Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AustinDuck27

Free Agent Frenzy Catch-All

Recommended Posts

When your rookie blue-liner is cracking jokes about spending the Olympic break trying to keep Penner out of trouble and doing positive things, there's clearly an issue there. Maybe an issue that all of the teammates are lighthearted about, but still an issue. Much as I would have liked to still have the option to throw Penner's big body out there, particularly in the series against the Kings, I don't know that he'd have made any positive difference. Besides, Murray was clearing out that #17 and we all know it now...  ;) 

Still flipping kills me, though; if Vancouver hadn't axed that deal at the deadline, the Kings almost definitely wouldn't have won the Cup.  :(  :angry:

 

Hmm, I missed this little tidbit (bolded). Not surprised though.

 

You make a great point, the real issue was more Murray's trade deadline results, not so much the players (Penner - and I include Fasth) themselves. In a vacuum, neither of those moves warranted major concern at the time, but in hindsight I don't think either of those moves turned out to be as irrelevant as most expected them to be. He moved out Fasth, and goaltending became an issue as Hiller and the kids struggled. And he moved Penner while none of the kids progressed as hoped, none being able to provide Getz & Perry with a solid 3rd linemate. Getzy's line caught fire when Beleskey decided he was an Allstar, then fell off as soon as Matty was injured. It was further compounded by the fact that Murray wasn't able to bring a single upgrade to the front end, we could have used a #2C to take the pressure off Getzy, and a top six winger to fill the void. But hey, Murray did try, I give him credit for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I missed this little tidbit (bolded). Not surprised though.

 

You make a great point, the real issue was more Murray's trade deadline results, not so much the players (Penner - and I include Fasth) themselves. In a vacuum, neither of those moves warranted major concern at the time, but in hindsight I don't think either of those moves turned out to be as irrelevant as most expected them to be. He moved out Fasth, and goaltending became an issue as Hiller and the kids struggled. And he moved Penner while none of the kids progressed as hoped, none being able to provide Getz & Perry with a solid 3rd linemate. Getzy's line caught fire when Beleskey decided he was an Allstar, then fell off as soon as Matty was injured. It was further compounded by the fact that Murray wasn't able to bring a single upgrade to the front end, we could have used a #2C to take the pressure off Getzy, and a top six winger to fill the void. But hey, Murray did try, I give him credit for that.

 

I think your assessment of the Fasth deal is pretty harsh and one that you can only really say was bad with hindsight. No GM expects to lose their two starters. In fact, in general, if you lose your #1 GT your kind of f-ked, just look at MTL. 

 

The only deal that gets my goat is the Kesler deal. Like you say, we could have used Kesler and could have been a real contender. However, given that the players and picks going the other way were, supposedly, much higher, it may just be a blessing in disguise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have a bonafide #2 in Fowler, all he needs to do is round out his offensive game (ahem, learn to shoot) and he's a #1. I see Lindholm being a solid #2 D-man as well, not sure we actually need a #1 D-man if we have two solid #2's.

I hope that makes sense.

 

I'd be surprised if Lindholm doesn't develop into an elite #1 D-man. Meanwhile, Fowler will remain a strong #2. The only problem is that they both play on the left side. I would be all for playing Fowler and Lindholm together, but could easily see Vats playing will Fowler on the 2nd line in the next few years, but that still leaves that top #2 position. Needs to be filled, preferably with a RH shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your assessment of the Fasth deal is pretty harsh and one that you can only really say was bad with hindsight. No GM expects to lose their two starters. In fact, in general, if you lose your #1 GT your kind of f-ked, just look at MTL. 

 

The only deal that gets my goat is the Kesler deal. Like you say, we could have used Kesler and could have been a real contender. However, given that the players and picks going the other way were, supposedly, much higher, it may just be a blessing in disguise.

