Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sexlaf15 said:

We have nothing but time to give Milano. What good does moving him at his lowest value for nothing do? Give him opportunities, put him in situations to succeed. We’re going nowhere fast.

why spend more time on him when we can use that time to evaluate a different player that might be durable enough to evaluate on consistent skill level and ability?  if there's anything that's fairly consistent with this team, we tend to hang on to personnel longer than we should instead of playing the field a bit more.

how long did we hang on to Kase?  he's played 2 games for Boston this season, and 6 last season.  sure, he played more games for us, but he was always fragile.  he had basically one decent season (if we're measuring against forwards from competitive teams). 

same with Nick Ritchie (I'm focused on Boston for some reason) - he's doing 1/2 a point per game average (half his points came on power play, interesting), but he's -10, and his ratio of PIM:games is above 1:2.  I guess that's sort of interesting - NR's PIM:games this season is his best ever, by a fair margin.  LOL he played 7 games last season with Boston and had 19 PIM.

don't get me started on Despres.

anyway, you get the gist.  we have a tradition of holding on that hasn't really helped us in the long term.  we've dropped a few players we didn't have to that stings now, but relatively few compared to how many we've delayed action on for far too long.

Share this post


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

why spend more time on him when we can use that time to evaluate a different player that might be durable enough to evaluate on consistent skill level and ability?  if there's anything that's fairly consistent with this team, we tend to hang on to personnel longer than we should instead of playing the field a bit more.

how long did we hang on to Kase?  he's played 2 games for Boston this season, and 6 last season.  sure, he played more games for us, but he was always fragile.  he had basically one decent season (if we're measuring against forwards from competitive teams). 

same with Nick Ritchie (I'm focused on Boston for some reason) - he's doing 1/2 a point per game average (half his points came on power play, interesting), but he's -10, and his ratio of PIM:games is above 1:2.  I guess that's sort of interesting - NR's PIM:games this season is his best ever, by a fair margin.  LOL he played 7 games last season with Boston and had 19 PIM.

don't get me started on Despres.

anyway, you get the gist.  we have a tradition of holding on that hasn't really helped us in the long term.  we've dropped a few players we didn't have to that stings now, but relatively few compared to how many we've delayed action on for far too long.

Lol what other player? Who in the system is Milano taking time from? Guys like Grant, Deslaurier, Rowney are far more harmful. Milano is far more valuable to this team than whatever 6th round pick he’d fetch in a trade.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think part of the reason he got such a haul was that the Caps wanted rid of Panik's contract, so they had to give up even more in order to make Panik part of that deal.

Ducks don't have the cap space to weaponize it like that.

That's what sucks to be honest. Watching teams get picks for space was depressing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sexlaf15 said:

Lol what other player? Who in the system is Milano taking time from? Guys like Grant, Deslaurier, Rowney are far more harmful. Milano is far more valuable to this team than whatever 6th round pick he’d fetch in a trade.  

he's taking a roster spot or cash or mindspace from some other player who doesn't get taken out of 2/3rds+ of a shortened season. 

under what metric is he more valuable to this team?  for us, he doesn't have any value we can rely on, just ongoing "potential" that's just as ethereal as a 6th round pick.  we could have cycled 2-3 additional players through the Show since we've hung on to him.

the sad thing is that if his issues are concussion related, we must be running him through the same doctor who handled Despres, with similar results.

Share this post


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

he's taking a roster spot or cash or mindspace from some other player who doesn't get taken out of 2/3rds+ of a shortened season. 

under what metric is he more valuable to this team?  for us, he doesn't have any value we can rely on, just ongoing "potential" that's just as ethereal as a 6th round pick.  we could have cycled 2-3 additional players through the Show since we've hung on to him.

the sad thing is that if his issues are concussion related, we must be running him through the same doctor who handled Despres, with similar results.

