Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

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

Ducks9147

Top 6 forward immediately!!!

Recommended Posts

On 10/31/2018 at 6:18 AM, yeaitsme said:

Ho Sang. Let’s give him a chance like we’re giving Blandisi and pretty much everyone else in our roster.... 

 

Ho Sang...would not hurt...how bout Nik Ehlers?

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

I would do that in a second.  It will obviously take more, but I would do Montour + young forward (Steel, Terry, Jones, Comtois) for Nylander.

 

6 hours ago, mulcher said:

I did hear that a lot of the toronto top management guys were at the game last night...Hazy or Ahlers mentioned they may be scouting.

Share this post


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

Murray also doesn't like players who show up to camp out of shape (see Penner, Dustin), and yet he signed Jake Dotchin.  Murray has dealt with holdouts and doesn't seem to bear them any ill will, otherwise he would have traded Ritchie, Lindholm, and Rakell.  

Whether Nylander would fit is a more interesting question.  Nylander is a very good player, particularly on the offensive side of the puck, which the Ducks DESPERATELY need.  But he plays an up tempo, puck possession style that the Ducks don't, at least not under Carlyle.  I still think it's worth it to get the talent in the door and hopefully a new coaching staff will use him properly.

I feel that, too...Step #1...get Nylander...Step #2...get a new coach. When you get a player like Nylander, while not a "generational" talent like Matthews or McDavid...you have a young guy you can start (re)building your team around. And with the D (even without Montour) we have and Gibson in net...that's a solid foundation. Especially with veterans to help fill in the gaps like Getzlaf/Kesler. Watching Kase play I last night I saw a player that was very good with north/south and keeping possession...I'm sure we all did. So, I think we already have players that can play the same style as Nylander...I think if we get Nylander, we'd adjust the roster/coaching to fit it.

I still think the biggest hurdle in the way would be IF he would sign with us. Bob aint making that trade if Nylander isn't signing (obviously) and I'm sure he's asking for around $8mil right now (maybe more?)...which is why the leafs aren't signing him. Would Bob want to pay that?

Share this post


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

Murray also doesn't like players who show up to camp out of shape (see Penner, Dustin), and yet he signed Jake Dotchin.  Murray has dealt with holdouts and doesn't seem to bear them any ill will, otherwise he would have traded Ritchie, Lindholm, and Rakell.  

Whether Nylander would fit is a more interesting question.  Nylander is a very good player, particularly on the offensive side of the puck, which the Ducks DESPERATELY need.  But he plays an up tempo, puck possession style that the Ducks don't, at least not under Carlyle.  I still think it's worth it to get the talent in the door and hopefully a new coaching staff will use him properly.

So much this. His style doesn't fit the team but the team's style isn't all that. Time to make a change. I'd love to get him. I wouldn't mind giving up Montour and an extra but I'd rather have it be Ritchie or Jones. Steel & Comtois are keepers.

Share this post


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

So much this. His style doesn't fit the team but the team's style isn't all that. Time to make a change. I'd love to get him. I wouldn't mind giving up Montour and an extra but I'd rather have it be Ritchie or Jones. Steel & Comtois are keepers.

We already have lots of salary locked up on the team. We are going to need to move some of it in order to sign Nylander (assuming he come here). The problem is that TOR doesn’t have the cap space to sign another player(s) more than to what they were offering Nylander which is/was around 6. This tells me that they could ((might)) take Montour + prospect (Comtois or Steel) and/or pick. Silf or Nick could also be part of the deal in order to offload salary from our side. Lots of interesting combinations of trade Bob has under his purview. Should be interesting, we most definitely have the assets to pull this off and still be good for the future. 

Share this post


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

The problem is that TOR doesn’t have the cap space to sign another player(s) more than to what they were offering Nylander which is/was around 6.

The Leafs projected cap space for next season is a little over $30M and that's of course without the adjustment of the cap going up. They don't have to trade Nylander. They can just let him stew in his own juices until the off season. 

