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

2 hours 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. . 

Theres is no way KB would have been selected. Guy is on the last year of his contract and about to retire. Vegas has a cap on how many defensemen they can take, no way they waste one of a bottom parining guy in the twlight of his career. At least Kerdilles has upside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. . 

Vegas is only 45 mintutes via airplane. He would not have to move his kids. He only has one more year not a multi left so there shouldn't be so much heartache when seeing that you are also doing your friend Kesler a solid by helping the team improve. He already flies out for away games and the time he is at home he can choose to stay in Vegas or fly home to John Wayne or Long Beach airport. Just one (1) more season. 

Also, I'm sure that if he waived there could have been assurances from Bob (either verbal or via a contractual amendment) that IF selected the Ducks will counter with a pre approved level of compensation to Vegas to not choose Bieska which I think everyone on here would agree would be MUCH less than stopping George from picking up Vats or Manson likely a 3rd or 2nd as opposed to now giving up PRIME assets such as a 1st ++ or equivalent. 

Also I doubt Bieska is > Kerdiles  

 

Share this post


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

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.

Marc-Andre Fleury waived his NMC for the better of the team (Pittsburgh) who may go on to win a Stanley cup without him. Your point is spot on though, the player takes all of the risk. 

I expected more rampant speculation during this period. The waiting to hear anything is driving me crazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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:

They are good prospects, but other teams stand to lose more. The amount of hoops BM would have had to jump through to spend assets to aquire an extra defensemen under contract months before expansion, while we were right up against the cap and had 1000 defenders on the roster would not have been insigninficant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SelanneFTW_30 said:

Marc-Andre Fleury waived his NMC for the better of the team (Pittsburgh) who may go on to win a Stanley cup without him. Your point is spot on though, the player takes all of the risk. 

I expected more rampant speculation during this period. The waiting to hear anything is driving me crazy. 

Marc-Andre Fleury waived his NMC because he knows Murray is the #1 in Pitt. He wants to be a #1.

Share this post


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

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.

I was one of the people also saying that Bob should have traded Vats during the regular season while he had the chance to get value or else get into an event where he has his back to the wall with teams knowing he has to do something for much less value because of the draft.  I also believe Gorby was on the same boat but I'll leave that confirmation with him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

How was not being able to unload Vats for something (anything) to a team rather than now having to pay Vegas in order to keep him make sense? I'm sure that there was a team where obtaining Vats even if injured for a month or so would have replaced a lessor player to then expose. 

Share this post


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

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.

MAF did. I believe there were a couple others perhaps. Even if he was not on the team to benefit the improvement and chance to get to a cup his good friend Kesler would benefit. In fact, Kesler helped get him on the team probably so he would just be helping Kesler this time around surround himself with a better team

Share this post


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

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.

Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RobD360 said:

How was not being able to unload Vats for something (anything) to a team rather than now having to pay Vegas in order to keep him make sense? I'm sure that there was a team where obtaining Vats even if injured for a month or so would have replaced a lessor player to then expose. 

The "pipe dream" comment was in reference to another team sending us a top-6 forward that would have required protection so that Vermette would have been the forward exposed. I just don't believe that there was any chance another team was ever going to do that, and now seeing all of the exposure rosters I'm even more convinced of it. But I'm open to ideas if anyone can list some teams (maybe at least 3-4?) that it would have made sense for. Keep in mind that Vats isn't the only one out there. Minny has still exposed Dumba and Scandella, Ottawa had to expose Methot, Montreal left Emelin out there. If trades were so realistic, why were none made?

Share this post


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

The "pipe dream" comment was in reference to another team sending us a top-6 forward that would have required protection so that Vermette would have been the forward exposed. I just don't believe that there was any chance another team was ever going to do that, and now seeing all of the exposure rosters I'm even more convinced of it. But I'm open to ideas if anyone can list some teams (maybe at least 3-4?) that it would have made sense for. Keep in mind that Vats isn't the only one out there. Minny has still exposed Dumba and Scandella, Ottawa had to expose Methot, Montreal left Emelin out there. If trades were so realistic, why were none made?

A pre expansion trade would have been for strictly futures. Really the only exception might have been Drouin, but I don't think BM wanted anything to do with that extension he got.

Share this post


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

They are good prospects, but other teams stand to lose more. The amount of hoops BM would have had to jump through to spend assets to aquire an extra defensemen under contract months before expansion, while we were right up against the cap and had 1000 defenders on the roster would not have been insigninficant. 

Am I wrong in thinking over the last week or so he could have traded a throw away pick, or even as much as Megna, to a team for one of their soon to be exposed, eligible d-men? As well as trading Vats for futures? Like I said, though, this is all a bunch of hullabaloo, best to wait and see what actually happens on Wednesday before fighting to the death over our best wild guesses.

