Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by dtsdlaw

  1. 39 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    I agree with you that the coaches have completely misused him.  He wins faceoffs, but that does not mean he's a shutdown center.  His numbers wouldn't be quite as bad if he played five minutes a night against other relatively poor players, and then you gave him three minutes a night on the PK. Every time Brian Hayward makes a comment about other teams trying to get their top line away from the Grant line, I feel a strange mixture of hysteria and rage.  They absolutely do not do that, nor should they.

    That said, how is this a winning strategy?  Instead of matching bad with bad, the Ducks should try to have a 4th line that can dominate possession against the other team's 4th line.  Time will tell with Groulx, but he looks promising.  And I think Max Jones, even though he's a disappointment as a first round pick, could succeed in that role.  Put Volkov on the other side of those two guys and you've got an energy/checking line that has value on both sides of the ice.  You're still not going to play them more than 10 or 11 minutes a night, but instead of just holding their own, they're actually generating offense.

    I like Jones, but I've lost faith in his ability to stay healthy. He is constantly injured. I also don't dislike Deslauriers as much as you do. No, his possession numbers are not great (though I'd be curious to know what they are away from Grant), but he's still good for 8-9 goals per season as a true 4th liner (who actually plays 4th line minutes) and I think he still has a role as an "enforcer." I know the fighting is not your cup of tea, but the Ducks were being out-shot 24-12 and looked downright awful when Deslauriers dropped the gloves with Lucic last night. I thought that fight woke the team up a little bit. Calgary still out-shot them the rest of the way, but by only a 16-12 margin at 5-on-5, and the Ducks played better and with more urgency after the fight IMO. I also don't hate Deslauriers taking other goons like Lucic and Reaves off the ice for 5 minutes at a time when they're playing over the line with our kids. We do need a better 4th line RW though. I like the idea of including Okposo in the Eichel trade to bring the trade cost down. :ph34r:

    • Like 1

  2. 55 minutes ago, Jasoaks said:

    honestly....grant just isn't aging as well....he's a couple (3?) years removed from that season we were all gushing over him during....that's the thing with players like Grant...they're not good enough to continue to be effective when they start their inevitable fall from their peak. He didn't look great last season...and the little we saw this season he looked worse. Love the guy! Im guessing he's not much of a locker room presence though if he was waived so easily.

    Grant has turned into a very polarizing figure, but I put the blame for that mostly on how the coaches are using him, not necessarily on the player himself. Grant is a 4th liner who has a decent impact on the PK, and he should playing against other 4th liners and on the PK, at THAT'S IT! But instead, the coaching staff uses him as the team's primary checking forward to match against the opponents' top lines, which basically just sets him up for failure. Prime example was the other night against Minnesota - right after the Ducks scored on the PP just 17 seconds into the 2nd period, Minnesota sends out their top line of Kaprizov - Erickson Ek - Zuccarello for the next face-off. Eakins has a bench full of rested players, a 1-goal lead, a fresh sheet of ice, and the last change. So what does he do? He matches the Kaprizov line with Deslauriers - Groulx - Grant. :blink:  In all, Grant took 22 shifts in that game against the Wild (17:12 in TOI - team high for the forwards), and looking at the play-by-play, I count only 2 of those shifts where he was out against the Wild's 4th line. And Grant wasn't even playing center in that game. He was the 4th line RW, his off wing. That's just setting this team (and that entire line) up for failure IMO. I don't think most fans would hate on Grant as much, and his analytics probably wouldn't be as bad, if they'd just use him relative to his actual skill set. He also shouldn't be getting 17 mins of TOI per game. Cut that TOI in half and sit him against smaller, faster teams and I think a lot of fans would come back around to him being a useful 12th/13th forward.

    • Like 3

  3. 27 minutes ago, DucksFan_08 said:

    Las vegas has to be one of the other two K think. Apparently the avs were interested but not without retention.

    I think the hurdle is and should be is the ridiculous asking price. Sure Eichel is a top 10-15 Center in the league WHEN healthy. He´s not that. So if buffalo doesn´t retain they´ll seriously have to lower their asking price.

    Pacioretty injured last night and Friedman is reporting he’ll be out 6 weeks. Stone is also out. Tuch is already on LTIR for a couple of months. If they make the trade they’ll have to move a roster player (Reilly Smith?) too. Presumably they’d send Karen’s or Patrick as part of an Eichel trade. Can they even afford to have that many players gone from their lineup with Eichel likely out until Feb/March?

