Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

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

Jiggy2win

Fowler contact extension

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, ZTHER said:


 

I struggle with "deficiencies" as Fowler is widely viewed as a balanced player who can do it all... Yes, he's not a strong defender with his back to the net... but how bad was he when matched up against Lucic in the Edmonton series? I may be wrong because I'm going off memory. but this season didn't Fowler lead the team in defensive zone starts? I'd argue his loose puck hounding skills, zone exits, and and low turnover rank him in the top 5 in the league as far as clearing the zone... that right there limits how much time you'll spend standing in front of the net defending.

Seabrook money, probably a little bit more... and worth every penny. He's not going to get physically stronger, but he will likely get more crafty defensively over time.

I love Fowler.  Maybe deficiencies is the wrong word there.  I don't know that he can do it all ("all" would include moving guys from the front of the net), but he can do the job a defenseman needs to do.  If the Ducks can get him an extension around the $7 million mark or under, I'll be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2017 at 2:10 PM, gorbachav5 said:

I don't think it makes sense for the Ducks anyway.  They need current assets and the third pick in this draft probably won't contribute for another season or two.  The only way this makes sense is if it's the only offer they have for one of their d-men who needs to be protected.

It does free up a bunch of cap space though. I'm not sure what happens now tbh with Vatanebs injury. It might even make him exposable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2017 at 5:17 PM, dtsdlaw said:

When Nate had the same surgery after the WCF against Chicago, he didn't return to action until December 2nd. And even then, they worked him in pretty slowly. 

Vats also apparently has a reputation as not being much of an off-season workout warrior. I don't know if that's true or not, but the reputation is out there. If I'm another team's GM, I'm not giving up much for a guy who I won't see on the ice until December, especially after his down year. Sami's value is truly at rock bottom right now. And this is coming from Sami's 2nd biggest fan on the board.... :ph34r:

If I couldn't find a deal I wanted I wouldn't even protect him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:

+1. I still think GMGM is not going to try to build a good team in year 1. He'll want as many picks and prospects as he can get. It's how he built the Caps after stripping them down to nothing and then rebuilding around Ovi. I'd bet dollars to donuts that GMGM wants Larsson, Jones or Steel more than someone from our current roster. I'm on board with that too. Even if we eventually trade Vats, we're probably getting a better player in return for him that will help us sooner than any of those prospects will.

I'd maybe bribe them with Larsson, but Steel and Jones are off limits. Even losing Larsson would suck. I have him ahead of Theodore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, liquid13 said:

I'd maybe bribe them with Larsson, but Steel and Jones are off limits. Even losing Larsson would suck. I have him ahead of Theodore 

Agreed. For me, It's critical we stock up in our forward lines which are aging and in decline (yes you Perry) so losing Steel and or Jones makes no sense. Instead of losing quality forward prospects we need to turn around our D surplus for a quality forward. I'm not sure how much losing Vats to an injury affects this plan as we still have Theo to trade. Im also not sure of what picks we have available to package along with him to sweeten the pot. Another thought would be to trade Vats for another injured player? Again not sure if that makes any sense? I do think think that if Vats is still eligible for ED that LV does indeed take him since they won't be expecting to compete for the cup next year and can afford to wait till he recovers. It would just be terrible to lose Vats for nothing even if injured right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RobD360 said:

Agreed. For me, It's critical we stock up in our forward lines which are aging and in decline (yes you Perry) so losing Steel and or Jones makes no sense. Instead of losing quality forward prospects we need to turn around our D surplus for a quality forward. I'm not sure how much losing Vats to an injury affects this plan as we still have Theo to trade. Im also not sure of what picks we have available to package along with him to sweeten the pot. Another thought would be to trade Vats for another injured player? Again not sure if that makes any sense? I do think think that if Vats is still eligible for ED that LV does indeed take him since they won't be expecting to compete for the cup next year and can afford to wait till he recovers. It would just be terrible to lose Vats for nothing even if injured right now. 

