liquid13

Expansion Draft

463 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, AustinDuck27 said:

Yeah, I've heard the company line already, it never should have come to this, but here we are, and everyone will pat Murray on the back like usual.

Moving on... to IKEA.

It's not ideal. But look what CBJ did to ditch Clarkson! 

And Garth Snow. L-O-L

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CapFriendly‏ @CapFriendly  12m12 minutes ago

Here is the official breakdown of the 30 players #Vegas selected:

14 Forwards

13 D-men

3 Goalies

20 Contracts

$51.1M Total Cap Hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, McPee could have easily given Bob the bird and went after the established defensemen Vats and not bother with Stoner. Or maybe Manson since Vegas seems inclined to pick bruisers and James Neals. 

In which case it would have been giving up something for nothing. In losing Theo, we lose Stoner. At least it's a trade-off and not a straight loss. And an extra $3M+ to sign Eaves. Eh, nevermind. It's Bob Murray. I haven't looked at the UFA list yet. What winger over the age of 35 needs $3.5M/3 year NMC? IKEA high-five!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, poum said:

Also, McPee could have easily given Bob the bird and went after the established defensemen Vats and not bother with Stoner. Or maybe Manson since Vegas seems inclined to pick bruisers and James Neals. 

In which case it would have been giving up something for nothing. In losing Theo, we lose Stoner. At least it's a trade-off and not a straight loss. And an extra $3M+ to sign Eaves. Eh, nevermind. It's Bob Murray. I haven't looked at the UFA list yet. What winger over the age of 35 needs $3.5M/3 year NMC? IKEA high-five!

Even if Bieksa was bought out or waived his NMC, Vats or Manson would have been exposed. He still would have had to make a deal. BM did what he could. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, poum said:

It's not ideal. But look what CBJ did to ditch Clarkson! 

And Garth Snow. L-O-L

Heh. Yeah, if I need a little schadenfreude to take the edge off, look no further than Nashville. Trade Neal for Hornqvist, watch Horqvist score the Cup winner against you, then lose Neal for nothing to Vegas afterwards. :D

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DuckFan4Life said:

Even if Bieksa was bought out or waived his NMC, Vats or Manson would have been exposed. He still would have had to make a deal. BM did what he could. 

Which gets back to my original question. Yes Manson is more physical.  But if you were asked before last season who has more upside, most would say Theo. Yes we have other prospects like him.  I just think it's easier to replace a Manson long term than a Theodore.  Manson was not a highly thought of first round pick, Theo was.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DT2008 said:

Which gets back to my original question. Yes Manson is more physical.  But if you were asked before last season who has more upside, most would say Theo. Yes we have other prospects like him.  I just think it's easier to replace a Manson long term than a Theodore.  Manson was not a highly thought of first round pick, Theo was.  

I think you're underrating Manson a bit here. He's more than just a physical presence. He's a great puck moving defenceman for someone of his size and statistically speaking, he's also our second best shot suppressor right behind Lindholm. Even if you don't buy into advanced stats, that's incredibly valuable in today's landscape. The fact that he's right handed only adds to that. Theodore might become a better player one day but Manson has a more unique skill set which suits our needs now and in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AustinDuck27 said:

Not happy about this, Theo was too much to give up. Eff everything. Hoping other dominos fall.

For them to take Stoner?  And NOT take Vatanen or Manson?  Given what other teams gave up to protect lesser players?  

I don't think it was a steal, but that's decent work by BM.  I'm not thrilled about it, but we were going to lose someone decent.  Theo has a high offensive upside, but I think Larsson is more what the team needs anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AustinDuck27 said:

Yeah, I've heard the company line already, it never should have come to this, but here we are, and everyone will pat Murray on the back like usual.

Moving on... to IKEA.

Sounds like you need to head over to Anaheim Calling.  They've got the cynicism and vitriol you're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DT2008 said:

Which gets back to my original question. Yes Manson is more physical.  But if you were asked before last season who has more upside, most would say Theo. Yes we have other prospects like him.  I just think it's easier to replace a Manson long term than a Theodore.  Manson was not a highly thought of first round pick, Theo was.  

Easy to replace Manson, eh? Do these ring a bell?

Andy Sutton?

Bryan Allen?

Ryan Whitney?

Edit: Effective, hard nosed blue liners have been hard to find for the Ducks. Add Manson's ability to chip in on scoring (better than some of the young defenseman in the league who are considered offensively gifted) and you have a rare combination on the Ducks blueline.