  4. 4 hours ago, tommer-1 said:

    Grant and Pateryn on waivers.

    They play him the most minutes of any F last night and then waive him.  Classic.

    I would celebrate this, but let’s wait and see who gets called up. Rumors were that Bob wanted to carry 8 D-men to start the season. Waiving Grant maybe be a gateway to Larsson rejoining the team, so let’s see where this goes first. Four game roadie coming up this week….

    • Like 1

  5. On 10/13/2021 at 6:13 PM, Fisix said:

    In reply to DTS:

    Sorry - post wasn’t clear (or typed well). I was thinking about when the waived players have to come back up or get re-waived, and whether those three players - Milano, Hutton, Volkov, will be stuck together and re-enter the Ducks at roughly the same time. 

    I don’t think Drys is going to spend a ton of time up top, even if he stays healthy. They’re going to try not to rush him like they did cam.  They’re going to be a little more generous with Z it seems, but I think if there’s any kind of slump in energy they’ll politely send him down for a break from the NHL grind.

    The real pressure will be on the youngers that haven’t broken good yet.

    I should be mentioning Larsson. But I think he’s one player that’ll be waived unless there’s a physical injury in the top 6. Hutton didn’t look horrible in the Gulls/Reign game. 

    Update: Hutton didn't make the Gulls roster either.

    • Like 1

  6. 34 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    I disagree there.  The Kings' pipeline looks a lot better than the Ducks' at this point, and a trade for Eichel would make that difference even starker.  I'm okay trading for Eichel, because I think you always add elite talent if you can.  But that's also why I don't want to include a 2022 1st round pick in the deal.  We're going to need more talent after Eichel.  The Ducks still have a long way to go to get there.  We've argued about this ad nauseum, though, so we're not going to get anywhere. You think the team is a lot closer than I think it is, and the difference lies in how much we think we're going to get out of the veterans going forward.  The Kings traded a lot of their veterans; the Ducks mostly re-signed theirs or cut them.

    The Kings got Bjornfot, Moore from those trades (or iterations thereof) - the former is the only real important piece, but it's not nothing. Mostly, though, they also got extra picks, some of which they used and some of which they packaged in other deals.  Brendan Lemieux, Tyler Madden, Lias Andersson, Samuel Fagemo - all guys they could draft or acquire because of those previous trades.  You could say the same about Arvidsson.  They could trade for him because they had so much depth in their system that they could afford to throw away a couple of extra picks to take a flyer on him.

    Not true for Fagemo. They traded their own 3rd and 5th round picks in 2019 to move back into the 2nd round to draft Fagemo. No acquired assets were used to get him. Also not true for Brendan Lemieux. They traded their own 4th rounder for him, not a pick they acquired.

    If we were to get Eichel, I'm confident we could put our 25-and-under talent side-by-side with the Kings' 25-and-unders and be even with or ahead of where they are. Eichel-Zegras-McTavish down the middle v. Byfield-Turcotte-Vilardi leans heavily to the Ducks side IMO. I'll take Drysdale over Clarke too.  I'll admit that's possibly a homer choice since I haven't seen much of Clarke, but they're only 10 months apart in age and Drysdale is already playing on a top-pair in the NHL while Clarke is playing in Barrie, so Drysdale definitely has a leg up in his development already. I don't see a comparable to Dostal in their system either. Kaliyev is really the only high end prospect that I would give the nod to over his comparable in Anaheim (Comtois?), but that's still a pretty close call after the goal totals Comtois produced last season. And based on recent comments from Corey Pronman, a year from now we could easily be saying about Pastujov and Zellweger what everyone is saying now about Kaliyev and how so many teams were dumb for passing on him.

    IMO, Bob has been unfairly criticized for not going scorched earth on this rebuild even though he has made a number of significant moves to acquire major assets. No, he didn't trade Silfverberg for what could possibly have been a late 1st in the 2019 draft (a draft we already had two 1st rounders in). Maybe he wants a do-over for that one. But he did trade Freddy for a 1st (Steel) and a 2nd (Comtois) though. He also took on Backes' contract for a 1st rounder (Perreault). We've had six 1st rounders in the past four drafts, with half of those being top-9 picks. And we currently have each of our top picks from the past six drafts on our active roster. That's a pretty decent haul for a rebuild. But we also already have more self-drafted players on our active roster than any other team in the NHL. The goal can't be to have every single player home-grown though. At some point, you have to stop collecting picks and start acquiring real NHL players. 