Who though. Who are we putting in his spot. And what difference does it make if he’s on IR and those guys are getting chances anyway. He’s valuable as a young skater who’s shown he can play at a high level when on the ice. You let him get fully healthy. This team isn’t going anywhere and we don’t have any prospects who are deserving of a shot that his being dressed in holds back. He’s not Hutton, Larsson, Hakanpaa getting ice time over Mahura. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, g20topdogg said:

That's what sucks to be honest. Watching teams get picks for space was depressing. 

It was teams doing things to better their long term futures with a clear rebuilding plan that made me sad while I still don’t know what the Ducks are doing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021 at 10:12 AM, Jasoaks said:

I wouldn't be surprised if it's less of a desire to chase the cup and more of a way to just help Bob get something

Nice to see that this was basically what it was for Getz. He spoke a little bit about it in the Athletic today...didn't go into any details though. Just saying he only would waive if it was gonna give the Ducks something significant. Classy guy! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sexlaf15 said:

Who though. Who are we putting in his spot. And what difference does it make if he’s on IR and those guys are getting chances anyway. He’s valuable as a young skater who’s shown he can play at a high level when on the ice. You let him get fully healthy. This team isn’t going anywhere and we don’t have any prospects who are deserving of a shot that his being dressed in holds back. He’s not Hutton, Larsson, Hakanpaa getting ice time over Mahura. 

someone, anyone we'd get by moving him out.

coaches, team staff, whoever manages the players, they only have enough focus to support a certain number of players on the team, and even when a player is on IR, he's a bit of a resource vampire if he's working to get back in the lineup.  many times it's worth the resource drain, but we have a solid pattern here.  we could move on and test out any number of players during the time he's been sidelined... and the lost value tied to the probability of finding an alternative diamond in the rough goes up every day he sits on IR, and it looks worse and worse the less durable he turns out to be.

there's a black art to predicting where a player will end up, and no-one is great at it.  but, the way this team runs, i think we'd get a better return on available resources if we churned on less durable players more.  we do not seem to have the training staff on hand to help fragile players protect themselves better on the ice.  we went a really long time with naturally super duper durable players all over the F and D lines, and we've totally sucked at it for half a decade? now.

Share this post


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

someone, anyone we'd get by moving him out.

coaches, team staff, whoever manages the players, they only have enough focus to support a certain number of players on the team, and even when a player is on IR, he's a bit of a resource vampire if he's working to get back in the lineup.  many times it's worth the resource drain, but we have a solid pattern here.  we could move on and test out any number of players during the time he's been sidelined... and the lost value tied to the probability of finding an alternative diamond in the rough goes up every day he sits on IR, and it looks worse and worse the less durable he turns out to be.

there's a black art to predicting where a player will end up, and no-one is great at it.  but, the way this team runs, i think we'd get a better return on available resources if we churned on less durable players more.  we do not seem to have the training staff on hand to help fragile players protect themselves better on the ice.  we went a really long time with naturally super duper durable players all over the F and D lines, and we've totally sucked at it for half a decade? now.

No one is going to trade someone for Milano. You’re approaching this just like Murray which has lead us to have zero talent on the roster. Milano could probably be nothing, but dumping him off for peanuts because ?? Reasons? When he’s on the ice, he was good. He struggled with some injuries this year. This team has more than enough time to let guys show them what they’re made of. We’re easily 3-5 years away from playing meaningful hockey and that’s being generous. Dumping guys off at their lowest value is bad asset management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sexlaf15 said:

No one is going to trade someone for Milano. You’re approaching this just like Murray which has lead us to have zero talent on the roster. Milano could probably be nothing, but dumping him off for peanuts because ?? Reasons? When he’s on the ice, he was good. He struggled with some injuries this year. This team has more than enough time to let guys show them what they’re made of. We’re easily 3-5 years away from playing meaningful hockey and that’s being generous. Dumping guys off at their lowest value is bad asset management.

it is bad asset management if you think the value is going to go up.  if the value doesn't go up, then you're wasting resources keeping him around.

