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

19 hours 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. 

The MAJORITY of Shattenkirk's points are on the power play because he's a power play specialist. No defenseman in Anaheim is going to shine on the powerplay the way Shattenkirk does because the Ducks powerplay revolves in and around Getzlaf quarterbacking (a role that Shattenkirk filled in Colorado, St Louis, and in Washington playing with guys like Tarasenko and Ovechkin). I stand firm that Fowler overall is just as good offensively and a world better defensively than Shattenkirk was at 25.

As far as the team playing well the team has played just fine missing everyone for short spells. Gibson, Getzlaf, Fowler, Vatanen, etc. That's because they're deep and not unique to Fowler. He was Anaheim's bets defenseman this past season; they simply were a better team with him on the ice.

I'm not saying sign Fowler for $7MM I'm saying that's what he's worth as a UFA... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

He has serious defensive flaws the same way Karlsson, Letang, Seabrook, Subban, and a grip of other NHL defenseman do.

You absolutely over value his weaknesses and under value his strengths.

Share this post


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

The MAJORITY of Shattenkirk's points are on the power play because he's a power play specialist. No defenseman in Anaheim is going to shine on the powerplay the way Shattenkirk does because the Ducks powerplay revolves in and around Getzlaf quarterbacking (a role that Shattenkirk filled in Colorado, St Louis, and in Washington playing with guys like Tarasenko and Ovechkin). I stand firm that Fowler overall is just as good offensively and a world better defensively than Shattenkirk was at 25.

As far as the team playing well the team has played just fine missing everyone for short spells. Gibson, Getzlaf, Fowler, Vatanen, etc. That's because they're deep and not unique to Fowler. He was Anaheim's bets defenseman this past season; they simply were a better team with him on the ice.

I'm not saying sign Fowler for $7MM I'm saying that's what he's worth as a UFA... 

The bold is my main point. They're better with him, but he's not indispensable. If he's too expensive, we're not doomed if we choose to move on.

 

2 minutes ago, ZTHER said:

He has serious defensive flaws the same way Karlsson, Letang, Seabrook, Subban, and a grip of other NHL defenseman do.

You absolutely over value his weaknesses and under value his strengths.

If Fowler was posting 60-70+ point seasons, nobody would be talking about his defensive flaws. But he's a 30-40 point defenseman. 

 

Share this post


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

The bold is my main point. They're better with him, but he's not indispensable. If he's too expensive, we're not doomed if we choose to move on.

If Fowler was posting 60-70+ point seasons, nobody would be talking about his defensive flaws. But he's a 30-40 point defenseman. 

I'm not saying he doesn't have a weakness, but calling it a serious defensive flaw is overblown... I know you don't like him so I take it with a grain of salt... but no player who plays in every situation has a serious flaw. Shattenkirk has serious defensive flaws the same way Bieksa has serious offensice flaws...  

Share this post


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

I'm not saying he doesn't have a weakness, but calling it a serious defensive flaw is overblown... I know you don't like him so I take it with a grain of salt... but no player who plays in every situation has a serious flaw. Shattenkirk has serious defensive flaws the same way Bieksa has serious offensice flaws...  

This isn't about liking him. I've said over and over we're better with him and that we should keep him. I'm merely discussing his value. He's not worth $7M. I also think it's an overhyped number. Same way Lindholm wasn't getting $6.5M, Vatanen wasn't getting $6M, Beleskey wasn't getting $5M, and all the other over-hyped speculative numbers we've seen the past 2-3 years from the "experts" about our players. They're never true. $7M isn't true here either. You can go back and read my posts on all those players and see that in all cases I thought the numbers were overblown and I gave valid reasons why. This is no different IMO. It's not about disliking the player. It's about how I value the player over all.

And if for some reason that's what he actually wants, he's still not worth it. We can move on for that price.

Share this post


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

I'm not saying he doesn't have a weakness, but calling it a serious defensive flaw is overblown... I know you don't like him so I take it with a grain of salt... but no player who plays in every situation has a serious flaw. Shattenkirk has serious defensive flaws the same way Bieksa has serious offensice everywhere flaws...  

Now Z, don't go giving No. 2 too much credit...

