Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

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

BestOfTheWest

Official Protected Player List

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, liquid13 said:

If we assume Bieksa wasn't on the roster, we would still have to expose a defensemen and then bribe Vegas to not take them. Bieksa really has nothing to do with this.

 

I could see us losing a Larsson or Theodore out of this. I'll be annoyed at Bob for not trying to maneuver around the situation, but really the culprit is the NHL and these ridiculous expansion draft requirements. I hope Vegas becomes another failed step child  for the league.

Hmmm maybe Bob should have had a little more foresight entering this past season in seeing this coming and having a spare defenseman ready and legible for this very scenario.

How many games did Holder need? Can't believe he didn't meet the games required. Then there is Stoner who I swear was pretending to extend his injury. How long was he injured for since Dec or something?? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if there could be a significant trade looming with Las Vegas, which could include a Ducks protected player?  

Share this post


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

If we assume Bieksa wasn't on the roster, we would still have to expose a defensemen and then bribe Vegas to not take them. Bieksa really has nothing to do with this.

 

I could see us losing a Larsson or Theodore out of this. I'll be annoyed at Bob for not trying to maneuver around the situation, but really the culprit is the NHL and these ridiculous expansion draft requirements. I hope Vegas becomes another failed step child  for the league.

Yes and no. If we're pretending Bieksa isn't here, then why wouldn't there be another eligible player in his place? At what point in the last year or so of knowing this was coming, do you hold Murray accountable for ensuring that we had an eligible dman to expose? I posted above that I can see how things might have put him in a tough spot if KB wouldn't waive and with Stoner being injured and just falling short of being eligible. But he should have had a backup plan, and a backup plan to backup the backup plan. There was no reason to let this be an issue and cost us good picks/prospects, so I'm holding out hope that the deal to Vegas will reflect that and this is just a bunch of noise about nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame Bob Murray.  The expansion rules were unknown when those NMCs were negotiated.  NHLPA was clearly protecting its members with NMCs.  If Murray can keep the core roster in place, it's a win for sure.  I just wonder if Murray has a larger deal in mind with a player who is obtained by LV in the expansion draft.  Theodore is a logical choice to be traded....losing Theodore is better than losing Montour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This deal has to include Vatanen. If you're GMGM and you see Anaheim's exposed list, what deal will be better than just picking Vatanen or Manson? That deal has to be better than the pick so either we lose one of them or a very good prospect (Steel/Larsson) and then some.

Despite some meh deals and signings I've been a Bob Murray fan. He's done some great things for this organization. And although this couldn't have been easy I'd be very upset if we don't end up with a good top 6 forward this offseason.
In my mind, KB2 had waived and Sami was traded before the expansion draft. Now that Bieksa didn't and Sami's still here I can't help but think Sami's going to Vegas. Since we have to expose Sami there's more going on because otherwise Vegas would just pick him and there wouldn't be talk of a "deal".

So here's my wild guess. Las Vegas picks Bobby Ryan from ottawa. They retain some salary and send him our way in exchange for Sami, a D prospect and one of our 2nd rounders :-) Just having some fun here but I'm really nervous.

Share this post


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

Heck no, I'll view it as one of Murray's worst signings ever (Bieksa) ends up costing us a valuable young player and then some. Inexcusable. Let's wait and see though.

If it's Theo and a pick, I can live with that. I'm assuming BM is using his excess of defensemen as trade bait. If it's one of Steel or Jones, as far as I'm aware, the only solid pair of forward prospects that the Ducks desperately need... Then I'm renting a van and we can go on a cross country tour of all the IKEAs. No coffee table left behind!

Interesting too that Larsson has been thrown around. I used his name once in a trade proposal and was profusely chastised for it. 

Share this post


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

Even a bigger LOL will be if Vegas picks up Manson or Vatanen and Anaheim lose them for nothing.

They'd lose all credibility if they broke from whatever the prearranged deal was.

You don't want to start in the league by losing your trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PetrSykora said:

How much could it have hurt to just ask Bieksa to waive the clause?

It would have cost us another year tacked onto his contract, probably at the same rate.  

Not worth it if it isn't required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RobD360 said:

Hmmm maybe Bob should have had a little more foresight entering this past season in seeing this coming and having a spare defenseman ready and legible for this very scenario.

 

He does, and they are likely part of the deal.

Adding depth to the list does not add protected spots.  Not sure how adding more affects the fact that we had to unprotect at least one Dman regardless of Beaks.

The GMBM hate has reached a level of not knowing maths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bieksa has proven that he cares more about himself, and getting a few extra $$$$$$, rather than the team and it's future aspirations.