    • Like 2

  7. 7 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    The Ducks just aren't in the same place, though.  The Kings' elders with immovable contracts have aged much better (Kopitar and Brown and Doughty) while the Ducks pulled the cord too early on one of theirs (Perry), another had a career-ending injury (Kesler), and Getzlaf just faded.  Meanwhile, the Kings avoided giving extensions to their aging middle-6 guys, giving them more flexibility to add this offseason and more roster spots for some of their young guys, not to mention the ability to weaponize cap space.  And it gave them assets that they will be able to use going forward (trades of Martinez, Muzzin, Carter, Toffoli, Campbell, Clifford landed them a bunch of assets, some of which are now contributors, and will be for a while). 

    The Kings have managed their rebuild well.  They are moving into the next tier and making moves associated with that, while having incoming young players to supplement and replace anyone they get rid of.  The Ducks have not, and I think doing the same things the Kings did this offseason would have been a feeble attempt to make the playoffs and would have been unsustainable.   Acquiring a long-term, elite asset like Eichel is one thing.  Acquiring middle-six guys for questionable money and contract length (like Danault and Arvidsson) would have been a huge mistake.

    Who is a contributor from the players that they acquired by selling off those guys?

    To the second bolded, I think adding Eichel and another top-9 RW in UFA (as well as re-signing Lindholm and Rakell) would put us in as good of a spot in our rebuild as the Kings are in theirs. It's arguable whether that's a difference in degree or in kind from what the Kings did this summer with trades/UFA. But making those two moves would put us on equal footing with them IMO, with an equally promising future. We'd have more cap space and better goaltending too.

  8. 1 hour ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    I'm not crowning them kings of anything yet, and of course it's very early, but their play in the preseason and now against Vegas has really impressed me (blech).  Kopitar is still playing at a high level, and drags everyone else upward.  They have a decent second line, and that third line looks like it's going to be really good.  You mentioned Byfield, but they've also got Fagemo and Turcotte in the system, not to mention some other depth guys who could get into the lineup over the next year.  Their defense is also improving with Anderson and Bjornfot.  Their goaltending is suspect, but you never know if a guy like Petersen can put it all together in his late 20s.  

    Again, they're not "there" yet, and not particularly close, but they're on their way.  They still need several prospects to pan out before they're back competing for the top of the division.  But it looks like the moves they've made (acquiring Danault and Tkachev) and the growth of their youngsters (Vilardi, Kaliyev, Kempe finally coming into his own, plus whatever they get from Byfield) could put them firmly in the playoff hunt this season, especially in a weak Pacific.  They're well positioned to let Brown walk and use his money to acquire a significant upgrade on offense or defense, and to allow Kopitar to age gracefully while his production is replaced by Vilardi or Byfield.

    I just think they're taking that next step.  Bottom feeder -> Rebuilder -> Playoff Team -> Division Contender -> Cup Contender 

    They look like they're moving from rebuilder to playoff team.  Time will tell.

    I don't disagree at all. They actually look downright dangerous at the moment and could easily end up top-3 in our division. I just find it ironic that they are currently moving from rebuilder to contender without using any of the pieces they acquired from the rebuild. They've mostly done it by acquiring veterans through trades and UFA, or by having non-1st round picks work out for them.

    Personally, I love how the Kings have built this year's team using trades and UFA. I wish the Ducks would do the same! 

  9. 1 hour ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:

    I know that the season just started and we’ll start seeing who’s legit around Thanksgiving, but I am optimistic that Nashville might face-plant this season. Looking at their roster and the division they are in is encouraging.

    Won't this hurt your Pain-for-Shane campaign though???? What happens if they drop the Ducks' draft lottery odds from 7.6% to 6.7%???? 


    • Haha 1

  10. 12 hours ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    Yeah, the Kings look like they might be taking that step this season.

    Maybe. But what stands out to you about their starting forward group?

