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

13 minutes ago, gotchabari said:

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.

I think the idea of getting a Dman to expose would be to backup the threat of buying out KB. Since if we did that, we could protect Manson, but then we would not have a exposable defensemen which is against the rules.  I'm OK if the cost is Theo or Larsson, but wouldn't be happy. What the other poster was suggesting was Theo + 1st round pick + top prospect. Basically,  what we paid for Chris freaking Pronger, which is just plain ridiculous.

Share this post


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

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

Also do not think that Bobby would be interested in a Ducks reunion either- they parted with animus - IMHO

Share this post


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

I think the idea of getting a Dman to expose would be to backup the threat of buying out KB. Since if we did that, we could protect Manson, but then we would not have a exposable defensemen which is against the rules.  I'm OK if the cost is Theo or Larsson, but wouldn't be happy. What the other poster was suggesting was Theo + 1st round pick + top prospect. Basically,  what we paid for Chris freaking Pronger, which is just plain ridiculous.

Ridiculous things happen in hockey front offices. It seems ridiculous to me that the Ducks are willing to part with first round draft picks or top prospects for the sake of keeping Manson or Vatanen when it was totally avoidable. 

I'm reserving judgement until we figure out what actually happens but like I said, don't be surprised if that's the price the Ducks are paying here. Vegas has no incentive to just let the Ducks off the hook here -- nor should they. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gotchabari said:

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.

Why? They have $5.5 million in space right now and really only need to pick up a backup goalie. 

Share this post


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

 Trade Theory:

1. VGK Selects Clayton Stoner in Expansion Draft. 

2. Ducks Trade Player VGK wants for Player our Team wants along with next years 1st Round for this year's 1st Round.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

 

 

 

 

1. That would definitely help the Ducks cap-wise and would clear room for one of the younger guys--which if I recall is a goal of Murray this off-season .

2. I guess this all depends on the players. I am not sure how deep next years draft will be but this years does not seem at all deep. So I do not see Las Vegas trading the 6th pick this year  for the Ducks 1st next year that is hopefully 31st overall. Of the exposed players, who would you want Las Vegas to select and trade to the Ducks?

Share this post


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

Ridiculous things happen in hockey front offices. It seems ridiculous to me that the Ducks are willing to part with first round draft picks or top prospects for the sake of keeping Manson or Vatanen when it was totally avoidable. 

I'm reserving judgement until we figure out what actually happens but like I said, don't be surprised if that's the price the Ducks are paying here. Vegas has no incentive to just let the Ducks off the hook here -- nor should they. 

It became far less avoidable once Stoner didn't make the games played cutoff. Had Bieksa refused to waive, your essentially asking BM to trade for an extra exposable defender, trade vats for Peanuts before ED, and buyout KB on top of the Despres buyout. 

Very avoidable indeed. 

Share this post


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

Why? They have $5.5 million in space right now and really only need to pick up a backup goalie. 

They also need a winger who can play in the top 6, tagging space for Fowler, and to plan for a ton of expiring contracts after next season.

Share this post


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

They also need a winger who can play in the top 6, tagging space for Fowler, and to plan for a ton of expiring contracts after next season.

Tagging space is the amount of cap space available in 2018-19 based on expiring contracts. We don't need any more tagging space for Fowler beyond what Bieksa's contract will provide.

Share this post


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

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.

That's a good point about Bieksa jumping in to defend Perry. A guy who's career has been centered around dealing with Corey Perry types. Kesler also made a crack about trying to warm up to Perry in Between Two Zamboni's. Everything I've heard via the grapevine would never knock him for his off ice personality. 

Oh BBQ Guy, I've missed his anonymous internet rumors so. Wether or not they were true, it was fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 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:

You're out of the IKEA carpool on Wednesday!

I guess we should blame Stoner for being broken. If he could have got his games in. I don't even remember what happened to him? Is there someone who injured him. Someone I can personificate my hate upon? Or was it a random stupid accident. 

As much as it sucks to lose one of the young surplus of defensemen, a lot of teams are going to get boned too. Except the Kings. So help me if Vegas picks one of Brown or Gaborik. I will hate them so hard till they are relocated to Hamilton. That relocate won't happen but if they pick Brown I hope they fail to the point Canada thinks they get another team I can poo-poo on.

Share this post


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

Which means....most likely Ducks will trade less Fisx.....Insane?....Most of us and yes Myself feel this team needs to get a player that will spark this team...we did that twice perhaps 3rd times a charm ;):t_hot_unread:.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

And they'll probably do that... after expansion draft.

Share this post


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

Why? They have $5.5 million in space right now and really only need to pick up a backup goalie. 

And winger, and to mot be spending to the cap because we don't buy tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, gotchabari said:

And winger, and to mot be spending to the cap because we don't buy tickets.

For right now, they're fine. They can acquire a winger at the deadline like they did last season. 

It'd be nice to bring back Eaves on the cheap, but he's almost certainly going to want to cash in. And I wouldn't want to pay him regardless of how much cap space the Ducks have. 

