Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
Fisix

Listening to Bob M this morning.

Recommended Posts

Do we need to move Perry before next season for the cap space? I thought we were okay for cap space next year, unless we are looking to add an expensive free agent. I don't know if we really need to give up one of our first rounders to get his cap off the books at this stage in our 'rebuild'.

While I understand your point about Perry being behind guys like Silf and Kase on the depth chart, despite this he's still likely to play with Getzlaf, no? I wouldn't put it past Perry to have another 50 point season next year if Getzlaf is back to his former self, and those 50 points would be valuable to this team.

Edited by nieder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Perry is going anywhere before his contract expires.  Plus, his value isn't just as a scorer, there's potential value in having him ice-coach the rookies and youngers, if he's able to do that AND willing.  if you want a healthy and semi-short rebuild, you can't Dehydrated Donkey Dung-can all your veterans all at once.

There was an interesting radio interview with Perry last night after the game.  It's worth finding and listening to if you can find it.  At one point, he's asked something like "at this stage in your career, are you finding yourself helping the youngers along in their development and do you like that role."  Perry is clearly surprised by the question... you have to listen to it to hear the... kink, or lilt in his voice.  Perry believes he's on a Teemu-like come back from a knee injury, and he still thinks he's one of the top 2 players on the team.

and... he's right.  silf is on a streak, but given his history, we can't say for sure whether it's something that can last.  we need more than just a subset of this season to say he's the new C and all that jazz.  i desperately want him to be tops, but you're wearing magnifying glasses if you think he's currently a solid replacement for any one of our top 3.

so.  i guess my point is, Perry's only been back a few games, he looks stronger than much of last season, though i DO think he's still having setbacks since he came back.  but, i haven't seen him buckle like Kes, and it's been too short a time to evaluate him for next season.  i don't think i'm being too optimistic in hoping we'll see a resurgent CP next Fall.  it's certainly what he believes (and, to be frank, while i've seen immense grit and determination from Kes, I haven't seen optimism from him).

if we're talking about a player who is going to waive an NMC AND possibly retire, it's Kes.  Eaves... Eaves is going to milk his contract for everything he can, because he's done, and this money is going to have to last him for the duration.  I also think he sort of scuttled his inter-personal chances with the team when he didn't thank the Ducks in his tweet thanking others as he achieved his college degree.  Kes has $$ in the bank... though on the other hand, his post-retirement medical/ortho needs are probably going to be significant.  i would expect him to immediately get two new hips upon retirement.

anyway, that's my take.  see if you can find that interview last night.  I think the radio crew heard the comments from BM regarding playing with rookies and used that to ask some pretty pointed questions last night.  it'll be interesting (though less so, since he's probably fore-warned at this point) to see what happens if Getz accepts an invite to the post game interview in the coming home games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Do we need to move Perry before next season for the cap space? I thought we were okay for cap space next year, unless we are looking to add an expensive free agent. I don't know if we really need to give up one of our first rounders to get his cap off the books at this stage in our 'rebuild'.

While I understand your point about Perry being behind guys like Silf and Kase on the depth chart, despite this he's still likely to play with Getzlaf, no? I wouldn't put it past Perry to have another 50 point season next year if Getzlaf is back to his former self, and those 50 points would be valuable to this team.

I think that could stand to add a little more cap space but don’t necessarily need to move Perry for that. If Murray does want to bring in a big piece then a bigger contract probably needs to go. It’s also more of an issue of what to do with too many RW’s on the roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Perry interview was the postgame one on 830 in the Jack Daniels Club.

I don't know where to find it, but maybe that'll help someone find it.

 

Share this post


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

Do we need to move Perry before next season for the cap space? I thought we were okay for cap space next year, unless we are looking to add an expensive free agent. I don't know if we really need to give up one of our first rounders to get his cap off the books at this stage in our 'rebuild'.

While I understand your point about Perry being behind guys like Silf and Kase on the depth chart, despite this he's still likely to play with Getzlaf, no? I wouldn't put it past Perry to have another 50 point season next year if Getzlaf is back to his former self, and those 50 points would be valuable to this team.

If you read dukitup's post on page 2 of this thread, it says the following:

Quote

He plans to look at the college free agent market as well as the European market. He is looking to add a third line winger and right-hand shooting defenseman with size. Murray also stressed he wants to avoid doing long term contracts.