Share this post


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

The Leafs projected cap space for next season is a little over $30M and that's of course without the adjustment of the cap going up. They don't have to trade Nylander. They can just let him stew in his own juices until the off season. 

Yes they currently have the cap space but keep in mind the ((supposed)) reason for Nylander holding out is because his camp knows that Marner and Mathews are going to get huge salary increases (think Kane and Towes) and so they feel like Nylander is not getting close to that type of respect in terms of salary requirements.

Share this post


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

Yes they currently have the cap space but keep in mind the ((supposed)) reason for Nylander holding out is because his camp knows that Marner and Mathews are going to get huge salary increases (think Kane and Towes) and so they feel like Nylander is not getting close to that type of respect in terms of salary requirements.

My own conspiracy theory is that this is all a ruse by Dubas anyways to work up Nylanders value in the market. He can’t and won’t be able to afford to keep all three of Marner, Mathews and Nylander and knows that he needs to offload one of them preferably for defensive help. Make no mistake that this trade for a defender is what Toronto needs anyways. They want this trade to happen to alleviate cap and team balance. 

Share this post


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

Yes they currently have the cap space but keep in mind the ((supposed)) reason for Nylander holding out is because his camp knows that Marner and Mathews are going to get huge salary increases (think Kane and Towes) and so they feel like Nylander is not getting close to that type of respect in terms of salary requirements.

From what i've read the Leafs are asking Nylander to "ask for less" as it is crucial for all the players to get signed. Like Tavares "did." But, I highly doubt they are going to be asking Matthews to do that. Matthews will be getting $10 if not $11mil...now if Matthews had already signed and took less than $10...that's a different story. But he deserves that...Matthews is fraking insane. Interesting conspiracy theory! They do need a defender...but they really need someone like Manson more than someone like Montour. I'm not sure how I feel about losing Manson to be honest...but the article was about Montour. Love the guy, but yeah, I'd be fine haha Throw in Ritchie...that would be amazing lol

Share this post


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

As fun as this is to talk about, I think it's very, very unlikely to happen.  I think Pierre LeBrun has it right:

 

 

trade FOR a defenseman???? What? 'Cause being 2nd to last in the league in goal scoring isn't the biggest issue? I know our D zone hasn't been stellar this year...but...a need for goals seems to be much more pressing...who are we looking to get??? Who could possibly be out there defense wise that would make us stronger that will be available via a trade that wouldn't hurt us in the goal scoring department??

Share this post


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

Not sure the Ducks could swing it. And besides, word on the street is that Anaheim is looking to trade for a defenceman, not trade one away.

If that's true then Murray has clearly lost his mind.

 

1 hour ago, RobD360 said:

My own conspiracy theory is that this is all a ruse by Dubas anyways to work up Nylanders value in the market. He can’t and won’t be able to afford to keep all three of Marner, Mathews and Nylander and knows that he needs to offload one of them preferably for defensive help. Make no mistake that this trade for a defender is what Toronto needs anyways. They want this trade to happen to alleviate cap and team balance. 

Add Kapanen to that list. I think Dubas is just sticking by his guns. He's not going to jeopardize losing Marner and Kapanen over an inflated Nylander contract. Mathews is going to get paid and the other two probably fall into line. The Leafs already have two of the best centers in the game and Nylander is just the #3 C if that's his position (he's listed as a C/RW). 

Share this post


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

trade FOR a defenseman???? What? 'Cause being 2nd to last in the league in goal scoring isn't the biggest issue? I know our D zone hasn't been stellar this year...but...a need for goals seems to be much more pressing...who are we looking to get??? Who could possibly be out there defense wise that would make us stronger that will be available via a trade that wouldn't hurt us in the goal scoring department??

If Murray wants to trade FOR a defenseman then who does he want to trade would be my question.

Share this post


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

If Murray wants to trade FOR a defenseman then who does he want to trade would be my question.