here's a different way to think about it: remember the first couple of times we saw Z and Drys play on the NHL team?  while it's not obvious how good they're going to be long term, they've both taken some hits and bounced back up, and they both look extremely good.  Milano has looked decent, but not nearly as... sound, as a player, as either Z or Drys.  when you experience how easy it is to recognize talented youth (like Z and Drys), you start to wonder why we hang onto these other young players that can't turn the key.  they all have skill enough to have a good night here and there, but consistency is what wins and makes the team successful, and Milano doesn't have that.  why should we spend season after season pushing rope with someone like Milano, so to speak, when we could be testing out some 6th rounder that just hasn't had a chance to show his mettle yet.

who would we have hung on to that would have made this team magically better?  (note - you get 5 forum demerits for every player you bring up that's been discussed ad nauseam on the board.)  Montour is one of the few players I can think of that BM traded pretty much out of spite and without easy, EASY justifications at the time...  

Share this post


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

it is bad asset management if you think the value is going to go up.  if the value doesn't go up, then you're wasting resources keeping him around.

here's a different way to think about it: remember the first couple of times we saw Z and Drys play on the NHL team?  while it's not obvious how good they're going to be long term, they've both taken some hits and bounced back up, and they both look extremely good.  Milano has looked decent, but not nearly as... sound, as a player, as either Z or Drys.  when you experience how easy it is to recognize talented youth (like Z and Drys), you start to wonder why we hang onto these other young players that can't turn the key.  they all have skill enough to have a good night here and there, but consistency is what wins and makes the team successful, and Milano doesn't have that.  why should we spend season after season pushing rope with someone like Milano, so to speak, when we could be testing out some 6th rounder that just hasn't had a chance to show his mettle yet.

who would we have hung on to that would have made this team magically better?  (note - you get 5 forum demerits for every player you bring up that's been discussed ad nauseam on the board.)  Montour is one of the few players I can think of that BM traded pretty much out of spite and without easy, EASY justifications at the time...  

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a fully healthy Milano has more value than an injured one. If he can prove he can stay healthy for more than 5 minutes and is a competent 3rd liner next season then he would have more value at that point than he has now.

Share this post


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

it is bad asset management if you think the value is going to go up.  if the value doesn't go up, then you're wasting resources keeping him around.

here's a different way to think about it: remember the first couple of times we saw Z and Drys play on the NHL team?  while it's not obvious how good they're going to be long term, they've both taken some hits and bounced back up, and they both look extremely good.  Milano has looked decent, but not nearly as... sound, as a player, as either Z or Drys.  when you experience how easy it is to recognize talented youth (like Z and Drys), you start to wonder why we hang onto these other young players that can't turn the key.  they all have skill enough to have a good night here and there, but consistency is what wins and makes the team successful, and Milano doesn't have that.  why should we spend season after season pushing rope with someone like Milano, so to speak, when we could be testing out some 6th rounder that just hasn't had a chance to show his mettle yet.

who would we have hung on to that would have made this team magically better?  (note - you get 5 forum demerits for every player you bring up that's been discussed ad nauseam on the board.)  Montour is one of the few players I can think of that BM traded pretty much out of spite and without easy, EASY justifications at the time...  

Not every player is a blue chip, Top 10 prospect. Some guys need a different voice or a chance. Milano has looked perfectly fine when healthy. 
We’re rebuilding. We have time to give towards these guys. That’s my point. 

Pettersson

Ritchie 

inevitably it seems, Heinen and Mahura

i would understand moving on from guys like Larsson 

Welinski 

when they’re in the line up, they suck. However, when Milano is in the lineup he’s good. That’s the key difference. Is he franchise player? No, but can he score 10-15 goals in your bottom six? Probably. For a team that can’t score, I’m taking that. 