WILL RE-TOOLING INCLUDE BUYOUTS AND TRADES

"No one is untouchable" Murray said. He plans to talk to the owners during the offseason and he is definitely looking into future trades. The owners aren't big on buy-outs.

THOUGHTS ON COMTOIS DEVELOPMENT

The "sooner he gets here (Anaheim) the better" Murray said about the future of Max. He didn't like the fact he had to send him back to junior and wants to change that process if possible. He has been discussing it with the NHL.

THOUGHTS ON THE ANAHEIM DEFENSIVE CORE

Having good partners is key he said. He likes the pairing of Manson and Lindholm. He would like to add a player with size that can quarterback the power play (ie Shea Weber). Murray wants more size on his blue line in general.

I don't know how GMBM can add that "right-hand shooting defenseman with size" to our cap unless a significant contract leaves. I suppose there's an option to have Kesler on LTIR, but Kesler may not be willing to stay on LTIR for a whole season, especially if the Ducks are good again. Given our depth on RW, the most logical player to move is Perry (despite what he thinks of the mileage he has left in his tank). After Perry, the next most logical contract probably depends on who we intend to draft and who we are chasing via trade or free agency. Maybe Henrique if we have a new top-6 center coming. Maybe Cam if GMBM wants to go with a Guhle - "right-hand shooting defenseman with size" as the second pair next season.

btw, the fact that he's looking for a 3rd line winger makes me think that Ritchie and Shore are all but gone this offseason too. We're loaded on the right side, so we obviously don't need a 3rd line RW. And he's already so excited about Jones and Comtois that I doubt he'd be looking for a 3rd line LW unless Ritchie and Shore were on their way out.

Share this post


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

If you read dukitup's post on page 2 of this thread, it says the following:

I don't know how GMBM can add that "right-hand shooting defenseman with size" to our cap unless a significant contract leaves. I suppose there's an option to have Kesler on LTIR, but Kesler may not be willing to stay on LTIR for a whole season, especially if the Ducks are good again. Given our depth on RW, the most logical player to move is Perry (despite what he thinks of the mileage he has left in his tank). After Perry, the next most logical contract probably depends on who we intend to draft and who we are chasing via trade or free agency. Maybe Henrique if we have a new top-6 center coming. Maybe Cam if GMBM wants to go with a Guhle - "right-hand shooting defenseman with size" as the second pair next season.

btw, the fact that he's looking for a 3rd line winger makes me think that Ritchie and Shore are all but gone this offseason too. We're loaded on the right side, so we obviously don't need a 3rd line RW. And he's already so excited about Jones and Comtois that I doubt he'd be looking for a 3rd line LW unless Ritchie and Shore were on their way out.

mmmm.... i wouldn't say "fact."  i have some problems with that article and it's interpretation of what BM said.  still, if the article's interpretation is better than i think it is, your point is very interesting.  

Share this post


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

If you read dukitup's post on page 2 of this thread, it says the following:

I don't know how GMBM can add that "right-hand shooting defenseman with size" to our cap unless a significant contract leaves. I suppose there's an option to have Kesler on LTIR, but Kesler may not be willing to stay on LTIR for a whole season, especially if the Ducks are good again. Given our depth on RW, the most logical player to move is Perry (despite what he thinks of the mileage he has left in his tank). After Perry, the next most logical contract probably depends on who we intend to draft and who we are chasing via trade or free agency. Maybe Henrique if we have a new top-6 center coming. Maybe Cam if GMBM wants to go with a Guhle - "right-hand shooting defenseman with size" as the second pair next season.

btw, the fact that he's looking for a 3rd line winger makes me think that Ritchie and Shore are all but gone this offseason too. We're loaded on the right side, so we obviously don't need a 3rd line RW. And he's already so excited about Jones and Comtois that I doubt he'd be looking for a 3rd line LW unless Ritchie and Shore were on their way out.

It’s weird that a third line winger is what he’s looking for since we have plenty of those lol. We need a 30-goal scorers (an actual first line caliber of player.) Moving Ritchie doesn’t make sense given his contract and position. It would be interesting if he actually moved him after he sat out to start the season, when he moved montour, less than a year after he filed arbitration.

Share this post


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

mmmm.... i wouldn't say "fact."  i have some problems with that article and it's interpretation of what BM said.  still, if the article's interpretation is better than i think it is, your point is very interesting.  