40 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

This isn't about liking him. I've said over and over we're better with him and that we should keep him. I'm merely discussing his value. He's not worth $7M. I also think it's an overhyped number. Same way Lindholm wasn't getting $6.5M, Vatanen wasn't getting $6M, Beleskey wasn't getting $5M, and all the other over-hyped speculative numbers we've seen the past 2-3 years from the "experts" about our players. They're never true. $7M isn't true here either. You can go back and read my posts on all those players and see that in all cases I thought the numbers were overblown and I gave valid reasons why. This is no different IMO. It's not about disliking the player. It's about how I value the player over all.

And if for some reason that's what he actually wants, he's still not worth it. We can move on for that price.

The question is whether Fowler is worth that much to the Ducks. NHL-wise, he's worth as much as someone is willing to pay him and that number is at least $7 million and likely more. I really like Fowler, but like you dts with how this team is constructed currently with salaries and personnel, not sure paying Fowler that much is the smart move.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at some of the contracts given to defensemen over the past couple years for guys close to Cam's age...

Tyson Barrie $5.5 million per, four years ... Danny Dekeyser $5 million per, six years ... Viktor Hedman $7.875 million per, eight years ... Torrey Krug $5.25 million per, four years. All those contracts were signed last summer. Hedman is Norris-caliber defenseman, while Krug and Barrie both have been consistently 40-50 points scorers. With Krug and Barrie, both were about to become RFAs before signing their extensions, so from that standpoint not the same situation as Fowler. 

Really hard to predict what kind of dollars Cam deserves. He's treated like a No. 1 defenseman on a team with one of the deepest defensive groups in the league, but he's obviously not on the level of the Hedmans, Doughtys, Karlssons. If Fowler can be had for $6 million I'd keep him ... anything much more than that and it might be better to move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ritz10hock said:

Just looking at some of the contracts given to defensemen over the past couple years for guys close to Cam's age...

Tyson Barrie $5.5 million per, four years ... Danny Dekeyser $5 million per, six years ... Viktor Hedman $7.875 million per, eight years ... Torrey Krug $5.25 million per, four years. All those contracts were signed last summer. Hedman is Norris-caliber defenseman, while Krug and Barrie both have been consistently 40-50 points scorers. With Krug and Barrie, both were about to become RFAs before signing their extensions, so from that standpoint not the same situation as Fowler. 

Really hard to predict what kind of dollars Cam deserves. He's treated like a No. 1 defenseman on a team with one of the deepest defensive groups in the league, but he's obviously not on the level of the Hedmans, Doughtys, Karlssons. If Fowler can be had for $6 million I'd keep him ... anything much more than that and it might be better to move on. 

He's SOOO much better defensively than Barrie or Krug (see Z, I don't hate him! ;))  so those guys are poor comparables. I'd actually look at Niskanen's deal as a comparable though because they have very similar offensive numbers and they were both UFA deals. Fowler is a bit better defensively, but Niskanen also got an inflated cap number because he went UFA and sold to the highest bidder in a very down year for UFA defensemen. he'll obviously get more than Niskanen, but I think that's a closer starting point, and maybe even where BM would begin his negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ritz10hock said:

Now Z, don't go giving No. 2 too much credit...

The question is whether Fowler is worth that much to the Ducks. NHL-wise, he's worth as much as someone is willing to pay him and that number is at least $7 million and likely more. I really like Fowler, but like you dts with how this team is constructed currently with salaries and personnel, not sure paying Fowler that much is the smart move.     

Simply said

Share this post


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

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.

There's plenty of doubt Manson will be a $3m+ guy.  The Sbisa contract is stupid and was issued by a terrible organization. Stoner and Allen were both free agents.  Simon Despres had potential Manson isn't seen as having.  The Coburn deal isn't comparable; Coburn was playing 3 minutes more per night than Manson and had put up a 36-point season.  Sbisa is really the only comparable player among that group and, as I said, that was just a terrible deal by Vancouver.  

I maintain that Manson can stay around $2.5 if they go fairly short term.  If they want to go longer than 3 years, then he'll command around $3 million, but more than that would surprise me.

Share this post


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

He's SOOO much better defensively than Barrie or Krug (see Z, I don't hate him! ;))  so those guys are poor comparables. I'd actually look at Niskanen's deal as a comparable though because they have very similar offensive numbers and they were both UFA deals. Fowler is a bit better defensively, but Niskanen also got an inflated cap number because he went UFA and sold to the highest bidder in a very down year for UFA defensemen. he'll obviously get more than Niskanen, but I think that's a closer starting point, and maybe even where BM would begin his negotiations.

