Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
DuckFan4Life

Ducks 2018-2019 Season

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, RobD360 said:

Ducks are not in a formal rebuild (yet), next year they will be stacked with good young talent coupled with a new coach who will hopefully better utilize our D and boom ... right back in it. But this only happens with retaining good talent. 

Yeah. They are heading in a rebuild direction. How long or bad it is will determine if and how good the current prospect pool ends up. I agree that if several do become legit talents, along with a new coach and top pick this year, then Ducks could be back business sooner. I just don’t think that the Ducks can get that lucky lol. There’s just so much uncertainty with the Ducks going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ocregister.com/ducks-feel-goalie-john-gibsons-pain-after-hanging-him-out-to-dry-in-loss-to-jets

John Gibson endured during the first period of the Ducks’ 9-3 loss Saturday to the Winnipeg Jets, increasing the NHL-leading total of shots he’s faced this season to 1,375. 

“He’s played great all season for us and he continues to battle,” Ducks defenseman Cam Fowler said of Gibson. “By no means do we mean to leave him out to dry like that. We’re trying. I don’t know why it’s happening. Of course you feel for him.”

If that’s what trying looks like Cam, I’d hate to see what not trying looks like. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

http://www.ocregister.com/ducks-feel-goalie-john-gibsons-pain-after-hanging-him-out-to-dry-in-loss-to-jets

John Gibson endured during the first period of the Ducks’ 9-3 loss Saturday to the Winnipeg Jets, increasing the NHL-leading total of shots he’s faced this season to 1,375. 

“He’s played great all season for us and he continues to battle,” Ducks defenseman Cam Fowler said of Gibson. “By no means do we mean to leave him out to dry like that. We’re trying. I don’t know why it’s happening. Of course you feel for him.”

If that’s what trying looks like Cam, I’d hate to see what not trying looks like. 

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone read Eric Stephens and Jon Cooper’s most recent article in the Athletic? I caught a quote from a former NHL executive saying that the Ducks are not a Carlyle problem but a management problem. Thank god that a major publication is starting to really put the front office on blast.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as we endure this season...I do not see the Ducks 25th Anniversary season as failure or success.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

Anyone read Eric Stephens and Jon Cooper’s most recent article in the Athletic? I caught a quote from a former NHL executive saying that the Ducks are not a Carlyle problem but a management problem. Thank god that a major publication is starting to really put the front office on blast.

It wouldn't be appropriate to include the entire article since it's a paid subscription, but do you have a specific quote?

Share this post


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

Anyone read Eric Stephens and Jon Cooper’s most recent article in the Athletic? I caught a quote from a former NHL executive saying that the Ducks are not a Carlyle problem but a management problem. Thank god that a major publication is starting to really put the front office on blast.

Bob's been a bone in the throat quite some time. He's the guy that got us Randy back, and all the Beauchemin shenanigans.

Share this post


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

Anyone read Eric Stephens and Jon Cooper’s most recent article in the Athletic? I caught a quote from a former NHL executive saying that the Ducks are not a Carlyle problem but a management problem. Thank god that a major publication is starting to really put the front office on blast.

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.

  • Like 1

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.

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

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.

  • Like 2

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

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...