Edited by Thom-74
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

For them to take Stoner?  And NOT take Vatanen or Manson?  Given what other teams gave up to protect lesser players?  

I don't think it was a steal, but that's decent work by BM.  I'm not thrilled about it, but we were going to lose someone decent.  Theo has a high offensive upside, but I think Larsson is more what the team needs anyway.

That's the key point that everyone keeps throwing around. Neither of those guys had to be exposed, end of story. Was it tricky to work out the moving parts and have the foresight to make it happen? Sure. Diificult? Maybe. Impossible? Heck no, yet everyone builds it into these canned responses as if Murray had his hands completely tied all along.

Who signed Stoner, Bieksa, Despres, etc.? Why are we applauding the man for having to now take it in the shorts to buy his way out of his own mess? I'm not calling for his head here, I realize the ED was a less than ideal situation to try and circumvent unscathed. I'm just expressing a little frustration.

3 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

Sounds like you need to head over to Anaheim Calling.  They've got the cynicism and vitriol you're looking for.

Uh oh, the feelings police has arrived. Sounds like you need to start your own blog, where you don't have to be wounded by different reactions/opinions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thom-74 said:

Not soured... just that Theo's redundant, Manson isn't.

Chances are LVGK had their choice of Theo or Montour and chose the more seasoned prospect.

Not so sure about that.  I see Montour having greater potential than Theodore.

The awards show / presentation was ridiculous.  Looks like the snowflake crowd might be upset too.  

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/06/aly-raisman-marcel-dionne-nhl-awards-show-2017

 

Edited by Fowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AustinDuck27 said:

That's the key point that everyone keeps throwing around. Neither of those guys had to be exposed, end of story. Was it tricky to work out the moving parts and have the foresight to make it happen? Sure. Diificult? Maybe. Impossible? Heck no, yet everyone builds it into these canned responses as if Murray had his hands completely tied all along.

Who signed Stoner, Bieksa, Despres, etc.? Why are we applauding the man for having to now take it in the shorts to buy his way out of his own mess? I'm not calling for his head here, I realize the ED was a less than ideal situation to try and circumvent unscathed. I'm just expressing a little frustration.

Uh oh, the feelings police has arrived. Sounds like you need to start your own blog, where you don't have to be wounded by different reactions/opinions.

Actually, even Anaheim Calling thinks it was a good move by Murray.  So it seems like you're alone here.

As to the first point, either one of them (Vatanen or Manson) had to be exposed or traded.  And as dts pointed out many times, the list of teams who could 1) Take on a protection-slot-worthy d-man and 2) have an asset the Ducks wanted and could take on in return was incredibly small.  Maybe even non-existent.  

Bieksa and Stoner were mistakes.  Having Manson, Vatanen, Lindholm, and Fowler all on the roster as defensemen who needed to be protected was not.  That's just good drafting and bad luck.

I get that you're frustrated, but I think you're a little over the top with the reaction.  As I've tried to say at AC numerous times - the Ducks have made the WC Finals two out of the last three years and have won five division titles in a row.  Certainly Murray could have made fewer mistakes, but at some point, at least a little bit of the proof is in the pudding.  He's done a lot more good than bad with this roster.  And I think this was almost as good as he could have done in this situation. A good team was going to have to give up an asset in the expansion draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AustinDuck27 said:

That's the key point that everyone keeps throwing around. Neither of those guys had to be exposed, end of story. Was it tricky to work out the moving parts and have the foresight to make it happen? Sure. Diificult? Maybe. Impossible? Heck no, yet everyone builds it into these canned responses as if Murray had his hands completely tied all along.

Who signed Stoner, Bieksa, Despres, etc.? Why are we applauding the man for having to now take it in the shorts to buy his way out of his own mess? I'm not calling for his head here, I realize the ED was a less than ideal situation to try and circumvent unscathed. I'm just expressing a little frustration.

Uh oh, the feelings police has arrived. Sounds like you need to start your own blog, where you don't have to be wounded by different reactions/opinions.

I think the injuries to Despres and Stoner threw a huge spanner in there. Stoner kept having set backs, originally wasn't he supposed to be back in January? I'm thinking that even at the trade deadline they probably thought he would get in an extra 5 games or whatever it was to be eligible. Maybe if he's eligible we buy out Bieksa. Maybe if Despres didn't get hurt we wouldn't have bought him out.

I think the reality of having so many good young defensemen was that we would probably lose one to Vegas. In the grand scheme of things I think Theo was the one to lose. Montour is at a similar developmental stage but seems to have a more well rounded game, Larsson looks like he could be something special. And Fowler/Lindholm/Vats/Manson are established young players that can help the team right now. Out of all of them I think BM did a good job only losing Theo.

