Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
DuckFan4Life

Ducks 2018-2019 Season

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, nieder said:

The same unnamed executive was criticizing Murray for keeping Bieksa over Theodore at the expansion draft, but that isn't what happened. We would have lost Manson if we had not given them Theodore.

The unnamed executive is an Idiot.  Bieksa had a no trade clause, and had to be protected.

Share this post


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

The unnamed executive is an Idiot.  Bieksa had a no trade clause, and had to be protected.

Sounds like the unnamed executive might be from a big market team that allows him to simply buy out his mistakes.

Share this post


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

The same unnamed executive was criticizing Murray for keeping Bieksa over Theodore at the expansion draft, but that isn't what happened. We would have lost Manson if we had not given them Theodore.

Yeah, the Theodore move has turned out to be a colossal mistake. The Theodore quote criticizes Murray for not buying out Bieksa’s final season. The rest of quote kind of struck me because it speaks to Murray’s lack of direction and asset and financial management, in regards to the Henrique trade in particular. 

“The complaints about sub-optimal systems are insignificant in comparison to trading another productive defenseman (Vatanen) in a deal that involved plans to sign Adam Henrique through his Age 34 season at a first-line center cap hit ($5.825 million). Three more years of Kesler at near $7 million is three more years of having what going forward will be one of the worst contracts in hockey”

The reason I did not like the Vatanen trade was because Murray moved our biggest trading chip for Henrique when the Ducks should have made a move for the future as the quickest way to contend again. He then doubled down by overpaying him lol.

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Sounds like the unnamed executive might be from a big market team that allows him to simply buy out his mistakes.

I’d agree if Bieksa had had multiple years left on his contract and not just one season. If there ever was a time for Murray to buyout a player, that seemed like it.

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

Share this post


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

I’d agree if Bieksa had had multiple years left on his contract and not just one season. If there ever was a time for Murray to buyout a player, that seemed like it.

Doesn't a player have to agree to the buyout?  When the expansion discussion was going on, I don't recall anybody mentioning the possibility of a buyout?  Was there a deadline by which he would have had to be bought out, so that a spot to protect was opened up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ducks07 said:

Bieksa should not have been give that contract to begin with and a no movement clause was even more of an error on BM's part.

I still tend to believe that the signing of Bieksa, and his subsequent extension, was due to Kesler, and keeping him onboard.

Share this post


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

Doesn't a player have to agree to the buyout?  When the expansion discussion was going on, I don't recall anybody mentioning the possibility of a buyout?  Was there a deadline by which he would have had to be bought out, so that a spot to protect was opened up?

Unless I’m mistaken, any player can be bought out during a window in June provided that they are not injured. I don’t recall anything pointing to that being the case with Bieska so he could have been bought out. The Ducks would have not received any cap relief because he was 35+ at the time.

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could have asked Bieksa to waive his NMC and if he refused (likely he did I’d assume) they could have bought him out.

bob would have had to make a couple of trades like Vatanen for players/prospects not needing protected .

 

theres no guarantee Bob could have made the moves, but buying out Bieksa and making a trade of a player needing protection would have left us exposing very little of consequence for Vegas.

we should have never signed Bieksa with a NMC (or at all) that alone makes Bob look bad.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fatgoalie-ad1 said:

They could have asked Bieksa to waive his NMC and if he refused (likely he did I’d assume) they could have bought him out.

bob would have had to make a couple of trades like Vatanen for players/prospects not needing protected .

 

theres no guarantee Bob could have made the moves, but buying out Bieksa and making a trade of a player needing protection would have left us exposing very little of consequence for Vegas.

we should have never signed Bieksa with a NMC (or at all) that alone makes Bob look bad.  

This. I think dtsdlaw mentioned in an earlier post that the NMC and extension were all part of the deal to trade for Bieksa in the first place from Vancouver. The NMC was beyond stupid and it really complicated matters since even if the Ducks had bought Bieksa out then they would not have had another defenseman to expose other than Vatanen or Manson that would have satisfied that exposure requirement for the expansion draft. So, Murray really couldn’t have even bailed himself out of that NMC, unless Bieksa waived it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatgoalie-ad1 said:

They could have asked Bieksa to waive his NMC and if he refused (likely he did I’d assume) they could have bought him out.

bob would have had to make a couple of trades like Vatanen for players/prospects not needing protected .

