the bench, either as an HC or as an assistant. Lambert on the other hand has coached in the NHL playoffs almost every year since coming up from the AHL in 2011 (for three different NHL clubs now) and has even hoisted the Stanley Cup. My personal preference would be for a coach who has been there before - i.e. someone who already knows what it takes to squeeze the most out of elite NHL players during the hardest parts of an NHL season, not just kids in the AHL trying to make their first NHL roster. I also like that Lambert has been mentored by one of the greats in Barry Trotz. To me, Eakins kind of seems to be winging it (like he was in Edmonton), since he hasn't ever coached under the tutelage of a great NHL coach. With Eakins, I think you'd expect to see a lot more trial and error as he works his way through each new experience in his NHL coaching career. In contrast, I think Lambert likely will be better able to draw on the Trotz experience to work his way through whatever tough times may come up in dealing with a young team.
This leaderboard is set to Los Angeles/GMT-07:00
×
×
  • Create New...