Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
Sign in to follow this  
Fisix

Sutter??!?

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Fisix said:

There was a deal in place, so if they don't hire RC, they may need to send him some cash for doing nothing.  Shrug.  I'm ok with that, over him messing with the team and Eakins and BM and, I guess, Sutter.  Based on how things ended last year, RC seems way out of touch with everything hockey right now, and at best I think he needs some time away from the game in anything but a self-evaluation mode.

I have to say, I'm feeling much less optimistic for this coming season right now.  Part of it is not being able to witness first hand whether Corey will overcome the odds, part of it is the FA players we picked up (and didn't) so far, and part of it is my personal cup of optimism is getting drained faster than it's getting replenished, for now.  

We currently have a $9M cap space to work with, and that's not even counting the (inevitable?) LTIR we'll have available.  If we wanted to, we could land some serious seat-sitter talent for this coming season, somewhere between 2-3 players... though we'd be putting ourselves in a bind at least in terms of the ED if they were anything but rentals.  A player would have to be pretty self-confident to agree to a 2 year or less deal with the Ducks, in their current state... and that costs more money than we want to ship.  I keep thinking about that a-hole Hagelin, and I see us at high risk of slipping into a similar deal.

The one thing dragging me back from the cliffs of despair is the herd of youngsters.  They seemed ready to put on a show last season.  I'm not entirely happy about it, but I'll be satisfied if the rooks tangibly increase their NHL play-ability this year, even if we don't make it into the playoffs on points.  I'll be very happy if the roster can gel as a team.

Pretty much sums it up.  Excellent post.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

There was a deal in place, so if they don't hire RC, they may need to send him some cash for doing nothing.  Shrug.  I'm ok with that, over him messing with the team and Eakins and BM and, I guess, Sutter.  Based on how things ended last year, RC seems way out of touch with everything hockey right now, and at best I think he needs some time away from the game in anything but a self-evaluation mode.

I have to say, I'm feeling much less optimistic for this coming season right now.  Part of it is not being able to witness first hand whether Corey will overcome the odds, part of it is the FA players we picked up (and didn't) so far, and part of it is my personal cup of optimism is getting drained faster than it's getting replenished, for now.  

We currently have a $9M cap space to work with, and that's not even counting the (inevitable?) LTIR we'll have available.  If we wanted to, we could land some serious seat-sitter talent for this coming season, somewhere between 2-3 players... though we'd be putting ourselves in a bind at least in terms of the ED if they were anything but rentals.  A player would have to be pretty self-confident to agree to a 2 year or less deal with the Ducks, in their current state... and that costs more money than we want to ship.  I keep thinking about that a-hole Hagelin, and I see us at high risk of slipping into a similar deal.

The one thing dragging me back from the cliffs of despair is the herd of youngsters.  They seemed ready to put on a show last season.  I'm not entirely happy about it, but I'll be satisfied if the rooks tangibly increase their NHL play-ability this year, even if we don't make it into the playoffs on points.  I'll be very happy if the roster can gel as a team.

I’m more optimistic and excited for next season than I have been for the previous two. The Ducks aren’t winning the Cup and need a minor miracle just to sneak into the playoffs but like you said, they are finally starting to transition to a new style of hockey with younger players. Who knows how they’ll pan out, but it’s better to see what they can do rather than sticking with the old ways that weren’t going work. Next season is the first real step towards hopefully getting back to a SCF.

Share this post


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

There was a deal in place, so if they don't hire RC, they may need to send him some cash for doing nothing.  Shrug.  I'm ok with that, over him messing with the team and Eakins and BM and, I guess, Sutter.  Based on how things ended last year, RC seems way out of touch with everything hockey right now, and at best I think he needs some time away from the game in anything but a self-evaluation mode.

I have to say, I'm feeling much less optimistic for this coming season right now.  Part of it is not being able to witness first hand whether Corey will overcome the odds, part of it is the FA players we picked up (and didn't) so far, and part of it is my personal cup of optimism is getting drained faster than it's getting replenished, for now.  

