BombaysTripleDeke

Yeah, Pastrnak is a better player who has played and still plays with better players. The Bruins getting a star like him where they did is something that the Ducks haven't been able to do under Murray's tenure, but it's also very hard to do. I agree with you and expect the current crop of young players to improve but I don't see any star or core type players amongst them. I mean, how many teams have Cup contending core players consisting of the equivalent to late first round picks, a 2nd round pick and a 5th? Boston and the anomaly that is Vegas? I hope that we don't end up with a bunch of Larssons lol but I am waiting until next season before allowing disappointment to kick in. That's why I think that the Ducks' rebuild is going to be a bit longer than I had hoped and isn't really going to turn the corner until Murray is gone.

But they are young and patience is needed lol. Pettersson was the 5th overall pick in the draft, so him being as good as he is seems to warrant where he was selected. Pastrnak was an absolute grand slam at 26th overall but also has the benefit of playing along one the best centers and wingers in all of hockey, not to mention one of the best teams in general. He also didn't burst onto the scene until his 3rd pro season. We all want the young guys to start producing, but there really shouldn't be any pressure or high expectation for them to at this point. All of these guys were projected to be middle-six players and still have time to be decent NHLers. Also, the team wasn't projected to be good and that has certainly been case so far, which is why rumors of the Ducks potentially tearing down their roster are floating around.

I think that would be an easy sell to ownership: Bob: "Henri and Susan, do you want to win another Stanley Cup?" H & S: "Yes, absolutely" Bob: "Great, then this is what needs to be done in order to do that sooner rather than later." *Note: This is not an endorsement of Murray being the right GM to execute the game plan. Eaves is off the books after this season and there is still no reason for me to believe that Kesler is going to be playing in another NHL game at this point. He coaches his son's hockey team so he could be skating just to be involved with that. Taking on a bad contract (i.e. Backes, which the Ducks were rumored to be looking into) for assets is what the Ducks should be doing if the are going into rebuild. The Ducks aren't likely to be contending for a couple of years anyway. Assuming the Garrioch reporting is accurate, then that seems to fall in line with what has been mentioned on these boards recently: anyone besides Getzlaf and Gibson could be on the trading block. Dostal has been great this season and I'd say is the best Ducks prospect overall after Zegras, but he's only 19 years old. I don't see him being NHL ready, let alone supplanting Gibson as the starter for a few more years, assuming he becomes that good. They haven't even brought him over to North America yet.

Murray’s stones are the reason I cringe a bit about him handling this rebuild. He’s usually the one giving up the player that goes on to be legitimate lol.

Wouldn't a top-10, or more precisely, a top-5 pick is the best course of action for the future of the Ducks? Murray isn't going to add talent this season and is likely going to and should sell off players like Grant, Del Zotto, etc for draft picks at the trade deadline. I guess the silver lining would be that if the Ducks aren't drafting in the top-10 then, I'd like to think that the kids stepped up and really started to contribute offensively. Not sure that I'd count on that though. The Ducks are not tanking, they are simply bad enough right now to warrant having a very high draft pick As far as the players you've mentioned, Simmonds will be a 32 year old UFA this offseason, so he's not a long-term solution worth trading for. Mackenzie Weegar and Joel Armia aren't moving the needle enough to where that the Ducks should be wasting assets on them as they are rebuilding. Trading for a big, RHD in Gudbranson pretty much throws cold water on trading for Ristolainen and Jason Zucker would likely cost the Ducks at least a first-round pick + a solid prospect. Considering the Ducks will be a lottery team this season and possibly next season, that's not an asset that they should give up.

Sure, and I bet that the Ducks are looking at all options. Andersson and Puljujarvi are just more newsworthy as top-10 picks that are trying to force trades from their respective teams. So, they are naturally going to get the most attention. What other players should the Ducks look into? The same reasons that they didn't go after him before: The Jets weren't really interested in moving him, they aren't under any real cap crunch and the Ducks don't have expendable assets to get him.

I agree in a sense with this and what dtsdlaw said. I don't think that anyone is proposing for trading in 30+ year players just to keep this team moderately afloat. Trading for a Kapanen or a Wennberg (ironically, there was another article recently about him being the most likely to be traded out of Columbus), isn't bad. I think it means that you are going to move out a Kase, Rakell, Manson or Lindholm as a result. If for no other reason than to recoup the assets you would have given up to get those kind of guys in the first place. In the end, it may be the best move on the margins, but still doesn't avoid a longer rebuild than we were hoping for. The only thing at this point that would really accelerate the Ducks' rebuild would be to win the draft lottery and get Lafreniere or even Byfield. I'm all for kicking the tires on Andersson, but I don't think that the Rangers are going to trade him anytime soon or, if they were, that it would be at a price that Murray would find palatable. The Rangers have all of the leverage and reportedly don't want to set a precedent to future players on how to force themselves out of town.