I'm sure BM's first thought is to bribe Vegas with a pick or prospect I just wonder what that price will be, and I hope he has a good backup plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gorbachav5 said:

I love Fowler.  Maybe deficiencies is the wrong word there.  I don't know that he can do it all ("all" would include moving guys from the front of the net), but he can do the job a defenseman needs to do.  If the Ducks can get him an extension around the $7 million mark or under, I'll be happy.

Doing it all is Fowler plays in all situations... which he does. 

Shattenkirk who has nothing on Fowler defensively and might be equal offensively overall will likely command $6.5MM just to be a power play specialist. I think ANaheim would be lucky to get him under $7MM but even at that number he's worth keeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ZTHER said:

Doing it all is Fowler plays in all situations... which he does. 

Shattenkirk who has nothing on Fowler defensively and might be equal offensively overall will likely command $6.5MM just to be a power play specialist. I think ANaheim would be lucky to get him under $7MM but even at that number he's worth keeping.

He doesn't play in all situations well. That is why I don't think he can command $7M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DuckFan4Life said:

He doesn't play in all situations well. That is why I don't think he can command $7M.

What situation does he not play in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, liquid13 said:

What situation does he not play in?

I didn't say he doesn't play in all situations. I said he doesn't play in ALL situations WELL. He's weak defending in front of the net and will, more often than not, give up the puck to avoid a hit. 

Share this post


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

He doesn't play in all situations well. That is why I don't think he can command $7M.

What situation doesn't he play well? Power play? Penalty kill? Protecting a lead? Playing from behind? Drop him on any team in the league he'll play in those situations. Does anyone think that Karlsson, who doesn't always kill penalties will make less than the max because he doesn't do that very well? Letang struggles tying guys up in front of the net. Byfuglien is slow and get turned around on the rush. Phanuef is often out of defnsive position. 

 

Share this post


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

I didn't say he doesn't play in all situations. I said he doesn't play in ALL situations WELL. He's weak defending in front of the net and will, more often than not, give up the puck to avoid a hit. 

Yet he has one of the lowest turnover rates in his own zone? 

Share this post


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

I didn't say he doesn't play in all situations. I said he doesn't play in ALL situations WELL. He's weak defending in front of the net and will, more often than not, give up the puck to avoid a hit. 

You mean he'll give up the puck to the opposition to avoid a hit? I seriously disagree - he sometimes makes hits to make plays but more often than not Cam's skating ability means he doesn't get a hit a lot by forecheckers. 

I do partially agree that he doesn't play in all situations well - he does struggle in front of the net at times, this is because he doesn't play a very physical game as well all know. This is the only thing that stops him from being a true #1 like a Doughty IMO. He's never going to be that physical player but if he can do everything else a #1 does then he should get paid like it (just below a true #1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we care about how we fare, we keep Fowler. But what really sort of boggles my mind is we spend 5 months talking salaries and cap space and needing to improve. We spend five months picking the team apart. We then spend a month saying "well it was a great season, we weren't supposed to get this far" and we spend a month bitching about attendance and ticket prices being too high.

So maybe we just jettison fowler for great picks (letting one of the leagues best skaters go), get some picks, plan for the future, watch our offense languish a bit, save some money, pass the savings on to the people who attend games, and all agree that if we do anything positive it was more than we expected. Will every one then be happy?

All this gyration about salaries and who to sign, who to trade, this that and everything to then only say "well hey, we did better than expected". If expectations can be managed down it seems we can solve all of this questions pretty simply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ZTHER said:

Doing it all is Fowler plays in all situations... which he does. 

Shattenkirk who has nothing on Fowler defensively and might be equal offensively overall will likely command $6.5MM just to be a power play specialist. I think ANaheim would be lucky to get him under $7MM but even at that number he's worth keeping.