Share this post


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

MAF did. I believe there were a couple others perhaps. Even if he was not on the team to benefit the improvement and chance to get to a cup his good friend Kesler would benefit. In fact, Kesler helped get him on the team probably so he would just be helping Kesler this time around surround himself with a better team

MAF did so that he could go elsewhere and start.  So it was for his own good, not the good of the team.  The team just lucked out on that part.

Share this post


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

The "pipe dream" comment was in reference to another team sending us a top-6 forward that would have required protection so that Vermette would have been the forward exposed. I just don't believe that there was any chance another team was ever going to do that, and now seeing all of the exposure rosters I'm even more convinced of it. But I'm open to ideas if anyone can list some teams (maybe at least 3-4?) that it would have made sense for. Keep in mind that Vats isn't the only one out there. Minny has still exposed Dumba and Scandella, Ottawa had to expose Methot, Montreal left Emelin out there. If trades were so realistic, why were none made?

Good point. Bob isn't the only ding dong having left valuable dmen exposed due to not trading them. 

Hmmm could be that Vegas is indeed playing more of a broker role after obtaining players leaving the teams with value and not burning them with leaving them with nothing 

Share this post


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

Am I wrong in thinking over the last week or so he could have traded a throw away pick, or even as much as Megna, to a team for one of their soon to be exposed, eligible d-men? As well as trading Vats for futures? Like I said, though, this is all a bunch of hullabaloo, best to wait and see what actually happens on Wednesday before fighting to the death over our best wild guesses.

I guess he could have after the season was over and before the freeze, but by then he already had this supposed deal worked out with Vegas. He didn't seem that worried about the situation, and didn't feel the need to even ask Bieksa to waive so I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

I share your view that if the cost does end up being a Theo or Larsson, that I would be very disappointed that he didn't try to do more.

I still feel like this whole  thing is BS anyway. Anaheim wasn't given this loaded set of rules to start, why should Vegas?

Share this post


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

I guess he could have after the season was over and before the freeze, but by then he already had this supposed deal worked out with Vegas. He didn't seem that worried about the situation, and didn't feel the need to even ask Bieksa to waive so I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

I share your view that if the cost does end up being a Theo or Larsson, that I would be very disappointed that he didn't try to do more.

I still feel like this whole  thing is BS anyway. Anaheim wasn't given this loaded set of rules to start, why should Vegas?

Same here, cautiously optimistic as well. I don't see Murray foregoing all of those other options just to pay a premium to buy his way out of an avoidable situation. 

I guess the comeback to the last sentence is that Vegas payed for the privilege of a better start. I don't like the ED rules, but I can't really complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are insane.  

The deal with vegas is that they don't take either Vats or Manson.  I don't know what we give them, but any deal other than that isn't a deal.

These kinds of deals are not something that can be broken.  There are signed trade contracts, they just haven't been made public yet (which benefits both sides).

And, as to Bieksa waiving or not - he wasn't officially asked to because the deal was in place.  AND, there's a benefit - now neither Vats nor Manson feel slighted as the man left hanging, because even if Bieksa waived, one of them was still going to have to be exposed because we can only protect 3.

As far as trades earlier in the season or even in the post season, we made the decisions we did because we got to the WCFs, and we like the team.  If they get healthy, they have an excellent chance next year.  FURTHER, BM said as much over the past couple months.  He and the ownership AND the team want to keep pretty much the core players moving into the next season, and that includes AT LEAST the top 6 D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 9:46 AM, Jiggy2win said:

If Vegas signs a free agent, it counts as a pick from that team. 

Interesting.  I guess that comes from some mixture of these two provisions:

* Vegas must select one player from each presently existing club for a total of 30 players (not including additional players who may be acquired as the result of violations of the Expansion Draft rules).
* Vegas must select a minimum of 20 players who are under contract for the 2017-18 season.

"Presently existing club" would more naturally seem to NOT include players not yet signed for the 2017-18 season, but if that were true, then the second provision would be superfluous.  But I wonder how the contract negotiations work with B or E?  Seems weird.  Maybe you're wrong about free agents counting, and the second provision is in there for some other reason/eventuality I don't recognize.

So, that means they can select Bernier or Eaves, and that would count as their Anaheim selection, though doing so would take away one of their 10 un-signed selections.

I'm still guessing it'll be Theo by trade, Stoner by selection, and a draft pick for this season or next, for them not selecting Vats or Manson.  Maybe Kerdiles will be the selection... though I doubt it.  Us signing him last week locks in his contract for Vegas to benefit from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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 have to note - Bieksa was not known for "as a great locker room guy and teammate" under Bruce Boudreau.  For multiple years.  He's come around this year, under RC, but it's a stretch to say he's "well-known" for such over the latter part of his career, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 3:21 PM, PetrSykora said:

How much could it have hurt to just ask Bieksa to waive the clause? It's bad enough he's on our team, why the hell would Vegas or any other team want him? Really don't like leaving Manson exposed. McPhee is a weasel and it wouldn't shock me if whatever deal they made fell apart. 

