Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
Ice_Attack

Ducks have regressed since cup win

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FanSince1993 said:

+ Kesler, 6 years with NTC while still having one year left from his previous contract. +Fowler, 8 years with only 4 teams trade list (pretty much untradeable). This guy is a complete product of GMBM. + 8 years to Gibson, he is good as of today but I am afraid the last 2-3 years of his contract will be the same situation as Kings have now with Quick. +6 years to Despres after only 30+ games with the Ducks. Now team is on the hook till 2024 to buy him out completely. The only good long-term signing is 8 years extension given to 22 y/o Rackell at reasonable rate

I'm not sure what this means. While Despres is still technically on the books until then, he is a $0 cap hit.

The Gibson deal is great. I don't think there's any reason to worry about that deal short of him getting a serious injury.

Rakell's deal was 6 years at $3.8M, not 8 years. Still a good contract though. You don't think the deals for Lindholm, Manson, Kase were also pretty reasonable?

Share this post


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

You would.., as you look through orange and black glasses.  🤪.   

Absolutely Not.....to assume I look at this team through the "Glasses" you say is abit  Naive. Ducks have Potential and the Promise to be Good...But they are Rebuilding and slowly integrating a New System into the team as we speak. We have expectations...I do too....But I tend to keep it to myself for now as this season goes along. For now Ducks will need to bounce back and regain some Lost Ground.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

I'm not sure what this means. While Despres is still technically on the books until then, he is a $0 cap hit.

The Gibson deal is great. I don't think there's any reason to worry about that deal short of him getting a serious injury.

Rakell's deal was 6 years at $3.8M, not 8 years. Still a good contract though. You don't think the deals for Lindholm, Manson, Kase were also pretty reasonable?

Despres final 5 years of his contract were bought out by the Ducks. Per CBA, each year of bought out contract counts as 2 years against cap hit. Despres cap hit is not much, since it spread over 10 years, but it's not $0.

Gibson deal is great as of now, agree. I just hope he won't be a problem for this team the last 2-3 years of this contract. Rakell's deal is great, Lindholm, Manson and Kase deals are good as well. You skipped Fowler., I wonder why?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, FanSince1993 said:

Despres final 5 years of his contract were bought out by the Ducks. Per CBA, each year of bought out contract counts as 2 years against cap hit. Despres cap hit is not much, since it spread over 10 years, but it's not $0.

Gibson deal is great as of now, agree. I just hope he won't be a problem for this team the last 2-3 years of this contract. Rakell's deal is great, Lindholm, Manson and Kase deals are good as well. You skipped Fowler., I wonder why?

It's interesting, because I remember he was going to have a cap hit of something like $650k per season, but CapFriendly currently has his cap hit listed as $0 for the next 6 years. I'm not sure if this is just listed incorrectly on CapFriendly or if the calculation changed somewhere along the way.

Why did I skip Fowler? Because I'm not going to debate Fowler with you, as you 90% of your posts are just about your irrational hatred for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FanSince1993 said:

Despres final 5 years of his contract were bought out by the Ducks. Per CBA, each year of bought out contract counts as 2 years against cap hit. Despres cap hit is not much, since it spread over 10 years, but it's not $0.

Gibson deal is great as of now, agree. I just hope he won't be a problem for this team the last 2-3 years of this contract. Rakell's deal is great, Lindholm, Manson and Kase deals are good as well. You skipped Fowler., I wonder why?

Capfriendly shows $0. I'm pretty sure it was a mutual contract termination. I was a bit surprised you were saying it wasn't. Regardless, you can't prevent players from getting hurt. He was playing really well and I recall everyone saying we got a steal and saying why would the pens trade this really good defender. That's why he signed him. If he waited until he posted stats that everyone thought he could with the way he was playing BM jumped to sign him before that happened. You could also question why Simon signed the contract knowing he could get a better deal at the end of the year with the way he was playing. It's only a bad contract because he got seriously hurt and to say otherwise is just false. He was fantastic for us and it was a serious improvement on our blue line, to the point that everyone was talking about how great our defensive core was. 