 

 

Share this post


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

it is bad asset management if you think the value is going to go up.  if the value doesn't go up, then you're wasting resources keeping him around.

here's a different way to think about it: remember the first couple of times we saw Z and Drys play on the NHL team?  while it's not obvious how good they're going to be long term, they've both taken some hits and bounced back up, and they both look extremely good.  Milano has looked decent, but not nearly as... sound, as a player, as either Z or Drys.  when you experience how easy it is to recognize talented youth (like Z and Drys), you start to wonder why we hang onto these other young players that can't turn the key.  they all have skill enough to have a good night here and there, but consistency is what wins and makes the team successful, and Milano doesn't have that.  why should we spend season after season pushing rope with someone like Milano, so to speak, when we could be testing out some 6th rounder that just hasn't had a chance to show his mettle yet.

who would we have hung on to that would have made this team magically better?  (note - you get 5 forum demerits for every player you bring up that's been discussed ad nauseam on the board.)  Montour is one of the few players I can think of that BM traded pretty much out of spite and without easy, EASY justifications at the time...  

We're actually doing that right now I think with guys like agozino (sp?), de leo, Carrick,  etc. Milano is a decent player. I forgot about welinski when I saw him in the last game. We also have Guhle, where is he? He's gotta be better than Larsson right? We have too many forwards and too many defensemen. Bob knows there's a team limit? We have Backes sitting in the press box watching games for most of the season. I expect that we're going to see a lot of shuffling of players, especially now with injuries, where we're going to see more gulls brought up to see what they got. This off season should, and hopefully for all our sanity sake, be a major shake up. I'm down for giving anyone a shot at this point. Stolarz has taken this opportunity to show that he might be our backup so guys are still playing for jobs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a fully healthy Milano has more value than an injured one. If he can prove he can stay healthy for more than 5 minutes and is a competent 3rd liner next season then he would have more value at that point than he has now.

Even if healthy, I feel like Milano may be squeezed out at LW on this team. Comtois is clearly ahead of him on the depth chart. I think Jones has improved enough to where he is ahead of him. Then you've got Volkov and Heinen (if both are still here) who are both left-shooting wingers and who appear to play better on LW (IMO). Deslauriers also had another year left, and we know the current coaches and management loves him. And if Rico can't be moved, there's also a good chance that he eventually finds a more permanent home at LW. So where does a healthy Milano even get a chance to play?  Milano will also earn $1.8M next season ($1.7M cap hit), and its very likely Jones, Volkov and Deslauriers will all be significantly cheaper than that, so the Ducks may also have some incentive to move him this summer just to clear some salary.  I'd be ok if he's a Kraken next season, just to give him a legit chance to play before he ages out of opportunities (he turns 25 in May).

Share this post


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

Even if healthy, I feel like Milano may be squeezed out at LW on this team. Comtois is clearly ahead of him on the depth chart. I think Jones has improved enough to where he is ahead of him. Then you've got Volkov and Heinen (if both are still here) who are both left-shooting wingers and who appear to play better on LW (IMO). Deslauriers also had another year left, and we know the current coaches and management loves him. And if Rico can't be moved, there's also a good chance that he eventually finds a more permanent home at LW. So where does a healthy Milano even get a chance to play?  Milano will also earn $1.8M next season ($1.7M cap hit), and its very likely Jones, Volkov and Deslauriers will all be significantly cheaper than that, so the Ducks may also have some incentive to move him this summer just to clear some salary.  I'd be ok if he's a Kraken next season, just to give him a legit chance to play before he ages out of opportunities (he turns 25 in May).

Comtois is our top LW right now. I don't know if I would put Jones ahead of Milano. He has shown some good stuff this year but much like Terry, until he starts actually scoring more at this level I'm unconvinced. I haven't been watching Volkov enough to say he's a better LW but isn't RW his preferred position? Heinen it seems like is on the outer with this team, getting so many consecutive healthy scratches this season.

