Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

I'm all for trading Manson since I think he's a far less useful player than Shattenkirk and will fetch a better price on the market, but I also don't have any problem sticking Manson (or Shattenkirk) on the third pairing if you've got Drysdale playing the right side on pairing 1 or 2.  If you save money on your top pairing by putting Drysdale there, you can spend it on the third pairing.

I think the biggest problem with Manson (or Fowler, if you prefer) is that those two don't seem to mesh well together.  On paper, you've got a great fit - the smooth skating PMD who lacks strength with the big, strong, positionally sound guy.  But for whatever reason, they just don't work well together, possibly because Manson, while strong, isn't as positionally sound as you'd like him to be (Lindholm is a master at that, which has covered up some of Manson's faults in this regard). It might also be because Fowler is just a weird fit for a lot of guys.  If you don't play Manson with Fowler, that leaves you playing Shattenkirk or Drysdale with Fowler.  In time and assuming an increase in strength, I think a Drysdale-Fowler pairing could work, but I also don't think it's as optimal as Lindholm-Drysdale.  And I think Shattenkirk-Fowler would struggle against most teams.

So I don't know what you do.  But I do think Drysdale should move back to the right side sooner rather than later.

I'm beginning to think the issue with Manson these past few seasons has been this belief that he's a stay-at-home defender...he's so physical and stands up for teammates I am definitely guilty of feeling that way, too....but I think he's  not. I think he's much more offensive-minded than people think and we need to stop playing him as the big-tough guy to balance out the other side. I think that's why he and Lindholm worked so well. And why he doesn't work with Fowler.

I wonder if Yawney understood that and really knew how to work with Manson. And now everyone is telling him to be someone he isn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm beginning to think the issue with Manson these past few seasons has been this belief that he's a stay-at-home defender...he's so physical and stands up for teammates I am definitely guilty of feeling that way, too....but I think he's  not. I think he's much more offensive-minded than people think and we need to stop playing him as the big-tough guy to balance out the other side. I think that's why he and Lindholm worked so well. And why he doesn't work with Fowler.

I wonder if Yawney understood that and really knew how to work with Manson. And now everyone is telling him to be someone he isn't.

I completely agree and was about to post the same thing. Manson is thought of as this stay at home guy because he hits, but in reality I think he wants to join the rush as much as, or even more, than Fowler. That means you have 2 guys wanting to skate the puck up but nobody really staying back and covering positionally.

Gudbranson really was such a good fit for Fowler, and he has been pretty decent in Ottawa on a bad team. I wish we had kept him instead of going after Shattenkirk (though I do remember some reports that Gudbranson wanted to go back east so maybe he requested a trade).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Gudbranson was a decent fit for Fowler, but that's just evidence of the larger point: Fowler can't seem to play with a partner who's any good.  Gudbranson has a negative relative Corsi on Ottawa despite even Offensive/Defensive zone starts.  And he brings nothing on offense.  I agree Manson isn't a good fit for him, but then who is Manson a good fit for, besides Lindholm (who is a good fit for everyone)?  If the Ducks had an up-and-coming left side defensive defenseman, Manson could play on the third pairing with that guy.  How much would the Ducks like to have Marcus Pettersson back?

Fowler plays a bit of an unpredictable game in his own end, so he tends to be better with a partner who is positionally sound. Don't forget he was named to the All Star team when he was paired with Vatanen, who for all his physical limitations is still very good positionally on the ice. Guddy is a black hole of offense, but he is also positionally sound and I thought he and Fowler were a great compliment to one another. I think Hakanpaa (also a bit of a black hole offensively) has been decent positionally while still figuring out the North American ice. Despres was also positionally sound and Fowler-Despres was a solid pairing for that 2015 run. But Manson, for all his aggression and physicality as a D-man, is not positionally sound. They're a terrible fit for each other and get beat often when they're on the ice together. I never want to see 4-42 together again. 

Curious, if the LHD-RHD is not that big of a deal to the organization, I wonder why they haven't given 4-47 an honest look. It seems like they could have solved a lot of problems if they'd just taught Lindholm to play on his off side, no? The two highest paid D-men and they almost NEVER play together, even in the biggest of big situations. I feel like they've really missed an opportunity there trying to keep those guys separated on different pairs.