    Arvidsson (28) – Kopitar (34) – Brown (36)
    Iafallo (27) – Danault (28) – Kempe (25)
    Tkachev (26) – Vilardi (22) – Kaliyev (20)
    Lemieux (25) – Lizotte (24) – Moore (26)

    What stands out to me is that there is only one forward (Kaliyev) in their entire starting 12 that was drafted during their "rebuild", and he was 2nd rounder. Obviously Byfield will eventually be there when he's healthy too (he looks really good), but I think it's a bit early to crown LA the Kings of the Rebuild when they're currently relying on a top-6 forward group that has an average age of nearly 30. You also have to look at their contracts. Kopitar is signed until he's 36. Danault until he's 34. Iafallo until he's 31. Arvidsson until he's 31. And Brown turns 37 next month and is a pending UFA. That's a lot of age in their top-6 right now. So does this group continue to trend up as the years tick on? Too early to tell IMO. We still haven't seen much of anything come out of their "rebuild" yet.

    Edit: Almost forgot - Athanasiou (27) is also going to bump someone from that lineup once he's healthy too. 

  11. There's another comparable in for Lindholm.... Ryan Pulock (NYI) - 8 x $6.15M.

    23 hours ago, perry_mvp said:

    Lindholm's next contract might be influenced by whatever Morgan Rielly gets. Same draft picked one spot apart. Hampus is more defensive and Rielly is more offensive. 

    Reilly has a 72 point season on his resume, and teams still pay for points. He's more likely to be in the Seth Jones contract conversation. I think Lindholm is going to be looking at these other guys' contracts a lot more than Reilly.

  12. I can't help but wonder if there's a bigger trade in the works here. Something like:

    Anaheim gets: Eichel + Okposo ($2M retained) + 2022 3rd 

    Buffalo gets: 2022 1st (conditional) + Perreault + Lundestrom + LaCombe + 2023 2nd + Kesler + Milano

    More pieces moving around provides more cover for Buffalo, and they would also get credit for ditching Okposo's contract. Okposo would be a fine bottom-6 RW for us too, especially if Rakell is moved at the TDL. 

    14 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    Yeah, and this is where I get hung up.  The top of the first round in the upcoming draft is very strong, even past Wright.  The Ducks could really use one of those guys.  Now, whether one of those guys turns out better than McTavish is up for grabs.  I'm not a prospect hound by any means, but it looks like there are several guys in the upcoming draft who would have been rated ahead of McTavish.  Essentially, if the Ducks get a top 8 pick in 2022, you've got a better than 50/50 shot that guy ends up a better player than McTavish.  Of course, this is all fraught with variability.

    I am 99% sure the Ducks can't get Eichel without one of Zegras, Drysdale, McTavish or their 2022 first going the other way.  You might be able to get away with top 2 protection on the first as you suggest, but I doubt much more than that.  It's a tough call.  I'm more inclined to include McTavish in such a deal than the 2022 first, even top 2 protected.  But it depends on how well you think the team is going to do this year.

    Last night reinforced my 83 point expectation. The Ducks offense will be significantly better this season, led by a much, much better PP. If no Eichel trade, I think we end up with more standings points than Buffalo, Arizona, Columbus, Detroit, and maybe 1-2 more teams. So somewhere in the 5-9 range for the draft.

  13. 28 minutes ago, nieder said:

    I think the problem is that there are limited teams still in on Eichel due to cap constraints. Out of the teams left, maybe only Columbus could beat an offer that doesn't include Zegras, Drysdale or McTavish.

    Considering the lack of other options for Buffalo I don't think I would offer more than Perreault + Lundestrom + 2023 1st round pick + Kesler.

    That's 4x first rounders right there! Lol.

    Agree, but Buffalo is almost certainly going to demand the 2022 1st rounder. They need another top pick immediately to give the fans a reason to come back. They're not going to be able to survive THIS for much longer, so I don't think they want to wait for a 2023 1st rounder, especially since Eichel will more than likely be back for the full season in 2022-23 for whatever team gets him. The only way to work around it is going to be to make it conditional. Something like, the 2022 1st is top-2 protected and requires Eichel to play at least 20 games in 2021-22, and if both of those conditions aren't satisfied then it becomes a 2023 1st. 

