Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/12/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    What about Granlund? He can play center or RW and would instantly add some scoring to this group. The Ducks have also been on a downward slide ever since GMBM purged the roster of Finns. Maybe it’s time to bring the Finns back?
  2. 2 points
    You can exceed the cap by 10% in the offseason.
  3. 1 point
    My main issue now is that there really isn't any room to sign anyone who can help. The Ducks' top four D is set, and there really isn't much trade value in the glut of guys they have for the bottom pair. They should absolutely not trade any of the guys they drafted this year for current help, especially Drysdale. The Ducks forward unit could certainly use some upgrades. Hoffman, Dadonov, Duclair - those guys would all be welcome upgrades. But signing any of them would push out a kid who really needs to be in the lineup. You can certainly could sign one and then do a separate trade where you get rid of a couple of the young forwards (Steel, Comtois, Lundestrom, Jones, etc. - Terry is probably not going anywhere after that extension), but again, those kids haven't done much to garner trade value at this point, and you're still hoping one of them blossoms into a legitimate top 6 guy. There really isn't much to be done at goaltender. You can't get better by trading Gibson, that's for sure. The Ducks would have to pull off a shocker by trading a package surrounding Manson and a bunch of the kids and probably a pick or two for a good, young forward, and then signing either Pietrangelo or Vatanen. Or they build a trade around Rakell and some kids and sign a forward like Hoffman. There are ways to improve the team for this year without completely crippling the build, but it's going to be difficult, and I can't see it happening without a trade or two.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf! Grantzlaf!
  7. 1 point
    Just curious as to why you put such distance in potential between Terry and Steel? They’ve played pretty much the same amount of games at the Pro level, they’ve both had big looks (Steel a tad more) with the big club, and had minimal roles for the most part . Steel has 13 more points in only 6 more games Played than Terry. Both scored game winners against teams fighting for a playoff spot before the pandemic stuff started. Point totals aside (which doesn’t say everything about a player obviously) I’d say they both have the same ceiling. Maybe Terry has a tad more vision , Getzlaf-esque, but Steel has the pure scoring threat imo. Who played with better line mates through their stint? Who got sent down to the gulls like a precious jewel to polish to perfection a couple times this season? Maybe management has as much faith in Terry as you seem to have? Steel stayed up and had games against NHL players, maybe not to the success as most of us hoped, but nothing that would dismiss him as a candidate to break through like Terry. I’m hopeful and rooting for both to find their footing consistently, sooner rather than later. They’re both BIG pieces to our future club . p.s. I am not related to Sam Steel.
  8. 1 point
    Btw is it just me or are people just flat out wrong about Shattenkirk “getting paid too much” since when is 3 yrs 3.9 million a lot for a top 4, potentially top pairing 40 pt guy?
  9. 1 point
    Fowler - Shattenkirk could be a really solid defense pairing. Both guys can drive offense and defend well.
  10. 1 point
This leaderboard is set to Los Angeles/GMT-08:00
×
×
  • Create New...