Also, unlike other teams, we didn't lose any more picks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fowl said:

Not so sure about that.  I see Montour having greater potential than Theodore.

The awards show / presentation was ridiculous.  Looks like the snowflake crowd might be upset too.  

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/06/aly-raisman-marcel-dionne-nhl-awards-show-2017

 

His comment was pretty pervy. He's old though, what are you gonna do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

 Actually, even Anaheim Calling thinks it was a good move by Murray.  So it seems like you're alone here.

As to the first point, either one of them (Vatanen or Manson) had to be exposed or traded.  And as dts pointed out many times, the list of teams who could 1) Take on a protection-slot-worthy d-man and 2) have an asset the Ducks wanted and could take on in return was incredibly small.  Maybe even non-existent.  

Bieksa and Stoner were mistakes.  Having Manson, Vatanen, Lindholm, and Fowler all on the roster as defensemen who needed to be protected was not.  That's just good drafting and bad luck.

I get that you're frustrated, but I think you're a little over the top with the reaction.  As I've tried to say at AC numerous times - the Ducks have made the WC Finals two out of the last three years and have won five division titles in a row.  Certainly Murray could have made fewer mistakes, but at some point, at least a little bit of the proof is in the pudding.  He's done a lot more good than bad with this roster.  And I think this was almost as good as he could have done in this situation. A good team was going to have to give up an asset in the expansion draft.

I don't visit that site, I'll take your word for it. Oh no, I'm all alone in my opinion, should I panic and join the hive mind or be called a troll at some point? (Where's the *eyeroll* smiley when you need it?)

No, they didn't have to be exposed, I didn't spell it out, but obviously the idea is one of them (Vats) would have been traded at some point before then. All you're doing is laying out exactly what I just posted, that while it may have been a challenge, it wasn't some impossible or outlandish situation to get a handle on. As far as a lack of pre-ED trade partners: 

Quote

LeBrun: "I'm told teams are absolutely lining up in their interest" for Sami Vatanen." #NHLDucks

 

I'll react like me, you react like you, how does that sound? 

Spare me the Murray resume rhetoric, I'm well aware that he's done plenty of good things for this team, but we're talking about a specific situation here. To be honest, this topic has been well-beaten to death already, I really don't see the point in rehashing all the same points and counterpoints with you just because you were on Anaheim Calling rather than keeping up with the discussion here. Go read my other posts on this topic and let's call it a day, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, AustinDuck27 said:

That's the key point that everyone keeps throwing around. Neither of those guys had to be exposed, end of story. Was it tricky to work out the moving parts and have the foresight to make it happen? Sure. Diificult? Maybe. Impossible? Heck no, yet everyone builds it into these canned responses as if Murray had his hands completely tied all along.

Who signed Stoner, Bieksa, Despres, etc.? Why are we applauding the man for having to now take it in the shorts to buy his way out of his own mess? I'm not calling for his head here, I realize the ED was a less than ideal situation to try and circumvent unscathed. I'm just expressing a little frustration.

Uh oh, the feelings police has arrived. Sounds like you need to start your own blog, where you don't have to be wounded by different reactions/opinions.

I think we have to wait to judge this move until later in the season. If Vats recovers and finds his offensive game back we either hold on to a very good offensive D man or we can trade him when his value is way higher than it is now (injured while BM is up with his back against the wall).

This trade gives us room to add a scoring winger (probably not the best of the best) on top of re-signing Eaves or BM flips Vats for a top 6 winger. If that results in us winning The Stanley Cup nobody will blame BM for anything.

On the other hand if Theo becomes Bobby Orr 2.0 and Vatanen's arm falls off we're gonna get out the pitchforks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nieder said:

I think the injuries to Despres and Stoner threw a huge spanner in there. Stoner kept having set backs, originally wasn't he supposed to be back in January? I'm thinking that even at the trade deadline they probably thought he would get in an extra 5 games or whatever it was to be eligible. Maybe if he's eligible we buy out Bieksa. Maybe if Despres didn't get hurt we wouldn't have bought him out.

I think the reality of having so many good young defensemen was that we would probably lose one to Vegas. In the grand scheme of things I think Theo was the one to lose. Montour is at a similar developmental stage but seems to have a more well rounded game, Larsson looks like he could be something special. And Fowler/Lindholm/Vats/Manson are established young players that can help the team right now. Out of all of them I think BM did a good job only losing Theo.

Also, unlike other teams, we didn't lose any more picks. 