 

Fasth was bad at the time and in hindsight IMO. It's not just the way things went in the playoffs, I think we'd be better served having an Andersen/Fasth tandem this season with Gibson playing the #1 role in Norfolk and available for injury relief and what-have-you. Fasth's contract would be up next summer and Andersen/Gibson should be a much more proven tandem by then. Still fuzzy on why Murray moved him at all. 

 

Tough call on Kesler, maybe it is better to have waited and gotten him cheaper this summer, but what if he was the difference in the LA series? We could be talking the extra deadline cost buying a Stanley Cup! I could live with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fasth was bad at the time and in hindsight IMO. It's not just the way things went in the playoffs, I think we'd be better served having an Andersen/Fasth tandem this season with Gibson playing the #1 role in Norfolk and available for injury relief and what-have-you. Fasth's contract would be up next summer and Andersen/Gibson should be a much more proven tandem by then. Still fuzzy on why Murray moved him at all.

Tough call on Kesler, maybe it is better to have waited and gotten him cheaper this summer, but what if he was the difference in the LA series? We could be talking the extra deadline cost buying a Stanley Cup! I could live with that.

I would have been willing to pay premium just to beat the stupid Kings.

I agree with you on Faust. I think a tandem of Andersen/Fasth would be more relia le. Something about having a veteran presence gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Gibson with the Admirals would also have given them a better competitve edge too. It also allows the big club to bring up the kids one at time.

And most importantly, Fasth deserves better than Edmonton. That blows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have been willing to pay premium just to beat the stupid Kings.

I agree with you on Faust. I think a tandem of Andersen/Fasth would be more relia le. Something about having a veteran presence gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Gibson with the Admirals would also have given them a better competitve edge too. It also allows the big club to bring up the kids one at time.

And most importantly, Fasth deserves better than Edmonton. That blows.

 

Wouldn't have had to even play the Kings if Stoll didn't take out Vlasic the way he took out Fowler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like to think he's going surprise us...

 

Stoner is the guy that's gonna be the punisher for all the cheap shots from Grabutt, Stoll ect (spell). He's not a hot head, won't start a fight but he'll pound you on the boards and win if the gloves are dropped. We needed him, we don't need Getz & Maroon pulling that duty...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have been willing to pay premium just to beat the stupid Kings.

I agree with you on Faust. I think a tandem of Andersen/Fasth would be more relia le. Something about having a veteran presence gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Gibson with the Admirals would also have given them a better competitve edge too. It also allows the big club to bring up the kids one at time.

And most importantly, Fasth deserves better than Edmonton. That blows.

 

Yes it's a bit of a risk, but Fasth was having some injury problems....but I know he's awesome when healthy. I think Andersen/Gibson are going to flourish playing off eachother, should be exciting. I also believe Heatly will have a great year...he has a lot to prove and knew this was the place to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fasth was bad at the time and in hindsight IMO. It's not just the way things went in the playoffs, I think we'd be better served having an Andersen/Fasth tandem this season with Gibson playing the #1 role in Norfolk and available for injury relief and what-have-you. Fasth's contract would be up next summer and Andersen/Gibson should be a much more proven tandem by then. Still fuzzy on why Murray moved him at all. 

 

Tough call on Kesler, maybe it is better to have waited and gotten him cheaper this summer, but what if he was the difference in the LA series? We could be talking the extra deadline cost buying a Stanley Cup! I could live with that. 

 

Whilst I certainly prefer having Andersen play in front of a veteran GT, or, better yet, have Andersen player behind an elite, veteran GT, I don't think Fasth was that guy. As RogeyMod said, he's incredibly injury prone and we'd have lost at the end of this season for nothing. I stand by my statement that I think your assessment is pretty critical. Would Fasth really have made us that much better during the playoffs? I doubt it. What happens if BM signed Miller? Would you still complain that Fasth shouldn't have been traded?