Too much to waive the stupid clause, knowing full well Vegas is not going to take on his salary.  You know why they wouldn't take on his salary?  Because he's not worth it, only received it so that Kesler would be happy.

I guess we'll see how iron clad that supposed deal not to pick Manson/Vats is between Murray and the Vegas GM.

 

Share this post


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

Bieksa has proven that he cares more about himself, and getting a few extra $$$$$$, rather than the team and it's future aspirations.

Too much to waive the stupid clause, knowing full well Vegas is not going to take on his salary.  You know why they wouldn't take on his salary?  Because he's not worth it, only received it so that Kesler would be happy.

I guess we'll see how iron clad that supposed deal not to pick Manson/Vats is between Murray and the Vegas GM.

 

Why blame Bieksa for not being willing to forego a clause he negotiated into his contract? I don't blame him for looking out for himself, most people would. 

Share this post


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

If it's Theo and a pick, I can live with that. I'm assuming BM is using his excess of defensemen as trade bait. If it's one of Steel or Jones, as far as I'm aware, the only solid pair of forward prospects that the Ducks desperately need... Then I'm renting a van and we can go on a cross country tour of all the IKEAs. No coffee table left behind!

Interesting too that Larsson has been thrown around. I used his name once in a trade proposal and was profusely chastised for it. 

Yep, Theo + pick + Murray's resignation seems like an acceptable outcome. Too soon? :ph34r:

Man, 18 yo Sergachev just equated to Drouin. Larsson landed Hall last summer. I wish more people (not necessarily directed at you, good sir) would recognize the value that defensemen have right now. Using guys like Theodore or even Larsson as toss-ins is some pretty piddle poor asset management. Sure, as we stand it's come to that so both Vats/Manson could be exposed, but Murray didn't just walk into this situation yesterday. 

Okay, breathing... better step away from the boards until the official trades are announced. Getting too hot over pure speculation. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DucksFan_08 said:

This deal has to include Vatanen. If you're GMGM and you see Anaheim's exposed list, what deal will be better than just picking Vatanen or Manson? That deal has to be better than the pick so either we lose one of them or a very good prospect (Steel/Larsson) and then some.

Despite some meh deals and signings I've been a Bob Murray fan. He's done some great things for this organization. And although this couldn't have been easy I'd be very upset if we don't end up with a good top 6 forward this offseason.
In my mind, KB2 had waived and Sami was traded before the expansion draft. Now that Bieksa didn't and Sami's still here I can't help but think Sami's going to Vegas. Since we have to expose Sami there's more going on because otherwise Vegas would just pick him and there wouldn't be talk of a "deal".

So here's my wild guess. Las Vegas picks Bobby Ryan from ottawa. They retain some salary and send him our way in exchange for Sami, a D prospect and one of our 2nd rounders :-) Just having some fun here but I'm really nervous.

Very interesting. Nice thought process 

I was already thinking (more like hoping) that what transpired out of the talk between GMGM and Bob went like this;

Bob:  "look George, I can trade Vats right now and also have Bieska waive his NMC or buy out his one remaining last year. Which would then leave you with scraps.

George: I wouldn't like that. How about you trade me Vats? He is young and on a good contract and a player who can help me now and in the future. This trade will be a real trade with you giving you real assets in return as opposed to losing Vats for nothing. I know teams have been wanting Vats but I can beat their price. This way it's a win win. What do you Bob?

bob: cool. Let's do it. 

Share this post


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

Why blame Bieksa for not being willing to forego a clause he negotiated into his contract? I don't blame him for looking out for himself, most people would. 

I don't blame him for looking out for himself but would it be too much to ask for that looking to be done in Nevada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AustinDuck27 said:

Yep, Theo + pick + Murray's resignation seems like an acceptable outcome. Too soon? :ph34r:

Man, 18 yo Sergachev just equated to Drouin. Larsson landed Hall last summer. I wish more people (not necessarily directed at you, good sir) would recognize the value that defensemen have right now. Using guys like Theodore or even Larsson as toss-ins is some pretty piddle poor asset management. Sure, as we stand it's come to that so both Vats/Manson could be exposed, but Murray didn't just walk into this situation yesterday. 

Okay, breathing... better step away from the boards until the official trades are announced. Getting too hot over pure speculation. :wacko:

Ty for making me pass Gatorade through my nostrils and onto my computer screen.

 

Rumor on the street now has a deal already in place with LV to take Sami in order for us to keep Manson.

 

Orrrrrrrr was it the other way around? :unsure:

 

Is it Wednesday yet?