Well that's the thing. There's not a lot of comparables for Fowler. He's a very young UFA. Most defensemen his age are in the middle of their second contracts, but because Fowler came in the league right at 18 he's ahead of the curve. His value is hard to get a grip on of because he's an offensive defenseman that maxes out at 40 points. Not sure if this is by his own accord or because he's told not to, but Fowler doesn't jump up in the play nearly as much as he could -- if he did his point totals would mightily improve. 

When Lindholm was a RFA last year, there were a lot of other RFA defensemen in the same situation like Trouba, Ristolainen and Vatanen. It made it easier once some of them signed to get an idea of what Lindholm could ask for. Not so easy to do that with Fowler. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it's tough to get a read on Fowler's next contract. Even his agent, Brisson, has negotiated some of the top forward contracts in recent years, but has little in the way of recent d-men. I don't know how much that matters, I just think it'll make for some interesting negotiations, and I'm not sure who benefits the most from the lack of comparables.

Looking at the span of the last few seasons, the best that I can see are guys like Leddy, Niskanen, and Spurgeon as rough comparables (similar players with close to the same production rate as Cam), all making in the low-mid 5 million range. Though, Niskanen tested the market and Leddy had a couple RFA years up front, I'm not sure what they ended up with would have been drastically different if they were in Cam's exact situation at the times they had signed.

I honestly think Cam is in that same ballpark (~ $5 - 5.5M) , with a bump for inflation ($6.5M) and a slight reverse bump to keep it team-friendly ($6.0 - 6.25M... though it could certainly be lower, as I don't see Murray wanting him to eclipse what Hampus makes by too large a margin, but Cam did take a pretty team-friendly bridge for the last few years, so I think that will have to be factored in). I just don't see how Cam gets $7M in Anaheim, I also agree with dts here. I don't even think it's justified. Despite his talent, age, and value to the team, there are only five other players in the league making 7+, and there's no way Cam belongs in that group. 

The way I look at it, let's just say his fmv shakes out around 7 mil, and the max term of 7 years that can be offered. The same $49M package could be spread out over 8 years for around $6.2M, with one more nice paycheck into his mid-30s that other teams can't offer. Maybe that's oversimplifying, but that's kind of why I think the low 6's lines up pretty well. Not saying that Murray would even offer a max term deal, or that movement-clauses won't tweak things, but it's a fair ballpark IMO. 

Share this post


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

I agree, it's tough to get a read on Fowler's next contract. Even his agent, Brisson, has negotiated some of the top forward contracts in recent years, but has little in the way of recent d-men. I don't know how much that matters, I just think it'll make for some interesting negotiations, and I'm not sure who benefits the most from the lack of comparables.

Looking at the span of the last few seasons, the best that I can see are guys like Leddy, Niskanen, and Spurgeon as rough comparables (similar players with close to the same production rate as Cam), all making in the low-mid 5 million range. Though, Niskanen tested the market and Leddy had a couple RFA years up front, I'm not sure what they ended up with would have been drastically different if they were in Cam's exact situation at the times they had signed.

I honestly think Cam is in that same ballpark (~ $5 - 5.5M) , with a bump for inflation ($6.5M) and a slight reverse bump to keep it team-friendly ($6.0 - 6.25M... though it could certainly be lower, as I don't see Murray wanting him to eclipse what Hampus makes by too large a margin, but Cam did take a pretty team-friendly bridge for the last few years, so I think that will have to be factored in). I just don't see how Cam gets $7M in Anaheim, I also agree with dts here. I don't even think it's justified. Despite his talent, age, and value to the team, there are only five other players in the league making 7+, and there's no way Cam belongs in that group. 

The way I look at it, let's just say his fmv shakes out around 7 mil, and the max term of 7 years that can be offered. The same $49M package could be spread out over 8 years for around $6.2M, with one more nice paycheck into his mid-30s that other teams can't offer. Maybe that's oversimplifying, but that's kind of why I think the low 6's lines up pretty well. Not saying that Murray would even offer a max term deal, or that movement-clauses won't tweak things, but it's a fair ballpark IMO. 