Share this post


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

I'm all for trading Manson since I think he's a far less useful player than Shattenkirk and will fetch a better price on the market, but I also don't have any problem sticking Manson (or Shattenkirk) on the third pairing if you've got Drysdale playing the right side on pairing 1 or 2.  If you save money on your top pairing by putting Drysdale there, you can spend it on the third pairing.

I think the biggest problem with Manson (or Fowler, if you prefer) is that those two don't seem to mesh well together.  On paper, you've got a great fit - the smooth skating PMD who lacks strength with the big, strong, positionally sound guy.  But for whatever reason, they just don't work well together, possibly because Manson, while strong, isn't as positionally sound as you'd like him to be (Lindholm is a master at that, which has covered up some of Manson's faults in this regard). It might also be because Fowler is just a weird fit for a lot of guys.  If you don't play Manson with Fowler, that leaves you playing Shattenkirk or Drysdale with Fowler.  In time and assuming an increase in strength, I think a Drysdale-Fowler pairing could work, but I also don't think it's as optimal as Lindholm-Drysdale.  And I think Shattenkirk-Fowler would struggle against most teams.

So I don't know what you do.  But I do think Drysdale should move back to the right side sooner rather than later.

Hak and Fowler are better fits than any of the ones you mentioned, given the rest of the potential roster.  Drys and Manson haven't been bad - their offense seems to feed off each other rather than cancel out (like Manson and Fowler).  Shatt has been put in a position to be as inflated a point earner as this team can muster, and it's all about setting him up as desirable trade bait for Seattle (in my opinion).  But if Manson and Drys are together, who does Linds get?  I don't see a better pair for Drys than Manson, not based on the play this season.

I can understand wanting an upgrade from Hak for a pair with Cam.  Gbud seemed like the best we've been able to manage, but we aren't going to deal for him before the ED (or before we ink an ED bypass deal with Seattle).

We aren't going to lose Drys, and we will protect both Linds and Cam.  We aren't going to protect Hak, Larsson, Hutton, and I doubt the Shatt has Seattle on his no trade list, so we can protect Manson or Mahura, and Hak, Larsson, and Hutton all qualify to be exposed D men I think.  

What's the package we can offer Seattle not to take Manson or Mahura, whoever we have to expose?  We'd love to give them both Larsson and the Shatt... the Shatt has barely made himself worth taking on as a cap suck (they'll need it), but Larsson has pretty much Dehydrated Donkey Dung the bed.  I think at this point, they'd want Hak over Hutton or Larsson, and maybe "future considerations" or some pick somewhere.  That might be enough... though if I were Seattle, I'd probably take either of Manson or Mahura over these choices.  Hak shows a lot of promise, but he's right on the edge of being a deal when combined with the Shatt (and I haven't considered handedness).  

If Seattle would take one of our forwards with the Shatt and Larsson, or maybe just out and out take Hank and the Shatt to leave the rest of the team alone, that would be pretty cool, but expensive, and Hank is showing himself to be worth something.  I'd hate to lose him, but MaxJ and the Shatt to leave us alone?  Would they consider Steele and the Shatt, or would that require the addition of a Hak, Larsson, or Hutton?  I don't think Seattle wants a ton of players in a trade, unless they can re-gift for picks.  Of course, they could bury most of these Ducks B players in the AHL.

If we trade Manson before the TD (would BM ever do that?), then we're set regardless.  I wouldn't trade Cam or Linds unless Marner was coming to us.  Hank, Silf, and Getz present a conundrum.  Is Getz retiring?  Do we want to move forward with Hank or Silf?  Can we get anything for them going into the TD that'd help solidify and/or shorten the rebuild?  Probably nothing more than picks and cap space, and we'd want 2022 pics I think.  Is BM going to take a chance, or will he apply his traditionally conservative approach?

I'd love for our D to end up Fowler-Gbud, Manson-Drys, Linds-someone good.  I'd be willing to try out Linds and Hak.  But, that'd only work if we thought Linds and Manson would make it through a season without significant injury... and that seems like a fantasy at this point.  Maybe we end up trading Manson and with Fowler-Gbud, Linds-Drys, Hak-Mahura, with Drys, Hak, and Mahura cycling through Linds periodically.  If we can't get Gbud (or if that doesn't make sense for other reasons), then maybe Cam gets Hak again and Hutton gets into the cycle (or some other new lower 4 D).