  14. 16 hours ago, Fisix said:

    In reply to DTS:

    Sorry - post wasn’t clear (or typed well). I was thinking about when the waived players have to come back up or get re-waived, and whether those three players - Milano, Hutton, Volkov, will be stuck together and re-enter the Ducks at roughly the same time. 

    I don’t think Drys is going to spend a ton of time up top, even if he stays healthy. They’re going to try not to rush him like they did cam.  They’re going to be a little more generous with Z it seems, but I think if there’s any kind of slump in energy they’ll politely send him down for a break from the NHL grind.

    The real pressure will be on the youngers that haven’t broken good yet.

    I should be mentioning Larsson. But I think he’s one player that’ll be waived unless there’s a physical injury in the top 6. Hutton didn’t look horrible in the Gulls/Reign game. 

    Ben Hutton isn't under contract currently with the Ducks, so he's not on that list. Hutton was on a PTO for Ducks training camp and was then released from his PTO when he was cut. He then signed a PTO with the Gulls to join their camp. It's possible that he signs a 2-way deal with the Ducks, but an AHL-only contract may also be in the cards for him.

    For Milano and Volkov, I don't see them as being a package deal. They'll probably earn their way back up based on individual play, but the fact that the Ducks kept 14 forwards on the opening roster makes me think that its going to be harder to get into the lineup for guys like Milano and Volkov unless there are a lot of injuries. We also have an abundance of left-shot forwards. It would probably be easier to get in the lineup if they were right-shots, I bet. Only 4/14 forwards are right shots, so there's not a lot of balance there.    

  15. 22 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    I think Lindholm could make that bet; from his interviews he seems like an extremely confident guy.  He could also back it up with a 4 x $4.5 deal and come ahead.  You're right he doesn't get many points, but GMs will love his defensive value, and I think he'll hold onto that well into his 30s.  This is also assuming money is the only thing that matters.  Hampus could see his path to a Cup running through a different place and take a little bit less money to chase it.  And a shorter contract gives him flexibility to do so if his next place doesn't work out.

    I am higher on some of the Ducks' LHD prospects than you are, but there is significant risk there, and none project to be as good as Lindholm.  That said, Lindholm isn't a true #1 d-man himself, so maybe the Ducks hope that they can make up for his absence with better depth.  I'd rather keep him than not, but it's not looking great at this point.  

    There are currently only three D-men in the NHL who signed their contract at 32 y/o or older and who have an AAV over $4M - Giordano, Goligoski, and Alec Martinez (that doesn't count Chara, of course). Beauchemin pulled it off a few years ago immediately after the Game 7 WCF loss when he signed for 3 x $4.5M with Colorado, but that contract is probably more of a cautionary tale to other teams than a sign of things to come. You just don't see many teams giving out that kind of money to guys 33 and older. Hampus seems like a guy who could bet on himself for sure, but the odds are definitely not in his favor.

    And while Lindholm may not be a true #1, I would bet on him being a perfect partner for Drysdale long term. I don't expect much from Drysdale this season at age 19, but by the time he is 21/22 (and Lindholm is 30/31) I think that duo could be incredibly effective. I think Lindholm could be to Drysdale what Willie Mitchell was to Drew Doughty.  A modern day Stevens-Rafalski.

  16. 31 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:

    Two things:

    1. If the Ducks were to let Hampus walk, they would have to replace him through trade.  There is not much going on as far as LHD on the free agent market.  A 38-year-old Giordano?  Nick Leddy?  Calvin De Haan?  The only one who makes sense is Morgan Rielly and I don't see Toronto letting him go if they can help it.

    2. Given the dearth of good defenseman hitting the market, I could see Hampus willing to walk, particularly if the Ducks trade/don't re-sign Rakell.  They're very good buddies.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to the same place, but that if Rakell is gone, it's one fewer reason for Lindholm to be loyal.  And it seems there are always a few teams willing to overpay someone they think is a top pairing d-man.  Hampus certainly fits in that category.  I could see a team going up to $8 million for five years, which means Hampus is only 33 when he gets his next contract and could make more money overall.

    We'll see what happens, but given that we know the Ducks could really use him on the roster, and we know they have plenty of cap space, the fact that he hasn't re-signed yet is worrisome.  There could be a lot of turmoil within the Ducks' organization next summer with Murray and Eakins both on expiring contracts.  

