Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


gorbachav5 last won the day on January 4

gorbachav5 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,520 Excellent


About gorbachav5

  • Rank
    Ultimate Ducks Fan

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I won't claim to be an expert on either one, but these all strike me as guys who, if you have them on your third line, are real assets. If they're playing top 6 minutes they'll be fine, but you're not going to be outscoring anybody. Kapanen has the upside to be better than that, I think, but only as a good second liner. I don't think Kerfoot or Johnsson are significant upgrades from our current crop of youngsters, at least not without giving the kids in our system another year. Kapanen is an upgrade, and maybe enough of one that we should be targeting a player like him, but at what cost? The Ducks aren't exactly stacked any more at RD. That depth got depleted QUICKLY. So while a Manson for Kapanen trade would probably be a win for the Ducks in terms of pure value, it might do too much damage to the defense to be much help overall.
  2. Sure, but it wouldn't HURT to have an a good coach in there to develop the youth. I haven't seen much evidence that Eakins is developing anything.
  3. I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I'm not just talking about the nice run they went on at the end of the season. They were a lot better while they were playing for CARLYLE. It's incomprehensible to me how that's happening. I like Eakins' style, but I just don't see any results. He was the head coach in the AHL for...four years? Three? And we never saw guys come up and do anything impactful during that time with the exception of Kase. DTS brought up Pettersson, and maybe it's wrong of me to discount him, but he didn't look like anything more than promise until he went to the Penguins. Sure, some of these kids are going to top out at 3rd line value, but at least one of them should look good at the NHL level. None do, and I don't see why Eakins shouldn't be held responsible. I get that it's probably unfair to fire him for the NHL results this season, but I don't think the Ducks can afford to wait beyond the end of the year. They have young talent in the system right now that is going to waste away in the absence of a staff that can develop them. That's going to prolong the rebuild for two or three seasons, and the fanbase isn't going to hold up well.
  4. Yeah, the LTIR guys aren't really relevant. They would play if they were healthy. I put Despres in the same category. There was too much question about his health. Maroon's money was kept in a trade, which is a slightly different transaction. The two buyouts purely for non-effectiveness were Perry and Fistric. The team just doesn't do it often enough for me to believe that they'll eat two years of salary of a GM AND a coach, especially only one year after they got rid of a coach midseason. I think it's worth it, since I don't think the current regime is the one to help develop the kids, from the GM on down. And even sticking with Murray and Eakins one more year might mean Steel, Comtois, Jones, etc. all stagnate as 3rd/4th liners rather than develop into top 6 guys. I think the team can afford that scenario far less than they can afford to eat the salaries of a couple of staff.
  5. How often have they done it for players? They only do it when it's absolutely abundantly clear they have to move on, and I think it's too early with Eakins (for them - I'm ready now).
  6. I hear you on this, but for me, it's as much about the lack of development of young players who have been in his system for a few years as it is his actual [lack of] success with the current team. We know this isn't an abjectly terrible roster because this same roster (minus the promising youth) performed BETTER under an abomination of a coach last season. So while we shouldn't have expected much, we sure as heck should have (and did) expected more than this. If this team were bad because the veterans were all underperforming while the kids were making clear steps forward, I'd be more understanding. Instead, everyone is awful and it looks like the youth has stagnated, which is completely on Eakins.
  7. Eakins is doing that. It's the only thing he's doing. In fact, the one thing we KNEW he was good at was inspiring players to play their best. He can't even do that. As I said elsewhere, I like Eakins and was fine with us giving him a second chance. But it's clear now why he didn't get that second chance anywhere else and why none of our young players have developed. He's good at coaching people; he's not good at coaching hockey.
  8. This is the only hope. Clean house right now (it's a lost season anyway), and get Shero in here. Let him make his hire, but hopefully he can work with Gallant. This just isn't going to happen because it would mean writing off two and a half seasons of salary for Murray and Eakins. The Samuelis won't do that.
  9. Really? I thought they were through 2021, which would make firing them after this season a bit more palatable. But there's no way they pay for TWO years of empty salaries. Oof. Never mind my post above; we're about to be the Buffalo Sabres.
  10. Really? I like the guy (unlike Carlyle), so I'm trying to talk my way into being apathetic about his continued employment. But I'm convinced he's not a good coach. His players love playing for him, but that's about the only good thing you can say for him. How many guys took that next step under his tutelage? I think Ondrej Kase is the only one in however many years Eakins has been in the Ducks' organization. All of these talented forwards have stalled out. Jacob Larsson is absolutely lost. Granted, we'll never know how much of that is Dallas and how much is just the players' talent levels, but it's not like he's been able to do much with the existing talent at the NHL level. At the very least you can't really point to anyone and say that Eakins got the most out of him or got more out of him than anyone expected. Everyone coming up through the system has been disappointing. Bob Murray got more out of this team just by not being Randy Carlyle. Eakins should be able to get at least as much with some actual systematic improvement. Instead, he's been worse. At this point last season, the Ducks had just lost game 10 of an 11-game losing streak. And they were 8 points better than this team. That's awful. I am convinced Dallas is not the answer. I would love Gallant. The problem is that I think Murray has to go as well, and any new GM is probably going to want to bring in his own guy. So firing Eakins and hiring Gallant might help in the short run, but then a subsequent firing of Murray might cause more upheaval. I would stick with both until the end of the season, then fire both, bring in a GM, let him hire his coaching staff, and go from there.
  11. Hire Gallant right now. Thanks, Eakins, you tried hard, but you're not cutting it. Get Gallant in here.
  12. I wonder how differently we'd see Murray if he'd won a Cup. I don't think fans like me and you would see him any differently. I've thought he was good for most of his tenure, with some bad decisions here and there. I thought he did enough to get this team in contention for the Cup; they made the conference finals a couple times and won the division five or six years in a row. I do think he's run his course and it's time to get some new blood in to manage the rebuild; however, he certainly kept the team competitive. But imagine for a minute that the rumors are true that Murray had a deal done for Ryan Kesler at the 2014 trade deadline, but the deal got squashed by Vancouver ownership. (The other rumor is that Vancouver GM Mike Gillis was unable to be reached in time for them to consummate the deal.) Further imagine that the deal got done for the rumored price of a buttload of draft picks. Kesler helps the Ducks beat the Kings, and they go on to win the Stanley Cup. Would that really make Murray THAT much better of a GM? I don't think so. I think a Cup win, or even a Finals appearance, has become the only way to measure success for a lot of fans, and if you don't get there, you're a failure. Personally, I don't think that's entirely fair to Murray. All that said, I do agree that it's time for someone new to step in.
  13. That team is underperforming like crazy and he could never get them over the hump. Honestly, I'm surprised it took this long. Losing to the Ducks (and looking terrible doing it for most of the game) was the final straw.
  14. Those two don't seem like my cup of tea, so I'm not sure I'll ever listen. But I wonder how much Kesler, specifically, can get into. He's still employed by the Ducks and is a member of the player's union. I have to imagine he has to be very careful about what he says about his times with the Ducks, to keep him out of trouble with his organization and to avoid any scorn from current teammates.
  15. Well, if the Ducks keep this up, they'll be neck and neck with the Kings for the second best lottery odds. That could land them Lafreniere if they're lucky, although there's no way in hell the NHL lets the Ducks get the #1 pick over Detroit. Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything... Unfortunately, it doesn't appear like there's any game-breaking talent after Lafreniere, but I'm not a prospect expert.
  • Create New...