Edited by Fisix

Share this post


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

I'm a pretty big supporter of lowering the amount of import organizations give to LHD-RHD, so I'm all for trying Lindholm - Fowler.  Or Fowler - Lindholm.  But it's such an obvious construct that I have to think the team has a good reason not to try it.

i think every time we've tried it (BB? RC?), the next shift without both Cam and Linds on the ice ended up being something like Manson and Bieksa or Manson and Gbud or some other Frankenstein's monster and we got scored on immediately.  We've just never had a good second pairing if we pair Cam and Linds, and to top it off, I don't think they've ever looked that great on the ice together.  Bad chemistry, orthogonal intuitions, something.  Linds can play like a Doughty and pretty much captain the D effort on the ice, even with Dehydrated Donkey Dungty linemates, except for with Cam.  i haven't been able to figure it out, and part of the reason is that it happens so rarely.

If Drys turns out like he looks, maybe we finally end up with a good second pairing and we can figure out why Cam and Linds don't mesh.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that subscribe to The Athletic, Eric Stephens has a new article that evaluates all the moves Murray has made at the trade deadline throughout his tenure as GM. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If we trade Manson before the TD (would BM ever do that?), then we're set regardless.  I wouldn't trade Cam or Linds unless Marner was coming to us.

the rumor is the price for Manson is a prospect and 1st rounder. But I think if we don't trade him, he gets protected. And Seattle will have their pick with Larsson Mahura Shatt Steel Heinen....or, probably more likely, Bob tries to get a deal out to get Rico to Seattle.

I will say this....and I don't actually mean it, but I want to say it any way haha -- if we let Larsson go....and he just turns into the next Theodore....i don't want anyone here complaining about Bob letting him go lol (i mean, not really, we're all allowed to complain if we want to!)

The guy hasn't looked great...but he's only 23...and if at 25 nick ritchie can have 20 pts in 37 games...Larsson could still turn into a stud.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

the rumor is the price for Manson is a prospect and 1st rounder. But I think if we don't trade him, he gets protected. And Seattle will have their pick with Larsson Mahura Shatt Steel Heinen....or, probably more likely, Bob tries to get a deal out to get Rico to Seattle.

I will say this....and I don't actually mean it, but I want to say it any way haha -- if we let Larsson go....and he just turns into the next Theodore....i don't want anyone here complaining about Bob letting him go lol (i mean, not really, we're all allowed to complain if we want to!)

The guy hasn't looked great...but he's only 23...and if at 25 nick ritchie can have 20 pts in 37 games...Larsson could still turn into a stud.

Yeah, he's getting protected if he's not traded but the return the Ducks would get in a possible future trade would be reduced if Murray holds onto him after Monday. Same goes with Rakell. The Ducks should get a little more for Manson than what LA got for Muzzin (a 1st, d-prospect and Carl Grundstrom). Rakell better get you at least a first rounder and a very good prospect.

You'd think that with all the trade smoke around Rakell and Manson that there will be fire with at least one of them. Then again....Bob Murray.

Edit: Buffalo traded montour to Florida for a 3rd rounder.

Murray got a 1st and Guhle for him so there’s a win for Bob...even though he didn’t take Kaliyev with the pick!!

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

Share this post


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

Yeah, he's getting protected if he's not traded but the return the Ducks would get in a possible future trade would be reduced if Murray holds onto him after Monday. Same goes with Rakell. The Ducks should get a little more for Manson than what LA got for Muzzin (a 1st, d-prospect and Carl Grundstrom). Rakell better get you at least a first rounder and a very good prospect.

You'd think that with all the trade smoke around Rakell and Manson that there will be fire with at least one of them. Then again....Bob Murray.

Edit: Buffalo traded montour to Florida for a 3rd rounder.

Murray got a 1st and Guhle for him so there’s a win for Bob...even though he didn’t take Kaliyev with the pick!!

Why? Muzzin was traded during a normal season, with a cap that jumped $2M the following season, and with no looming expansion draft. You can’t compare what happened in a normal season to what is expected this season.

