Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

gorbachav5

Members
  • Content Count

    7,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    186

Everything posted by gorbachav5

  1. Again, the likelihood of the Ducks doing this is slim to none, but since we're just having a theoretical discussion, I'll throw this out there: isn't getting a player of the caliber of Laine or Dubois LIKE winning the lottery? Dubois was the third pick and Laine the second, and we already know that they're good, productive players at the NHL level. There are two key differences between those guys and the three studs in the 2022 draft: 1) They cost more, which is an issue if you're at the cap, but shouldn't be much of an issue for the Ducks starting next season; and 2) They're way more of a sure bet in multiple ways. I think hitting the lottery in the draft is very helpful, but it's not the only way to build a winner. The Ducks won a Cup without doing it, and they're not the only ones. I know the high draft pick studs are super valuable, but I can't reduce myself to rooting for ping pong balls in order to think we'll ever win a Cup again. The Ducks have some nice building blocks now, and those guys can either be supplemented by good young talent that they trade for or additional talent that they draft. If they do a good job of it, they can get back to winning without getting one of those three. I think it will take a different front office and coaching staff to get there, but that's a different matter entirely.
  2. This is what I'm thinking dreaming, too. I don't know about challenging for the division, but it certainly puts them in the hunt for a playoff spot, and maybe more if things break right. I think the goal should be to improve the team enough so they're out of contention for those guys. That would mean they made the playoffs, or at least made a good run at it, and that would make me happy. You hold on to your 2022 first round pick, just in case, but this 2021 pick should be more available to improve the team in the short term for a young, proven player. All that said, I can't see the Ducks doing this. Not only is Dubois's request totally offputting to Murray, but Anaheim probably isn't the environment Dubois is looking for unlike LA and Montreal, and both of those teams have more assets to offer in terms of what Columbus is looking for. So I think your 2021 1st rounder is safe. For now.
  3. Normally I'd agree with you there, and I'm not interested in trading that pick for anyone other than a Dubois/Laine type. But in a reportedly weak draft when there's a young stud available who, theoretically, could be on your team for the next five years? If Zegras and Drysdale are fairly close to being ready, it gets the team into a contention just a bit earlier. In Dubois's case, I don't think it makes sense since the running theory is that he wants to be in a bigger market. Anaheim doesn't really help there. But I would be willing to move that pick for him or Laine if it was reasonable to think that either would be satisfied here. On a larger point, while I don't think this year matters much due to the pandemic, the Ducks are going to need to hit the ground running next year or that building is going to be empty. Realistically they need two more seasons until they start looking to get back into playoff contention. But if they can make moves to speed up that timeline so they're looking to get into playoff contention next season, it would be a big deal for this market.
  4. I agree that he deserved the benching. That's unacceptable. But if Tortorella can't get through to him, Jarmo needs to try, otherwise Dubois is just completely tanking his trade value every time he gets out there and looks like a puppy dog who lost his chew toy. Although, to be honest, this gives the Ducks a realistic shot at landing him. On the other hand, knowing Bob Murray, there was almost no chance he was going to pull this off before, and that's gone to zero now that he would be trading FOR a pouty youngster. It's not going to happen. I agree about 2022 when the draft is slated to be really, really good. But this coming draft has been rated as fairly pedestrian. Dubois is most likely better than any player that comes out of it. In that case, why not give it up?
  5. This is just one of 792 reasons why Tortorella is Cup-winning (and possibly HoF) head coach and Eakins is...not. Although Columbus can't be happy about that situation. Dubois sitting on the bench for two periods because Tortorella doesn't want to play him isn't going to increase his trade value any. Kekalainen either needs to fix that relationship or just pull Dubois out of the lineup until he's traded.
  6. Unbelievable! Now I have to pay attention to my family. Come on.
  7. I would love it. But I think it's more likely MacKinnon scores 8 goals himself. That guy is scary.
  8. Thanks! If I can, I'll tune in tonight. Drysdale, Zegras, Perrault - hopefully they'll lift my spirits about this team.
  9. Is it free to watch? Or do you have to have YouTubeTV subscription?
  10. It's a bad sign when the head coach is calling out players FOUR GAMES into a season after your team has had 10 months off. Here's the quote from Eric Stephens' piece in the Athletic (subscription based, but worth it in my opinion): On the one hand, I'm all for accountability. Silf and Henrique in particular have been garbage, and they got benched for most of the second period. However, is this the right way to send the message? Maybe it is. Playing time is probably the best motivator a coach has that he has control over. But that leads to the more important question: why does your head coach feel the need to resort to strong-arm tactics to motivate guys this early in the season? When you see this sort of a thing, it's usually during a slump in the middle of a season when the team is tired and has lost some confidence and is going through the motions. You don't see it four games into a season. Especially coming off a long offseason after a bad year, it shouldn't have taken much to get these guys fired up to play. That doesn't mean they'll magically transform into great players, but at least the effort should be there. Eakins seems to have already lost the room, which is a similar pattern to his stint in Edmonton, when he was fired 30 games into his second season there after losing the room. I'm on record as being okay with the hire when it happened, but it's abundantly clear to me now that Eakins should not be an NHL head coach. I don't even think he should be an AHL coach given his track record of being unable to develop individual players. The Ducks are in a rebuild phase; as much as I want the team to win, they're not realistically going anywhere in the playoffs, so the losing record in and of itself isn't a huge issue. But the player development is. They've got several guys on the roster who should be part of the next good Ducks team, assuming they can reach their potential. But they're stagnating. How long can the Ducks afford to let that happen? If the team continues to show lackluster effort, will Eakins get the boot? Will Murray get the boot with him so a new GM can come in and make the head coaching hire? If they make a move midseason, they're probably hiring a GM from within like Madden or Nonis (shudder). That might not be the best, either. If the Ducks get blown out by the Avs twice and then show poor effort in Arizona, I could see this happening quickly. I don't think it's likely, but it's at least a possibilty. I just don't know if what comes afterward is going to be a good long-term solution for the organization.
  11. gorbachav5