That is one of the more sound and reasonable approaches to make the Ducks competitive again, and quickly that I have come across. There isn't much to dislike there and I think that where you and I differ is what this current group, particularly the more established players are capable of, and therefore, how to get this team back to WCF or SCF sooner rather than later. If you made such or similar moves this offseason, you'd have less than two seasons before you'd have decide on paying or possibly trading Kase, Manson, Lindholm and Rakell. Plus, Henrique and Silfverberg will be 31-32 years old. I'd feel much better if we had an additionally 2nd or 3rd round pick, and who knows, maybe Murray will be able to add those. The Ducks would still need an upgrade on defense because I sure don't trust Larsson, Del Zotto or Holzer as far as I could throw a pancake-stuffed Dustin Penner. I maintain that the Ducks have too many deficiencies in the lineup and won't have enough time to fix them before the current established players either decline too much and/or are possibly no longer on the team (outside of Gibson). If we land a Lafreniere or the young guys really elevate their games, then the outlook changes quite a bit. My concern is the more you try to keep the current team competitive, the harder the rebuild will ultimately be. I don't want to be the Minnesota Wild, tolling in mediocrity and being nothing more than a first round exit while missing out on higher draft picks in the process. It's why I tend to come back to the belief that the Ducks are better off embracing more a traditional rebuild than trying to make it work with most of the current group. I'm anxious to see what Murray does in the offseason but I don't see our first round pick in 2021 being on the table either. The Ducks could very well be a lottery team again and need that pick.

l I think that the primes of Lindholm, Rakell, Silfverberg are already wasted for the most part and will be before this team contends again. Rakell, Lindholm, and Manson are UFA’s in two more seasons, Henrique and Silfverberg will both be 30 this year. If you want to get the kind of NHL players that could theoretically make this current group competitive again ASAP, then I think that Zegras and/or our first round pick this year would have be on the block. To me, those will get you a much better return than Terry, Steel, Jones, Comtois etc. would. I don’t think the current prospects don’t have the value to bring back the quality of players that we need. The Ducks are trending more and more towards a traditional rebuild. Murray wanting to add young assets for bad contracts seems like the most recent example of that. Though, I’m not betting on the Ducks being good again until Murray is gone.

Yeah, it’s like you said in an earlier post about the how to apportion the problems between the actual talent of the prospects and Eakins coaching ability. Should the Ducks be this bad?probably not, but their ceiling isn’t very high, especially if you need to rely on two late first round picks and a 5th rounder. They looked better last year, but it was also a small sample size, with less expectations, so seeing them struggle as compared to last year isn’t surprising. Also, most teams in the West were already better or got better since last season. Murray calling it a re-tool was just PR spin. When you need to replace cornerstone guys like Perry, Kesler and eventually Getzlaf, you’re rebuilding. That’s not even factoring our defensive pipeline which also needs to be restocked. Bob doesn’t seem like the type to ever admit the team is rebuilding anyway. The fact that he’d be willing to take on bad contracts for young assets is more confirmation that we are in one.

Yeah, that’s why I don’t see any change coming soon. Unless, there are options or out clauses. This is on ownership as much as it is Murray. They extended him through the expansion draft, which is no coincidence. Murray can’t fire Eakins or he’d get the boot along with him. No argument from me about firing Murray and Eakins very well isn’t the coach of the future for the Ducks. That said, sacking him after one season under the team’s current circumstances isn’t real giving him much of a shot at being successful. He was given a roster full of defensive and scoring holes with no blue chip level, NHL-ready prospects. I think it’s all moot because Murray isn’t going anywhere anytime soon but if ownership were to be bold and clean house with Murray and subsequently Eakins in the offseason, then I’d be fine with it. I think Murray is making at least two noticeable trades before next season and his leash is still longer than we all are comfortable with. My feeling is Ritchie is gone, along with either Henrique, Rakell or Manson.

3 years. His and Murray’s contracts are both set to expire in 2022.

It’s fun to think about but I doubt the Samuelis are going to pay for a GM and and coach for multiple years that are no longer with the. They let Bob take the wheel and after 10 years we know what kind of driver he is.

Yeah, he hasn’t been given nearly enough leash yet. It’s also not a good look to prospective coaches that they could get sacked in less than a season which isn’t enough time to implement their system and vision or turn things around.

With the expansion draft coming, I think that Murray is going to make moves to best position himself for that this summer. If he wants to go even deeper into the rebuild then he might move more established players for picks/prospects. He could then flip those in trades to upgrade the roster. Either way, I think he’s going to be much more active this offseason. No one should hold their breath for Gallant. That would require Murray getting fired along with Eakins which isn’t happening. At least not before Gallant has a new coaching gig. I’m not sold yet on firing Eakins anyway