Share this post


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

Why? Muzzin was traded during a normal season, with a cap that jumped $2M the following season, and with no looming expansion draft. You can’t compare what happened in a normal season to what is expected this season.

You might be right and if the Ducks get a first and a solid prospect for Manson then I’d be happy with it given the circumstances. I heard that Savard was getting a first for Columbus from Tampa. Manson is a year younger and has an additional year of term that would put him in the Muzzin price range and closer to what the Ducks were asking for imo. Still waiting to see whether that trade went through and what the return is.

 

Share this post


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

You'd think that with all the trade smoke around Rakell and Manson that there will be fire with at least one of them. Then again....Bob Murray.

I also hope for something very good for them in return, too. But, I think Bob not pulling the trigger on something less is a good thing. I don't want him to just trade htem away for *something*...keep 'em if you aren't getting what you want. Bob walked out of the Erik Karlsson deal 'cause it was too much...ottawa was asking for a 1st rounder...that 1st rounder would have been for 2019 but probably protected, so we would have gotten Zegras....but then it wouldn't have protected for the 2020 pick...where we got Drysdale. With our 2020 pick ottawa still takes Sanderson...but we no longer have Drysdale...New Jersey would have Drysdale...and we'd be stuck with Erik Karlsson who doesn't want to play for us 'cause we're not a contender...well...more like Erik Karlsson wouldn't have re-signed lol....probably woudl have signed with the Sharks...a Sharks team that now would have had Tim Stutzle.

So, Bob knows when to step out. Is all I'm trying to say lol and we should be thankful for that

Share this post


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

I also hope for something very good for them in return, too. But, I think Bob not pulling the trigger on something less is a good thing. I don't want him to just trade htem away for *something*...keep 'em if you aren't getting what you want. Bob walked out of the Erik Karlsson deal 'cause it was too much...ottawa was asking for a 1st rounder...that 1st rounder would have been for 2019 but probably protected, so we would have gotten Zegras....but then it wouldn't have protected for the 2020 pick...where we got Drysdale. With our 2020 pick ottawa still takes Sanderson...but we no longer have Drysdale...New Jersey would have Drysdale...and we'd be stuck with Erik Karlsson who doesn't want to play for us 'cause we're not a contender...well...more like Erik Karlsson wouldn't have re-signed lol....probably woudl have signed with the Sharks...a Sharks team that now would have had Tim Stutzle.

So, Bob knows when to step out. Is all I'm trying to say lol and we should be thankful for that

Or he got lucky...it’s funny how things turn out. We praise him for this but we blow him up for Wild Bill. Any trade can pan out one way or the other or for both side. It’s a crap shoot.

 

For the record I am not saying you are one that does this, just stating as a general argument. You might be but I don’t keep notes on everyone like some people lol

Edited by ike-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ike-1 said:

Or he got lucky...it’s funny how things turn out. We praise him for this but we blow him up for Wild Bill. Any trade can pan out one way or the other or for both side. It’s a crap shoot.

 

For the record I am not saying you are one that does this, just stating as a general argument. You might be but I don’t keep notes on everyone like some people lol

haha well, I think I defend Bob more often than not and more often than most on here....Wild Bill is actually one of the ones I don't defend him on lol i don't 'cause at the time it seemed like an obvious mistake. I remember that very well. If it turned out great then I would back down and say I was wrong...like if Wiz scored an OT winner in Game 7 of the WCF or something...instead of....not playing a game in the playoffs lol but i'll defend bob on things like Theo, NTCs, etc...more so than most. I also wont defend him on the hiring of these coaches. And why the assistants at least are still hired....if it all turns out well and Eakins with these assistants gets us a cup...I'd HAPPILY admit I was wrong. Or if they even get us to be competitive in the playoffs.

I also wont defend him on not taking Kaliyev...but the jury is still out...and I'd happily be wrong!