Deslauries, I don't know. maybe the Ducks should try a campaign to convince Seattle that Deslauries can been their Ryan Reaves. 

Share this post


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

Comtois is our top LW right now. I don't know if I would put Jones ahead of Milano. He has shown some good stuff this year but much like Terry, until he starts actually scoring more at this level I'm unconvinced. I haven't been watching Volkov enough to say he's a better LW but isn't RW his preferred position? Heinen it seems like is on the outer with this team, getting so many consecutive healthy scratches this season.

Deslauries, I don't know. maybe the Ducks should try a campaign to convince Seattle that Deslauries can been their Ryan Reaves. 

Yeah, I think you're right on the bolded. It's mostly Heinen that I think looks more effective on the left side. Volkov has been playing bottom-6 as a RW. That was a sloppy comment by me to bundle those two. What about Rico though? If Getzlaf returns, you'd have to assume Rico slides over to LW if he's still here, no? We'll have Getzlaf-Zegras-Lundestrom-Grant down the middle, so Rico would have to go somewhere, and he's played quite a bit of LW previously.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I think you're right on the bolded. It's mostly Heinen that I think looks more effective on the left side. Volkov has been playing bottom-6 as a RW. That was a sloppy comment by me to bundle those two. What about Rico though? If Getzlaf returns, you'd have to assume Rico slides over to LW if he's still here, no? We'll have Getzlaf-Zegras-Lundestrom-Grant down the middle, so Rico would have to go somewhere, and he's played quite a bit of LW previously.

Not sure, it feels like the team prefers him at center. This season coming in we had Getzlaf, Steel, Lundestrom, Grant and Backes as center options and they still kept Henrique at center. I don't know how they fit everybody in though and I'm guessing Murray will still move on from Henrique in the offseason if he can so that would be one less person to compete with. I don't know, I think I give Milano next season to try and stay healthy and get some consistent scoring. If he still hasn't taken that next step by the next trade deadline then move him. I'm not ready to give up on him yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sexlaf15 said:

Not every player is a blue chip, Top 10 prospect. Some guys need a different voice or a chance. Milano has looked perfectly fine when healthy. 
We’re rebuilding. We have time to give towards these guys. That’s my point. 

Pettersson

Ritchie 

inevitably it seems, Heinen and Mahura

i would understand moving on from guys like Larsson 

Welinski 

when they’re in the line up, they suck. However, when Milano is in the lineup he’s good. That’s the key difference. Is he franchise player? No, but can he score 10-15 goals in your bottom six? Probably. For a team that can’t score, I’m taking that. 

we're not talking about a blue chip or not, we're primarily talking about durable enough to play in the NHL or not, and then secondarily whether even if healthy he's worth waiting for.  Milano has almost proven he's not durable enough, and his impact on the team doesn't appear to be stupendous enough to warrant waiting for him to heal and find out if the one negative trend (durability) and the other largely unknown ability can turn around into an asset for the team.  the opportunity cost of keeping him around is mounting.

Ritchie gets you 5 demerits.  Pettersson wasn't traded because we wanted to move on from him, he was traded because BM wanted a forward, and P's who they'd take.  No one, including BM, wants to move away from Mahura.  Larsson was supposed to be part of a deal with Seattle as well as one of the required D exposures - he's kept his minimal value as ED exposure, but that's about it (and we should move on as soon as we can after the ED).  Who the frak is Welinski ;)

Heinen... we clearly haven't given him a full shot yet, and he seems pretty durable, but he might be most valuable (to the Ducks) going forward as trade sweetener vs. pillar of the team.  if we move on from Heinen without a clear strategy dictating the reasons why, then, admittedly, that'll be disappointing.  that said, while too many like to talk Dehydrated Donkey Dung about Grant and Rowney and FrenchyD, up until this season, those three were the most durable and dependable forwards on the team.  Heinen hasn't shown that same dependability yet, but he gets a bit of a mulligan because we haven't played him enough (even though he's been fairly healthy throughout).