Fair point. Should have prefaced that with "If true...".

Curious what your interpretation of the 3rd line forward comment was, Fisix, since you were there. And what was the context?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me it seemed like a throw away comment, like, yeah, we'd be happy to find X, we're always looking for X - that sort of thing.  it seemed more non-committal as if he wasn't going to be on record saying what he really wanted.  that was the general tone he was using then.

as a counter example, the tone he used when he was talking about playing/not playing with rookies was very direct, almost angrily clipped, and wasn't meandering and tangential like the other commentary on ~what we're looking for, etc.  under the circumstances, i can only think the playing/not playing with rookies commentary was either something he's been chewing on and had to get off his chest, or he'd had that conversation with someone already and sort of had it on the tip of his brain, ready to spill out.  there was clear threat in his tone, there.

as another semi-counter example, when he talked about the rebuild stuff (which is the term he used), he spoke sort of quickly, but with careful enunciation, and then sort of sheepishly (not lazily, still quickly) noted he probably shouldn't be saying it out loud.  this tone was more of a confession.

i'd have to look back, but i think the 3rd line forward stuff was part of the discussion of left vs. right shot, and how he didn't think it mattered as long as you knew how to play, and how Cam seemed to be more open for offense when playing on the "wrong" side... it was a long semi-meandering tangent to a question that was fairly short (and a question that i can't remember in detail, unfortunately).  he was sort of babbling, possibly thinking out loud while answering a different question, but without any real underlying conviction.

hope that helps.  it was a bit of a strange conversation overall, in retrospect.  maybe a bit off the cuff compared to prior seasons, probably because he's acting HC now.

notably, it was held in the arena, with BM and Steve Carroll sitting on barstools up against the glass near the home corner on the main arena entrance side and facing the audience (us) in the 200s on either side of the isle ending at the barstools.  i think they each had a mic, and their audio was piped through the arena PA (the big one through the speakers up in the rafters), so everything they said could be heard probably throughout the arena (and in the locker room, if anyone was in there).  the ice was uncovered, the arena fully lit...

in prior years, the organizers set up a stage inside the main south entrance (backed by the big bar there), and everyone stood/sat within that marbled space between the team store and that sit down restaurant across the entrance hallway.  i guess this year the RSVP crowd was too large or something.  

 

oh, and sorry, i have to reiterate one comment he said pretty early on:  BM mentioned that what he found, being GM and being up in the rafters watching games, is that he started disliking players based on what he saw up there.  when he got down behind the bench, he realized what a disservice that was to the players.  now he sees what particular things they're struggling with, and he feels he has a much better handle on who is actually putting in effort for the team.  to me, that was a comment worth investigating or thinking about, because he's been a player, so he's actually been ON the bench in the past, but he'd gotten to the point where he was so divorced from the action, as a viewer, that he lacked an insight and connection to the team that he apparently now realizes is pretty important.  

i think that's something to keep in mind as we evaluate his performance over the next 2 years, and, in addition, how we evaluate our... own reactions to what we see on the ice.  i... suspect that the best long term GMs don't lose the connection to the bench just because they're up in the rafters.  BM is probably lucky that he has the opportunity to make that connection again, to realize what he's been missing because of the coaching issue this year, and it might really, really help the team over the next few years.  or, it's a symptom of an ongoing issue with BM.  i optimistically lean towards the former, not the latter.  and, it makes sense when you think about how utterly abysmal other GMs (or owners) are, ones that just have no clue and never find a way to get one.  i don't think they ever develop that connection/insight with the bench.

you know... thinking about it, maybe it's just another way RC sucked - the GM is probably supposed to be able to rely on the head coach to get him the info BM is getting now from behind the bench.  that seems like a perfectly reasonably explanation.  

in any event, if a prior-player GM can get disconnected from the bench, think how disconnected us fans mostly are throughout the season.  worth a think or two.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Kapanen is a RW. Like DLaw said we are already stacked on the RW position, hence the release of Perry. If we got Perry to waive and go there it would have to be for another positional player. But I don’t see Tor biting on any proposal that includes an aging, declining player who is also expensive even after we retain a large amount of salary (prob more than 50%). I think if we were to divest ourselves of Perrys contact it might be via the seattle draft by doing a similar pacakage of Stoner combo with Theo type deal to Vegas. But I don’t think Perry is hip to the west coast if he were to move let alone to a start-up team. Bottom line is that I think we should keep and use the high draft picks this summer to get a high end center. 