Share this post


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

I also hope for something very good for them in return, too. But, I think Bob not pulling the trigger on something less is a good thing. I don't want him to just trade htem away for *something*...keep 'em if you aren't getting what you want. Bob walked out of the Erik Karlsson deal 'cause it was too much...ottawa was asking for a 1st rounder...that 1st rounder would have been for 2019 but probably protected, so we would have gotten Zegras....but then it wouldn't have protected for the 2020 pick...where we got Drysdale. With our 2020 pick ottawa still takes Sanderson...but we no longer have Drysdale...New Jersey would have Drysdale...and we'd be stuck with Erik Karlsson who doesn't want to play for us 'cause we're not a contender...well...more like Erik Karlsson wouldn't have re-signed lol....probably woudl have signed with the Sharks...a Sharks team that now would have had Tim Stutzle.

So, Bob knows when to step out. Is all I'm trying to say lol and we should be thankful for that

I don't think it's just make a trade for something more than he's probably going to get more value if he trades Manson/Rakell by the deadline than he would in the offseason. That's the dilemma. I wish I could bet the farm on Murray making a major deadline move but I fear he'll stay relatively quiet. If he doesn't do anything then I really hope it's because a new GM is coming in the offseason to make those decisions (one can dream!).

I don't know how close Murray was to getting Karlsson but I just couldn't see a scenario where he'd give up the assets (Tierney DeMelo, Norris, Balcers, a 1st, and two seconds) and then sign him to an $11.5 mil per year contract. Not to mention that SJ was clearly a better team than the Ducks were at that point so I think you're right that Karlsson would not have re-signed. It had disaster written all over it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

haha well, I think I defend Bob more often than not and more often than most on here....Wild Bill is actually one of the ones I don't defend him on lol i don't 'cause at the time it seemed like an obvious mistake. I remember that very well. If it turned out great then I would back down and say I was wrong...like if Wiz scored an OT winner in Game 7 of the WCF or something...instead of....not playing a game in the playoffs lol but i'll defend bob on things like Theo, NTCs, etc...more so than most. I also wont defend him on the hiring of these coaches. And why the assistants at least are still hired....if it all turns out well and Eakins with these assistants gets us a cup...I'd HAPPILY admit I was wrong. Or if they even get us to be competitive in the playoffs.

I also wont defend him on not taking Kaliyev...but the jury is still out...and I'd happily be wrong!

Thank you Mrs Murray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ChopSuey said:

Thank you Mrs Murray.

hows that "link" coming where it proves we have more NMC/NTCs than any other team in the league?? remember when you "checked"??

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I don't think it's just make a trade for something more than he's probably going to get more value if he trades Manson/Rakell by the deadline than he would in the offseason. That's the dilemma. I wish I could bet the farm on Murray making a major deadline move but I fear he'll stay relatively quiet. If he doesn't do anything then I really hope it's because a new GM is coming in the offseason to make those decisions (one can dream!).

I don't know how close Murray was to getting Karlsson but I just couldn't see a scenario where he'd give up the assets (Tierney DeMelo, Norris, Balcers, a 1st, and two seconds) and then sign him to an $11.5 mil per year contract. Not to mention that SJ was clearly a better team than the Ducks were at that point so I think you're right that Karlsson would not have re-signed. It had disaster written all over it. 

Oh yeah, I think it's for sure he's not making a giant splash at the deadline. I just don't see it...but I see your point of if we are going to trade them anyway....we gain more by doing it sooner than later. Although, after the ED could be a different story. It might be harder to trade someone like Rakell/Manson before the ED since teams know we're trying to get out of a protection spot.

Yeah, Bob actually said something like "it seemed like a waste to get a rental like Karlsson due to where the team was in their retooling" or something like that. But yeah, also not sure how close he actually was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:

You might be right and if the Ducks get a first and a solid prospect for Manson then I’d be happy with it given the circumstances. I heard that Savard was getting a first for Columbus from Tampa. Manson is a year younger and has an additional year of term that would put him in the Muzzin price range and closer to what the Ducks were asking for imo. Still waiting to see whether that trade went through and what the return is.

 

Neither Savard nor Muzzin had any trade protections in their contracts, unlike Manson who has a 12-team no trade list, so there are fewer buyers to bid against each other for Manson to start with. I also think the extra year of term on Manson’s contract complicates matters more than it incentivizes a team to get him. Too many contending teams will either be up against the cap next season and will need space to sign their own RFAs (like Toronto with Zach Hyman) or they won’t want to re-shuffle their expansion draft protection plans for a guy they aren’t sure will fit with their group (ala Wiz in 2015). So I think his extra year actually shrinks the list of buyers even more.