    Lineups:

    Welinski isn't good. And having played for Eakins is a bug, not a feature. Why throw the guy out there we know isn't good? At least there's a chance Curran surprises us. I don't think he can be much worse than Welinski.
  12. There's nothing "scary" about it. When you're already at rock bottom (in terms of the power play), walking the tightrope doesn't provoke much fear. But as dts said, it's just indicative of a flawed thought process. The power play desperately needs higher skill - passing and shooting - and Grant is not the answer. Putting Grant on the power play is something you do when you're halfway through the season and the power play is ice cold and Grant is playing well. You reward the player and try to shake things up. If they're shaking things up before the season has already started, it's really alarming. It tells me they have no better ideas on how to run an actual functioning power play unit. But since we already knew that, it's not necessarily scary. It's just a bit bonkers that the solution they came up with (IN THE PRESEASON WHEN THEY HAD ALL OFFSEASON TO THINK ABOUT IT) was to put a career fourth line plugger on the number one power play unit.
  13. Leadership skills can't make mediocre players score more goals. Occasionally you can get guys who help make the whole more than the sum of its parts, but that's more like making 4+4+4+3+3=20 not like 1+2+1+2+1=15. I assume this is a not-so-thinly veiled shot at Cam Fowler and Hampus Lindholm. Both are fine. Cam is overpaid, but he's still good. Neither he or Hampus are getting ANY help from their coach or GM to play up to their full potential.
  14. That makes as much sense as anything. After hearing about Grant on the 1st PP unit, I have no idea what to think any more.
  15. Do mean "tried" in the legal sense? Like for crimes against hockey? Because that's the only way my brain can comprehend that sentence.
  16. Well, so much for nice things. I know it's probably for the best to get Zegras some AHL time before he makes the jump, but still, I have to admit I was really, really looking forward to seeing him on Thursday night. Instead, we'll get to see Carter Rowney. Yay.
  17. When did Zegras get sent down? I saw Drysdale on the list of guys sent down, but I thought Zegras was still up. I'm not on Twitter, so if it popped up on there today, that's probably why I missed it.
  18. A lineup of: Rakell - Getzlaf - Heinen Henrique - Steel - Silfverberg Comtois/Jones - Grant - Terry Milano - Backes - Zegras That's not good, but I think it makes some sense. I think that fourth line has the potential to be good against the bottom of the opponents' lineup. That third line is a defensive line, I guess? It's kind of a mess. I have no idea how Steel would do between Henrique and Silf, but if Steel can't step up and provide good second line minutes, Bob's got to move on. I just threw this together, but it at least reflects who I'd like to see get the most playing time. I really have no need to see Deslauriers or Rowney.
  19. Heck, maybe every commercial break. I don't even know if Boudreau could keep track. Ahlers and Hayward would be wrecks 10 games into the season.
  20. I guess I'm going to be that guy. I think Perry's done. Sure, he can still stand in front of the net on a power play and cause the other team grief, and he'll bang in a dirty goal from time to time at even strength, but I don't think two good games in the Stanley Cup is an indicator that he's going to be good for a whole season. He can't skate, his hands are okay but not nearly what they used to be, and he's a liability in the defensive zone. Teams on the bubble can't really afford to waste the roster spot on a guy like Perry; they need more from every line and Perry isn't going to be an above average bottom six player. I could see Perry as a bottom six guy for a top team. He would fit right in with Vegas or St. Louis, or the Avs could use him for a change of pace from their speedy guys. Basically, he could be what Pat Maroon has been on the last two Cup teams - a guy who's going to play 10 - 12 minutes a night, be a net-front presence on your power play, and, if you don't need his contributions to get INTO the playoffs, he can get you some of those ugly playoff goals that every team needs. Those teams can hide Perry during the regular season and utilize his skills once they get to the playoffs. I could see a guy like Perry (or Thornton) being useful for Toronto where they could use that veteran presence in the postseason. But I don't think Montreal can afford the roster spot. They need to get into the playoffs first, and I don't think Perry is going to help with that.