Honestly, I don't see a need to trade Perry. Bob said a bunch of stuff, the owners said a bunch of stuff and I would say the team saw the writing on the wall. I would venture to say that the only reason Perry would be asked to waive his NMC is if he's not on board with a leadership role for the kids. Other than that, he should retire a Duck. Carlyle is gone finally and I think the team is coming together. Only thing they are missing is a some beef on the blueline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

44 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:

Honestly, I don't see a need to trade Perry. Bob said a bunch of stuff, the owners said a bunch of stuff and I would say the team saw the writing on the wall. I would venture to say that the only reason Perry would be asked to waive his NMC is if he's not on board with a leadership role for the kids. Other than that, he should retire a Duck. Carlyle is gone finally and I think the team is coming together. Only thing they are missing is a some beef on the blueline.

And a whole lot of scoring up front!

Share this post


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

Honestly, I don't see a need to trade Perry. Bob said a bunch of stuff, the owners said a bunch of stuff and I would say the team saw the writing on the wall. I would venture to say that the only reason Perry would be asked to waive his NMC is if he's not on board with a leadership role for the kids. Other than that, he should retire a Duck. Carlyle is gone finally and I think the team is coming together. Only thing they are missing is a some beef on the blueline.

I imagine Perry will stay....But if he does I am sure he will be there  to Mentor the Next Generation of Ducks along with Getz and Kesler.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

 

And a whole lot of scoring up front!

I think that will come in time with the young guys. I mean are we in a rebuild or a re-tool with playoff expectations for next season? I believe we have the forwards that can put up points, maybe not Connor McNugget points but we have talent. The team just to play better in front of Gibson. New coach, new system and an improvement on defense. Not a Luke Schenn dumpster dive, someone that isn't a pylon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason to trade Ritchie.  He's turned into a good third line winger, and has the potential for more.  If Murray trades Ritchie, it will be like Palmieri redux.  Trading a guy who's cheap just as he's about to become really useful.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

There is no reason to trade Ritchie.  He's turned into a good third line winger, and has the potential for more.  If Murray trades Ritchie, it will be like Palmieri redux.  Trading a guy who's cheap just as he's about to become really useful.

There’s no reason to trade him for no good return (like Palmieri was) but there is a great reason to trade him if he’s a piece that can help the team improve in another area that’s more urgently in need of an upgrade. He’s a useful player, but not untouchable. I can think of a half dozen scenarios where trading him makes perfect sense, anywhere from drafting Kaako to acquiring a new #2C that pushes Rico to LW to him being a piece that another team wants as part of a trade for that right-shot D-man that this team needs. I don’t agree with giving him away for nothing, but he’s not good enough to hold onto at all costs. Besides, when Palms was moved the cupboard was pretty bare at RW. Our RW depth was basically Pears, Silf, Chris Stewart, Noesen, and... Tim Jackman?? Trading Palms was a weird move for that reason alone. But that’s not what we currently have going on with our LW depth.  IMO he’s got a lower ceiling than Comtois and Jones, and even though he’s still relatively cheap, he’s obviously not cheaper than those two. So Ritchie is basically a redundant (and more expensive) piece, and one who missed part of a season due to a contract hold out. I can’t see a reason why GMBM wouldn’t trade him if he can get something good in return.

Share this post


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

There’s no reason to trade him for no good return (like Palmieri was) but there is a great reason to trade him if he’s a piece that can help the team improve in another area that’s more urgently in need of an upgrade. He’s a useful player, but not untouchable. I can think of a half dozen scenarios where trading him makes perfect sense, anywhere from drafting Kaako to acquiring a new #2C that pushes Rico to LW to him being a piece that another team wants as part of a trade for that right-shot D-man that this team needs. I don’t agree with giving him away for nothing, but he’s not good enough to hold onto at all costs. Besides, when Palms was moved the cupboard was pretty bare at RW. Our RW depth was basically Pears, Silf, Chris Stewart, Noesen, and... Tim Jackman?? Trading Palms was a weird move for that reason alone. But that’s not what we currently have going on with our LW depth.  IMO he’s got a lower ceiling than Comtois and Jones, and even though he’s still relatively cheap, he’s obviously not cheaper than those two. So Ritchie is basically a redundant (and more expensive) piece, and one who missed part of a season due to a contract hold out. I can’t see a reason why GMBM wouldn’t trade him if he can get something good in return.