Low 6's is what I was thinking. He definitely deserves that number and I don't think he's going to hold out for much more. I'm pretty confident BM can work out a solid deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ritz10hock said:

Well that's the thing. There's not a lot of comparables for Fowler. He's a very young UFA. Most defensemen his age are in the middle of their second contracts, but because Fowler came in the league right at 18 he's ahead of the curve. His value is hard to get a grip on of because he's an offensive defenseman that maxes out at 40 points. Not sure if this is by his own accord or because he's told not to, but Fowler doesn't jump up in the play nearly as much as he could -- if he did his point totals would mightily improve. 

When Lindholm was a RFA last year, there were a lot of other RFA defensemen in the same situation like Trouba, Ristolainen and Vatanen. It made it easier once some of them signed to get an idea of what Lindholm could ask for. Not so easy to do that with Fowler. 

 

If Fowler jumped up into the play any more than he does, he would be a forward. Maybe he's the scoring forward we've all been hoping to get. 

Share this post


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

If Fowler jumped up into the play any more than he does, he would be a forward. Maybe he's the scoring forward we've all been hoping to get. 

Or maybe Vatanen is. He's more aggressive than Fowler in that respect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ritz10hock said:

Or maybe Vatanen is. He's more aggressive than Fowler in that respect. 

Not this past season. Seemed to me like Vatanen hardly every joined the rush. I swear I saw Manson join more rushes than Vatanen did. Maybe that was the injuries, or maybe that was adjusting to RC's system, or maybe it was a result of him not playing with SAH D-men this season, but we didn't see typical Vats this past season at all. 

Either way, we need a scoring forward who can also forecheck and bring some physicality. That's not Fowler or Vats. Josh Manson on the other hand.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2017 at 6:39 PM, 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.

Comments from GMGM:

Quote

LeBrun was asking about how difficult it would be to find a balance between getting assets from some teams and still trying to get the best possible players for the Golden Knights.

“I’m not sure yet,” admitted McPhee. “There will be some instances where we can’t strike a deal or a club just doesn’t want to do a deal and wants us to make a pick, and we’ll make a pick.

There are some clubs that would sure like to talk it out first. And we’ve told everyone that we won’t just go in and take a pick. We’ll talk.

“We want to be a real competitive club. We want to be as good as we can. But we also have to be mindful that we’d like to be in a surplus situation here over the next two or three drafts where we have extra picks because our best players are going to have to come through the entry draft. I don’t think we’re going to get our best players through the expansion draft.”

“We’re going to have to be really good at the draft,” McPhee added. “We’ll get, I think, a real terrific base – and we want that. But to put us over the top, we’re going to have to do well in the draft. And to do well in the draft, it’s nice to have some extra picks to do it with.”

I think this backs up my post above. Seems to me like GMBM and GMGM are going to work out a deal. BM already told us that he's had a conversation with GMGM and "knows what he wants", and GMGM is basically saying he'd prefer to work out something to build the team for the future and ensure they get really high draft picks the next couple of years.

If I were a betting man, I'm putting good money down that BM trades a prospect and/or picks to Vegas so that he doesn't have to worry about what to do with Manson, Vatanen, or Fowler before the ED. Status quo with our current group gives BM more time to work on Fowler's deal, which is really important because IMO the decision on Fowler's extension changes the entire landscape of our future. We're so loaded with prospects on the left side with Theo, Larsson, Mahura, Megna, and Pettersson, that one or several of those guys immediately become expendable if/when Fowler re-signs. And if he doesn't re-sign, we're probably looking at a completely different roster strategy with respect to Fowler, Vats, and Theo. Status quo also helps us not to have to dump and Vatanen or Manson for pennies on the dollar just to avoid losing one for nothing in the ED.

Share this post


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

I agree, it's tough to get a read on Fowler's next contract. Even his agent, Brisson, has negotiated some of the top forward contracts in recent years, but has little in the way of recent d-men. I don't know how much that matters, I just think it'll make for some interesting negotiations, and I'm not sure who benefits the most from the lack of comparables.

Looking at the span of the last few seasons, the best that I can see are guys like Leddy, Niskanen, and Spurgeon as rough comparables (similar players with close to the same production rate as Cam), all making in the low-mid 5 million range. Though, Niskanen tested the market and Leddy had a couple RFA years up front, I'm not sure what they ended up with would have been drastically different if they were in Cam's exact situation at the times they had signed.