    If he goes 5 x $8, then he would need a 3-year $14M contract ($4.67 AAV) contract at age 33 to equal the contract value of an 8 x $6.75M contract from Anaheim. Doable in theory, but he would be really betting on himself to stay healthy and productive while playing the hardest minutes. I think that's a risky bet for someone to expect that a team will give him $4.67M per season at age 33 as a free agent who doesn't score a ton of points (~.38 ppg).  

    The Rakell thing is worrisome to me. If I were running the show, I'd be trading Manson and re-signing Rakell and Lindholm. I see a ton of utility in keeping Rakell and Lindholm, but virtually none in Manson at this point.

    • Like 3

  17. 44 minutes ago, FanSince1993 said:

    Serious answer - I think you did not read my comment completely. He deserves 5 years contract with fair pay. If his agent wants more - there is no shortage of good UFA players every summer, you know better than this. No need to overpay them either - a good example is Danton Heinen, who signed with Pittsburg for a salary twice smaller than he was making here in Anaheim. Lindholm is a good defensemen but he is not going to take this team to the second-round of playoffs. In fact, we are on the pace to miss playoffs for a franchise record-setting 4th year in a row. What's the point of throwing big-contracts to the same players over and over again? Either complete tanking in hope to get another Paul Kariya thru draft pick or try somebody different.

    1. There is a shortage of good UFAs available every summer. That's why teams overpay for them. It's basic supply and demand.

    2. Here's the list of LHD UFAs next summer. If it's so easy to replace Lindholm, do it. Who's your guy? https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents/2023/caphit/all/defense/ufa/desc/left

    3. Even when there are good defensemen available in UFA, they NEVER come to Anaheim unless they are being given too much money or too much term. Unless you think Clayton Stoner, Bryan Allen, and Sheldon Souray were appropriately compensated.

    4. The reason to re-sign Lindholm is because the Ducks will need a competent defense to shepherd their young players. If management strips down this defense to the studs and they go into an even worse downward spiral, we're officially the Sabres East. Then it's then just a matter of time before Zegras, McTavish, and Drysdale do their best Duck impressions of Eichel, Reinhart, and Ristolainen by getting the flock outta here. 

    • Like 3

  18. Just now, FanSince1993 said:

    Lindholm is a good player but not a difference maker. He is our "best" defenseman, and considering the current state of D on this team, it's not a great achievement.

    I would think 5 years within $6.5-$7 mil range per year would be fair for him, and if he wants longer term or more money, let him look for a job somewhere else.

    Serious question - If he leaves, who do the Ducks replace him with next season (and for the next 4+ seasons)? Your options for the 3 left-D spots are currently Fowler, Mahura, Larsson, Benoit, and Guhle. Or do you spend assets to trade for another LHD? Or overpay in UFA to get one?

  19. 52 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:

    They haven't done this with ANY of their players, as far as I can tell.  They bridge everybody who they draft who is "good".  Getzlaf, Perry, Fowler, Rakell, Lindholm, Gibson, now Terry, Comtois, and Jones.  I think that needs to change with this new crop of players.

    I'm not sure you can call a 6-year deal (given to both Lindholm and Rakell) a "bridge" deal. Rakell's contract bought up a year of UFA and Lindholm's contract bought two years of UFA, so I wouldn't call them bridges at all. Bridge deals usually imply that the player is still an RFA at the end of the deal. Also, to be fair, the bridge deals for Getzlaf, Perry, and Fowler were pre-2013 CBA, so the rules were different for contract length and salary variance from year-to-year, which I think may have played a role in those bridge deals. And the only other guy on that list that arguably deserved a max 8-year deal (post-2013 CBA) as of the signing date is Lindholm, who still got 6 years. Because you have to keep in mind that they signed Gibby a year early and saved a TON of money that way. If they had waited on signing Gibby to a max deal until the end of his ELC, they'd have been negotiating a long-term deal with a Jennings Award winner after having already traded away Andersen. It's actually fantastic that the Ducks got three years of Gibby at a measly $2.3M on a bridge deal.

  20. 7 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:

    He can make more money on the open market, but it all depends on his mindset, where he is at in his life.  This is the organization that drafted him, played him at a young age, paid him very well on his second contract. So he may have personal attachments and loyalties that we are unaware of.  And then there is the aspect of how well he enjoys playing with these particular teammates, old and new.