Also, I don't view Fowler as a terrible contract either. At the time it was signed it was thought he could grow into the shoes of one Scott N. but that hasn't happened. But I don't consider him to be a 'bad' contact. A bad contract is someone you need to part with a 1st rd pick to get rid of the guy. Fowler isn't that. Gibson is also signed to a steal of a contract considering what Price, Lundquist, Bob,etc got. Do you realize where he currently ranks among goalies historically?! Does the company of the likes of Roy make any difference? Seriously. This is just hating for the sake to hate on something. I don't find a single player that is currently on our team that is someone I would consider a real bad contract. Name one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Despres - Simon gave us a really good deal on how he agreed to his buyout.  I think how excellent that deal actually was for the Ducks is being forgotten by earlier posters in this thread.  I'm fairly certain Capfriendly has the burden correctly identified.  Despres' contract is only a "bad" contract if you view it entirely in hindsight... almost.  there's always going to be a little bit of blame on us for not heeding some hints that he was broken before we acquired him.  THAT is indicative of one of BM's cost-cutting measures - he tries to sign UFAs that are rumored to have issues that he believes undeservedly depresses their market value.  not sure what BM's vetting process is, or who he relies on... but, anyway, i think part of the reason why we were allowed to sneak out from under a bit of the full brunt of Simon's contract is because there was some slight... indication of withheld info in the original acquisition, and the NHL settled it by letting Simon's contract end the way it did.  by contrast, look at Eaves - his predicament was a complete surprise to him AND us, from all reports, AND just horrible luck, and we're taking the full hit (not sure what kind of insurance coverage there is).

Locking in UFAs "early" - BM knew about the cap increases, knew about how the players' agents were going to start asking for a step up... so he locked in the prices.  The NMCs weren't great, but it's not like they were out of the ordinary in the market.  Quite the opposite, and they were bargained for to keep prices down.  They were the cost of doing business, then, and many we're talking about here were before the ED rules were put in place.  Granularly, they were fine.  Bigger picture... sure wish there'd have been other acquisition options that would have cost a little more but could have pushed us through to the Cup (but then, that's the same with every team that didn't win but had a fighting chance).  Shrug.

We are in a planned rebuild, we have some cap space and some trade bait... we aren't winning, but we are rebuilding.  And, we aren't overpaying the players on the ice... really our main issue is having to blow significant cash on injured players that we knew wouldn't be maximum value at the end of their contract, but that we hoped would be healthy enough to be on the ice and helping train up the newbs on their way out (as well as shore up some skill weaknesses a bit).  Partially bad luck that we don't have that to the extent we planned for... but even with that, we have cap space to bring on serious skill if we wanted to (LTIR space also), and if the ED wasn't making the trade market more constipated than normal, we'd probably have made a blockbuster trade after buying out Perry.

oh, and all the talk about players not wanting to choose to come to the Ducks... I mean, can you blame them?  we are in obvious rebuild mode... if you're a UFA, why would you dive into a situation where you're likely not to make the playoffs and certain not to win the cup?  AND, on a team that isn't going to make a splash in the UFA market before the ED?  i'm guessing, but pretty confident that the choices a few players made NOT to be traded to us was more about expected team performance through the ED, and legitimately so, than it had anything to do with CA taxes, weather, or some other kind of touchy feely dislike of the organization, game times, travel burdens, and even penalty disparities.  we clearly have some work to do to be an exciting looking team that draws in players because they want to be part of a winning culture, but it's not an impossible dream that we'll get there in two seasons.

and hey, at least we're not toronto (I may eat those words - if they replace Babcock with the right person, they might finally bring their offense to bear and put together a decent cup run).

I agree about Despres and I am not going to criticize Murray for signing a 24 year old defensemen who was playing relatively well on the top pairing. His career getting cut short at such a young age because those ***** Gabriel Landeskog and Tyson Barrie went head hunting on him. The fact that Despres was under 26 when he bought out allowed the Ducks to pay out 1/3 of the remaining value of his contract instead of 2/3 if he was over. 

Eaves was a walking red-flag of injuries before he was diagnosed with his career-ending illness. I mean, he missed almost half of the 2017 playoff run and yet Murray still gave him an extension. With him, it's not hindsight to say that Murray should have just walked away and taken the "L" with giving up the first round pick.

The Bieksa trade and NMC are well document as being panned before he even played a game with Anaheim. The Kesler trade was great but the real risk was always with his extension, which we've all opined about on here.