 

Share this post


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

Why blame Bieksa for not being willing to forego a clause he negotiated into his contract? I don't blame him for looking out for himself, most people would. 

I get this. But out of ALL the teams in the league who have this protection problem due to a player with a NMC, Bieska is the worst one who holds the least value.

The chances of him getting selected are very low.

1). If exposed Vegas would look at Bieskas play these past couple of seasons and laugh.

2). if they were even remotely interested, he has One remaining year on his contract. That alone brings his value even lower (if that even possible).

3). they would look at Bieska and compare him to other players we have unprotected and see that there is better value there instead. 

4). Furthermore (as if the above aren't enough), to help assure Bieska in the crazy event Vegas does want him. I'm sure Bob could set up a prearranged level of picks approved by Bieska he would offer up to Vegas to lay off picking up this superstar. I'm sure they would lay off with a 3rd or Vegas simply selects a better available player (anyone else). 

Share this post


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

Ty for making me pass Gatorade through my nostrils and onto my computer screen.

 

Rumor on the street now has a deal already in place with LV to take Sami in order to keep Manson.

 

Orrrrrrrr was it the other way around? :unsure:

 

Is it Wednesday yet?

 

Haha, seriously. Let's rip this bandaid off already.

I just made the mistake of trying to poke in on HFBoards and see what people think... mother of god, I think I need therapy now.

Share this post


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

Very interesting. Nice thought process 

I was already thinking (more like hoping) that what transpired out of the talk between GMGM and Bob went like this;

Bob:  "look George, I can trade Vats right now and also have Bieska waive his NMC or buy out his one remaining last year. Which would then leave you with scraps.

George: I wouldn't like that. How about you trade me Vats? He is young and on a good contract and a player who can help me now and in the future. This trade will be a real trade with you giving you real assets in return as opposed to losing Vats for nothing. I know teams have been wanting Vats but I can beat their price. This way it's a win win. What do you Bob?

bob: cool. Let's do it. 

Unfortunately, the conversation probably went more like this:

Bob:  "look George, I can trade Vats right now and also have Bieska waive his NMC or buy out his one remaining last year. Which would then leave you with scraps."

George: "Uh, no you can't!"

Once Stoner didn't meet the minimum number of games, I think the odds of Bieksa waiving his NMC plummeted. BM needed to have another player available to meet the minimum exposure requirements in order to be able to threaten Bieksa with a buyout. Once that leverage was gone, the only way he was going to get Bieksa to waive was with an incentive, like a contract extension. Something that would more than off-set the risk of being selected in the ED.

A couple of other things I want to say about Bieksa too:

1. I think it's wrong to assume that Bieksa would never have been chosen by Vegas if he was exposed. If things had played out how people are imagining, with Bieksa waiving and Vatanen being traded, Vegas would have been left to choose from Bieksa, Wagner, Kerdiles, Shaw, Carrick, and Stoner. Wags is a borderline NHLer who is a UFA in 2018, Shaw is a borderline NHLer, Kerdiles is a borderline NHLer with a significant injury history, Carrick is a career AHLer, and Stoner is broken.  Meanwhile, Bieksa may be old and on an expiring contract, but he just played pretty OK for us all the way through the WCFs and he's well-known as a great locker room guy and teammate. It's certainly possible that McPhee would choose Bieksa to help create the right culture for his hockey club right off the bat. His salary also helps Vegas get to the cap floor, and he's a guy they probably could have traded at next season's deadline for an asset, unlike Kerdiles, Shaw, and Carrick who may have just as likely ended up on waivers and claimed for nothing.  So just assuming it would have been impossible for him to have ever been chosen because of his contract and age I think is wrong.

2. And even if you're convinced McPhee would never have selected him, look at it from Bieksa's point of view. You have two kids in elementary school and you live in a great neighborhood with your wife in Newport Beach, where you've now put down some solid roots. The alternative is moving to Vegas. You then see that Vegas will get to choose between you, Stoner, and basically three waivers candidates if you waive your NMC. Even if you think there's a 10% chance Vegas will take you, do you waive? I don't. Not at the risk of moving my family from Newport to Vegas. So I think it's a little ridiculous to say that he's selfish and all about the money for not waiving. If anything, he's probably all about his kids and not having to yank them away from their friends to go live in 100+ degree heat with casinos and strip clubs everywhere you look. 

btw, only two guys ended up waiving their NMCs: (A) MAF, a starting NHL goaltender who has been relegated to a backup job and I'm sure would like the opportunity to start somewhere again, and (B) Tobias Enstrom, who I believe is unmarried and has no kids, and who currently plays in Siberia Winnipeg. I'm sure it didn't take a hard sell to get either of those guys to waive. . 