The holdout part has a Montour vibe to it. Bob will not hold on if presented an opportunity. Burgerboi's no Lindholm.

Share this post


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

There’s no reason to trade him for no good return (like Palmieri was) but there is a great reason to trade him if he’s a piece that can help the team improve in another area that’s more urgently in need of an upgrade. He’s a useful player, but not untouchable. I can think of a half dozen scenarios where trading him makes perfect sense, anywhere from drafting Kaako to acquiring a new #2C that pushes Rico to LW to him being a piece that another team wants as part of a trade for that right-shot D-man that this team needs. I don’t agree with giving him away for nothing, but he’s not good enough to hold onto at all costs. Besides, when Palms was moved the cupboard was pretty bare at RW. Our RW depth was basically Pears, Silf, Chris Stewart, Noesen, and... Tim Jackman?? Trading Palms was a weird move for that reason alone. But that’s not what we currently have going on with our LW depth.  IMO he’s got a lower ceiling than Comtois and Jones, and even though he’s still relatively cheap, he’s obviously not cheaper than those two. So Ritchie is basically a redundant (and more expensive) piece, and one who missed part of a season due to a contract hold out. I can’t see a reason why GMBM wouldn’t trade him if he can get something good in return.

I think Ritchie's a much surer bet than Comtois to contribute over the next few years.  He's got a lower ceiling than Jones, but again, while I love Jones, he's produced about as much as Ritchie produced in Ritchie's first few months of the NHL.  If they get a real 2C to push Henrique to the wing, I could see them moving Ritchie, but otherwise, he's one of the top 4 LWs the team will have next season, he produces above his salary level, he still has potential, and he has the skillset to move onto different lines and contribute.   I think you roll with Rakell, Jones, Kase/Sprong (whichever you want to move to the LW), and Ritchie.  Put Shore on the next train leaving the station.  Right side you've got Perry, Silf, Terry, and Kase/Sprong.

No, Ritchie's not untouchable, but I think you get 75 cents on the dollar if you trade him this offseason, unless it's part of a larger package for a top pairing d-man or a high quality 2C.  

Share this post


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

I think that will come in time with the young guys. I mean are we in a rebuild or a re-tool with playoff expectations for next season? I believe we have the forwards that can put up points, maybe not Connor McNugget points but we have talent. The team just to play better in front of Gibson. New coach, new system and an improvement on defense. Not a Luke Schenn dumpster dive, someone that isn't a pylon.

It’s so hard to say without seeing what happens in the offseason. Initial reaction is that they’d be in more of a rebuild mode. We’ve seen the flashes of what Terry and and Jones can do but I don’t know if they are going to progress into the type of impact players that we need by next year. Steel has work to do. Comtois will be very interesting to watch, but I don’t necessarily see him beating Ritchie or Jones for a LW spot and would start in SD, along with Lundestrom. Larsson still needs to find the next gear in his game and while he’s been a bit better lately, he’s been disappointing this year overall. It just seems like it’s going to be more of a development year as the younger guys hopefully begin step into their roles.

My wish list for next year: quality 2C, scoring winger, top-4 RHD

Share this post


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

I think Ritchie's a much surer bet than Comtois to contribute over the next few years.  He's got a lower ceiling than Jones, but again, while I love Jones, he's produced about as much as Ritchie produced in Ritchie's first few months of the NHL.  If they get a real 2C to push Henrique to the wing, I could see them moving Ritchie, but otherwise, he's one of the top 4 LWs the team will have next season, he produces above his salary level, he still has potential, and he has the skillset to move onto different lines and contribute.   I think you roll with Rakell, Jones, Kase/Sprong (whichever you want to move to the LW), and Ritchie.  Put Shore on the next train leaving the station.  Right side you've got Perry, Silf, Terry, and Kase/Sprong.

No, Ritchie's not untouchable, but I think you get 75 cents on the dollar if you trade him this offseason, unless it's part of a larger package for a top pairing d-man or a high quality 2C.  