Murray's recent trades, signings and overall strategy have left the Ducks in a position of not only having to add significant scoring talent but also to revamp our once vaunted defensive pipeline. He wanted to trade Kase for Faulk and hand out yet another awful extension just before the season started. As far as trade bait, if we are going to get anything of value then you'd have to move either Getzlaf, Lindholm, Rakell, Kase or Manson. Plus, we don't have any excess draft picks or top prospects to move. The rookies are definitely struggling early on in the season and if they don't progress enough then there's no way the Ducks are going to winning a lot of games or contending in two years. I just hope that we do nothing this season other than maybe move Shore, Del Zotto, Grant, if possible, and get something for them. I agree that we are more of a rebuild which isn't a selling point to pending UFA's but don't see that really changing until Murray is gone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree about Despres and I am not going to criticize Murray for signing a 24 year old defensemen who was playing relatively well on the top pairing. His career getting cut short at such a young age because those ***** Gabriel Landeskog and Tyson Barrie went head hunting on him. The fact that Despres was under 26 when he bought out allowed the Ducks to pay out 1/3 of the remaining value of his contract instead of 2/3 if he was over. 

Eaves was a walking red-flag of injuries before he was diagnosed with his career-ending illness. I mean, he missed almost half of the 2017 playoff run and yet Murray still gave him an extension. With him, it's not hindsight to say that Murray should have just walked away and taken the "L" with giving up the first round pick.

The Bieksa trade and NMC are well document as being panned before he even played a game with Anaheim. The Kesler trade was great but the real risk was always with his extension, which we've all opined about on here.

Murray's recent trades, signings and overall strategy have left the Ducks in a position of not only having to add significant scoring talent but also to revamp our once vaunted defensive pipeline. He wanted to trade Kase for Faulk and hand out yet another awful extension just before the season started. As far as trade bait, if we are going to get anything of value then you'd have to move either Getzlaf, Lindholm, Rakell, Kase or Manson. Plus, we don't have any excess draft picks or top prospects to move. The rookies are definitely struggling early on in the season and if they don't progress enough then there's no way the Ducks are going to winning a lot of games or contending in two years. I just hope that we do nothing this season other than maybe move Shore, Del Zotto, Grant, if possible, and get something for them. I agree that we are more of a rebuild which isn't a selling point to pending UFA's but don't see that really changing until Murray is gone.

No on moving Grant. Unless he agrees to a deadline trade then we get him back. But he's exactly the kind of player you need on the bottom 6 in order to make a run at the cup. I don't particularly care if any of the other guys get moved. They won't get you much of anything though. But Grant is a keeper. He significantly improves our bottom 6. Imagine if we didn't have him, our bottom 6 depth would be terrible. He drives plays and scores, something we currently lack on most of our lines.

As a side note, I was watching The Hockey Guy and he did an interesting list where the best contacts (points to dollars) are ranked. Grant was number three on the list, meaning his salary compared to his points was/ is third in the entire league. This could be used to get a good pick or prospect at the deadline. But I'm against letting him go. For a bottom 6 guy, I find him entertaining to watch. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

No on moving Grant. Unless he agrees to a deadline trade then we get him back. But he's exactly the kind of player you need on the bottom 6 in order to make a run at the cup. I don't particularly care if any of the other guys get moved. They won't get you much of anything though. But Grant is a keeper. He significantly improves our bottom 6. Imagine if we didn't have him, our bottom 6 depth would be terrible. He drives plays and scores, something we currently lack on most of our lines.

As a side note, I was watching The Hockey Guy and he did an interesting list where the best contacts (points to dollars) are ranked. Grant was number three on the list, meaning his salary compared to his points was/ is third in the entire league. This could be used to get a good pick or prospect at the deadline. But I'm against letting him go. For a bottom 6 guy, I find him entertaining to watch. 

He wouldn’t need to agree to a trade because he doesn’t have any trade protection. I like Grant and his cult like following is fun but he’s a 4th liner isn’t exactly an indispensable player. His line is usually the one getting outplayed and caved in with shot attempts. If you can get something for him then I’d take it. Plus, if he puts up career highs then he might price himself out of Anaheim and just walk for nothing. 
 

The fact that he’s 5th on the team in goals right now kind of shows where the Ducks are at and it is very far away from the Cup lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

well, i guess we can agree on Despres.