Milano isn't even in the same hemisphere in terms of durability.

Backes is interesting.  There's clearly some kind of agreement between him and the team regarding play... and I think it has to do with him reaching close to the 1000 games (kinda like Kesler), but I don't know what the exchange was, what Backes agreed to do to earn his roster spot on the team for X number of games (hopefully the team has given him his X games).  if we resign him for next season, we'll probably learn more about the agreement.  Anyway, while he's not legitimately in this conversation about player development and moving on, he and Heinen are sort of a two man package, and there's some interesting complexities there.  And, based on his after-game interviews, I think he offers some interesting value to the team as a veteran with a solid and generous mind-set and work ethic (a collection of attributes I find our higher paid veteran core sometimes lacks consistency with).  Is Backes more valuable than Milano?  Well, certainly right now he is.  I also find it difficult to argue that Milano's potential upside (involving gambling on his durability) is greater than what Backes seems to offer in terms of long lasting value related to his influence in the locker room during the rebuild.

Share this post


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

we're not talking about a blue chip or not, we're primarily talking about durable enough to play in the NHL or not, and then secondarily whether even if healthy he's worth waiting for.  Milano has almost proven he's not durable enough, and his impact on the team doesn't appear to be stupendous enough to warrant waiting for him to heal and find out if the one negative trend (durability) and the other largely unknown ability can turn around into an asset for the team.  the opportunity cost of keeping him around is mounting.

Ritchie gets you 5 demerits.  Pettersson wasn't traded because we wanted to move on from him, he was traded because BM wanted a forward, and P's who they'd take.  No one, including BM, wants to move away from Mahura.  Larsson was supposed to be part of a deal with Seattle as well as one of the required D exposures - he's kept his minimal value as ED exposure, but that's about it (and we should move on as soon as we can after the ED).  Who the frak is Welinski ;)

Heinen... we clearly haven't given him a full shot yet, and he seems pretty durable, but he might be most valuable (to the Ducks) going forward as trade sweetener vs. pillar of the team.  if we move on from Heinen without a clear strategy dictating the reasons why, then, admittedly, that'll be disappointing.  that said, while too many like to talk Dehydrated Donkey Dung about Grant and Rowney and FrenchyD, up until this season, those three were the most durable and dependable forwards on the team.  Heinen hasn't shown that same dependability yet, but he gets a bit of a mulligan because we haven't played him enough (even though he's been fairly healthy throughout).

Milano isn't even in the same hemisphere in terms of durability.

Backes is interesting.  There's clearly some kind of agreement between him and the team regarding play... and I think it has to do with him reaching close to the 1000 games (kinda like Kesler), but I don't know what the exchange was, what Backes agreed to do to earn his roster spot on the team for X number of games (hopefully the team has given him his X games).  if we resign him for next season, we'll probably learn more about the agreement.  Anyway, while he's not legitimately in this conversation about player development and moving on, he and Heinen are sort of a two man package, and there's some interesting complexities there.  And, based on his after-game interviews, I think he offers some interesting value to the team as a veteran with a solid and generous mind-set and work ethic (a collection of attributes I find our higher paid veteran core sometimes lacks consistency with).  Is Backes more valuable than Milano?  Well, certainly right now he is.  I also find it difficult to argue that Milano's potential upside (involving gambling on his durability) is greater than what Backes seems to offer in terms of long lasting value related to his influence in the locker room during the rebuild.

We’ve had him for like 1 full season. He’s injured it sucks, but you’d lead this team exactly where BM has. You’re so eager to jettison talented players into the sun for stupid reasons. 
 

Ritchie was one of our best play driving forwards, he had his faults, but it’s not like terrible. 
 