From a human perspective, I also hope we don’t trade him in the next two days. If we’re going to trade him, do him a solid and make the trade this summer. Manson has an 11-month-old baby and I can’t imagine having to move my young family or be away from them for months during the pandemic. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if Manson would just squash all the trade rumors by having his agent get the word out that he may opt out of any playoff bubble like Hamonic did. 

Share this post


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

Neither Savard nor Muzzin had any trade protections in their contracts, unlike Manson who has a 12-team no trade list, so there are fewer buyers to bid against each other for Manson to start with. I also think the extra year of term on Manson’s contract complicates matters more than it incentivizes a team to get him. Too many contending teams will either be up against the cap next season and will need space to sign their own RFAs (like Toronto with Zach Hyman) or they won’t want to re-shuffle their expansion draft protection plans for a guy they aren’t sure will fit with their group (ala Wiz in 2015). So I think his extra year actually shrinks the list of buyers even more.

From a human perspective, I also hope we don’t trade him in the next two days. If we’re going to trade him, do him a solid and make the trade this summer. Manson has an 11-month-old baby and I can’t imagine having to move my young family or be away from them for months during the pandemic. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if Manson would just squash all the trade rumors by having his agent get the word out that he may opt out of any playoff bubble like Hamonic did. 

Manson is UFA after next season. Same applies for Rakell and Lindholm. What do we do? Either lose them thru UFA for nothing, or resign them, or trade them. The team is bad. Resigning the same players who failed to make playoffs for 3 years in a row is not how you improve this team. Losing them for nothing is even worse. So, as much as it may hurt the feelings of some dedicated Ducks fans, trade for younger prospects/high picks is the only option. I understand this trio is not the worse players on the roster, I would rather see Ducks get rid of Fowler, Steel, Larsson or Terry, but it is what it is. Sometimes the management have to make a hard decision.

Edited by FanSince1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FanSince1993 said:

Resigning the same players who failed to make playoffs for 3 years in a row is not how you improve this team.

Signing the ones that are either highlights (Lindholm) or possibly coming back out of a funk (Rakell) is exactly how you rebuild a team.  

I have never heard of a rebuild that didn't keep some core pieces from the past, especially if they are affordable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FanSince1993 said:

Manson is UFA after next season. Same applies for Rakell and Lindholm. What do we do? Either lose them thru UFA for nothing, or resign them, or trade them. The team is bad. Resigning the same players who failed to make playoffs for 3 years in a row is not how you improve this team. Losing them for nothing is even worse. So, as much as it may hurt the feelings of some dedicated Ducks fans, trade for younger prospects/high picks is the only option. I understand this trio is not the worse players on the roster, I would rather see Ducks get rid of Fowler, Steel, Larsson or Terry, but it is what it is. Sometimes the management have to make a hard decision.

Since they’re UFAs after next season, why not wait until summer to make moves? If you wait, the return may be slightly less (though I think that’s arguable with the current flat cap + ED + pandemic circumstances), but it also allows GMBM to make trades with more teams (not just current playoff teams) and to have a better sense of the overall path forward after the ED, the entry draft, and after talking to UFAs who might be interested in signing here (including Getzlaf). More players are available for “hockey trades” during the summer too, since no playoff teams want to move a decent roster player out during a playoff run. IMO, if you’re a non-playoff team, the TDL should be primarily for moving expiring contracts for picks and gathering assets by taking on cap from teams that need to clear space for trades. It’s not a time to re-shape your team for the next season. Wait until summer for that.

Share this post


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

Since they’re UFAs after next season, why not wait until summer to make moves? If you wait, the return may be slightly less (though I think that’s arguable with the current flat cap + ED + pandemic circumstances), but it also allows GMBM to make trades with more teams (not just current playoff teams) and to have a better sense of the overall path forward after the ED, the entry draft, and after talking to UFAs who might be interested in signing here (including Getzlaf). More players are available for “hockey trades” during the summer too, since no playoff teams want to move a decent roster player out during a playoff run. IMO, if you’re a non-playoff team, the TDL should be primarily for moving expiring contracts for picks and gathering assets by taking on cap from teams that need to clear space for trades. It’s not a time to re-shape your team for the next season. Wait until summer for that.