Eaves - by your logic, you'd be calling it a bad contract if he was killed in an airplane accident.  i think it makes more sense to eval a player contract on this basis: would you take that player for the same length of time at the league minimum?  if so, then all we're talking about is price.  for eaves in particular, he was great with the team and looked to be productive, and we wanted someone to fill his spot for a cup run.  bird in the hand, we pay to keep him.  maybe you can say you think the price was too high, but you can't say you'd have just walked away from any deal.  MORE - because he went on LTIR, except for the extra salary it would have cost, we could have replaced him, dollar for dollar, with anyone else you can think of, and been fine under the cap.  so... i mean... was there someone burning a hole in your pocket that you thought we could have picked up?

The rest - basically dripping with too generous a helping of pessimism.  And, frak-no to the idea of trading Grant or even DelZ... there's absolutely no good reason to do so - they do their jobs and more, and to me, they both look hungrier than many of their higher paid teammates.

Murray in general - he's worked within his means and done well if we think of those as hard limits.  maybe we need a GM that'll poke the deep pockets into making some bigger moves (though, to be fair, how much bigger can you get from buying out one of your two franchise players in the off season?).  we probably do need a Brian Burke-like GM after the ED.

Re: Eaves I had no problem with paying him $3M/year even with his injury history. He looked to have good chemistry with Getzy, so I figured if we pay him $3M for 55-60 games I'd be happy as he would likely be producing. Unfortunately he got a non-hockey related illness, which really nobody could have predicted. His illness wasn't related to his previous hockey injuries. In that sense I wouldn't say it's a bad contract as nobody could have predicted what happened to him. 

For Despres it seemed pretty smart at the time to lock up a young defenseman cheap who looked like he would be a part of the Ducks top-4 for the next decade. Again, who could have predicted that concussions would basically end his NHL career? 

The Bieksa and Kesler contracts are/were both bad IMO. Bieksa, well, okay, $4M/year is not the end of the world and he did fill a role in the playoffs. But extending Kesler for that long at that price always looked way too risky to me considering the style he played and his age at the time of signing. I'm not sure if we knew about his knee issues at the time but it can't have been a secret to Murray - his knees were getting progressively worse from what I understand. That was a bad contract.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Re: Eaves I had no problem with paying him $3M/year even with his injury history. He looked to have good chemistry with Getzy, so I figured if we pay him $3M for 55-60 games I'd be happy as he would likely be producing. Unfortunately he got a non-hockey related illness, which really nobody could have predicted. His illness wasn't related to his previous hockey injuries. In that sense I wouldn't say it's a bad contract as nobody could have predicted what happened to him. 

For Despres it seemed pretty smart at the time to lock up a young defenseman cheap who looked like he would be a part of the Ducks top-4 for the next decade. Again, who could have predicted that concussions would basically end his NHL career? 

The Bieksa and Kesler contracts are/were both bad IMO. Bieksa, well, okay, $4M/year is not the end of the world and he did fill a role in the playoffs. But extending Kesler for that long at that price always looked way too risky to me considering the style he played and his age at the time of signing. I'm not sure if we knew about his knee issues at the time but it can't have been a secret to Murray - his knees were getting progressively worse from what I understand. That was a bad contract.

Yes, it seemed a bit high and long. But if Kesler walks, who do we replace him with? We had been searching for that second line center for how long? Remember when we got cogliano to be our number two center? Lol 

But currently on our roster we don't have anyone on bad contracts. Kesler and eaves likely never play. Perry is bought out. Stop moving forward we're actually in really good shape. I'm just hoping BM doesn't mess that up. 

Share this post


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

well, i guess we can agree on Despres.

Eaves - by your logic, you'd be calling it a bad contract if he was killed in an airplane accident.  i think it makes more sense to eval a player contract on this basis: would you take that player for the same length of time at the league minimum?  if so, then all we're talking about is price.  for eaves in particular, he was great with the team and looked to be productive, and we wanted someone to fill his spot for a cup run.  bird in the hand, we pay to keep him.  maybe you can say you think the price was too high, but you can't say you'd have just walked away from any deal.  MORE - because he went on LTIR, except for the extra salary it would have cost, we could have replaced him, dollar for dollar, with anyone else you can think of, and been fine under the cap.  so... i mean... was there someone burning a hole in your pocket that you thought we could have picked up?

The rest - basically dripping with too generous a helping of pessimism.  And, frak-no to the idea of trading Grant or even DelZ... there's absolutely no good reason to do so - they do their jobs and more, and to me, they both look hungrier than many of their higher paid teammates.