I'm looking at NHL.com and seeing that Shattenkirk has 81 more points in 4 fewer career games. Not sure how you call that equal offensively. Shattenkirk also just posted 56 points this past season. Fowler just had an all star season and ended with  just 39 points. That's not even close. Fowler also plays with the best pure passer in the league. With his skating ability and puck retrieval skills and the number of minutes he plays on the top PP unit, I still can't figure out how Fowler's point totals aren't higher than they are.

This team has also played just fine without Fowler every time he's been out injured, including a first round sweep in these most recent playoffs, last season when we turned our season around after Christmas, and in 2013 after Stoll's hit (:angry:). He makes our team better, but he's not even close to being indispensable.

 I also just don't see how we can afford Fowler at $7M. Manson and Monty both get raises the same summer. Monty could easily get Vatanen's current contract and Manson could be well over $3M, maybe even $4M+. And long term, I think $7M also messes with our salary structure, especially with regard to where does Lindholm goes on his next deal. If Cam gets that 7-8 year deal at $7M, Lindholm is going to eventually need $7M+ when his next deal comes due. Are we really going to have 2 D-men at $7M+? For our salary structure, we need to keep Fowler in the $6-$6.5M range. If we can't do that, we've got to move on. 

Share this post


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

I'm looking at NHL.com and seeing that Shattenkirk has 81 more points in 4 fewer career games. Not sure how you call that equal offensively. Shattenkirk also just posted 56 points this past season. Fowler just had an all star season and ended with  just 39 points. That's not even close. Fowler also plays with the best pure passer in the league. With his skating ability and puck retrieval skills and the number of minutes he plays on the top PP unit, I still can't figure out how Fowler's point totals aren't higher than they are.

This team has also played just fine without Fowler every time he's been out injured, including a first round sweep in these most recent playoffs, last season when we turned our season around after Christmas, and in 2013 after Stoll's hit (:angry:). He makes our team better, but he's not even close to being indispensable.

 I also just don't see how we can afford Fowler at $7M. Manson and Monty both get raises the same summer. Monty could easily get Vatanen's current contract and Manson could be well over $3M, maybe even $4M+. And long term, I think $7M also messes with our salary structure, especially with regard to where does Lindholm goes on his next deal. If Cam gets that 7-8 year deal at $7M, Lindholm is going to eventually need $7M+ when his next deal comes due. Are we really going to have 2 D-men at $7M+? For our salary structure, we need to keep Fowler in the $6-$6.5M range. If we can't do that, we've got to move on. 

Manson will never be one to command a high salary.  He doesn't score enough and he doesn't play enough minutes.  He's not going to get more than $3 million, and I see him settling in around $2.25 - $2.5.

This year will be huge for Montour.  If he breaks out, he could command a $4 million deal, but he's not going to be arb eligible (I don't think, could be wrong).  Remember Vatanen only got a 2-year, $1.3 million deal after playing one full season at the age of 22.  Montour will be one year older, but if the Ducks could get him on a bridge deal, I could see that being a 2-year, $1.75 million deal.  

In other words, I don't think Manson and Montour's deals are going to have much impact on re-signing Cam.  Stoner and Bieksa coming off the books will more than pay for raises for Fowler, Montour, and Manson.  Of course if Bieksa gets an extension in return for waiving his NMC...but even then, I don't see how that extension isn't a pretty significant decrease from his current deal.  The Ducks will save at least $1.5 on that, which will pay for Manson.

 

Share this post


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

Manson will never be one to command a high salary.  He doesn't score enough and he doesn't play enough minutes.  He's not going to get more than $3 million, and I see him settling in around $2.25 - $2.5.

 

Clayton Stoner, Bryan Allen, and Simon Despres say hello.

There's no doubt Manson will be a $3M+ guy. Especially if he plays with 47 or 4 next season.  My bigger concern is that he looks for something like the 4 X $4.5M that Braydon Coburn got at the same age. But he's easily over $3M. Luca freaking Sbisa has a $3.6M cap hit. No way in hell Manson takes $1M+ less per season than Sbisa.