I honestly think Cam is in that same ballpark (~ $5 - 5.5M) , with a bump for inflation ($6.5M) and a slight reverse bump to keep it team-friendly ($6.0 - 6.25M... though it could certainly be lower, as I don't see Murray wanting him to eclipse what Hampus makes by too large a margin, but Cam did take a pretty team-friendly bridge for the last few years, so I think that will have to be factored in). I just don't see how Cam gets $7M in Anaheim, I also agree with dts here. I don't even think it's justified. Despite his talent, age, and value to the team, there are only five other players in the league making 7+, and there's no way Cam belongs in that group. 

The way I look at it, let's just say his fmv shakes out around 7 mil, and the max term of 7 years that can be offered. The same $49M package could be spread out over 8 years for around $6.2M, with one more nice paycheck into his mid-30s that other teams can't offer. Maybe that's oversimplifying, but that's kind of why I think the low 6's lines up pretty well. Not saying that Murray would even offer a max term deal, or that movement-clauses won't tweak things, but it's a fair ballpark IMO. 

I think this is pretty spot on. Open market he's could could 7. The extra year we could offer gets it down to 6-6.5.   I just disagree with the notion that Anaheim could absorb his loss. This team would be screwed next year with no fowler. 

Share this post


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

Comments from GMGM:

I think this backs up my post above. Seems to me like GMBM and GMGM are going to work out a deal. BM already told us that he's had a conversation with GMGM and "knows what he wants", and GMGM is basically saying he'd prefer to work out something to build the team for the future and ensure they get really high draft picks the next couple of years.

If I were a betting man, I'm putting good money down that BM trades a prospect and/or picks to Vegas so that he doesn't have to worry about what to do with Manson, Vatanen, or Fowler before the ED. Status quo with our current group gives BM more time to work on Fowler's deal, which is really important because IMO the decision on Fowler's extension changes the entire landscape of our future. We're so loaded with prospects on the left side with Theo, Larsson, Mahura, Megna, and Pettersson, that one or several of those guys immediately become expendable if/when Fowler re-signs. And if he doesn't re-sign, we're probably looking at a completely different roster strategy with respect to Fowler, Vats, and Theo. Status quo also helps us not to have to dump and Vatanen or Manson for pennies on the dollar just to avoid losing one for nothing in the ED.

They're expendable in the sense that we extra, but they're not expendable. We need those assets to be converted into young forward talent. 

My first and second choice is to deal Vatanen for fair value. If that doesn't happen I offer 2018 1st round pick to Vegas. Only then would I think about paying a ransom amounting to a top prospect/ young NHL player. losing a pieces  like Theodore or Larsson for nothing would hurt. 

 

 

Either way I think Vatanen is getting moved within the next season. I'd rather it happen before we have to give up free young assets to buy time 

Share this post


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

They're expendable in the sense that we extra, but they're not expendable. We need those assets to be converted into young forward talent. 

My first and second choice is to deal Vatanen for fair value. If that doesn't happen I offer 2018 1st round pick to Vegas. Only then would I think about paying a ransom amounting to a top prospect/ young NHL player. losing a pieces  like Theodore or Larsson for nothing would hurt. 

 

 

Either way I think Vatanen is getting moved within the next season. I'd rather it happen before we have to give up free young assets to buy time 

The way I see it, trading Vatanen for his fair market value gets us a better player in return than any prospect we would use to pay the ransom, and the only way we get fair market value for Vatanen is to buy time until after the ED.  Maybe I'm totally off-base here, but I just don't think your first and second choices here are just not in the cards. Especially now that Vats will be out until possibly December. If you believe the rumors, Vatanen can get a guy like William Nylander. I would use Larsson as a ransom payment in a heartbeat if it meant being able to execute a Nylander-Vatanen trade later on. Especially if Fowler is set to re-sign.

 

Share this post


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

The way I see it, trading Vatanen for his fair market value gets us a better player in return than any prospect we would use to pay the ransom, and the only way we get fair market value for Vatanen is to buy time until after the ED.  Maybe I'm totally off-base here, but I just don't think your first and second choices here are just not in the cards. Especially now that Vats will be out until possibly December. If you believe the rumors, Vatanen can get a guy like William Nylander. I would use Larsson as a ransom payment in a heartbeat if it meant being able to execute a Nylander-Vatanen trade later on. Especially if Fowler is set to re-sign.