I'm not usually one to fawn over prospects, but I've seen enough of Comtois (2G/5A in 10 NHL games) to see that he is going to be a legit NHL talent. He's got good hands and a true scorer's touch, he forechecks, he backchecks, he hits, he looked good on the PP, and he's not afraid to drop the gloves and stick up for his teammates. He would be in Anaheim already (or at a minimum San Diego if he was 4 months older) if not for the stupid rule about returning players to Juniors if they weren't 20 by September (he's a January birthday). 

With Ritchie, you've also got a guy who sat out part of a season following his ELC. At least with Rakell and Lindholm, GMBM got them signed well into their UFA eligibility. But Ritchie is due for another contract in two years and his QO will need to be at least $2M. He'll also be arbitration eligible by then, and does anyone here actually think that a guy who is willing to sit out part of an NHL season after his ELC won't go straight to arbitration as soon as he's eligible? He is a GM's headache waiting to happen. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things BM mentioned was regretting having to send Comtois to juniors.

He wasn’t quite ready to make the NHL roster, but I believe he would have been spending time on the freeway between Anaheim and San Diego if he stayed; if not permanently in Anaheim these last few months. 

Share this post


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

One of the things BM mentioned was regretting having to send Comtois to juniors.

He wasn’t quite ready to make the NHL roster, but I believe he would have been spending time on the freeway between Anaheim and San Diego if he stayed; if not permanently in Anaheim these last few months. 

He can't go to the ahl. If he was able to, he would already be there. Based on his age restriction he had to be sent to juniors unfortunately. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm not usually one to fawn over prospects, but I've seen enough of Comtois (2G/5A in 10 NHL games) to see that he is going to be a legit NHL talent. He's got good hands and a true scorer's touch, he forechecks, he backchecks, he hits, he looked good on the PP, and he's not afraid to drop the gloves and stick up for his teammates. He would be in Anaheim already (or at a minimum San Diego if he was 4 months older) if not for the stupid rule about returning players to Juniors if they weren't 20 by September (he's a January birthday). 

With Ritchie, you've also got a guy who sat out part of a season following his ELC. At least with Rakell and Lindholm, GMBM got them signed well into their UFA eligibility. But Ritchie is due for another contract in two years and his QO will need to be at least $2M. He'll also be arbitration eligible by then, and does anyone here actually think that a guy who is willing to sit out part of an NHL season after his ELC won't go straight to arbitration as soon as he's eligible? He is a GM's headache waiting to happen. 

Comtois put up some points, but was absolutely lost otherwise.  His possession figures were appalling.  He's going to need some AHL time.  I think Comtois has a lot of potential, but Ritchie can help the team over the next two years.  He's at a 45-point pace as a guy making less than two million a year.  The Ducks need that badly.  If Murray doesn't want to go through arbitration with him, then trade him in two years once he's put up a couple more good seasons and his value is higher.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 0:06 PM, gorbachav5 said:

Yep, that's the Carlyle effect.  It's what it looked like before he left the first time and it's what Toronto looked like by the end of his time there as well.  No, the "system" doesn't make you do those things, but those things happen a lot more often when you don't know where you're supposed to be and you have no time with the puck because none of your passing options are in good spots.  Those effects you're talking about all tend to happen when you get very few opportunities to make good plays.  You start fumbling open opportunities because you know that's the only one you're going to get and the pressure is ramped up to 11.  

I agreed whole-heartedly with what you wrote above, which is why I can't understand why you bother bringing up the bolded part below. 

13 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

Comtois put up some points, but was absolutely lost otherwise.  His possession figures were appalling.  He's going to need some AHL time.  I think Comtois has a lot of potential, but Ritchie can help the team over the next two years.  He's at a 45-point pace as a guy making less than two million a year.  The Ducks need that badly.  If Murray doesn't want to go through arbitration with him, then trade him in two years once he's put up a couple more good seasons and his value is higher.

The Ducks were also without Getzlaf for 5/10 of Comtois' NHL games, and the whole team had lousy possession stats for pretty much the entirety of Carlyle's tenure in 2018-19.

So I don't see how his possession stats from October mean much of anything, or his confusion about playing in a newly-implemented, extremely convoluted Carlyle system that was clearly broken from the get-go. You can't say the Carlyle effect exists and then turn around and ding a 19-year-old rookie because he suffered from it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

I agreed whole-heartedly with what you wrote above, which is why I can't understand why you bother bringing up the bolded part below. 