 

theres no guarantee Bob could have made the moves, but buying out Bieksa and making a trade of a player needing protection would have left us exposing very little of consequence for Vegas.

we should have never signed Bieksa with a NMC (or at all) that alone makes Bob look bad.  

But that's the point, even if Bieksa was bought out we still had too many young defensemen, we were going to lose at least one of them.

I agree with your last sentence. The biggest issue was signing him to the contract in the first place with the NMC. Just a terrible signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bieksa signed that deal before the expansion draft or team was even set if I remember correctly. We talk about hindsight being 20/20 but at the time we weren't affected by the upcoming expansion draft. So once that came around Bob was kinda stuck at that point. On one hand we would possibly had been stuck with stoner and the full cap hit from Bieksa's buyout for two years and possibly would have lost a good player regardless, unless other moves were made. Turned out to be a terrible contract none the less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, g20topdogg said:

Bieksa signed that deal before the expansion draft or team was even set if I remember correctly. We talk about hindsight being 20/20 but at the time we weren't affected by the upcoming expansion draft. So once that came around Bob was kinda stuck at that point. On one hand we would possibly had been stuck with stoner and the full cap hit from Bieksa's buyout for two years and possibly would have lost a good player regardless, unless other moves were made. Turned out to be a terrible contract none the less. 

The point is Bieksa should never have even been offered a contract. He was never going to regain his offensive output as his early days in Vancouver and at 5mil per year with a NMC was just lunacy. Never mind hindsight, it was foresight that should have been taken into consideration. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Yeah, the Theodore move has turned out to be a colossal mistake. The Theodore quote criticizes Murray for not buying out Bieksa’s final season. The rest of quote kind of struck me because it speaks to Murray’s lack of direction and asset and financial management, in regards to the Henrique trade in particular. 

“The complaints about sub-optimal systems are insignificant in comparison to trading another productive defenseman (Vatanen) in a deal that involved plans to sign Adam Henrique through his Age 34 season at a first-line center cap hit ($5.825 million). Three more years of Kesler at near $7 million is three more years of having what going forward will be one of the worst contracts in hockey”

The reason I did not like the Vatanen trade was because Murray moved our biggest trading chip for Henrique when the Ducks should have made a move for the future as the quickest way to contend again. He then doubled down by overpaying him lol.

Trading for Henrique was a great trade. The system he has been asked to play is what has made him look like an average player.

The Kesler contract is not a bad one either. When he plays, he is typically assigned the hardest player and does well. Would love to see a coach that would not only worry about who is covering who and what is the best matchup, but also focus on how to get the puck in the net 3 or more times per game. What I mean is that Kesler should be able to put up points while also doing the centers work. If he does not want the added work put him on wing.

 

Share this post


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

Just my opinion, but it's all window dressing.  Unless the Ducks turn things around in an amazing fashion over the next couple of weeks, he is as good as gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Silf.  I'm not opposed to keeping him, although, like others, I question where he'll be when we've got Terry ready to jump in next year.  But he'll be expensive, and he's not going to help this team.  If I'm Murray, I tell him that I want him back, but due to the cap rules (tagging) and the current situation, it doesn't make sense to sign him now.  Plus, if he trades him, he can get some assets back to make the team better in the future.  So trade him and then hope to re-sign him in the offseason.  it's a win-win.

And if I'm Silf, I want to know that I'm going to have an actual coach next season.  Not the troll that wandered out from under a bridge that they have now.

Edited by gorbachav5
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Trading for Henrique was a great trade. The system he has been asked to play is what has made him look like an average player.

The Kesler contract is not a bad one either. When he plays, he is typically assigned the hardest player and does well. Would love to see a coach that would not only worry about who is covering who and what is the best matchup, but also focus on how to get the puck in the net 3 or more times per game. What I mean is that Kesler should be able to put up points while also doing the centers work. If he does not want the added work put him on wing.