Share this post


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

I'm looking at NHL.com and seeing that Shattenkirk has 81 more points in 4 fewer career games. Not sure how you call that equal offensively. Shattenkirk also just posted 56 points this past season. Fowler just had an all star season and ended with  just 39 points. That's not even close. Fowler also plays with the best pure passer in the league. With his skating ability and puck retrieval skills and the number of minutes he plays on the top PP unit, I still can't figure out how Fowler's point totals aren't higher than they are.

This team has also played just fine without Fowler every time he's been out injured, including a first round sweep in these most recent playoffs, last season when we turned our season around after Christmas, and in 2013 after Stoll's hit (:angry:). He makes our team better, but he's not even close to being indispensable.

 I also just don't see how we can afford Fowler at $7M. Manson and Monty both get raises the same summer. Monty could easily get Vatanen's current contract and Manson could be well over $3M, maybe even $4M+. And long term, I think $7M also messes with our salary structure, especially with regard to where does Lindholm goes on his next deal. If Cam gets that 7-8 year deal at $7M, Lindholm is going to eventually need $7M+ when his next deal comes due. Are we really going to have 2 D-men at $7M+? For our salary structure, we need to keep Fowler in the $6-$6.5M range. If we can't do that, we've got to move on. 

All of this. I love Fowler but him getting more than 7 will do more harm than good for future building of the team. I want to keep him but we have to temper our reality and look ahead on how things might play out in the coming seasons. Many of us want that special forward like Drouin (trade for Theo) but then also think we can afford everyone and not upset the current salary heirarchy on this team. Fowler no more than 6-6.5 max (even this is a bit too high). Hope he wants to continue to be a part of our team. 

Share this post


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

I'm looking at NHL.com and seeing that Shattenkirk has 81 more points in 4 fewer career games. Not sure how you call that equal offensively. Shattenkirk also just posted 56 points this past season. Fowler just had an all star season and ended with  just 39 points. That's not even close. Fowler also plays with the best pure passer in the league. With his skating ability and puck retrieval skills and the number of minutes he plays on the top PP unit, I still can't figure out how Fowler's point totals aren't higher than they are.

This team has also played just fine without Fowler every time he's been out injured, including a first round sweep in these most recent playoffs, last season when we turned our season around after Christmas, and in 2013 after Stoll's hit (:angry:). He makes our team better, but he's not even close to being indispensable.

 I also just don't see how we can afford Fowler at $7M. Manson and Monty both get raises the same summer. Monty could easily get Vatanen's current contract and Manson could be well over $3M, maybe even $4M+. And long term, I think $7M also messes with our salary structure, especially with regard to where does Lindholm goes on his next deal. If Cam gets that 7-8 year deal at $7M, Lindholm is going to eventually need $7M+ when his next deal comes due. Are we really going to have 2 D-men at $7M+? For our salary structure, we need to keep Fowler in the $6-$6.5M range. If we can't do that, we've got to move on. 

Fowler is indispensable if Anaheim wants to win a cup in the next 5 years. We've managed to survive short spurts without him. That's a testament to the depth of our blueline but overlooking his importance would be silly. 

If .5mil is the difference between keeping our best defenseman or losing him, then it's an easy call. That said, I don't think it will take 7mil Aav to get it done. Anaheim being the only team that can offer 8 years will bring the aav down for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, Manson is no longer a secret anymore. He's turned into a solid top 4 defenseman. He's gonna get 3.5-4 mil no problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gorbachav5 said:

Manson will never be one to command a high salary.  He doesn't score enough and he doesn't play enough minutes.  He's not going to get more than $3 million, and I see him settling in around $2.25 - $2.5.

This year will be huge for Montour.  If he breaks out, he could command a $4 million deal, but he's not going to be arb eligible (I don't think, could be wrong).  Remember Vatanen only got a 2-year, $1.3 million deal after playing one full season at the age of 22.  Montour will be one year older, but if the Ducks could get him on a bridge deal, I could see that being a 2-year, $1.75 million deal.  