 

A healthy Vatanen playing well definitely gets us a good player, maybe we could revisit the Drouin situation if he's still available, but I don't think he lands a Nylander. 

Its just, if you give up a good young player like Theodore to buy time you're essential you subtracting that of your return for vats.

Share this post


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

I think this is pretty spot on. Open market he's could could 7. The extra year we could offer gets it down to 6-6.5.   I just disagree with the notion that Anaheim could absorb his loss. This team would be screwed next year with no fowler

No doubt.

With the development hiccup from Theo this season, and the injuries to Vats and Lindholm, there's almost no way moving Cam can be a serious consideration anyhow. I mean, if he forced Murray's hand with a difficult negotiation, then he gets traded and we roll with the punches I guess. Otherwise, we don't know how much bite these injuries will take out of Sami's or Hampus' games or how long until they are back to 100%. And even then, as Murray said, they need to take yet another step beyond that next season (especially without Cam). Montour would have to continue his incredible development curve without a hitch, and Theo would have to find his game. That's asking for a lot, and it's a recipe for a rough season IMO.

For the sake of this hypothetical argument though, if all players are healthy and the kids all take the expected baby steps over the summer, as important as Fowler is to the back end for numerous reasons, I don't think losing him would necessarily be a death blow. The problem is that Vats had a Perry-esque season. Had he followed up last season with a slightly better one as expected, the difference between: Lindholm-Montour -- Vatanen-Manson ... and Lindholm-Montour -- Fowler-Manson wouldn't be a huge gap. There might not even be a noticeable gap at all. If there is a net loss in that exchange (Cam--->Vats), I don't know that it would outweigh the plus that would be added to the team in a Fowler trade. Going a step further, these four guys: Montour-Vatanen-Manson-Lindholm are all gamers. They don't shy away from anything and the first three at least, like to initiate. Can't say the same for Cam, though don't get me wrong, he brings plenty of other positives to the table that more than make up for it. 

That's not reality though, given our situation there's no way we can or should move Cam barring a stupid contract demand from him. I'm squarely in the 'keep Cam' camp as he is really important to the team's speed and ability to elude an aggressive forecheck. We've won without him for stretches before, but the team didn't have nearly the same flow and it seemed like they were working a lot harder to get the same results.

Share this post


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

No doubt.

With the development hiccup from Theo this season, and the injuries to Vats and Lindholm, there's almost no way moving Cam can be a serious consideration anyhow. I mean, if he forced Murray's hand with a difficult negotiation, then he gets traded and we roll with the punches I guess. Otherwise, we don't know how much bite these injuries will take out of Sami's or Hampus' games or how long until they are back to 100%. And even then, as Murray said, they need to take yet another step beyond that next season (especially without Cam). Montour would have to continue his incredible development curve without a hitch, and Theo would have to find his game. That's asking for a lot, and it's a recipe for a rough season IMO.

For the sake of this hypothetical argument though, if all players are healthy and the kids all take the expected baby steps over the summer, as important as Fowler is to the back end for numerous reasons, I don't think losing him would necessarily be a death blow. The problem is that Vats had a Perry-esque season. Had he followed up last season with a slightly better one as expected, the difference between: Lindholm-Montour -- Vatanen-Manson ... and Lindholm-Montour -- Fowler-Manson wouldn't be a huge gap. There might not even be a noticeable gap at all. If there is a net loss in that exchange (Cam--->Vats), I don't know that it would outweigh the plus that would be added to the team in a Fowler trade. Going a step further, these four guys: Montour-Vatanen-Manson-Lindholm are all gamers. They don't shy away from anything and the first three at least, like to initiate. Can't say the same for Cam, though don't get me wrong, he brings plenty of other positives to the table that more than make up for it. 

That's not reality though, given our situation there's no way we can or should move Cam barring a stupid contract demand from him. I'm squarely in the 'keep Cam' camp as he is really important to the team's speed and ability to elude an aggressive forecheck. We've won without him for stretches before, but the team didn't have nearly the same flow and it seemed like they were working a lot harder to get the same results.