 

Good point on Kesler though. He probably wasn't the difference maker tbh. Can't blame the GT for everything though. We needed better, more experienced D-men. Nabbing Girardi would have helped IMO, but I don't think he would taken us over the edge. Hopefully BM makes a similar move at this season deadline. I don't like LJ playing #2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoner is the guy that's gonna be the punisher for all the cheap shots from Grabutt, Stoll ect (spell). He's not a hot head, won't start a fight but he'll pound you on the boards and win if the gloves are dropped. We needed him, we don't need Getz & Maroon pulling that duty...

 

That's the upside with Stoner for sure, it'll be nice to have a badass on the back end again. Maroon is fine to chuck knuckles in my book though, that's a big part of his appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I certainly prefer having Andersen play in front of a veteran GT, or, better yet, have Andersen player behind an elite, veteran GT, I don't think Fasth was that guy. As RogeyMod said, he's incredibly injury prone and we'd have lost at the end of this season for nothing. I stand by my statement that I think your assessment is pretty critical. Would Fasth really have made us that much better during the playoffs? I doubt it. What happens if BM signed Miller? Would you still complain that Fasth shouldn't have been traded?

 

Good point on Kesler though. He probably wasn't the difference maker tbh. Can't blame the GT for everything though. We needed better, more experienced D-men. Nabbing Girardi would have helped IMO, but I don't think he would taken us over the edge. Hopefully BM makes a similar move at this season deadline. I don't like LJ playing #2. 

 

I think it's fair to be critical, Murray traded Fasth due to the fact that he felt that Freddy the kid was ready for the pressure. He wasn't. It was a miscalculation on Murray's part, and I absolutely believe Fasth could have made a difference in the playoffs. Obviously there's no guaranteeing he would have, I have nothing to back that up but my winning smile, but Andersen cracked under pressure, Fasth is an older dude (32) and the guy was pretty much a veteran goalie in the tougher Swedish league before he came over. Not the NHL, I know, but comparing him to the rookie Andersen, I don't see how Murray "Mr. Insurance" was suddenly so willing to cut it so thin in a critical area just before the playoffs. It is good that he got a couple picks for Vik, but if Hiller is worth keeping and letting walk for nothing, then I think Vik's services would carry an equal value to those picks. He was injury prone, but so what? We call up Gibson as needed all the same.

 

Didn't like he trade then, don't like it now, but I can see both sides. Your points are all solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoner is the guy that's gonna be the punisher for all the cheap shots from Grabutt, Stoll ect (spell). He's not a hot head, won't start a fight but he'll pound you on the boards and win if the gloves are dropped. We needed him, we don't need Getz & Maroon pulling that duty...

 

As much as I would love a designated brawler on this team, I don't like that it is Stoner. 1) I like the brawlers who can double as hockey players too. 2) And quite honestly this is the most important for the team, having a defenseman out for five minutes on an already questionable defense. 

 

And since everyone on this board either hates Fowler or Allen, they will just get doubled shifted because of Stoner. 

 

Then there is the question of Bruce. Bruce clearly is not a coach about fighting or getting vengeance for illegal hits. Which begs the point, why Stoner? Probably a philosophical organizational thing. BM (old fart hockey) vs BB (new fart hockey. something about speed, skills and not killing each other). My point is why use him as the bruiser? If anything, it should be a marginal 4th line player that is the bruiser. Something along the lines of Parros or May Day. Belesky fills that roll well. And if need be, Team Captain Maroon. None of them are great fighters in their own right, but there was a day when we gave Parros the win just for staying on his skates. Oh he was hilariously bad for a bit.

 

Also. If a defenseman wants to get cray-cray on a dude. That not so gentle giant Allen can go to pound town. Rare. But that one fight was soooo good.

 

[edit] That other kid Fistric too. Heck. Allen, Fistric, Stoner. The latter two go for big hits. Fistric was benched against the Kings. Minnesota bemoans Stoners efforts in the playoffs. While Allen was probably the best defenseman come the playoffs for the Ducks.