Mine too...'cause if he's looking to get a difference maker in the defensive zone...he's gonna have to give up something very good that we probably need more than another defenseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading FOR a defenseman doesn’t make sense really given that we have a boatload of them and we supposedly are stocked with good D. The idea has always been that we need to deal away defenseman not gain more. This is just Bobs poor way in deflecting the serious issues we have with the coaching of the team. This is laughable really. The question then is, did we ever have a deep “talented” D? Because that was the talk of the league and this board... this is bogus!! RC is breaking our young D. They are great young mobile and skilled and the best Bob can say is that we need another D player because RC isn’t the issue????!!

Share this post


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

The scoring needs help, but the Ducks DO have an over abundance of forwards in terms of bodies when guys are healthy and when the kids develop enough to be in the lineup.

Centers: Getzlaf, Kesler, Henrique, Steel, Street - When Steel is ready, where does he play?  On the 4th line?  Or do you move Henrique to the wing?  If you do, see below.

RW: Eaves, Perry, Silf, Aberg, Kase, Sherwood, Terry, Rowney - Perry is out for a while, and Eaves is going to spend a bunch of time on IR, but again, when Terry is ready to come up, what do you do?  Waive Aberg again?  Put Terry on the 4th line?  I anticipate that the longer term future is Perry, Kase, Terry, and Sherwood, but that means Silf is out, in which case the Ducks should trade him for something if they're not going to make a serious playoff run.

LW: Rakell, Ritchie, Cogliano, Comtois, Jones, Gibbons - And you can add Henrique to this list if you push him off of the center spot.

Unless the Ducks roll four scoring lines (or three plus Kesler's line of ticking the other team off), I don't see where all these forwards fit.  I'd be happy to let Street, Rowney, and Gibbons go in favor of four decent lines.  Long-term, you could do something like:

Rakell - Getzlaf - Aberg

Comtois - Henrique - Kase

Cogliano - Kesler - Sherwood/Terry

Ritchie - Steel - Sherwood/Terry

With Jones and Rowney and your extra forwards and Lundestrom waiting as well.  This assumes Silf is gone at some point this season or in the offseason and that Eaves is never healthy again.  But if Eaves is healthy, and both Jones and Lundestrom are ready to play, what are you going to do with them?  There's no sense in wasting their value if there's no place for them to go.  You can sit Sherwood, but that still leaves one of Jones or Lundestrom on the outside looking in.  Meanwhile, the defense isn't looking quite as deep as we'd like it to be. Ideally, the Ducks would trade a package of young guys for a forward upgrade, but if you're throwing in a defenseman, that leaves your defense hurting.

 

Add in there the abundance of D as well... This just screams mismanagement from Bob... 

Share this post


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

The scoring needs help, but the Ducks DO have an over abundance of forwards in terms of bodies when guys are healthy and when the kids develop enough to be in the lineup.

Centers: Getzlaf, Kesler, Henrique, Steel, Street - When Steel is ready, where does he play?  On the 4th line?  Or do you move Henrique to the wing?  If you do, see below.

RW: Eaves, Perry, Silf, Aberg, Kase, Sherwood, Terry, Rowney - Perry is out for a while, and Eaves is going to spend a bunch of time on IR, but again, when Terry is ready to come up, what do you do?  Waive Aberg again?  Put Terry on the 4th line?  I anticipate that the longer term future is Perry, Kase, Terry, and Sherwood, but that means Silf is out, in which case the Ducks should trade him for something if they're not going to make a serious playoff run.

LW: Rakell, Ritchie, Cogliano, Comtois, Jones, Gibbons - And you can add Henrique to this list if you push him off of the center spot.

Unless the Ducks roll four scoring lines (or three plus Kesler's line of ticking the other team off), I don't see where all these forwards fit.  I'd be happy to let Street, Rowney, and Gibbons go in favor of four decent lines.  Long-term, you could do something like:

Rakell - Getzlaf - Aberg

Comtois - Henrique - Kase

Cogliano - Kesler - Sherwood/Terry

Ritchie - Steel - Sherwood/Terry

With Jones and Rowney and your extra forwards and Lundestrom waiting as well.  This assumes Silf is gone at some point this season or in the offseason and that Eaves is never healthy again.  But if Eaves is healthy, and both Jones and Lundestrom are ready to play, what are you going to do with them?  There's no sense in wasting their value if there's no place for them to go.  You can sit Sherwood, but that still leaves one of Jones or Lundestrom on the outside looking in.  Meanwhile, the defense isn't looking quite as deep as we'd like it to be. Ideally, the Ducks would trade a package of young guys for a forward upgrade, but if you're throwing in a defenseman, that leaves your defense hurting.