    If he's happy here, the difference between $6.75 mil AAV and, say $7.25 AAV in another market, may not matter.

    We'll see.  Even if he knows he wants to stay, it behooves him (and his agent) to wait on signing an extension.

    The difference between $6.75M at 8 years and $7.25M at 7 years is also $3.25M. If he's interested in the money, he'll take the longer contract with the Ducks, since he knows that the chances of him getting $3.25M on a 35+ contract to make up the difference are very small.

    • Like 2

  21. 1 minute ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:

    I don’t see Lindholm taking 6.75 from the Ducks (or less than 7M at all). I think that if that was the price and he wanted to stay, then he’d be extended by now. The Ducks need him more than he needs them and will have to pay him more than what he could get in free agency, imo. Lindholm is going to charge a “playing on an awful team and negotiating with Bob Murray again” tax on the Ducks.

    I'm just posting these contracts to show what his true market value likely is. I have no idea if he wants to stay here. He may not even know that right now, and his mind could certainly change based on this season's trajectory and other moves made. But if he is open to staying here, why wouldn't he take $6.75M with an extra/8th year available that he couldn't get in UFA? 8 x $6.75M = $54M = 7 x $7.715M. Is some team going to pay him $7.714M over 7 years (the max available in UFA) to equal the value of the contract the Ducks can give him with $6.75M over 8 seasons?

    And if he decides he really doesn't want to be here, there's no reasonable contract the Ducks could throw at him to make him stay anyway. But as of right now, I think the market will say he's worth about $6.75M/season based on the comparables. It's useful to know that in case he DOES want to stay. And it should factor into our (mostly) reasonable discussions about whether it's in the Ducks' best interests to keep him. Because I've seen way too many "no way I'm paying Lindholm $9M/season! Trade him!" posts after this summer's spending spree on the likes of Seth Jones, Zach Werenski, Dougie Hamilton, etc. Jones, Werenski, and Hamilton are not comparables, and if their new cap hits are used in the debate, then they are pure straw men. We need to use actual comparables when debating whether to keep Lindholm (if he wants to stay). That's what you get from looking at the contracts given to Parayko and Ekholm.

  22. 2 minutes ago, Fisix said:

    Goo info. I wonder if they’ll all the waivers exempt and McT get shipped roughly at the same time to keep them together. It feels like Milano, Hutton, and Volkov will all come in en mass. 

    Waivers exempt are Zegras, Drysdale, Comtois, and Groulx. The first three of those aren't going anywhere. And I don't see a purpose is keeping McTavish+Groulx together since one would be going to San Diego and the other to Peterborough.

    I could see Groulx being sent down in favor of Volkov or Milano if the team wants to put Steel or Grant back in the middle and have Groulx do some more learning under Bouchard. But I'd give even odds that one of Steel or Grant ends up on waivers too if there's a rash of injuries on the blue line and we need the roster space for a D. It's definitely possible one of Steel/Grant doesn't finish the season with us due to a waivers claim, and that may be why Groulx is getting a longer look early with the Big Club.

    • Like 1

  23. 13 hours ago, Fisix said:

    A lot of these evals appear stuck on last season play. just let it go.  It’s a new day.

    I saw Volkov and Milano and the rest of the Waived NHLers play last night. They didn’t appear to deserve a spot on the Ducks ahead of Grant. But, it was still preseason, and to me it’s clear they’re just treading water until the youngest of the rooks drop back down - the waiver exempt will be bumped up and down a lot this season.

    Pretty sure the roster will change substantially as rooks get close to 9 games. 

    Optimistically, I see an exciting group of youngsters. Pessimistically, I foresee many injuries. 

    TT has looked much stronger to me. Lundestrom has looked a little milquetoast so far. I’m reserving all judgement until the games count and the on ice roster isn’t half guys needing space to show off to the coaches. 


    The only rookie the 9-game limit is only going to apply to is McTavish. No one else on the Big Club's roster will be eligible to slide a year of their entry level contract. According to CapFriendly, they apparently could have done that with Perreault's contract if he went back to the OHL, but since he qualifies for the AHL exemption based on the number of games played last season, I highly doubt they're going to send him back to Juniors now. He'll burn a year off his ELC whether he's with Anaheim or San Diego.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...