Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
Spike1981

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, ducks07 said:

He's on a two-year two-way deal, does not need to clear waivers.

Two-way deals don't have any effect on whether or not someone is waiver-eligible.  Two-way deals simply refers to the pay structure.  Someone on a one-way NHL deal has to be paid that amount whether they are in the NHL or the AHL.  Someone on a two-way deal will get paid a stipulated amount in the NHL and a different amount in the AHL.  But it doesn't have any impact on whether or not he'll have to go through waivers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RobD360 said:

Serous question: So for clarification purposes, the games counted are only those made during the time the player has been with the team, right? So for example, we can’t just acquire a player  from another team and expose him immediately, he would first have to accumulate the games under his new team, right? 

How about if the player was UFA in the prior year and the team resigns him, does this then restart his games played with the team as it’s a new contract? 

Inquirying Minds Want to Know

No, games counted are not reset if the player goes to a new team.  We can trade for a player to use him as an exposure requirement as long as he met the games played requirements with another organization.  Isn't this basically what we did with Dustin Tokarski a couple years ago for the Vegas draft?  I know other teams did this as well, particularly for the goalie requirement.

Share this post


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

Two-way deals don't have any effect on whether or not someone is waiver-eligible.  Two-way deals simply refers to the pay structure.  Someone on a one-way NHL deal has to be paid that amount whether they are in the NHL or the AHL.  Someone on a two-way deal will get paid a stipulated amount in the NHL and a different amount in the AHL.  But it doesn't have any impact on whether or not he'll have to go through waivers.

Well, S***...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year has made me so cynical with all things hockey to the point where I can already picture another Theodore situation unfolding around someone like Lundestrom. An understandable move in the short term to handle the ED but regrettable once his career begins to take off. 

On the bright side, maybe the immediate success of Vegas has changed the mindset towards building an expansion team? One of our vets or anyone we pick up in the meantime could end up being a more enticing option for them. Although I doubt a city like Seattle will need to have a successful team to support it so who knows. Over a decade later and they're still upset about the Sonics. They could be 92 Senators levels of bad and still show up to every game.

Share this post


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

This year has made me so cynical with all things hockey to the point where I can already picture another Theodore situation unfolding around someone like Lundestrom. An understandable move in the short term to handle the ED but regrettable once his career begins to take off. 

On the bright side, maybe the immediate success of Vegas has changed the mindset towards building an expansion team? One of our vets or anyone we pick up in the meantime could end up being a more enticing option for them. Although I doubt a city like Seattle will need to have a successful team to support it so who knows. Over a decade later and they're still upset about the Sonics. They could be 92 Senators levels of bad and still show up to every game.

Do you think in hindsight the move to keep our top-4 d intact and keep Silf was the wrong thing to do? It's so hard to say who Shea would have turned into if he stayed with our organization. I remember seeing some good things, but then some just horrible defensive plays. He seemed like another Fowler...but...weaker on the puck.

I also think Bob is definitely reevaluating how he will handle the ED. I'm sure he's definitely re-thinking how he does it. And I bet he'll be trying to put our team in a better position come the ED than we were in last time.

Share this post


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

Do you think in hindsight the move to keep our top-4 d intact and keep Silf was the wrong thing to do? It's so hard to say who Shea would have turned into if he stayed with our organization. I remember seeing some good things, but then some just horrible defensive plays. He seemed like another Fowler...but...weaker on the puck.

I also think Bob is definitely reevaluating how he will handle the ED. I'm sure he's definitely re-thinking how he does it. And I bet he'll be trying to put our team in a better position come the ED than we were in last time.

I don't think it was the wrong thing to do with Carlyle as coach.  Carlyle is terrible at developing offensive d-men or using PMDs in ways that utilize their strengths.  Theodore is never going to be a shutdown d-man, but he has done well in Vegas.  He would never have done well under Carlyle.  Just like Vatanen was being wasted.  So I understand why they went that route.

Under a coach who knows what he's doing, the Ducks could have had a phenomenal defense with both Theodore and Vatanen still on board.  The problem was Carlyle.  Now I just hope Murray makes the right hire.  It's too late for the talent that went out the door, but hopefully a new coach can get the most of the players we still have.

Share this post


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

I don't think it was the wrong thing to do with Carlyle as coach.  Carlyle is terrible at developing offensive d-men or using PMDs in ways that utilize their strengths.  Theodore is never going to be a shutdown d-man, but he has done well in Vegas.  He would never have done well under Carlyle.  Just like Vatanen was being wasted.  So I understand why they went that route.

Under a coach who knows what he's doing, the Ducks could have had a phenomenal defense with both Theodore and Vatanen still on board.  The problem was Carlyle.  Now I just hope Murray makes the right hire.  It's too late for the talent that went out the door, but hopefully a new coach can get the most of the players we still have.