  21. This. I'm fine playing Zegras with Backes because unlike the other 4th liners we've got floating around the lineup, Backes at least remembers what the offensive zone looks like. But this should be the 4th line. Of course, that means Derek Grant is on the third line, which, as much as I love some Grantzlaf, is also a disaster for a team trying to get that last playoff spot. Eakins is in a tough spot, so we'll see what he can do. He's got one first line talent who hasn't played in the NHL yet (Zegras), and a bunch of veterans who are middle six guys, and kids who are bottom six guys hoping to be more. Just throw them in the ol' Boudreau line-blender and see what happens.
  22. Again, I see this just as much, if not more, his ability (or his staff's ability) to develop the talent he has in the system. Pettersson for Sprong was only a good trade because Pettersson looked like he was going nowhere here, and he was. Then Pettersson blossoms in Pittsburgh where they give him the tools he needs to improve his game while Sprong comes here, scores goals, and gets demoted. Then Sprong stalls, he gets traded for a more finished product, we keep him for nine games (where he's very good, for a third pairing d-man), and then let him go for nothing. I think it's appropriate to look at this linearly because it's an interconnected series of asset mismanagement. One guy, undervalued and underdeveloped, gets traded for a project whose development is mismanaged, who is traded for an asset let go for nothing while he still had value to the team. We could look at all those moves in a vacuum if we want, and they still don't look great, but they're even more damning as part of an overall picture of incompetence.
  23. And if your point is that, when he was traded, Pettersson didn't look like a 2nd pairing d-man, you're not wrong. I was reluctantly okay with the gamble. But now seeing what Pettersson has become, that's still an indictment either on Murray's scouting team or his player development methods, and maybe both.
  24. Are you talking about Pettersson? His entry level contract expired after 19, but he was still under team control for four more years at that point. He was signed to a one-year bridge deal, most likely because Pettersson was betting on himself. He knew he could sign a longer RFA deal, but hadn't done enough yet to warrant big bucks, so he waited a year before getting his current $4.0 million deal. That happens ALL THE TIME with guys who are put in bottom line roles but are producing at higher levels for a season. The team wants to lock them up for cheap, but the player wants more because he knows he's better than that. When he doesn't get the long-term deal he wants, at the last minute, he signs a one-year "prove it" deal and then looks to get paid in the followings years. This is not at all uncommon for guys playing above their level, and his stats show he's clearly a second pairing guy. My analysis included real time. Murray needed scoring, so he traded for a guy who could potentially give him that. Instead of letting him be himself and score, he moved him up and down from the AHL, which was terrible for his development, and then traded him away for a defenseman who essentially replaced Pettersson. Then he let that defenseman go for nothing. Murray now has a parade of 3rd pairing LS d-men who are worse than Pettersson and Djoos. And in return for those guys, he got two-thirds of a season of a forward who didn't give them consistently what they were looking for (and whom they mismanaged). I don't see how you can call this good asset management, even in real time.
  25. Pasted from the other thread because it's actually more relevant here: We have a ton of 3rd pairing LHD. But here's where this went: - We traded a season and a half (plus three years of control) of a 3rd pairing d-man making the league minimum who was playing at the level of a 2nd pairing d-man - We got for that two-thirds of a season of a scoring forward who did put up some goals but couldn't stay in the lineup because he's not aware that the defensive zone exists. - We then cut bait on that guy to get nine games (plus a year of control) of a 3rd pairing d-man making nearly the league minimum who was playing (albeit briefly) at the level of a 2nd pairing d-man. At this point you can say that Bob Murray tried something that the team arguably needed (trading a D-prospect for scoring), the experiment didn't work out, and we got back what we originally gave up, except the guy was older with less upside and control. That's not good, but, hey, maybe we give Murray credit for the attempt. - Murray then loses that guy for nothing. Yes, Pettersson is now getting paid $4 million a season, so he's no longer cheap. But given how he played for Pittsburgh the prior two seasons, the BEST you can say about this is that Murray either a) sold way low on a guy and managed the return assets poorly or b) was never going to get more than that for Pettersson because the player development staff and coaches he's hired weren't going to help Pettersson to play at that level. Those are the BEST things you can say about Murray regarding this deal.
×
×
  • Create New...