Petterrsson got us a forward that came rim scored goals and then never got another fair shot at playing. Milano and Sprong are similar in that sense.

my point is this team is devoid of talent in the lineup because we’ve historically given up on players way to soon for no reason. You could at least defend that when we were making the WCFs consistently. No forward prospect is better than Milano right now outside of Zegras. 
 

not every player has to be an iron man. He’s young, he’s talented and we’ve got nothing better to do than give him time to get healthy and give it a shot. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The Ducks are in a place where they can afford to wait on Milano and give him his chance, which I agree he deserves.  However, staying healthy is a skill.  I think he's got next season to prove he can do that and then the Ducks will have to move on and try to develop some guys who will stay in the lineup.

i'm just not sure this is true.  it sounds exactly like what BM has done fairly consistently in the past - hang on longer that we should because there's a glimmer of an upside - that's BM's MO. 

Sexlaf15 - Sprong got a fair shot.  NR got 1000 fair shots; his upsides were always diminutive compared to his downsides, and he never turned it around while he was a Duck.  Arguably, he still hasn't turned it around as a Bruin, though at least his penalty minutes are down this season.  

anyway, the forwards BM has actually "moved on" from have almost universally ended up duds wherever they've moved to, save 1 (i'm not mentioning his name because that'd be another 5 demerits).  We've lost some other forwards who were good, like Perron, but the reason why we parted ways is because they either became too expensive or chose to go elsewhere.  you keep saying i'm acting like BM by wanting to move on from Milano... but BM's traditional move is the opposite of that - BM sticking with Milano would be the norm.

i think that mindset needs to change.  BM "gambles" on inexpensive players by holding on to them past their ripe date in hopes that they magically shed their flaws and become that diamond in the rough.  i'd argue he should be switching that up and gambling on more expensive players (with better starting skill sets and durability) more often, and cycling through the inexpensive players more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about it...and honestly, I think people put too much stock into "losing now = stanley cup later" 'cause losing gets you a higher draft pick and higher draft pick = stanley cup.

I wouldn't say it's not COMPLETELY worth it, but i'd say that it's a 50/50 chance that losing now, and losing consistently will result in a very strong team down the line...or actually perpetuate a culture of losing that will be very difficult to get out of...

On one hand you've got the Pens and Hawks....and another you've got the Oilers and Sabres... you've got the Blues...and you've also got the Lightning (although Stamkos was hardly a factor in 2020...Hedman was still #2 pick though). And you also have a team like the Rangers who hardly have done any tanking at all. And jury is still out on the Leafs...and we'll see how the Devils, Wings, and Sens turn out...

Personally, I think it's more valuable for our players to win more games regardless of the season and to continue to be rewarded for their hard work and continue to win games than it is to lose. I think we are more likely to be a better team later if we are winning games now. Let's NOT risk creating a losing culture if we can help it.

Share this post


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

I was thinking about it...and honestly, I think people put too much stock into "losing now = stanley cup later" 'cause losing gets you a higher draft pick and higher draft pick = stanley cup.

I wouldn't say it's not COMPLETELY worth it, but i'd say that it's a 50/50 chance that losing now, and losing consistently will result in a very strong team down the line...or actually perpetuate a culture of losing that will be very difficult to get out of...

On one hand you've got the Pens and Hawks....and another you've got the Oilers and Sabres... you've got the Blues...and you've also got the Lightning (although Stamkos was hardly a factor in 2020...Hedman was still #2 pick though). And you also have a team like the Rangers who hardly have done any tanking at all. And jury is still out on the Leafs...and we'll see how the Devils, Wings, and Sens turn out...

Personally, I think it's more valuable for our players to win more games regardless of the season and to continue to be rewarded for their hard work and continue to win games than it is to lose. I think we are more likely to be a better team later if we are winning games now. Let's NOT risk creating a losing culture if we can help it.

I'd argue that the Rangers did tank and tanked hard, but I'd just call it a pretty hard rebuild. In three years, they've traded Rick Nash, Derek Stepan, Ryan McDonagh, Kevin Hayes, Mats Zuccarello, JT Miller, Brady Skjei, Michael Grabner to help get additional picks and assets while also making a deal with Satan to get the 2nd and 1st overall picks in back to back years. The Oilers and Sabres are also arguably two of the worst managed teams in recent memory. 