 

and Nylander is an upgrade from every single player mentioned in this post...minus Getzlaf.

But I see your point. If Bob wants to make a trade for a defenseman...we lose some of those forwards and hopefully we have a solid defenseman in the process. But then we can afford to lose Monty and probably another of the forward for Nylander. But apparently Bob hasn't even talked about Nylander with the Leafs sooo...I guess whatever. Let's get another D. That Hedman always looked pretty good...

Share this post


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

Trading FOR a defenseman doesn’t make sense really given that we have a boatload of them and we supposedly are stocked with good D. The idea has always been that we need to deal away defenseman not gain more. This is just Bobs poor way in deflecting the serious issues we have with the coaching of the team. This is laughable really. The question then is, did we ever have a deep “talented” D? Because that was the talk of the league and this board... this is bogus!! RC is breaking our young D. They are great young mobile and skilled and the best Bob can say is that we need another D player because RC isn’t the issue????!!

What kind of D man are we talking? For all we know BM wants to add a physical veteran. Think Bieksa but preferably more solid defensively. I'd be fine with that.

I still have faith in our forward core. Just not with this coach. But if you can add Nylander, make it happen. Although the cap makes it nearly impossible 

Share this post


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

The scoring needs help, but the Ducks DO have an over abundance of forwards in terms of bodies when guys are healthy and when the kids develop enough to be in the lineup.

The Ducks do have an abundance of forwards but some can be sent down to SD and some are injured. I don't think Street and Gibbons are going to get anything good in a trade and the only guy left that has value is Silf. So trade Silf for.....? The Ducks also have an abundance of defensemen so much so that Sustr's contract is being buried and Holzer (like Stoner before him) have those "mystery injuries".

 

17 minutes ago, DucksFan_08 said:

What kind of D man are we talking? For all we know BM wants to add a physical veteran. Think Bieksa but preferably more solid defensively. I'd be fine with that.

You mean like Luke Schenn but not Luke Schenn? LOL.

Share this post


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

 

We know none of our defensemen are elite.  Lindholm and Fowler are both good number two guys, and Manson and Montour are fine as partners for those guys.  It was supposed to be the depth that made up for the lack of elite talent, but right now, I don't see that our bottom pairing is much better than the average bottom pairing.  There's potential there, but it's not like we have four defensemen waiting in San Diego to get in the lineup.  Andy Welinski isn't that guy.

So it’s the age old question:  having 1 noris elite defender and a couple of good defensemen with plugins VS having mostly all good defenders, 1-2 plugins and no elite noris type defender which we are

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Holzer and Sustr don't comprise an "abundance."  That's like saying I have an abundance of food when I open the pantry and find a bunch of boxes of stale Grape Nuts and six bags of rotten potatoes.  Sure, it's technically a lot of food, but it's not food I actually want to eat.

The abundance would include the regulars: Manson, Lindy, Fowler, Montour along with any all the A+ rated D prospects we have which I believe are Larson, Welinski, Mahura, Pettersson. 

I would regard this as an abundance since we won’t be able to keep all these players and will need to trade a couple off at one point soon. Also from what I read online, it is the general consensus from many hockey articles that the Ducks do have extra good defenders to spare and that’s what’s spurred the rumored talk of the Ducks being in the mix for trading off a D player to a team (Like TOR) who needs D because we can afford and have extra (abundance) of D in order to facilitate such trade

Share this post


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

I'm still in favor of trading Silf + a young forward or Montour for Nylander.  But as I said in my post above, it's not like the Ducks are overflowing with defensemen.  Not any more.  When we had both Vatanen and Theodore, it was an issue.  Now?  They've got a good top four, two unproven kids to round out the corps, plus one in the AHL (Mahura) who will hopefully contribute soon.  If you trade one of those (and Toronto is going to ask for one since they're hurting on defense), now it starts looking awfully thin and Bob probably has to make another deal.