I realize these things. A lot depends now on whether Murray wants to move Vats at all. I'm hoping he has another means to add some offense, keeping the D together (including Vats) while adding offense somehow (not Eaves) would really set things straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DucksFan_08 said:

I think we have to wait to judge this move until later in the season. If Vats recovers and finds his offensive game back we either hold on to a very good offensive D man or we can trade him when his value is way higher than it is now (injured while BM is up with his back against the wall).

This trade gives us room to add a scoring winger (probably not the best of the best) on top of re-signing Eaves or BM flips Vats for a top 6 winger. If that results in us winning The Stanley Cup nobody will blame BM for anything.

On the other hand if Theo becomes Bobby Orr 2.0 and Vatanen's arm falls off we're gonna get out the pitchforks.

A Cup trumps all, of course. Let's see what happens tomorrow through the start of July, while I may be unhappy with the ED trade in a vacuum, I've been saying that there may be more to come that might sweeten things a little for us. 

I still see Theodore as a similar player to J. Schultz, maybe better if he fills out more (only 21) and can handle body contact better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AustinDuck27 said:

I don't visit that site, I'll take your word for it. Oh no, I'm all alone in my opinion, should I panic and join the hive mind or be called a troll at some point? (Where's the *eyeroll* smiley when you need it?)

No, they didn't have to be exposed, I didn't spell it out, but obviously the idea is one of them (Vats) would have been traded at some point before then. All you're doing is laying out exactly what I just posted, that while it may have been a challenge, it wasn't some impossible or outlandish situation to get a handle on. As far as a lack of pre-ED trade partners: 

 

I'll react like me, you react like you, how does that sound? 

Spare me the Murray resume rhetoric, I'm well aware that he's done plenty of good things for this team, but we're talking about a specific situation here. To be honest, this topic has been well-beaten to death already, I really don't see the point in rehashing all the same points and counterpoints with you just because you were on Anaheim Calling rather than keeping up with the discussion here. Go read my other posts on this topic and let's call it a day, eh?

I've read all your posts on the topic because I respect your opinion.  The bottom line is I think it would have been extremely difficult to do what you want Murray to have done (which is also what I wanted him to do, as many of my posts on here over the last several months will reflect).  But after seeing how this played out and the deals other teams made, I think any deal Murray could potentially make to alleviate this problem would have had to be made at the trade deadline, and almost certainly weakens the team for a playoff run.  That's a really hard call to make as a contending team with an aging core.

The Lebrun quote doesn't go into enough detail about context.  Of course teams are interested in Vatanen; he's a good player at a reasonable price.  But are they interested in trading for him before the ED?  Are they interested enough in him to give up a good young forward, assuming they have one?  Are they able to take on salary without giving any in return?

You seem really angry about this and I didn't mean to offer any insult, just pointing out that I think your level of frustration seems a bit out of line, and you're lashing out at people over it.  Sorry if I hit a nerve.  I'll let it go.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

I've read all your posts on the topic because I respect your opinion.  The bottom line is I think it would have been extremely difficult to do what you want Murray to have done (which is also what I wanted him to do, as many of my posts on here over the last several months will reflect).  But after seeing how this played out and the deals other teams made, I think any deal Murray could potentially make to alleviate this problem would have had to be made at the trade deadline, and almost certainly weakens the team for a playoff run.  That's a really hard call to make as a contending team with an aging core.

The Lebrun quote doesn't go into enough detail about context.  Of course teams are interested in Vatanen; he's a good player at a reasonable price.  But are they interested in trading for him before the ED?  Are they interested enough in him to give up a good young forward, assuming they have one?  Are they able to take on salary without giving any in return?

You seem really angry about this and I didn't mean to offer any insult, just pointing out that I think your level of frustration seems a bit out of line, and you're lashing out at people over it.  Sorry if I hit a nerve.  I'll let it go.

Really angry? No, lol, I'm watching Parks & Rec reruns while reading and posting. I'm not lashing out at anyone else that I'm aware of, only you for taking one of your patented condescending jabs at me, so I chose not to mince words this time. But it's fine, have at me, or we can hug it out... whatever works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like watching your parents fight.

I don't know if I should hide under the bed or fire up the Getzlaf popcorn gif. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I just noticed James Neal has an NTC. I don't think he waived it. Does the ED not count under trades? The NMCs are basically so players don't get traded or sent to the minors. 