The Ducks were also without Getzlaf for 5/10 of Comtois' NHL games, and the whole team had lousy possession stats for pretty much the entirety of Carlyle's tenure in 2018-19.

So I don't see how his possession stats from October mean much of anything, or his confusion about playing in a newly-implemented, extremely convoluted Carlyle system that was clearly broken from the get-go. You can't say the Carlyle effect exists and then turn around and ding a 19-year-old rookie because he suffered from it.

He was the worst on the team, despite the Carlyle effect.  Relatively speaking, he was still bad (worst on the team by a decent amount at -9.8%).  I think he's got potential, and he may force himself into the lineup next year, but I don't think he'll be better than Ritchie will be, and I'd rather plan on him getting a season in the AHL. 

I'm excited for Comtois's future, but I'm also excited for Ritchie's future.  I think he's finally starting to live up to his billing and I'd hate to give up on him right when he's about to be good.  If the Ducks don't have an elite forward coming in, they're going to need their bottom three lines all to produce like they're second lines.  Ritchie has proven this season he can do that.

Share this post


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

He was the worst on the team, despite the Carlyle effect.  Relatively speaking, he was still bad (worst on the team by a decent amount at -9.8%).  I think he's got potential, and he may force himself into the lineup next year, but I don't think he'll be better than Ritchie will be, and I'd rather plan on him getting a season in the AHL. 

 

It's still a 10-game sample for a 19-year-old rookie playing in Randy Carlyle's "new" system during the first month of this abomination of a season. His fancy stats for that sample size are about as meaningful as Dan Sexton's magical two-weeks in December 2009. It's ridiculous to even bring them up as a knock against him.

IMO, this is the best Ritchie we are going to get. He's a 12-15 goal/year grinder who has soft hands but who doesn't really play with much speed, which is concerning because he has really dialed back his physical/hitting game. It's great that he can pass the puck a bit, but we drafted him to be a top-6 power forward who can pot 20-25+ and wear down defenses, but he's obviously not that guy. If you want him to stick around as a 3rd or 4th line low-cost plug until he's ready to file for arbitration, I guess that's ok by me as long as he doesn't block younger players (with more complete skill sets and higher ceilings) from getting minutes. I still think it's in the best long-term interests of the team to move on from him (as long as a solid asset can be acquired for him), but we can agree to disagree on this one. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out this summer.

Edited by dtsdlaw
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It's still a 10-game sample for a 19-year-old rookie playing in Randy Carlyle's "new" system during the first month of this abomination of a season. His fancy stats for that sample size are about as meaningful as Dan Sexton's magical two-weeks in December 2009. It's ridiculous to even bring them up as a knock against him.

IMO, this is the best Ritchie we are going to get. He's a 12-15 goal/year grinder who has soft hands but who doesn't really play with much speed, which is concerning because he has really dialed back his physical/hitting game. It's great that he can pass the puck a bit, but we drafted him to be a top-6 power forward who can pot 20-25+ and wear down defenses, but he's obviously not that guy. If you want him to stick around as a 3rd or 4th line low-cost plug until he's ready to file for arbitration, I guess that's ok by me as long as he doesn't block younger players (with more complete skill sets and higher ceilings) from getting minutes. I still think it's in the best long-term interests of the team to move on from him (as long as a solid asset can be acquired for him), but we can agree to disagree on this one. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out this summer.

It looks like we just disagree on Ritchie.  I don't care that he was overdrafted and I don't care that he doesn't hit as long as he's producing and driving offense, which he is, even if he's not the one putting the puck in the net all the time.  He's also killing penalties a bit now, and, by the numbers, is pretty good at it.  If he's a 15-goal, 40 - 50 point guy on the third line, that's incredibly valuable at $1.9 million.  I think he's got more in him, as his progression has shown and since power forwards historically have taken more time to develop. 

It's too late to move on from Silf, and we can't move on from Henrique because he's a center, but I think Ritchie at his current salary provides more value than both those guys.  But because those guys are on the roster and making $5+ million, Ritchie might very well be the odd man out, as you suggest, which would be a shame.

Share this post


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

It looks like we just disagree on Ritchie.  I don't care that he was overdrafted and I don't care that he doesn't hit as long as he's producing and driving offense, which he is, even if he's not the one putting the puck in the net all the time.  He's also killing penalties a bit now, and, by the numbers, is pretty good at it.  If he's a 15-goal, 40 - 50 point guy on the third line, that's incredibly valuable at $1.9 million.  I think he's got more in him, as his progression has shown and since power forwards historically have taken more time to develop. 