Share this post


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

Unfortunately, the conversation probably went more like this:

Bob:  "look George, I can trade Vats right now and also have Bieska waive his NMC or buy out his one remaining last year. Which would then leave you with scraps."

George: "Uh, no you can't!"

Once Stoner didn't meet the minimum number of games, I think the odds of Bieksa waiving his NMC plummeted. BM needed to have another player available to meet the minimum exposure requirements in order to be able to threaten Bieksa with a buyout. Once that leverage was gone, the only way he was going to get Bieksa to waive was with an incentive, like a contract extension. Something that would more than off-set the risk of being selected in the ED.

A couple of other things I want to say about Bieksa too:

1. I think it's wrong to assume that Bieksa would never have been chosen by Vegas if he was exposed. If things had played out how people are imagining, with Bieksa waiving and Vatanen being traded, Vegas would have been left to choose from Bieksa, Wagner, Kerdiles, Shaw, Carrick, and Stoner. Wags is a borderline NHLer who is a UFA in 2018, Shaw is a borderline NHLer, Kerdiles is a borderline NHLer with a significant injury history, Carrick is a career AHLer, and Stoner is broken.  Meanwhile, Bieksa may be old and on an expiring contract, but he just played pretty OK for us all the way through the WCFs and he's well-known as a great locker room guy and teammate. It's certainly possible that McPhee would choose Bieksa to help create the right culture for his hockey club right off the bat. His salary also helps Vegas get to the cap floor, and he's a guy they probably could have traded at next season's deadline for an asset, unlike Kerdiles, Shaw, and Carrick who may have just as likely ended up on waivers and claimed for nothing.  So just assuming it would have been impossible for him to have ever been chosen because of his contract and age I think is wrong.

2. And even if you're convinced McPhee would never have selected him, look at it from Bieksa's point of view. You have two kids in elementary school and you live in a great neighborhood with your wife in Newport Beach, where you've now put down some solid roots. The alternative is moving to Vegas. You then see that Vegas will get to choose between you, Stoner, and basically three waivers candidates if you waive your NMC. Even if you think there's a 10% chance Vegas will take you, do you waive? I don't. Not at the risk of moving my family from Newport to Vegas. So I think it's a little ridiculous to say that he's selfish and all about the money for not waiving. If anything, he's probably all about his kids and not having to yank them away from their friends to go live in 100+ degree heat with casinos and strip clubs everywhere you look. 

btw, only two guys ended up waiving their NMCs: (A) MAF, a starting NHL goaltender who has been relegated to a backup job and I'm sure would like the opportunity to start somewhere again, and (B) Tobias Enstrom, who I believe is unmarried and has no kids, and who currently plays in Siberia Winnipeg. I'm sure it didn't take a hard sell to get either of those guys to waive. . 

I think the idea was that Vats would be traded for a forward who would be protected, and Vermette would be exposed along with Bieksa. The feeling is Vermette would be taken ahead of Bieksa, which may or may not be true, it likely depends on what other players were available to Vegas in those positions.

That's the route I would have tried to go down but obviously we didn't, we're here now. At least we only have Bieksa for 1 more season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WyldWyng said:

I wish they could swap out Vermette for Eaves.

Wouldn't it be theoretically possible that Vegas picks Eaves but can't sign him in the 5 days they have before free agency starts, and he signs with the Ducks as he's UFA?

Share this post


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

Why blame Bieksa for not being willing to forego a clause he negotiated into his contract? I don't blame him for looking out for himself, most people would. 

This as well as dtsdlaw comments. Bieksa is looking out for himself and his family. This has already been beaten to death. Bottom line, Bieksa and BM negotiated and signed a contract. 

Share this post


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

I think the idea was that Vats would be traded for a forward who would be protected, and Vermette would be exposed along with Bieksa. The feeling is Vermette would be taken ahead of Bieksa, which may or may not be true, it likely depends on what other players were available to Vegas in those positions.

That's the route I would have tried to go down but obviously we didn't, we're here now. At least we only have Bieksa for 1 more season.

Yeah, I know, but that was a pipe dream. I was only talking about realistic scenarios.  No team was going to send us a forward worth protecting for Vats, then be forced to add another one of their own D-men to the exposed list, only to start the season with Vats on IR for 2-3 months. The only realistic scenario was Vats being traded for picks or prospects who wouldn't have needed protection, which would have resulted in Vermette being protected.  The only way we could have gotten a forward worth protecting was if we sent a player that didn't need protecting so that the other team wouldn't have to degrade the rest of their roster any further, like Monty or Theo. But that trade still leaves Vats here so it's not the fix people were looking for. 