We currently have a $9M cap space to work with, and that's not even counting the (inevitable?) LTIR we'll have available.  If we wanted to, we could land some serious seat-sitter talent for this coming season, somewhere between 2-3 players... though we'd be putting ourselves in a bind at least in terms of the ED if they were anything but rentals.  A player would have to be pretty self-confident to agree to a 2 year or less deal with the Ducks, in their current state... and that costs more money than we want to ship.  I keep thinking about that a-hole Hagelin, and I see us at high risk of slipping into a similar deal.

The one thing dragging me back from the cliffs of despair is the herd of youngsters.  They seemed ready to put on a show last season.  I'm not entirely happy about it, but I'll be satisfied if the rooks tangibly increase their NHL play-ability this year, even if we don't make it into the playoffs on points.  I'll be very happy if the roster can gel as a team.

The Ducks are already going to have to expose good players in the expansion draft, aren't they? Just from the current crop of forwards, it looks to me like the following are eligible to be exposed (assuming all are still here and under contract): Rakell, Silfverberg, Henrique, Kase, Ritchie, Terry, Steel, Jones, Sprong, and Shore. I'm not sure I get the concept of "don't acquire good players because you might lose on in the ED." Why not just get as many good players as possible so that it doesn't hurt as bad to lose one?

Also, regarding the current cap space, several of the ELCs have performances bonuses built in (such as Terry's $850K PB) so GMBM has to be a little careful with that. Since Perry's cap hit is already going to eat $6.625M in 2020-21, GMBM needs to be absolutely sure the team doesn't take an additional hit next season due to performance bonus overages this coming season. But even so, I estimate the Ducks could add another $5M-$6M to their cap this season and next, and they'd still be in fine cap shape even without using a dime of LTIR space. Given that space, it sure feels frustrating that GMBM hasn't made a move on the #4D spot yet. But with so many good UFAs and RFAs still unsigned, there still seems to be a lot of options out there to improve the defense. So we gotta just keep the faith that GMBM will do something eventually this summer to keep Gibby from getting killed....

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

The Ducks are already going to have to expose good players in the expansion draft, aren't they? Just from the current crop of forwards, it looks to me like the following are eligible to be exposed (assuming all are still here and under contract): Rakell, Silfverberg, Henrique, Kase, Ritchie, Terry, Steel, Jones, Sprong, and Shore. I'm not sure I get the concept of "don't acquire good players because you might lose on in the ED." Why not just get as many good players as possible so that it doesn't hurt as bad to lose one?

should we include Max or Sherwood in that list?  based on prior season performance, i'm fine NOT protecting Ritchie, Sprong, or Shore, and i consider Kase and probably Sherwood fungible (we'll see how this season goes). 

i'm not sure what Kesler's status will be, but i doubt he allows us to buy him out, and he likely won't be eligible for the ED anyway.  you probably know better than I - if Kesler is on LTIR or doesn't have the games, then i think you'll agree he isn't eligible as our "at least one eligible forward."  if he waives his mNMC, i don't think we are forced to make him one of our protected 7.  i would expect him to not force us to burn one of the 7 on him, if he's actual able to help us out on that front. 

do we resign Getz (and make him one of our protected 7)?  can we "protect" him from the ED by not signing him until after?  

if not, Getz is 1 of our 7, plus Rakell, Silf, and Hank (those three are currently signed), which makes 4, and then we have Terry, Steel, Jones, and I guess Max?  that would be 8.  Anyone else we sign past the ED would eat into our 7 further and bump someone into the unprotected group.  

By my shoot-from-the-hip thinking, right now we have a way to protect almost everyone we currently would want to protect, and we have some flexibility to mix and match and sign a forward we'd be fine making available (any one of Ritchie, Sprong, or Shore, and possibly Kase or Sherwood, all of which need to be signed to be eligible). 

at least one of the 8 desirable players probably won't perform enough to protect (unless Max isn't eligible for some reason I've forgotten).  Kase may become a core player to keep...

i think the pickings get better closer to the ED, so i wouldn't commit us now unless the deal is so good that we are almost certain we wouldn't get something better closer to the ED.  i'm fine moving forward with what we have to test out and train the rooks.