Does the equation change if Despres is healthy? I heard he was apparently practicing during the playoffs. If Despres is good to go, we could have something like 47-42, 6-71, 53-45 (2) as our top-7, with Bieksa filling in for Vats until he returns in late November or early December, and somebody like Holzer, Larsson, Megna or even Welinkski as our fill-in 7th. Of course that's a gigantic "IF" considering what happened to Despres last October, but if Despres is truly healthy then that lineup would not scare me at all.

Share this post


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

Does the equation change if Despres is healthy? I heard he was apparently practicing during the playoffs. If Despres is good to go, we could have something like 47-42, 6-71, 53-45 (2) as our top-7, with Bieksa filling in for Vats until he returns in late November or early December, and somebody like Holzer, Larsson, Megna or even Welinkski as our fill-in 7th. Of course that's a gigantic "IF" considering what happened to Despres last October, but if Despres is truly healthy then that lineup would not scare me at all.

We're getting so deep into hypotheticals now that Michio Kaku may need to narrate this thread. :D

Agreed though, if Despres somehow made a strong comeback, cap issues (?) aside, that would only further lessen the net loss in a Fowler trade scenario. 

 

Still pulling for a top-4 built around Lindholm and Fowler for years to come though. Montour and Manson being excellent compliments to round out the top-4. We'd be set for the foreseeable future. Can't shake the concern that Vats is still closer to being a high-end complimentary piece than a guy that can more or less carry his own line. But I see the counter-argument, and admit that the drop off from Cam to Vats isn't as big as some think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fowler isn't Scotty,Lindholm isn't Prongs, Vatanen isn't Vatanen anymore,nor even Beauche that matter

- starting to ponder... are those three really the cornerstone of our D after all.

 

We have likes of Theodore,Montour,Manson,i think we need Despres next season

Bieksa was relatively better than both Hampus&Vats this season.

 

I'm cool with Theodore,Montour,Manson,Bieksa as our top 4, (at least now with RC)

Vatanen and Lindolm are out for long time,if any of the the teams

want them,we should trade them,both.

 

Btw., talking about Vatanen,what the hell happened to him?

he just like became more of a defensive, shot blocking,more hits than ever d-man,

what happened to offensive side,it was like he didn't shoot the puck at all,

where were the rushes,the breakout passes,..everything.

 

I had huge hopes for Vatanen before this season,a true breakout season

for a OFFENSIVE d-man,something like 15-18 goals,50-55 points

with way over 200 shots on goal,yet keep his steady shot blocking

stats the same,instead we got jack. Was he injured the entire season?

3 goals,21 assists in 71 games then 6 points in 12 games in the play-offs,

all of his 6 points came vs ... was it Preds?.

 

Back to Fowler,try him as a LW for the camp and pre season and see what he can do,

(lets face it,as much as we wan't BM to get us a top end top 3,top 6 LW/RW,thats not gonna happen)

and ask him how did it feel to play forward vs playing d-man and which position he'd personaly prefer,

Fowler is still young and can easily make that transitition.

 

Theodore-Montour

Bieksa-Manson

Despres-/via trade?/Holzer/Larsson/Megna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NiemiWillRise said:

Fowler isn't Scotty,Lindholm isn't Prongs, Vatanen isn't Vatanen anymore,nor even Beauche that matter

- starting to ponder... are those three really the cornerstone of our D after all.

 

We have likes of Theodore,Montour,Manson,i think we need Despres next season

Bieksa was relatively better than both Hampus&Vats this season.

 

I'm cool with Theodore,Montour,Manson,Bieksa as our top 4, (at least now with RC)

Vatanen and Lindolm are out for long time,if any of the the teams

want them,we should trade them,both.

 

Btw., talking about Vatanen,what the hell happened to him?

he just like became more of a defensive, shot blocking,more hits than ever d-man,

what happened to offensive side,it was like he didn't shoot the puck at all,

where were the rushes,the breakout passes,..everything.

 

I had huge hopes for Vatanen before this season,a true breakout season

for a OFFENSIVE d-man,something like 15-18 goals,50-55 points

with way over 200 shots on goal,yet keep his steady shot blocking

stats the same,instead we got jack. Was he injured the entire season?