Or the much, much more laughable version of this would be Vegas was not on his modified NTC no trade list team. I'm just gonna entertain this idea for a night till Dts with his lawyering fine print skills till me it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look only ad ED, it was a good move and I happy they don't give an other high draft pick as CBJ, PiTS or NYI did it.

but as AustinDuck27 said, it was a little lack of pre-ED-work.

If you trade Vatanen for a forward, who will miss the half next season, and Bieksa waived his NTC, Manson would be protected and the traded Forward also would be protected instead of Vermette.

1 week and we lost 3 defenders. now the depth isn't no more here. we haven't two of them the half season (Lindholm and Vatanen)...

who are our defenders to start the season?

Fowler, Montour, Manson, Bieksa and I think Larson will be the 5th, but who is the 6th? imagine an other injury... so we have to sign a BU-Goalie, at least 1 defender and 1-2 Forward (Eaves and if ist possible a scorer)..

now we have no depth in offense and no depth in defense... thats the bad news after the ED.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now we have 9 mio cap space, is that correct?

I would like to sign Kris Roussel (he was strong against us) and 1 of Radulow, Gagner or TJ Oshie.

plus Eaves (I like his style, goes to the goalie)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sucks losing Theodore, and it's really going to suck if he lives up to his ceiling; I've always liked him. I think Murray did pretty good compared to pretty much everyone else, especially given how many defensemen we would like to keep. No matter what Murray did someone was going to have to be exposed, and I think you can craft a scenario where no one important gets lost, but it has a lot of moving parts and it's understandable if it didn't all fall into place. Escaping the expansion draft "only" losing Theodore and getting something positive in return (cap space) is an acceptable bummer I think. 

I started liking Montour more than Theodore as the season/playoffs went on as did most of us I'm sure so hopefully Montour ends up being better of the two. I would think Vegas would have taken either if offered but who knows 

Edited by Spencer_12
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spike1981 said:

If you look only ad ED, it was a good move and I happy they don't give an other high draft pick as CBJ, PiTS or NYI did it.

but as AustinDuck27 said, it was a little lack of pre-ED-work.

If you trade Vatanen for a forward, who will miss the half next season, and Bieksa waived his NTC, Manson would be protected and the traded Forward also would be protected instead of Vermette.

1 week and we lost 3 defenders. now the depth isn't no more here. we haven't two of them the half season (Lindholm and Vatanen)...

who are our defenders to start the season?

Fowler, Montour, Manson, Bieksa and I think Larson will be the 5th, but who is the 6th? imagine an other injury... so we have to sign a BU-Goalie, at least 1 defender and 1-2 Forward (Eaves and if ist possible a scorer)..

now we have no depth in offense and no depth in defense... thats the bad news after the ED.

 

I wouldn't be too nervous. 2 of the 3 defenders you're talking about didn't play last season so they won't be missed. Lindholm is still young. If he takes care of his body (which I think he does) his recovery will go quicker. I guess GMBM might re-sign Holzer (anybody knows what was going on with him btw?). If not it won't be too hard to sign a veteran D man who can fill in as a bottom pairing D man. We still have Megna who can come up and maybe Larsson makes the jump.

Our forwards could use a scoring injection but we have the cap space to deal with it now. Eaves would be a nice start. I expect to see more scoring from Ritchie and Kase and maybe Perry makes a comeback. A healthy Vatanen also helps in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read through the whole thread but I didn't see a LOL kings anywhere. So I might have missed it but they're pretty much screwed.

Edited by DucksFan_08
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DucksFan_08 said:

I haven't read through the whole thread but I didn't see a LOL kings anywhere. Might have missed but they're pretty much screwed.

It's never too late for

LOL KINGS LOL

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DucksFan_08 said:

I wouldn't be too nervous. 2 of the 3 defenders you're talking about didn't play last season so they won't be missed. Lindholm is still young. If he takes care of his body (which I think he does) his recovery will go quicker. I guess GMBM might re-sign Holzer (anybody knows what was going on with him btw?). If not it won't be too hard to sign a veteran D man who can fill in as a bottom pairing D man. We still have Megna who can come up and maybe Larsson makes the jump.

Our forwards could use a scoring injection but we have the cap space to deal with it now. Eaves would be a nice start. I expect to see more scoring from Ritchie and Kase and maybe Perry makes a comeback. A healthy Vatanen also helps in that department.

 

hmm, Holzer was ok for the 8th defender, but not for a top 6. then more likely give a prospect as a 6th defender a chance.

Ritchie I'm a little disappointed, he took a lot of stupid penalties. that he must improve in the future.

as I said, Kris Russell would be great and 2 forwards with Eaves and one of the three I wrote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now