 

STONER MAKES NO SENSE ZTHER! If he shuts me up (All-Star break, not having this Penner start strong then disappear nonsense), I will forcibly make my way down to the Pond and buy you a beer/cocktail/hotdog of your choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I would love a designated brawler on this team, I don't like that it is Stoner. 1) I like the brawlers who can double as hockey players too. 2) And quite honestly this is the most important for the team, having a defenseman out for five minutes on an already questionable defense. 

 

And since everyone on this board either hates Fowler or Allen, they will just get doubled shifted because of Stoner. 

 

Then there is the question of Bruce. Bruce clearly is not a coach about fighting or getting vengeance for illegal hits. Which begs the point, why Stoner? Probably a philosophical organizational thing. BM (old fart hockey) vs BB (new fart hockey. something about speed, skills and not killing each other). My point is why use him as the bruiser? If anything, it should be a marginal 4th line player that is the bruiser. Something along the lines of Parros or May Day. Belesky fills that roll well. And if need be, Team Captain Maroon. None of them are great fighters in their own right, but there was a day when we gave Parros the win just for staying on his skates. Oh he was hilariously bad for a bit.

 

Also. If a defenseman wants to get cray-cray on a dude. That not so gentle giant Allen can go to pound town. Rare. But that one fight was soooo good.

 

[edit] That other kid Fistric too. Heck. Allen, Fistric, Stoner. The latter two go for big hits. Fistric was benched against the Kings. Minnesota bemoans Stoners efforts in the playoffs. While Allen was probably the best defenseman come the playoffs for the Ducks.

 

STONER MAKES NO SENSE ZTHER! If he shuts me up (All-Star break, not having this Penner start strong then disappear nonsense), I will forcibly make my way down to the Pond and buy you a beer/cocktail/hotdog of your choice. 

 

I wouldn't worry about Stoner too much, Vatanen is still our enforcer.

 

Seriously though, I don't think Stoner should be skating around without a stick shaking his gloves, itching for a fight. He needs to pick appropriate moments. But we've always had d-men that fight. Beauch, Sbisa, Fistric, even Allen hulked-out and pounded some little guy last season. Not long ago you could add Souray, Pronger, O'Donnell, Brookbank, DiPenta, Sutton (bad example maybe, if Stoner becomes Sutton 2.0 it doesn't bode well). It's just the fact that he's got that snarl and guys know he will get nasty if need be, he'll help keep teams honest, especially considering he'll most often be out there with our younger players. 

 

After all the cheap shots every season that sideline our young players, I'm not saying Stoner should play enforcer and go after revenge, but maybe his presence alone will serve as some sort deterrent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. With Pronger, O'Donnell, DiPenta (lol?) there was the other side of the coin. Scotty boy. 

 

RC: Hey bro, you gotta out and cover another 3 minutes because of numbnuts in the box.

Scotty Boy: You swear like I don't got this on lock.

 

Anyway. I don't remember Pronger fighting. A walking two minute elbow suspension with possible further repercussions? Absolutely. Yet Scotty was there. Sean. Francois. Pff I even liked the marginally used Jackman.

 

Not a big fan of this team being down by a defenseman for 5 minutes. It's gonna happen for the two that will enviably happen. Just the 5 annoys me. As Stoner was suggested as the "go to guy" not a "HOLY CRAP BEAUCHEMIN BEAT IGNLA" rarity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. With Pronger, O'Donnell, DiPenta (lol?) there was the other side of the coin. Scotty boy. 

 

RC: Hey bro, you gotta out and cover another 3 minutes because of numbnuts in the box.

Scotty Boy: You swear like I don't got this on lock.

 

Anyway. I don't remember Pronger fighting. A walking two minute elbow suspension with possible further repercussions? Absolutely. Yet Scotty was there. Sean. Francois. Pff I even liked the marginally used Jackman.

 

Not a big fan of this team being down by a defenseman for 5 minutes. It's gonna happen for the two that will enviably happen. Just the 5 annoys me. As Stoner was suggested as the "go to guy" not a "HOLY CRAP BEAUCHEMIN BEAT IGNLA" rarity. 