Share this post


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

should we include Max or Sherwood in that list?  based on prior season performance, i'm fine NOT protecting Ritchie, Sprong, or Shore, and i consider Kase and probably Sherwood fungible (we'll see how this season goes). 

i'm not sure what Kesler's status will be, but i doubt he allows us to buy him out, and he likely won't be eligible for the ED anyway.  you probably know better than I - if Kesler is on LTIR or doesn't have the games, then i think you'll agree he isn't eligible as our "at least one eligible forward."  if he waives his mNMC, i don't think we are forced to make him one of our protected 7.  i would expect him to not force us to burn one of the 7 on him, if he's actual able to help us out on that front. 

do we resign Getz (and make him one of our protected 7)?  can we "protect" him from the ED by not signing him until after?  

if not, Getz is 1 of our 7, plus Rakell, Silf, and Hank (those three are currently signed), which makes 4, and then we have Terry, Steel, Jones, and I guess Max?  that would be 8.  Anyone else we sign past the ED would eat into our 7 further and bump someone into the unprotected group.  

By my shoot-from-the-hip thinking, right now we have a way to protect almost everyone we currently would want to protect, and we have some flexibility to mix and match and sign a forward we'd be fine making available (any one of Ritchie, Sprong, or Shore, and possibly Kase or Sherwood, all of which need to be signed to be eligible). 

at least one of the 8 desirable players probably won't perform enough to protect (unless Max isn't eligible for some reason I've forgotten).  Kase may become a core player to keep...

i think the pickings get better closer to the ED, so i wouldn't commit us now unless the deal is so good that we are almost certain we wouldn't get something better closer to the ED.  i'm fine moving forward with what we have to test out and train the rooks.

Kesler’s NMC converts to a modified NTC in 2021, so he’s not required to be protected. And I’m sure Getz will be onboard with re-signing after the ED so he won’t have to take up a spot on the protected list. You’re correct with Comtois and Sherwood though. They would be eligible. Which just further shows that the Ducks have a crapload of players that will be both eligible for the ED and very desirable to Seattle. Might as well just keep adding more so that when one is plucked from the roster it doesn’t sting as bad.

Edited by dtsdlaw

Share this post


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

Kesler’s NMC converts to a modified NTC in 2021, so he’s not required to be protected. And I’m sure Getz will be onboard with re-signing after the ED so he won’t have to take up a spot on the protected list. You’re correct with Comtois and Sherwood though. They would be eligible. Which just further shows that the Ducks have a crapload of players that will be both eligible for the ED and very desirable to Seattle. Might as well just keep adding more so that when one is plucked from the roster it doesn’t sting as bad.

Are you sure? He only played 10 games last year. I thought he had to play 11 to be exposed to the draft. I'm thinking he's protected. You'll set me straight if I'm wrong.

Share this post


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

Kesler’s NMC converts to a modified NTC in 2021, so he’s not required to be protected. And I’m sure Getz will be onboard with re-signing after the ED so he won’t have to take up a spot on the protected list. You’re correct with Comtois and Sherwood though. They would be eligible. Which just further shows that the Ducks have a crapload of players that will be both eligible for the ED and very desirable to Seattle. Might as well just keep adding more so that when one is plucked from the roster it doesn’t sting as bad.

Comtois shouldn’t be eligible for the expansion draft. He didn’t play his 11th game which would have counted towards a pro season. The 10th game burned a year off his ELC. It’s weird, but I remember this topic coming up when he was sent back to juniors after his rehab stint in SD. Players of note that are under contract and shouldn’t be eligible for the ED are Comtois, Morand, Benoit, Dokstal, Eriksson Ek. 

Who knows what the situation for the Ducks will look like in two years. If everything works out the way we hope then Murray might give up draft picks rather than a player to Seattle. He might want to avoid another Theodore scenario.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Comtois shouldn’t be eligible for the expansion draft. He didn’t play his 11th game which would have counted towards a pro season. The 10th game burned a year off his ELC. It’s weird, but I remember this topic coming up when he was sent back to juniors after his rehab stint in SD. Players of note that are under contract and shouldn’t be eligible for the ED are Comtois, Morand, Benoit, Dokstal, Eriksson Ek. 

Who knows what the situation for the Ducks will look like in two years. If everything works out the way we hope then Murray might give up draft picks rather than a player to Seattle. He might want to avoid another Theodore scenario.