In other words, I don't think Manson and Montour's deals are going to have much impact on re-signing Cam.  Stoner and Bieksa coming off the books will more than pay for raises for Fowler, Montour, and Manson.  Of course if Bieksa gets an extension in return for waiving his NMC...but even then, I don't see how that extension isn't a pretty significant decrease from his current deal.  The Ducks will save at least $1.5 on that, which will pay for Manson.

 

Are you calculating in salaries for a good young forward we "might" get such as Drouin or of equal standing? Hard not to give Manson less than what we already have been paying Stoner and Bieska. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, liquid13 said:

Fowler is indispensable if Anaheim wants to win a cup in the next 5 years. We've managed to survive short spurts without him. That's a testament to the depth of our blueline but overlooking his importance would be silly. 

If .5mil is the difference between keeping our best defenseman or losing him, then it's an easy call. That said, I don't think it will take 7mil Aav to get it done. Anaheim being the only team that can offer 8 years will bring the aav down for us.

 

3 hours ago, liquid13 said:

As an aside, Manson is no longer a secret anymore. He's turned into a solid top 4 defenseman. He's gonna get 3.5-4 mil no problem.  

Looks like we will be having cap issues with the salary increases - agree with above but BM will have to work some MAGIC to make it all happen. Need a back up goalie, a top line LW - fortunately we do have some significant depth with our D, but we will be a MAX-CAP team ( perhaps that is why the ticket prices are going up :P )

GO BM - WORK YOUR MAGIC !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, liquid13 said:

Fowler is indispensable if Anaheim wants to win a cup in the next 5 years. We've managed to survive short spurts without him. That's a testament to the depth of our blueline but overlooking his importance would be silly. 

If .5mil is the difference between keeping our best defenseman or losing him, then it's an easy call. That said, I don't think it will take 7mil Aav to get it done. Anaheim being the only team that can offer 8 years will bring the aav down for us.

This is pure conjecture. Fowler is not Pronger. He's not even Doughty. Losing one good (not elite) player does not kill your Cup chances. Just look at the Pens playing for a Cup this year without Kris Letang, who is head and shoulders better than Fowler is offensively and comparable defensively. It's a team game and guys like Fowler and Letang, they're cogs in a machine. They're very good cogs, but still just cogs nonetheless. They are not the types of players that make or break a team's Cup dreams. We only have one of those on our team, and he's big, beastly, and bald. 

We have the defensive depth to absorb the loss of Fowler if his demands are too high. So if he wants to be here, he's going to have to give us the hometown discount to keep our salary structure in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

This is pure conjecture. Fowler is not Pronger. He's not even Doughty. Losing one good (not elite) player does not kill your Cup chances. Just look at the Pens playing for a Cup this year without Kris Letang, who is head and shoulders better than Fowler is offensively and comparable defensively. It's a team game and guys like Fowler and Letang, they're cogs in a machine. They're very good cogs, but still just cogs nonetheless. They are not the types of players that make or break a team's Cup dreams. We only have one of those on our team, and he's big, beastly, and bald. 

We have the defensive depth to absorb the loss of Fowler if his demands are too high. So if he wants to be here, he's going to have to give us the hometown discount to keep our salary structure in check.

Completely agree. Fowler is a good player, but not a difference maker. The idea of him making more than Drew Doughty or Eric Karlsson makes me sick. If his agent demands more than $6.25 mil per year, an almost 60% increase from his last pay rate, then trade him for some young offensive scoring forward(s) that we need so badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, liquid13 said:

Fowler is indispensable if Anaheim wants to win a cup in the next 5 years. We've managed to survive short spurts without him. That's a testament to the depth of our blueline but overlooking his importance would be silly. 

If .5mil is the difference between keeping our best defenseman or losing him, then it's an easy call. That said, I don't think it will take 7mil Aav to get it done. Anaheim being the only team that can offer 8 years will bring the aav down for us.