How much could it have hurt to also just buy out Bieksa if he said no to waiving his no movement? 

On 6/18/2017 at 3:22 PM, wataduk said:

I think that some writers believed the Ducks would use the 8 + 1 option which would have put #33 in danger but with Bieksa not opting to waive, that would have made no sense and the 7 + 3 + 1 was the proper choice.
My feeling is that GMBM will give up a 1st rounder to LV in order to keep both Vats and Josh Manson.

Don't be surprised if it's a future first rounder + a prospect or two like Larsson, Steele, Theodore. 

Unless of course Vatanen is going to Vegas in a side trade, though that doesn't totally make sense to me because Vegas can take him without having to give up assets. 

I don't know ... seems like the Ducks made this way more difficult than it had to be. We'll see how it all plays out, but I don't see any way McPhee lets the Ducks get out of this scot free. There's going to be something significant the Ducks give up to keep Vatanen/Manson, and I imagine many on this board will be unhappy with it. 

Share this post


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

How much could it have hurt to also just buy out Bieksa if he said no to waiving his no movement? 

Don't be surprised if it's a future first rounder + a prospect or two like Larsson, Steele, Theodore. 

Unless of course Vatanen is going to Vegas in a side trade, though that doesn't totally make sense to me because Vegas can take him without having to give up assets. 

I don't know ... seems like the Ducks made this way more difficult than it had to be. We'll see how it all plays out, but I don't see any way McPhee lets the Ducks get out of this scot free. There's going to be something significant the Ducks give up to keep Vatanen/Manson, and I imagine many on this board will be unhappy with it. 

That's ridiculous. You're are talking about more value to not pick them then what the actually players are worth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if.....Vegas takes Sami. Vegas also takes a top forward from another team that they don't necessarily want. Vegas then trades said forward to the Ducks for Theo and/or a pick. The Ducks get a forward. Vegas gets Sami/prospect/pick.

Share this post


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

Theories,Theories and More Theories on trad speculation...Oh My....If you want I have mine?.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Would love to hear it Moose. After all, what else are we going to do for the next day and a half?

Share this post


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

After all, what else are we going to do for the next day and a half?

Take some Lithium, apparently.  

Share this post


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

That's ridiculous. You're are talking about more value to not pick them then what the actually players are worth. 

I know. It's stupid. But that's the kind of incentive Vegas must have to not take one of these guys. And since the Ducks are in win-now mode, it shouldn't shock anybody if that's what happens here to keep the band together. 

Share this post


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

I know. It's stupid. But that's the kind of incentive Vegas must have to not take one of these guys. And since the Ducks are in win-now mode, it shouldn't shock anybody if that's what happens here to keep the band together. 

I'd be shocked. BM didn't all of a sudden turn stupid and that would  go against everything BM said about not giving up anything major. The team would be better off just letting them take a player than give up the entire farm system to protect Sami freaking Vatanen. 

Even if they lost him for nothing the team is a cup contender.

Share this post


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

I have to note - Bieksa was not known for "as a great locker room guy and teammate" under Bruce Boudreau.  For multiple years.  He's come around this year, under RC, but it's a stretch to say he's "well-known" for such over the latter part of his career, no?

Not sure where you're getting this, especially since he only played here for one season under Boudreau. And one of the very first things he did when he got here was to jump into a fight with Kyle Clifford during a preseason game against LA when Clifford was trying to goad Perry into a fight. What more can you ask of a new teammate than to stand up to the other team's goon on behalf of one of your superstars?

He's actually a good dude. I'm not going to go all "BBQ guy" on you, but my opinion is not based on just reading about him and watching him play on TV. I'm not a big fan of his current level of play, but I'm a fan of the man himself.

Share this post


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

I guess he could have after the season was over and before the freeze, but by then he already had this supposed deal worked out with Vegas. He didn't seem that worried about the situation, and didn't feel the need to even ask Bieksa to waive so I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

I share your view that if the cost does end up being a Theo or Larsson, that I would be very disappointed that he didn't try to do more.

I still feel like this whole  thing is BS anyway. Anaheim wasn't given this loaded set of rules to start, why should Vegas?

If it costs Theo or Larsson instead of Manson, I'm good with it.

There's lots of talk about trading Vats or getting a Dman to expose, but that still leaves Manson exposed no matter how you dice it.  Plus we need to clear capspace.  So if he can clear the space to LV, protect others, and get something in return through an actual trade with LV, I'm good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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.

I do not think Anaheim would be at all interested in a Bobby Ryan reunion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the rumours of the high draft picks and/or talent  that vegas is getting from

other teams to either not take take an unprotected player and/or take on a bad

contract are very prevalent.   i thought that the ducks might only

lose a 2nd round draft pick to protect their roster,  but it now

seems that wouldn't be enough.  i would expect a young and

fairly talented player to be included in the package to vegas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...