I agree with the bolded and if the Ducks were winning more with the young guys carrying the load then it's a different conversation. That's not happening which is why the current rebuild isn't going to happen as fast as we'd hoped, imo. They still need a couple more studs to go along with Zegras and Drysdale I'll start really panicking in two years if the Ducks haven't started to make progress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

while also making a deal with Satan

no joke....a first I thought you were talking about Miroslav Satan lol and was like...when did he play for them??

But I guess I didn't think about all those trades they made...I was mostly just looking at standings....I mean, they haven't needed to be at the bottom of the league for multiple seasons to get better.

But yeah, being mismanaged is also a problem...and Sabres and Oilers are definitely mismanaged....far worse than I'd say we have been.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do trade for someone I hope they get a player that will plant himself in front of the other team's net.  When Gibby gets scored on it is either from rotten puck handling or opposing planting someone in front of Gibby so he can't see.  I just don't see anyone taking that task on for our team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read Jack Eichel has a NMC that kicks in July 1. The Ducks have a desperate need for a #1C, and cap space is opening up. Thoughts on Eichel and a potential trade package to get him. I'm assuming the only untouchables are Zegras and Drysdale and maybe Gibson.  The trade would negate the NMC, so that's not an issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gorbachav5 said:

If Zegras and Drysdale are untouchable, that negates the trade right off the bat.  Buffalo would be stupid not to insist on at least one of those guys as a return for Eichel.  The only other way I see it happening is if the Ducks send Gibson back the other way and also take Jeff Skinner with the Sabres eating $3 million or so per year.  The Ducks would also have to send back at least one of their young players, and a first round pick.  They might also send back either Henrique or Silfverberg, just to help Buffalo get to the cap floor.  But I don't want to do that either, because that Skinner contract is the worst in the league, even at only $6 million per year.

If accurate, that NMC may complicate things for Buffalo though. If Eichel has or does demand a trade, they'd be better off doing it before July 1st so that Eichel can't dictate the terms of the trade too much after his NMC kicks in. The flat cap also will reduce the number of suitors a bit. And I also think Buffalo could go for picks and non-current NHL prospects since they are nowhere near being competitive and they could continue to build a younger core around Cozens (20) and Dahlin (21). I could see a Pronger-style package (the one we sent to Edmonton) for Eichel working. Maybe even less than what we sent for Prongs since our 1st this year is guaranteed to be much higher than it was in 2007 (if we do the trade before the entry draft).  Something like a 1st (2021) + 1st (2022, lottery protected) + Perreault + Rico + Lacombe's signing rights. That would give Buffalo two 1st rounders in allegedly loaded 2022 draft and practically guarantee that they would suck badly again next season so that they're in the top-3 of the 2022 entry draft with their own pick. That's gotta be awfully enticing for the Sabres. Meanwhile, we get Eichel-Zegras down the middle for at least the next five seasons of Gibby's prime. 

Share this post


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

If we could get that deal without giving up Perrault, I would be super happy.  It would still be good otherwise, but the Ducks so badly need players like Perrault.

The Ducks need players like what we HOPE Perreault may be. But let's be honest, forwards drafted 27th overall do not have a great hit rate. Currently the best forward taken 27th overall from the past 20 drafts is Vlad Namestikov in 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the play of Zegras and Drysdale has helped the potential for getting someone like Eichel.  It may even be better for us if we wait until NMC and he DOES have a say.  

Queens are ready to throw the world at Buffalo.  Prior to NMC, Sabres would go that direction.  After NMC, Eichel may say that he wants to play with Zegras and Drysdale, so Sabres had better accept what the Ducks send.

Obviously, it can't be peanuts, but it can be less than LA and still be enough.

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...