 

I disagree. To me, trading for Henrique was to the longer term detriment of the Ducks if the goal is to actually contend for the Cup. Murray seemed to try to force open a playoff or Cup window that clearly was closed instead of improving the prospect pool that the Ducks will need in the very near future. Giving Henrique that extension just makes it worse since his production is already on the decline and won’t project better when he’s in his 30’s. He’ll be making almost $2 mil a year more starting next year when the team will still have and Perry, Kesler, Eaves on the books.

As for Kesler, I think that he has one of the worst contracts in the entire league along with Lucic and Seabrook and has no signs of showing he’ll come remotely close to being the player he was before his hip surgery. Yes, he’s generally tasked with defending the opposition’s best players but he’s just not good at it anymore and he has almost no offensive production. At almost $7 mil per, the value doesn’t get much worse.

Share this post


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

Really this is a disgrace - ice Johnson every game until they show they can hang in games and win them. Platitudes here and there, but the skaters don't deserve Gibson.

Not every game but I would give him at least 50% so as to not wear out our #1 - playing every game as he has done is an injury waiting to happen - and mentally discouraging  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DuckFan4Life said:

Sure wish we had Manson/Lindholm as a D pairing.

@icemancometh

And if the warm-up rushes hold true, Hampus Lindholm and Josh Manson may be a regular pairing again. In Game 53.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ducks07 said:

Bieksa should not have been give that contract to begin with and a no movement clause was even more of an error on BM's part.

Best part was getting the contract before he even played 1 game with the Ducks 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:

I disagree. To me, trading for Henrique was to the longer term detriment of the Ducks if the goal is to actually contend for the Cup. Murray seemed to try to force open a playoff or Cup window that clearly was closed instead of improving the prospect pool that the Ducks will need in the very near future. Giving Henrique that extension just makes it worse since his production is already on the decline and won’t project better when he’s in his 30’s. He’ll be making almost $2 mil a year more starting next year when the team will still have and Perry, Kesler, Eaves on the books.

As for Kesler, I think that he has one of the worst contracts in the entire league along with Lucic and Seabrook and has no signs of showing he’ll come remotely close to being the player he was before his hip surgery. Yes, he’s generally tasked with defending the opposition’s best players but he’s just not good at it anymore and he has almost no offensive production. At almost $7 mil per, the value doesn’t get much worse.

I like the Rico signing and I actually think that under a new coach we will all really line him too especially if he is allowed to play the left wing as I believe that is the position where he go lots of his goals according to a few Devil posts I heard. But I do appreciate your thought process in considering the long term. Tough one. 

Kess can be thrown into the 20/20 hindsight bucket really. Who would have known that he was going to fall off a cliff this soon. He was playing awesome for us and brought so much to this team. So the question then is did BM still give too much or just too long of a term or both? Because I’m 100% sure most everyone here wanted him resigned I think. 

Now Eaves.... oh boy. If there was a ever a bad resign it’s this one considering that he already wave prone to injuries throughout his career and that he was never ever a 30 goal scorer prior to his “career year”. People applaud BM for getting rid of Bells for recognizing his career year type of effort (which he was right) but then gets it big time wrong with Eaves. 

Edited by RobD360

Share this post


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

I like Silf.  I'm not opposed to keeping him, although, like others, I question where he'll be when we've got Terry ready to jump in next year.  But he'll be expensive, and he's not going to help this team.  If I'm Murray, I tell him that I want him back, but due to the cap rules (tagging) and the current situation, it doesn't make sense to sign him now.  Plus, if he trades him, he can get some assets back to make the team better in the future.  So trade him and then hope to re-sign him in the offseason.  it's a win-win.

And if I'm Silf, I want to know that I'm going to have an actual coach next season.  Not the troll that wandered out from under a bridge that they have now.

Conflicting points here. If there might be no room for Silf due to Terry et al (I agree) then I don’t see how we can entice Silf to come back after he’s gone? 

Edited by RobD360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RobD360 said:

Conflicting points here. If there might be no room for Silf due to Terry et al (I agree) then I didn’t see how we can entice Silf to come back after he’s gone? 