Fowler had a great year, but 15 of his 39 points were on the PP of which he played typically 1.5 of the 2 minutes.  His playoff numbers aren't impressive and game 6 was his worst game. Fowler is great, but not a #1 defenseman and shouldn't be paid as one just because he is Anaheim's #1. What was learned during this playoff run is the Ducks are missing scoring not defense. As has already been said, the Ducks won the first round without him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:

This is pure conjecture. Fowler is not Pronger. He's not even Doughty. Losing one good (not elite) player does not kill your Cup chances. Just look at the Pens playing for a Cup this year without Kris Letang, who is head and shoulders better than Fowler is offensively and comparable defensively. It's a team game and guys like Fowler and Letang, they're cogs in a machine. They're very good cogs, but still just cogs nonetheless. They are not the types of players that make or break a team's Cup dreams. We only have one of those on our team, and he's big, beastly, and bald. 

We have the defensive depth to absorb the loss of Fowler if his demands are too high. So if he wants to be here, he's going to have to give us the hometown discount to keep our salary structure in check.

The penguins are your example? The team with two centers better than Getzlaf? They could win without a Defense at all. In fact they are winning without a Defense at all. Justin freaking Shultz is their #1 defensemen right now.

Share this post


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

Fowler had a great year, but 15 of his 39 points were on the PP of which he played typically 1.5 of the 2 minutes.  His playoff numbers aren't impressive and game 6 was his worst game. Fowler is great, but not a #1 defenseman and shouldn't be paid as one just because he is Anaheim's #1. What was learned during this playoff run is the Ducks are missing scoring not defense. As has already been said, the Ducks won the first round without him. 

Beating Calgary in the first round doesn't mean anything except that we had enough depth to beat a clearly inferior opponent. Vatanen was missing in that series as well.

 

Fowler played the entire playoffs coming off a knee injury where he returned 3 weeks early from a normal recovery time and he was by and large our best defensemen in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FanSince1993 said:

Completely agree. Fowler is a good player, but not a difference maker. The idea of him making more than Drew Doughty or Eric Karlsson makes me sick. If his agent demands more than $6.25 mil per year, an almost 60% increase from his last pay rate, then trade him for some young offensive scoring forward(s) that we need so badly.

If Doughty and Karlsosn were to become free agents right now they'd get 11/12 mil a year. Comparing contracts to guys who signed years ago is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liquid13 said:

The penguins are your example? The team with two centers better than Getzlaf? They could win without a Defense at all. In fact they are winning without a Defense at all. Justin freaking Shultz is their #1 defensemen right now.

2.32 GA/game says they're playing good team defense. 5th best overall in the playoffs and far better than our 3.06 GA/game, and that's not because they have Malkin and Crosby. It's still a team game.

Regardless, Fowler is a 35-40 point PMD with serious defensive flaws. He's one of the best skating defenseman in the entire league, but he's not a legit #1. He's at best a very good #2. That does not make him indispensable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

2.32 GA/game says they're playing good team defense. 5th best overall in the playoffs and far better than our 3.06 GA/game, and that's not because they have Malkin and Crosby. It's still a team game.

Regardless, Fowler is a 35-40 point PMD with serious defensive flaws. He's one of the best skating defenseman in the entire league, but he's not a legit #1. He's at best a very good #2. That does not make him indispensable.

They're getting great goaltending have have the puck far more than the opposition. Shultz and Maata are playing over there heads and they have the best set of forwards in the NHL.

 

not many teams with cup aspirations can afford to lose a top paring defenseman. No one is claiming fowler is a "true" #1, if he was he'd get a lot more than 7 mil on the open market. He is this teams best defenseman, and no I don't believe this team has the ability to absorb his loss long term right now.  

 

This is the same sort of Stuff that was thrown around last year "Theodore"l can take Fowlers place" blah blah.   

 

what does our top4 look like next year until December/ January without Fowler, Vantanen and Lindholm?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...