Share this post


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

It became far less avoidable once Stoner didn't make the games played cutoff. Had Bieksa refused to waive, your essentially asking BM to trade for an extra exposable defender, trade vats for Peanuts before ED, and buyout KB on top of the Despres buyout. 

Very avoidable indeed. 

How long have NHL GMs been aware of the parameters of this expansion draft? This isn't something BM found out a month ago. 

Jared Boll played in over 50 games this year for some unintelligible reason. Don't tell me it would've been that difficult to give Holzer another deal on the cheap and sneak him into eight more games. 

Share this post


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

How long have NHL GMs been aware of the parameters of this expansion draft? This isn't something BM found out a month ago. 

Jared Boll played in over 50 games this year for some unintelligible reason. Don't tell me it would've been that difficult to give Holzer another deal on the cheap and sneak him into eight more games. 

You don't remember Holzer needing to take off to Germany a few times?  I think we did what we could.

Boll played for various reasons, not the least of which is being one of the two required exposed forwards with sufficient time on the ice.

Share this post


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

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.

I'll defer.  I think he IS a pretty nice guy in general, but there were some definite issues that from all reports was... at least stubbornness in the locker room with BB.  I think RC did an excellent job this year setting clear goals for KB to live up to, using the press, and helping KB get there in spades.  It's actually one of the more outstanding coaching results I've seen from an NHL coach, frankly.  

Share this post


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

You don't remember Holzer needing to take off to Germany a few times?  I think we did what we could.

Boll played for various reasons, not the least of which is being one of the two required exposed forwards with sufficient time on the ice.

Apply your logic for why Boll was in the lineup and ask yourself why they didn't do the same for Holzer. And considering the timing of one of his trips back to Germany (it was in April) not really buying that as a valid reason. 

Share this post


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

Apply your logic for why Boll was in the lineup and ask yourself why they didn't do the same for Holzer. And considering the timing of one of his trips back to Germany (it was in April) not really buying that as a valid reason. 

Holzer is also not under contract. I guess they could resign him, assuming he wanted to resign knowing it was purely for expansion purposes. But it still isn't as simple as just playing Holzer over better defenders while trying to win. It's a lot easier to hide a 4th line right winger, when the rest of your 4th line is crap anyway and you have 11 other forwards to throw out there.

 

 

I think the real issue however is that  D is right. Bob plans on bringing Vatanen back at least until the TDL.

Share this post


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

Holzer is also not under contract. I guess they could resign him, assuming he wanted to resign knowing it was purely for expansion purposes. But it still isn't as simple as just playing Holzer over better defenders while trying to win. It's a lot easier to hide a 4th line right winger, when the rest of your 4th line is crap anyway and you have 11 other forwards to throw out there.

 

 

I think the real issue however is that  D is right. Bob plans on bringing Vatanen back at least until the TDL.

I agree that there's a fine balance there. I would also counter that if the Ducks played the best defenders 100 percent of the time, how the heck did Bieksa play 81 games while Theodore and Montour played a combined 61? Is it really a stretch to say the Ducks could've given Bieksa eight games off and played Holzer (with a new cheap deal for next year) instead for the purposes of fufilling that expansion requirement? I don't think so. Not like you're putting in Holzer at the expense of Fowler or Lindholm here. 

Based on the information at hand, just seemed BM lacked a little bit of foresight here. We'll see how it shakes out ... it's the price of being good I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were cap issues throughout the season, and I think that tells a little bit of the tale of Theo and Montour.

I think BM kept his options open as long as he could do so without sinking money into options he wouldn't necessarily need if the right deal with the Knights could be worked out, while at the same time dealing with the cap issues AND trying to win the cup with the people he had access to (which also brings in requests by the coach as to who is made available and who gets sent down).

I think Holzer and even Stoner were options up until the last few weeks of the regular season, then Holzer over Stoner in the post season, with the catch all of Bieksa and whatever deal needed to be done to get him to waive (and I still don't see the knights picking B over the various other options we have, in light of what the other teams have on offer).

I'm not saying the knights deal was set in stone.  I think Vats' injury probably changed the outlook for LVK - they don't really want a player that will need to sit out the first half of next season (if that's what happens).  They'd much rather start developing a younger healthy guy (and have said as much).

I do, however, think the deal was in place before Bieksa would have had to have been asked to waive.  So, we could have protected Manson over injured Vats, and if presented that way to LVK, they could have just given up on Manson and extracted their pound of flesh in some other deal.... which again I think is Stoner ED selection, Theo trade, plus maybe a pick.  Maybe more goes their way, but then we'd get something back... probably a forward.  And, those terms would be dependent on what players the other teams made available in the ED.  

This could be very complex, but my guess is that it's not.  We free up space and lose a decent prospect with Stoner and Theo gone, maybe a pick to keep Manson AND Vats.  If that's the deal, I think it's fair to both sides.  And, I think BM set us up fairly well for this kind of deal, though maybe was saved in part by Vats getting injures (though, he may have been carrying that injury for a large part of the regular season, in which case BM could have been planning this way way in advance).