Silf + Montour for Nylander (that probably doesn't get it done, but that makes the salaries work) and then a separate trade of a young forward for a solid d-man would be what Murray would have to do.

Toronto knows we are the trade partner if they want to get a solid young defenseman from a team that is willing to give one up. I agree our abundance isn't what it used to be. But we still have more than any other team not called the Predators or Sharks. And those teams wont be coming to the Nylander dance with one of their D. Tampa Bay maybe. But they don't have the abundance they used to have either.

My bigger question is WHO would we want to get on D? I mean, if the Leafs are having difficulty landing any top defenseman when they can dangle Nylander...what "missing piece" D guy do we think we're gonna get with no forwards available that are at Nylander's value? If they can't land a top one...I just don't see how we're gonna do any better. Unless we're looking for someone to not be "top" ...which maybe Bob is.

Share this post


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

Holzer and Sustr don't comprise an "abundance."  That's like saying I have an abundance of food when I open the pantry and find a bunch of boxes of stale Grape Nuts and six bags of rotten potatoes.  Sure, it's technically a lot of food, but it's not food I actually want to eat.

Maybe not but their salaries don't help the cap situation. Sustr at $1M and Holzer at $900K. I would add Gibbons $1M contract in there as well. Close to $3M there. At least Street has provided a little bit of offense. Aberg at $650K is a "bargain" compared to those other guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:

The Ducks do have an abundance of forwards but some can be sent down to SD and some are injured. I don't think Street and Gibbons are going to get anything good in a trade and the only guy left that has value is Silf. So trade Silf for.....? The Ducks also have an abundance of defensemen so much so that Sustr's contract is being buried and Holzer (like Stoner before him) have those "mystery injuries".

 

You mean like Luke Schenn but not Luke Schenn? LOL.

Exactly:lol: But perhaps a little better.

Share this post


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

None of Larsson, Mahura, Pettersson, or Welinski is an A+ rated D prospect.  Welinski is a 6th d-man at best.  Pettersson probably has a ceiling as a solid second pairing guy, while the other two MIGHT not embarrass you on the top line, but are also more than likely second pairing guys on a good team.  But none of them are that yet and probably won't be next year either.  They're all third pairing plugs.  So if the Ducks want to contend this season, they could really use a guy who would be here for this season and maybe next.

But the Ducks are 29th in goals so far. How does Bob trading for a defenseman improve that?

Share this post


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

Both Sustr and Holzer's cap hits can be buried in the AHL, if I'm not mistaken.  Or most of them, anyway.  I don't think those guys are counting against the cap.

I think the AHL rule is that an NHL team can bury 2 veterans in the AHL. It's in their CBA somewhere but I'm not 100% sure of the actual wording.

Share this post


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

The Ducks need possession of the puck to score.  Part of the issue is that their defensemen aren't getting pucks and moving them up to forwards.  Most of that is sytem-related (Carlyle's sucks) and some of it is on the forwards, but the d-men are supposed to contribute meaningfully to the offense.  

Don't get me wrong - the Ducks need an elite forward WAY more than they need another second pairing d-man.  But an upgrade over Pettersson or Larsson, at least for this season, would help the offense get moving.  Also, I'm assuming, as I've indicated in all of my posts, that in order to GET an elite forward, they'd have to trade one of their current d-men, which would leave them short.

I don't think Pettersson has been doing a bad job at all and I don't look at him as an offensive contributor. It just sounds like you might be suggesting that Fowler needs an upgrade over Montour and/or Schenn so Manson can go back with Lindholm. If you want to take Pettersson and Larsson out of the line-up a long with Schenn, Sustr and Welinski then you're looking at either a new partner for Fowler and a new partner for Montour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...