There is the counter argument that you can also get rid of players you'd otherwise protect in exchange for picks or prospects that don't need protection.  You could then use those picks over the summer to pick up pieces post ED.

If we trade both Manson and Rakell, for instance, and receive back nothing that needs protection (picks and youngsters), that leaves the ED protection list as a pretty easy task.  Then you sign UFAs and/or trade with the assets you got for Manson and Rakell from teams under duress.  We have the upper hand now, and can fill the pantry.

Share this post


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

There is the counter argument that you can also get rid of players you'd otherwise protect in exchange for picks or prospects that don't need protection.  You could then use those picks over the summer to pick up pieces post ED.

If we trade both Manson and Rakell, for instance, and receive back nothing that needs protection (picks and youngsters), that leaves the ED protection list as a pretty easy task.  Then you sign UFAs and/or trade with the assets you got for Manson and Rakell from teams under duress.  We have the upper hand now, and can fill the pantry.

The counter to THAT would be...GMs know that...they know that by trading like that now they're helping us in our list for protection for the ED while hurting their list (specifically with players like Manson and Rakell that would basically HAVE to be protected...) or they don't protect them and use these players as Seattle bait...but then the fact that they have that extra year doesn't really add any advantage or value.

I think because of all this (and more!)...we wont see many moves today/tomorrow...and not really till after the ED. An ED where we either make a deal...or we expose players like Shatt, Larsson, Mahura, Steel, Heinen...in favor of protecting Manson and Rakell.

Share this post


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

The counter to THAT would be...GMs know that...they know that by trading like that now they're helping us in our list for protection for the ED while hurting their list (specifically with players like Manson and Rakell that would basically HAVE to be protected...) or they don't protect them and use these players as Seattle bait...but then the fact that they have that extra year doesn't really add any advantage or value.

I think because of all this (and more!)...we wont see many moves today/tomorrow...and not really till after the ED. An ED where we either make a deal...or we expose players like Shatt, Larsson, Mahura, Steel, Heinen...in favor of protecting Manson and Rakell.

I'm not sure GMs are as worried about helping a garbage team through the ED as much as they are worried about winning NOW.  That's why we have the upper hand and need to use it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Neither Savard nor Muzzin had any trade protections in their contracts, unlike Manson who has a 12-team no trade list, so there are fewer buyers to bid against each other for Manson to start with. I also think the extra year of term on Manson’s contract complicates matters more than it incentivizes a team to get him. Too many contending teams will either be up against the cap next season and will need space to sign their own RFAs (like Toronto with Zach Hyman) or they won’t want to re-shuffle their expansion draft protection plans for a guy they aren’t sure will fit with their group (ala Wiz in 2015). So I think his extra year actually shrinks the list of buyers even more.

From a human perspective, I also hope we don’t trade him in the next two days. If we’re going to trade him, do him a solid and make the trade this summer. Manson has an 11-month-old baby and I can’t imagine having to move my young family or be away from them for months during the pandemic. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if Manson would just squash all the trade rumors by having his agent get the word out that he may opt out of any playoff bubble like Hamonic did. 

Yeah, I agree with what you said about this season being complicated for those reasons and Manson would be the hardest piece to move. There haven't been any trades made involving guys with term yet. So, maybe there ultimately won't be a deal to made with by Monday and that they will have to wait until the offseason.

4 hours ago, gotchabari said:

Signing the ones that are either highlights (Lindholm) or possibly coming back out of a funk (Rakell) is exactly how you rebuild a team.  

I have never heard of a rebuild that didn't keep some core pieces from the past, especially if they are affordable.

The Ducks still have Silf, Rico (who they could have traded rather than extended) and Fowler. Manson, Lindholm and Rakell aren't going to be nearly as affordable after next season though (assuming they even want to stay in Anaheim and want to be a part of a rebuild after three really bad seasons). It's not like any of them are in their early 20's either, they'd be signed through their mid to late 30's. You don't move off of everyone but I don't know how or why you'd keep most of this group together. Who would you move?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...