Lets put it this way:  I see way more room for BM having a lot of foresight here, than indications that he lacked foresight, based on how things have gone down so far.  We'll know much better later today or tomorrow (though maybe not for certain until all the second round of trades happen, and the draft), but I think it's unwarranted to come out negatively on BM based on what's gone down so far.  There's much better reasons for hope that we've come through the ED fairly cleanly.

I will say that if the deal doesn't include Manson staying with us, it's going to take some real scrambling to keep me positive on what's transpired this post season.   

Share this post


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

I'll defer.  I think he IS a pretty nice guy in general, but there were some definite issues that from all reports was... at least stubbornness in the locker room with BB.  I think RC did an excellent job this year setting clear goals for KB to live up to, using the press, and helping KB get there in spades.  It's actually one of the more outstanding coaching results I've seen from an NHL coach, frankly.  

I don't know where you read that, but I have read that the younger defensemen respect him. That didn't just happen since RC came on board. I also think Bieksa played better under BB than he has under RC. So if he and BB didn't get along in the locker room, as you say, it put a better Bieksa on the ice.

Share this post


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

There were cap issues throughout the season, and I think that tells a little bit of the tale of Theo and Montour.

I think BM kept his options open as long as he could do so without sinking money into options he wouldn't necessarily need if the right deal with the Knights could be worked out, while at the same time dealing with the cap issues AND trying to win the cup with the people he had access to (which also brings in requests by the coach as to who is made available and who gets sent down).

I think Holzer and even Stoner were options up until the last few weeks of the regular season, then Holzer over Stoner in the post season, with the catch all of Bieksa and whatever deal needed to be done to get him to waive (and I still don't see the knights picking B over the various other options we have, in light of what the other teams have on offer).

BM created the cap issues.

Stoner was not an option until the last few weeks of the regular season. He came close to returning during the playoffs.

Share this post


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

BM created the cap issues.

Kinda, he had a lot of help from Despres and Stoner.  Stoner was rumored to be ready in the last few weeks of the regular season... though he probably wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, DUCKSDOC said:

Also do not think that Bobby would be interested in a Ducks reunion either- they parted with animus - IMHO

Not doubt about that....Bobby Ryan and several others (very obviously) quit on Carlyle and tuned him out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was posted Tuesday night by Helene Elliott.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/ducks/la-sp-nhl-expansion-draft-elliott-20170620-story.html

McPhee extended his self-imposed roster selection by a few hours in order to talk to other general managers who experienced delays en route to Las Vegas. He said he expected that by Tuesday evening he and his staff would choose the 30 players — one from each existing team.

He also said he had “at least” a half-dozen trades lined up, and those probably will include acquiring draft picks or players from teams in exchange for not choosing a specific player they left unprotected. The Ducks made defensemen Sami Vatanen and Josh Manson available, but it’s likely Ducks GM Bob Murray will give McPhee another player or a draft pick in exchange for Las Vegas not claiming either of them. The Kings left high-salaried Dustin Brown and Marian Gaborik available, but there’s little chance McPhee will take them off the Kings’ books. It’s possible the Kings will lose defenseman Brayden McNabb, who’s young (26), big (6 feet 5) and has one year left at a salary cap hit of $1.7 million.

Share this post


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

I'll defer.  I think he IS a pretty nice guy in general, but there were some definite issues that from all reports was... at least stubbornness in the locker room with BB.  I think RC did an excellent job this year setting clear goals for KB to live up to, using the press, and helping KB get there in spades.  It's actually one of the more outstanding coaching results I've seen from an NHL coach, frankly.  

I don't recall anything about Bieksa in the locker room during BBs tenure. Though I do find it hilarious that Randy consistently points out to Kevin who wears the Norris Trophy pants. Yes, it comes with pants. Don't read into it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering his salary, I'd rather just let Vegas take Vatanen instead of giving them Theodore -- though it would be so kind of them to take the Stoner contract.

I don't know ... hate the thought of losing Theodore but still seems like Vegas could get more out of the Ducks here especially if they're taking on Stoner.

Share this post


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

Considering his salary, I'd rather just let Vegas take Vatanen instead of giving them Theodore -- though it would be so kind of them to take the Stoner contract.

I don't know ... hate the thought of losing Theodore but still seems like Vegas could get more out of the Ducks here especially if they're taking on Stoner.

That would be a pretty amazing deal. Theodore might become pretty good but at this moment in time he's a 5th or 6th D man in Anaheim. Losing him is not the end of the world. Especially not if they take Stoner with Theo. That saves us $4 mil.

Share this post


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

IF the Ducks send Theodore to VGK....Our team must be compesnate with a Pick and Player in Return.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Moose, we send them Theo so Vegas doesn't touch Manson or Vatanen. According to the rumors floating around they're gonna take Stoner with him. The only pick we're gonna get back is a toothpick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow--he couldn't get through a game near the end of this past season without getting pain shots.  He flew people in to help get rid of pain.  Even did acupuncture.  We have a warrior here, in Kesler, on our team.  Hoping a speedy recovery: https://www.nhl.com/news/ryan-kesler-of-anaheim-ducks-says-recovery-from-surgery-could-be-4-5-months/c-290026632

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...