That makes sense...but also is so sad to hear...considering the potential we had. I really hope it's not too late for our top 4 D...even Fowler. I want to believe under a coach that knows how to handle players like Fowler that he can rewire the way he plays.

How do you feel BB did with them? I didn't really pay much attention to how different Fowler was under BB versus RC. I was just focused on how the team was doing lol

Share this post


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

That makes sense...but also is so sad to hear...considering the potential we had. I really hope it's not too late for our top 4 D...even Fowler. I want to believe under a coach that knows how to handle players like Fowler that he can rewire the way he plays.

How do you feel BB did with them? I didn't really pay much attention to how different Fowler was under BB versus RC. I was just focused on how the team was doing lol

I thought Boudreau did well.  Lindholm and Manson hadn't developed a ton of offense, but they were a shut down pairing and were at the top of the league in controlling the puck.  Vatanen had put up two consectuive .55/g point seasons.  Fowler didn't take any huge leaps forward under Boudreau, but was fine.  

In the three seasons Carlyle has been here, Lindholm, Manson, and Fowler have all gotten worse at puck possession, Vatanen struggled mightily before being traded, and Montour has failed to develop into much of anything.  He clearly has offensive talent, but doesn't seem to know when or how to use it, and he's been bad in the defensive zone.  Larsson hasn't been able to stick in the lineup (although maybe we should blame Eakins for that?), Pettersson looks better in Pittsburgh than he did with the Ducks, and Shea Theodore has made huge strides in Vegas (although some of that is probably maturity).  

Carlyle was bad.

Back to the expansion draft talk, we're going to lose one of our young forwards if Seattle wants one.  The hope is that our new coach can develop the other ones so that losing that one won't hurt as badly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Back to the expansion draft talk, we're going to lose one of our young forwards if Seattle wants one.  The hope is that our new coach can develop the other ones so that losing that one won't hurt as badly.

As of now it doesn't look like there has to be any mandatory coverings of NMC players so Bob (if he's the GM) can cover 8 players or 7 forwards and 3 defenseman. Cover Terry, Jones, Steel, Comtois, Kase, Rakell, Ritchie. I guess Sprong might be the odd man out. We'll just have to wait and see what Bob does with the team after his "evaluation" but covering the young guys is a must.

Share this post


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

As of now it doesn't look like there has to be any mandatory coverings of NMC players so Bob (if he's the GM) can cover 8 players or 7 forwards and 3 defenseman. Cover Terry, Jones, Steel, Comtois, Kase, Rakell, Ritchie. I guess Sprong might be the odd man out. We'll just have to wait and see what Bob does with the team after his "evaluation" but covering the young guys is a must.

Perry and Getz don't have NMC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why is everyone concerned about playing the kids this year? They will be playing the next two years regardless and won't be exempt. 

Share this post


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

my bad, thought it was 2020-21.

 

yes I thought the same, this is because I started this topic

Edited by Spike1981

Share this post


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

Then why is everyone concerned about playing the kids this year? They will be playing the next two years regardless and won't be exempt. 

Lundestrom and Comtois are the ones people were worried about.  All of the others (Terry, Jones, Steel, Mahura) will be eligible regardless of how much NHL time they get.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Lundestrom and Comtois are the ones people were worried about.  All of the others (Terry, Jones, Steel, Mahura) will be eligible regardless of how much NHL time they get.

I think Lundestrom will also be exposed. Because he played 15 games this year (and under the age of 20), this season counts as 1year as a pro. The threshold is 11 games (which is why Comtois was sent down after his 10th game).  No?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.2.2019 at 6:06 PM, dukitup said:

I think Lundestrom will also be exposed. Because he played 15 games this year (and under the age of 20), this season counts as 1year as a pro. The threshold is 11 games (which is why Comtois was sent down after his 10th game).  No?

I believed its the 10th game which counts?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spike1981 said:

I believed its the 10th game which counts?!

I know the 10th game knocks a year off of the ELC. I believe it's 11 games for the other.  I've read some discrepancies (10 or 11 games), but I believe Murray can't be that stupid. I have to believe it's the 11 game threshold because if not Murray should be fired on the spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dukitup said:

but I believe Murray can't be that stupid. I have to believe it's the 11 game threshold because if not Murray should be fired on the spot.

I hope he made no mistake... but also that Comtois played the 10th game was not really smart... the same for Lundestrom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spike1981 said:

I hope he made no mistake... but also that Comtois played the 10th game was not really smart... the same for Lundestrom...

The Athletic (I believe) had an article about contracts and how GM's feel about playing players, etc. Concensus was burning a year off of the ELC isn't really that big a deal. Of greater concern is burning a year of a contract which allows a player to reach UFA status sooner.

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...