3 goals,21 assists in 71 games then 6 points in 12 games in the play-offs,

all of his 6 points came vs ... was it Preds?.

 

Back to Fowler,try him as a LW for the camp and pre season and see what he can do,

(lets face it,as much as we wan't BM to get us a top end top 3,top 6 LW/RW,thats not gonna happen)

and ask him how did it feel to play forward vs playing d-man and which position he'd personaly prefer,

Fowler is still young and can easily make that transitition.

 

Theodore-Montour

Bieksa-Manson

Despres-/via trade?/Holzer/Larsson/Megna

I can't comprehend this theory without my morning cofeveve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NiemiWillRise said:

Fowler isn't Scotty,Lindholm isn't Prongs, Vatanen isn't Vatanen anymore,nor even Beauche that matter

- starting to ponder... are those three really the cornerstone of our D after all.

 

We have likes of Theodore,Montour,Manson,i think we need Despres next season

Bieksa was relatively better than both Hampus&Vats this season.

 

I'm cool with Theodore,Montour,Manson,Bieksa as our top 4, (at least now with RC)

Vatanen and Lindolm are out for long time,if any of the the teams

want them,we should trade them,both.

 

Btw., talking about Vatanen,what the hell happened to him?

he just like became more of a defensive, shot blocking,more hits than ever d-man,

what happened to offensive side,it was like he didn't shoot the puck at all,

where were the rushes,the breakout passes,..everything.

 

I had huge hopes for Vatanen before this season,a true breakout season

for a OFFENSIVE d-man,something like 15-18 goals,50-55 points

with way over 200 shots on goal,yet keep his steady shot blocking

stats the same,instead we got jack. Was he injured the entire season?

3 goals,21 assists in 71 games then 6 points in 12 games in the play-offs,

all of his 6 points came vs ... was it Preds?.

 

Back to Fowler,try him as a LW for the camp and pre season and see what he can do,

(lets face it,as much as we wan't BM to get us a top end top 3,top 6 LW/RW,thats not gonna happen)

and ask him how did it feel to play forward vs playing d-man and which position he'd personaly prefer,

Fowler is still young and can easily make that transitition.

 

Theodore-Montour

Bieksa-Manson

Despres-/via trade?/Holzer/Larsson/Megna

Both of them were playing with serious injuries.....

I also don't get why you would move one of our best breakout passes to forward, that doesn't help our back end.

Share this post


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

Fowler isn't Scotty,Lindholm isn't Prongs, Vatanen isn't Vatanen anymore,nor even Beauche that matter

- starting to ponder... are those three really the cornerstone of our D after all.

 

We have likes of Theodore,Montour,Manson,i think we need Despres next season

Bieksa was relatively better than both Hampus&Vats this season.

 

I'm cool with Theodore,Montour,Manson,Bieksa as our top 4, (at least now with RC)

Vatanen and Lindolm are out for long time,if any of the the teams

want them,we should trade them,both.

 

Btw., talking about Vatanen,what the hell happened to him?

he just like became more of a defensive, shot blocking,more hits than ever d-man,

what happened to offensive side,it was like he didn't shoot the puck at all,

where were the rushes,the breakout passes,..everything.

 

I had huge hopes for Vatanen before this season,a true breakout season

for a OFFENSIVE d-man,something like 15-18 goals,50-55 points

with way over 200 shots on goal,yet keep his steady shot blocking

stats the same,instead we got jack. Was he injured the entire season?

3 goals,21 assists in 71 games then 6 points in 12 games in the play-offs,

all of his 6 points came vs ... was it Preds?.

 

Back to Fowler,try him as a LW for the camp and pre season and see what he can do,

(lets face it,as much as we wan't BM to get us a top end top 3,top 6 LW/RW,thats not gonna happen)

and ask him how did it feel to play forward vs playing d-man and which position he'd personaly prefer,

Fowler is still young and can easily make that transitition.

 

Theodore-Montour

Bieksa-Manson

Despres-/via trade?/Holzer/Larsson/Megna

Perry's mobility would make him a better stay home defenseman, Gibson to left wing, and Getzlaf between the pipes because he's big. 

Share this post


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

Perry's mobility would make him a better stay home defenseman, Gibson to left wing, and Getzlaf between the pipes because he's big. 

The shine on Getzlaf's head would really blind the shooters. I say let's do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...