Bob might want to avoid that and ensure He does not lose another D-man.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and that's a real issue now.  we need another good dman, and whoever we get, that'll open us up to one of them having to be unprotected.  

would i let manson go this time?  maybe, certainly if he continues to play like last year.  but we'd need some $5M+ d-man (who is playing well) in place for it to make sense.

point being, there's going to have to be some serious attitude rearrangement on the d-line for me to advocate a d-line protection redo in the next ED.

on forwards - i don't want to pay to make the evaluation of the rooks harder AND to make the ED more expensive.  i'm sure there's some unicorn we could get who'd be perfect... i just don't have faith that we'd make that purchase.  i'm pricing in the conservative streak of BM, perhaps unfairly (or maybe unwarranted under our current circumstances), but i just don't see us mortgaging anything to try to get another kariya, selane, getz, or perry (i don't see any player of that quality available) before the ED.

mitch marner.  i could see a mortgage on that, with our current makeup and where we want to go in the future.  i'd give up any one of those 3-4 players futures on him.

clearer -> i would not give up the picks to pay him what an offer sheet would require.  that's crazy talk.

what would you mortgage to get Mitch Marner AND Matt Tkachuk.

 

Edited by Fisix

Share this post


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

The Ducks are already going to have to expose good players in the expansion draft, aren't they? Just from the current crop of forwards, it looks to me like the following are eligible to be exposed (assuming all are still here and under contract): Rakell, Silfverberg, Henrique, Kase, Ritchie, Terry, Steel, Jones, Sprong, and Shore. I'm not sure I get the concept of "don't acquire good players because you might lose on in the ED." Why not just get as many good players as possible so that it doesn't hurt as bad to lose one?

Also, regarding the current cap space, several of the ELCs have performances bonuses built in (such as Terry's $850K PB) so GMBM has to be a little careful with that. Since Perry's cap hit is already going to eat $6.625M in 2020-21, GMBM needs to be absolutely sure the team doesn't take an additional hit next season due to performance bonus overages this coming season. But even so, I estimate the Ducks could add another $5M-$6M to their cap this season and next, and they'd still be in fine cap shape even without using a dime of LTIR space. Given that space, it sure feels frustrating that GMBM hasn't made a move on the #4D spot yet. But with so many good UFAs and RFAs still unsigned, there still seems to be a lot of options out there to improve the defense. So we gotta just keep the faith that GMBM will do something eventually this summer to keep Gibby from getting killed....

I believe you also would have to add lundestrom to that group. Didn't he play more than 11? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, g20topdogg said:

I believe you also would have to add lundestrom to that group. Didn't he play more than 11? 

not sure if he's in the same group as far as performance is concerned.

Share this post


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

Comtois shouldn’t be eligible for the expansion draft. He didn’t play his 11th game which would have counted towards a pro season. The 10th game burned a year off his ELC. It’s weird, but I remember this topic coming up when he was sent back to juniors after his rehab stint in SD. Players of note that are under contract and shouldn’t be eligible for the ED are Comtois, Morand, Benoit, Dokstal, Eriksson Ek. 

Who knows what the situation for the Ducks will look like in two years. If everything works out the way we hope then Murray might give up draft picks rather than a player to Seattle. He might want to avoid another Theodore scenario.

I'm still skeptical about the 11 game threshold argument. The CBA says 10 or more NHL games (for 18 & 19 y/o) for earning a year of professional experience towards free agency (Article 10) and 10 or more games for earning a year of professional experience towards arbitration rights (Article 12), but we're supposed to believe that the ED rules for 1st and 2nd year pros will follow the waivers rules in Article 13 instead? I'd love to be wrong about this (since it would mean Comtois won't need protection), but I don't buy it. I'm going to assume its the "10 or more NHL games" threshold under Articles 10 & 12 until a reputable source says otherwise. I think Comtois will need to be protected.

Edited by dtsdlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fisix said:

I wonder if this means that RC is out as "adviser" to the team (I think back before he was shipped, they were talking about him scouting and advising). 

Probably? Why have Suter and RC when their strategy essentially boils down to "Ride the hot goalie!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Kesler’s NMC converts to a modified NTC in 2021, so he’s not required to be protected. And I’m sure Getz will be onboard with re-signing after the ED so he won’t have to take up a spot on the protected list. You’re correct with Comtois and Sherwood though. They would be eligible. Which just further shows that the Ducks have a crapload of players that will be both eligible for the ED and very desirable to Seattle. Might as well just keep adding more so that when one is plucked from the roster it doesn’t sting as bad.