Sorry, let me clarify.  In my opinion, the Ducks don't have room for Silf and would be better served playing Terry and using the money to find better talent.  However, Murray clearly thinks they do since he wants to sign him to an extension.  If I'm Murray and I think there's room for Silf, he can have it both ways - he can trade Silf for assets and then re-sign him in the offseason.  If he can't re-sign him in the offseason, we still have Terry.

Share this post


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

Sorry, let me clarify.  In my opinion, the Ducks don't have room for Silf and would be better served playing Terry and using the money to find better talent.  However, Murray clearly thinks they do since he wants to sign him to an extension.  If I'm Murray and I think there's room for Silf, he can have it both ways - he can trade Silf for assets and then re-sign him in the offseason.  If he can't re-sign him in the offseason, we still have Terry.

I’m thinking Bob wants to do a sign and trade maybe

Share this post


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

I like the Rico signing and I actually think that under a new coach we will all really line him too especially if he is allowed to play the left wing as I believe that is the position where he go lots of his goals according to a few Devil posts I heard. But I do appreciate your thought process in considering the long term. Tough one. 

Kess can be thrown into the 20/20 hindsight bucket really. Who would have known that he was going to fall off a cliff this soon. He was playing awesome for us and brought so much to this team. So the question then is did BM still give too much or just too long of a term or both? Because I’m 100% sure most everyone here wanted him resigned I think. 

Now Eaves.... oh boy. If there was a ever a bad resign it’s this one considering that he already wave prone to injuries throughout his career and that he was never ever a 30 goal scorer prior to his “career year”. People applaud BM for getting rid of Bells for recognizing his career year type of effort (which he was right) but then gets it big time wrong with Eaves. 

rer issue 

A new coach is the first step in the right direction but the roster is the bigger issue (I’d prefer a new GM more importantly, but I digress). To m, Henrique is getting paid 2C money or if he’s moved to the wing, someone that shoukd pot close to 30 goals a year. I’m not sure if or how long he could sustain that type of play. Having other aging and bad value contracts that can’t really be moved when the Ducks are clearly heading toward a rebuild makes it much harder. I’d rather have started the painful process with trading Vatanen for solid future assets.

For being named “bargain bob” Murray likes to give out nice contracts to aging veterans and it sounds like he is trying to potentially add Silfverberg to the list. Murray gave out too much money to both Henrique and Kesler. With Kesler at least, the logic seemed to be going for a Cup hopefully before he fell off a cliff. With Henrique, the Ducks weren’t and won’t be in the Cup conversation so it makes why Murray gave him that contract much more baffling let alone trading for him as they though he though they could contend. It seems like Murray keeps delaying the inevitable which is only going to make it harder to come back from. 

He never should have re-signed Eaves but he doesn’t have an anchor contract with impact of the other bad ones in money or term.

25 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

Sorry, let me clarify.  In my opinion, the Ducks don't have room for Silf and would be better served playing Terry and using the money to find better talent.  However, Murray clearly thinks they do since he wants to sign him to an extension.  If I'm Murray and I think there's room for Silf, he can have it both ways - he can trade Silf for assets and then re-sign him in the offseason.  If he can't re-sign him in the offseason, we still have Terry.

If he does sign Silfverberg then he’s got to move out more money one way or another. I hope he’s just posturing and has learned his lesson. I agree with you that why should we assume Silfverberg even wants to re-sign here given the current state of affairs of the organization. 

Share this post


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

I’m thinking Bob wants to do a sign and trade maybe

Maybe, but when was the last time we saw a sign and trade in the NHL?  I honestly can't remember a single one since the lockout year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This season has been a BIG MESS....and Accountability goes to not just Management and Coach but the Players as well.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ducks07 said:

 

The point is Bieksa should never have even been offered a contract. He was never going to regain his offensive output as his early days in Vancouver and at 5mil per year with a NMC was just lunacy. Never mind hindsight, it was foresight that should have been taken into consideration. 

Oh I never said it was a good contract. Interestingly enough we probably would have been better off not getting him at all. No one liked the fact that he overpaid and then he added the nmc on top of that. Was a serious waste of $ and cap. He then proceeded to let others go because we were near the cap and didn't want to pay. Right, so we could have kept a lot of good players that clicked with getz but we ended up stuck with Bieksa.... not to mention the expansion draft as been stated over and over.

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...