 

Haha, yeah, DiPenta was a stretch, but I recall a fight or two in his day with those quick rapid-fire punches. Pronger didn't fight? He was mean as hell, and huge, so he usually didn't need to, but I swear he had to have fought. Can't remember, too lazy to look it up.

 

I don't see the big deal though, d-men fight too, it happens. A couple guys get double-shifted and all is well. Heck, we may be better off with Stoner in the box lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to be critical, Murray traded Fasth due to the fact that he felt that Freddy the kid was ready for the pressure. He wasn't. It was a miscalculation on Murray's part, and I absolutely believe Fasth could have made a difference in the playoffs. Obviously there's no guaranteeing he would have, I have nothing to back that up but my winning smile, but Andersen cracked under pressure, Fasth is an older dude (32) and the guy was pretty much a veteran goalie in the tougher Swedish league before he came over. Not the NHL, I know, but comparing him to the rookie Andersen, I don't see how Murray "Mr. Insurance" was suddenly so willing to cut it so thin in a critical area just before the playoffs. It is good that he got a couple picks for Vik, but if Hiller is worth keeping and letting walk for nothing, then I think Vik's services would carry an equal value to those picks. He was injury prone, but so what? We call up Gibson as needed all the same.

 

Didn't like he trade then, don't like it now, but I can see both sides. Your points are all solid.

 

I guess we disagree then. Tbh, I don't know how you can say that Fasth would have made a difference. He isn't an NHL veteran or elite. Heck, Hiller is an NHL veteran and even he played poorly at times. Heck, Miller is elite and look at what happened to him. Like you said, we can never know for sure if Fasth would have or wouldn't have made the difference, but I think given his 2.95 GAA + 0.855 SV% he had for us and the 2.73 GAA + 0.914 SV% he had for Edmonton during the season, I am going to lean towards the idea that he wouldn't have been that stellar and certainly wouldn't have taken us over the edge. 

 

Now a the Kesler trade is another story.

 

Question though, what are your thoughts on Andersen going into this season. I mean, according to you, he cracked under the pressure. How's he going to manage this season? I don't remember you lobbying with me and Z for signing Miller or any other #1 veteran GT during the off-season. So I would assume that you are ok with Andersen playing as the #1.

 

I liked the trade then, and I still like it now. I just don't like having Andersen as our #1 and Gibson as our back-up. Too young for me, not enough experience and totally unproven in the role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we disagree then. Tbh, I don't know how you can say that Fasth would have made a difference. He isn't an NHL veteran or elite. Heck, Hiller is an NHL veteran and even he played poorly at times. Heck, Miller is elite and look at what happened to him. Like you said, we can never know for sure if Fasth would have or wouldn't have made the difference, but I think given his 2.95 GAA + 0.855 SV% he had for us and the 2.73 GAA + 0.914 SV% he had for Edmonton during the season, I am going to lean towards the idea that he wouldn't have been that stellar and certainly wouldn't have taken us over the edge. 

 

Now a the Kesler trade is another story.

 

Question though, what are your thoughts on Andersen going into this season. I mean, according to you, he cracked under the pressure. How's he going to manage this season? I don't remember you lobbying with me and Z for signing Miller or any other #1 veteran GT during the off-season. So I would assume that you are ok with Andersen playing as the #1.

 

I liked the trade then, and I still like it now. I just don't like having Andersen as our #1 and Gibson as our back-up. Too young for me, not enough experience and totally unproven in the role.

 

Miller at the deadline was intriguing, Miller now that he stunk it up in St Louis is less exciting. I have my doubts that he is ever going to be elite again after Lucic cranked him. 

 

Though it's not my ideal, I'm OK with the kids this season only because they have last season's experience to draw on. By the time the playoffs come around again in 8 months or so, they should each have another training camp, preseason, and share the split of 82 regular season games (something like a 60/40% split?). I expect both to be fine for regular season games, that gives Murray plenty of time to assess where either is at and decide on picking up a reliable veteran goalie at the next trade deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...