I have heard from multiple places that Comtois will not be eligible for the draft.  In fact, I thought Murray himself said that he wouldn't be and that played a part in his going back down to the AHL when he did.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 7:36 AM, gorbachav5 said:

So applying the waivers rules, A player who turns 20 on December 31st needs only ONE game in any professional league anywhere in the world to meet the threshold for a pro season??

Wow. That. Is. Dumb.

Share this post


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

So applying the waivers rules, A player who turns 20 on December 31st needs only ONE game in any professional league anywhere in the world to meet the threshold for a pro season??

Wow. That. Is. Dumb.

But he also needs 10 games for the season to qualify for the expansion draft. So Comtois qualified for the 10 games, but it wasn't a pro season. Someone who plays 1 game at age 20 has a pro season but doesn't meet the 10 game threshold. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But he also needs 10 games for the season to qualify for the expansion draft. So Comtois qualified for the 10 games, but it wasn't a pro season. Someone who plays 1 game at age 20 has a pro season but doesn't meet the 10 game threshold. 

I don't follow. I thought it was 40 games the previous season or a total of 70 games the previous two seasons combined for forwards? But if you're just talking about a 10-game threshold for 20+ year-olds to accrue a pro season, I wonder what the heck Ken Holland was thinking when he let Taro Hirose and Ryan Kuffner play exactly 10 games for the Wings at the end of this past season after signing them as undrafted UFAs when they finished their college seasons. Is Holland just dumb? I mean, if it's 10 games for 20+ guys like you say it is, why not just play Hirose and Kuffner in 9 games to prevent them from accruing a professional season towards expansion draft eligibility?

btw, every article I've seen that argues for the 11 game threshold always cites back to Capfriendly as their source. I love Capfriendly, but Capfriendly has been wrong in the past about CBA rules, players contract clauses, etc., so I do not consider them to be a definitive source. Case in point, Hirose and Kuffner are currently listed by Capfriendly on their exempt list for the 2021 ED even though they would clearly be 3rd year players in 2021 based the rules Capfriendly is advocating.

Edited by dtsdlaw

Share this post


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

I don't follow. I thought it was 40 games the previous season or a total of 70 games the previous two seasons combined for forwards? But if you're just talking about a 10-game threshold for 20+ year-olds to accrue a pro season, I wonder what the heck Ken Holland was thinking when he let Taro Hirose and Ryan Kuffner play exactly 10 games for the Wings at the end of this past season after signing them as undrafted UFAs when they finished their college seasons. Is Holland just dumb? I mean, if it's 10 games for 20+ guys like you say it is, why not just play Hirose and Kuffner in 9 games to prevent them from accruing a professional season towards expansion draft eligibility?

btw, every article I've seen that argues for the 11 game threshold always cites back to Capfriendly as their source. I love Capfriendly, but Capfriendly has been wrong in the past about CBA rules, players contract clauses, etc., so I do not consider them to be a definitive source. Case in point, Hirose and Kuffner are currently listed by Capfriendly on their exempt list for the 2021 ED even though they would clearly be 3rd year players in 2021 based the rules Capfriendly is advocating.

I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Murray on this very site that noted the 11-game threshold for Comtois as being a factor in sending him back.

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Murray on this very site that noted the 11-game threshold for Comtois as being a factor in sending him back.

I have feeling too....was looking for it then I gave up.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comtois does not need to be protected. Eric Stephens wrote an article in the Athletic in December with his "protect" list at the time (obviously it's changed since Montour, Perry, etc are gone) and he noted Comtois would not need to be protected since he only played 10 games, and noted he would not be back with the Ducks that year for that reason (keeping games played at 10). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 4:22 PM, dukitup said:

Comtois does not need to be protected. Eric Stephens wrote an article in the Athletic in December with his "protect" list at the time (obviously it's changed since Montour, Perry, etc are gone) and he noted Comtois would not need to be protected since he only played 10 games, and noted he would not be back with the Ducks that year for that reason (keeping games played at 10). 

Interesting....Very interesting.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...