Share this post


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

Why blame Bieksa for not being willing to forego a clause he negotiated into his contract? I don't blame him for looking out for himself, most people would. 

Sometimes, players sacrifice a little, for the benefit of the team, and the bigger picture.  You know, that Cup thingee.

The clause he negotiated was likely so that Anaheim could not just trade him away to another club.  He could have waived it strictly for the Expansion Draft, under the assumption that there is no way Vegas would waste one of their limited # of picks on him.

And not every player looks out for himself, when it could have a negative impact on the team he's playing for.  Teemu, who of course is in a class by himself, took less salary for years, so that the Ducks could sign him and surround him with quality players.  If he had asked for $7M/year, something another club such as L.A. would likely have offered, the Ducks would never have been able to keep him, certainly not in the years immediately following the Cup win.

Certainly he knows that guys like Manson or Vatanen are move valuable to the Ducks long-term, than he is.  Somehow I doubt Vegas is telling Murray...."no, it's ok, you keep Manson & Vatanen....Bieksa is the one we really want.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I know, but that was a pipe dream. I was only talking about realistic scenarios.  No team was going to send us a forward worth protecting for Vats, then be forced to add another one of their own D-men to the exposed list, only to start the season with Vats on IR for 2-3 months. The only realistic scenario was Vats being traded for picks or prospects who wouldn't have needed protection, which would have resulted in Vermette being protected.  The only way we could have gotten a forward worth protecting was if we sent a player that didn't need protecting so that the other team wouldn't have to degrade the rest of their roster any further, like Monty or Theo. But that trade still leaves Vats here so it's not the fix people were looking for. 

I kind of figured this too, which is why I was calling for Vats to be traded at the trade deadline this year, I thought it would have made the team better in the long run. That got a pretty lukewarm reception on the boards though. Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, HockeyIzCool said:

Sometimes, players sacrifice a little, for the benefit of the team, and the bigger picture.  You know, that Cup thingee.

The clause he negotiated was likely so that Anaheim could not just trade him away to another club.  He could have waived it strictly for the Expansion Draft, under the assumption that there is no way Vegas would waste one of their limited # of picks on him.

And not every player looks out for himself, when it could have a negative impact on the team he's playing for.  Teemu, who of course is in a class by himself, took less salary for years, so that the Ducks could sign him and surround him with quality players.  If he had asked for $7M/year, something another club such as L.A. would likely have offered, the Ducks would never have been able to keep him, certainly not in the years immediately following the Cup win.

Certainly he knows that guys like Manson or Vatanen are move valuable to the Ducks long-term, than he is.  Somehow I doubt Vegas is telling Murray...."no, it's ok, you keep Manson & Vatanen....Bieksa is the one we really want.

Sorry but agreeing to take less for a contract is a lot different than possibly having to uproot your entire family. Often those agreements to take less money also come with a handshake deal that the next contract will be a big pay day....I'm not sure a comparison with Selanne is a good one considering he was Anaheim's favorite son and was never going to play anywhere else after 2007. It's also different because a home town discount is something negotiated and agreed to by both parties - as was the NMC. We can't expect him to waive it when it was negotiated in good faith and then call him selfish when he doesn't waive.

Share this post


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

Sorry but agreeing to take less for a contract is a lot different than possibly having to uproot your entire family. Often those agreements to take less money also come with a handshake deal that the next contract will be a big pay day....I'm not sure a comparison with Selanne is a good one considering he was Anaheim's favorite son and was never going to play anywhere else after 2007. It's also different because a home town discount is something negotiated and agreed to by both parties - as was the NMC. We can't expect him to waive it when it was negotiated in good faith and then call him selfish when he doesn't waive.

I would also like to note that after the SC, Selanne was given the freedom to take as long as he wanted to sign a contract and the Ducks left a spot open for him until he did. 

   51 minutes ago,  HockeyIzCool said: 

Sometimes, players sacrifice a little, for the benefit of the team, and the bigger picture.  You know, that Cup thingee.

Are you saying Bieksa should waive his NMC for the benefit of the team that has a good chance of winning a SC after he is drafted by Vegas? So many are saying there is no way Vegas would take him, but Bieksa has no guarantee of that so why would he take that chance? I don't think there's any player out there that is willing to waive his NMC so their current team can win a SC without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a vacuum, Murray just needed Vegas to agree to a trade of a conditional pick that would prevent them from choosing Bieksa if he waived. If Bieksa knew that would be in place, and Murray gave him his word that the NMC would be reinstated after the exp. draft was past, then I don't see any issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...