It's too late to move on from Silf, and we can't move on from Henrique because he's a center, but I think Ritchie at his current salary provides more value than both those guys.  But because those guys are on the roster and making $5+ million, Ritchie might very well be the odd man out, as you suggest, which would be a shame.

I think the bolded is crazy talk. Having Silf or Henrique out of the lineup sends this team into scramble mode with respect to line combos and match-ups. Having Ritchie out of the lineup means that Carter Rowney probably has to switch and play on his off wing. If Ritchie were gone next season, this team would not miss a beat.

On the contrary, Silf's is a unique skill set on this team. We do not have another winger who excels at the 200' game who can also consistently pot 20 goals. A winning team needs that type of player. You can't just play end-to-end hockey with the top offensive teams and expect to win playoff series. I understand the argument from people who wanted to continue to suck for a couple of seasons that trading Silf was a better long-term option for accumulating high draft picks, but if we want to be contenders again soon (which I think we will be again next season) Silf's skill set is indispensable for this team. Especially in the playoffs, where Silf has been pretty outstanding at both locking down opposing top lines and on the score sheet. So if Ritchie's redundant skill set is moved solely because Silf is still on this team, it's not a shame at all. It's the right decision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the bolded is crazy talk. Having Silf or Henrique out of the lineup sends this team into scramble mode with respect to line combos and match-ups. Having Ritchie out of the lineup means that Carter Rowney probably has to switch and play on his off wing. If Ritchie were gone next season, this team would not miss a beat.

On the contrary, Silf's is a unique skill set on this team. We do not have another winger who excels at the 200' game who can also consistently pot 20 goals. A winning team needs that type of player. You can't just play end-to-end hockey with the top offensive teams and expect to win playoff series. I understand the argument from people who wanted to continue to suck for a couple of seasons that trading Silf was a better long-term option for accumulating high draft picks, but if we want to be contenders again soon (which I think we will be again next season) Silf's skill set is indispensable for this team. Especially in the playoffs, where Silf has been pretty outstanding at both locking down opposing top lines and on the score sheet. So if Ritchie's redundant skill set is moved solely because Silf is still on this team, it's not a shame at all. It's the right decision.

I think the Ducks would be better served spending either Silf or Henrique's money, along with additional funds, on a guy who can put the puck in the net more than either of them can.  Ritchie at $1.9 million is good value.  Silf and Henrique at $5+ million are not.  They're fine players and add something to the team, but that money can be better spent on players who will do more to move the needle.  They're not BAD value, they're just not good value.  On a team with a few guys making a ton of money without contributing elite production, Ritchie is a more valuable asset.

Share this post


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

He can't go to the ahl. If he was able to, he would already be there. Based on his age restriction he had to be sent to juniors unfortunately. 

Which is why BM made the statement. He missed the cutoff by a few months.

Share this post


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

I think the bolded is crazy talk. Having Silf or Henrique out of the lineup sends this team into scramble mode with respect to line combos and match-ups. Having Ritchie out of the lineup means that Carter Rowney probably has to switch and play on his off wing. If Ritchie were gone next season, this team would not miss a beat.

On the contrary, Silf's is a unique skill set on this team. We do not have another winger who excels at the 200' game who can also consistently pot 20 goals. A winning team needs that type of player. You can't just play end-to-end hockey with the top offensive teams and expect to win playoff series. I understand the argument from people who wanted to continue to suck for a couple of seasons that trading Silf was a better long-term option for accumulating high draft picks, but if we want to be contenders again soon (which I think we will be again next season) Silf's skill set is indispensable for this team. Especially in the playoffs, where Silf has been pretty outstanding at both locking down opposing top lines and on the score sheet. So if Ritchie's redundant skill set is moved solely because Silf is still on this team, it's not a shame at all. It's the right decision.

No one wants this team to suck for any reason other than the belief that it’s the quickest way to get the Ducks back to being an actual contender. Getting to the level of where we can compete with Tampa, SJ, WSH, NSH, WPG, PITT etc usually doesn’t happen quickly or painlessly. For the Ducks to be in that conversation next season would require the stars to align in a way that I don’t think is likely. 

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...