Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

nieder

Members
  • Content Count

    13,907
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    165

nieder last won the day on February 22

nieder had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,314 Excellent

1 Follower

About nieder

  • Rank
    Ultimate Ducks Fan
  • Birthday April 15

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Edmonton, Alberta

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Would fire Eakins for Sutter. They were saying this on the TSN breakfast show. Again, not sure how much weight there is to this but thought I would share since we all love a good rumor.
  2. So...the rumor floating around on sports radio today in Alberta was that when the Flames approached Sutter about taking over, Murray offered him the Ducks head coach role and he turned it down. I can't point to any articles as there wasn't much to it other than radio gossip. Although at his first media availability today, Sutter did say that he was only interested in coaching 2 teams if offered - the Flames and the Blackhawks.
  3. nieder

    Lineups:

    We said the same thing about Vatanen and Theodore. Both have had pretty good NHL careers since then, Theo especially. I just hope they don't give up too early on this one.
  4. Just to tag onto this, big deals for players reaching UFA for the first time are simply the nature of free agency. If we want to add somebody like RNH then we will have to offer a contract like that. All the big C UFAs for 2022 like Barkov, Hertl, Zibanejad, Couturier will be the same thing. So I don't think that should put us off from attempting to sign a player like this. It's certainly possible he might be overpaid by the end of a 7 year deal. But he will also still be in his prime for the first 4 years of the deal, and if the cap starts going up again on a regular basis after Covid is over then in 7 years a $7-8M per year deal will probably still not look bad. RNH is probably less likely to have a steep drop off in production than a guy like say Perry who plays a different style of game and whose scoring dropped a lot after age 31.
  5. The problem is we won't really get good value for him before the ED as whatever team that trades for him would also have to protect him. Honestly the time to trade Manson for a good return was 1-2 years ago when it was clear the team was already going through a rebuild.
  6. God I hope so. With the amount of cap space freed up this off-season it's the right time to add guys like RNH. He would be a fantastic signing.
  7. I'm not sure Murray has the balls to go after RNH and Hyman.
  8. I don't blame Eakins for having a bad team or a losing record. I knew coming into this season and last season that we would suck. Hell, I hope they lose more now to get us into the best possible draft position. What I don't like is misusing players, using poor motivation tactics, implementing poor strategy. Even when the roster is bad, the coach should be putting them in the best position to succeed on the ice. I fail to see how making Rowney, Deslauries, Larsson, Shattenkirk et.al permanent staples of the lineup is rewarding good play (though I bet Eakins is under a lot of pressure not to scratch Shattenkirk since he was Bob's marquee signing). I don't see how calling out the veterans in the media is a good motivation tactic or shows good leadership, when like you said, they don't have much to work with. I don't see how doing the same things over and over on special teams and at the end of games shows good strategy. They blew a 3 goal lead against Arizona and then did the same thing 2 days later, like they had learned absolutely nothing. If they were just losing due to lack of talent then I would be fine with Eakins. But I believe we have lost games this year due to bench decisions. He is just not a good coach.
  9. Huh? I don't see how that relates to anything I said. We are just talking about how to minimize the assets we lose in the expansion draft. What exactly are we underestimating? Seattle gets to take 1 player and we get to protect a certain number, it's not rocket science. Waiving Henrique doesn't help his trade value even if you think it makes him look better, which I guess could be true. The point is that other teams now know the relationship is fractured so can low-ball the team to take his contract off our hands.
  10. Crap I thought his contract ended this season. Well that sucks.
  11. I think Henrique is a pro and if the team says to him that he is still in their plans for the next 3 years (i.e. he will stay on the NHL roster) that he would keep turning up like a pro. Especially since I think there's a good chance that we have a new GM next season. Unless Henrique requests a trade I'm not sure it's worth going to lengths such as eating half his salary or giving up other assets for Seattle to take him. I know Murray is in all likelihood going to be making the decisions for the ED but he is only signed to the end of June, right? It's pretty unusual to not have a deal done for an expiring contract on a GM or coach when you're less than 4 months from the expiry date. I have to think that the plan is for him to step down after the ED. Which could be a good thing for Henrique's relationship with the front office/org if he is still here..
  12. If the relationship with Henrique is burned so badly that we need to move him then I can see where you are coming from. However if we get a new GM soon then maybe Henrique would be fine with sticking around under new management. I guess it would depend what type of player Seattle want to take from us. If they want somebody young then they would have the option of whoever you expose out of Heinen/Milano/Terry and Larsson. If they want a vet then I honestly don't see a lot in difference in value between Henrique, Manson and Shattenkirk. The only major difference in value there might be the fact that other teams are aware of the souring relationship between management and Henrique. Which again, is a big knock on Murray for even waiving Henrique in the first place. But I don't know if we would need to give up as much as 2nd + 4th + Larsson/Guhle or 3rd + the RFA rights to Heinen in order to convince them to take Henrique.
  13. Will we even need to do this? If we protect Silf, Rakell, Lundestrom, Steel, Jones, and two of Heinen, Milano and Terry - then we just need to expose one of them along with Henrique, Grant, Deslauries. On defense protect Lindholm, Fowler, Mahura and expose Shattenkirk, Manson, Larsson. Then we just hope that Seattle takes one of the old guys instead of Heinen/Milano/Terry. But if we were willing to lose assets to convince Seattle to take Henrique then why not just do it this way and lose only 1 player?
  14. He definitely reminded me of Perry when I watched him in Juniors. Not a good skater but has that same ability to move into the right spaces on the ice to receive good passes, and isn't afraid to do the hard work in front of the net.
  15. Nobody is saying he should get another $8M per year deal. I don't think he should get Thornton money, but the cap is also higher now than it was then. I would be OK with a 2 year, 10 million deal ($5M per year). Just give him a decent winger.
×
×
  • Create New...