Murray in general - he's worked within his means and done well if we think of those as hard limits.  maybe we need a GM that'll poke the deep pockets into making some bigger moves (though, to be fair, how much bigger can you get from buying out one of your two franchise players in the off season?).  we probably do need a Brian Burke-like GM after the ED.

Yes, I don’t see why you’d give an oft-injured almost 34-year player a 3-year deal with that much money, especially  when you have Kesler, Perry and Getzlaf already on the books. He even injured his shoulder while training trying to get back. It’s just a bad contract that shouldn’t have been offered in the first place IMO. The money and term obviously have to be taken into account. If you could get Eaves at the league minimum then the risk is significantly reduced. 

If Murray is able to get something for Del Zotto, Grant, Shore etc then why not do it? They aren’t likely to be in the Ducks long-term plans and can always re-sign in the offseason if there’s mutual interest to come back. If they were depth players for a Ducks team that was aiming for a deep playoff run then I’d agree with keeping them. That’s not happening this season and we might be able to sell them when their values are also at their highest.

 

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Re: Eaves I had no problem with paying him $3M/year even with his injury history. He looked to have good chemistry with Getzy, so I figured if we pay him $3M for 55-60 games I'd be happy as he would likely be producing. Unfortunately he got a non-hockey related illness, which really nobody could have predicted. His illness wasn't related to his previous hockey injuries. In that sense I wouldn't say it's a bad contract as nobody could have predicted what happened to him. 

For Despres it seemed pretty smart at the time to lock up a young defenseman cheap who looked like he would be a part of the Ducks top-4 for the next decade. Again, who could have predicted that concussions would basically end his NHL career? 

The Bieksa and Kesler contracts are/were both bad IMO. Bieksa, well, okay, $4M/year is not the end of the world and he did fill a role in the playoffs. But extending Kesler for that long at that price always looked way too risky to me considering the style he played and his age at the time of signing. I'm not sure if we knew about his knee issues at the time but it can't have been a secret to Murray - his knees were getting progressively worse from what I understand. That was a bad contract.

The Bieksa contract wasn’t horrible due to the $4M/year, it was horrible because it was a 35+ contract with an NMC before ever playing a single game for the Ducks. As a 35+ contract, you can’t buy it out and get any cap relief, and the NMC prevented the Ducks from doing anything with him when his game went off the rails. And it led directly to GMBM selling Theo at the ED. Bieksa is a good dude, but that was really bad GM’ing by Bob.

For Kesler, I assume you mean his hips not his knees. He’d had hip surgeries in the past, so the team obviously knew there was a potential issue there. I still support that contract though. Kesler was a beast and the Ducks don’t make either WCF without him. It was worth the gamble. Most likely that contract is also insured (I think insurance covers ~80%) and his cap hit isn’t blocking GMBM from shaping the current roster since his cap hit can go on LTIR if needed. So IMO any complaining about it now is kind of pointless since it has virtually no impact on the current roster or for the next few years since they’re in a full re-tool and won’t be near the cap ceiling anyway. The only real shame of the Kesler contract (besides the injury obviously) is that GMBM made no contingency plans for when/if Kesler (and Getzlaf) started to break down. He was basically caught flat footed when Kesler broke and had to trade one of our best D-men to compensate for it. The Ducks should have started stockpiling young centers much earlier, not trading them for washed up veteran D-men.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

The Bieksa contract wasn’t horrible due to the $4M/year, it was horrible because it was a 35+ contract with an NMC before ever playing a single game for the Ducks. As a 35+ contract, you can’t buy it out and get any cap relief, and the NMC prevented the Ducks from doing anything with him when his game went off the rails. And it led directly to GMBM selling Theo at the ED. Bieksa is a good dude, but that was really bad GM’ing by Bob.

For Kesler, I assume you mean his hips not his knees. He’d had hip surgeries in the past, so the team obviously knew there was a potential issue there. I still support that contract though. Kesler was a beast and the Ducks don’t make either WCF without him. It was worth the gamble. Most likely that contract is also insured (I think insurance covers ~80%) and his cap hit isn’t blocking GMBM from shaping the current roster since his cap hit can go on LTIR if needed. So IMO any complaining about it now is kind of pointless since it has virtually no impact on the current roster or for the next few years since they’re in a full re-tool and won’t be near the cap ceiling anyway. The only real shame of the Kesler contract (besides the injury obviously) is that GMBM made no contingency plans for when/if Kesler (and Getzlaf) started to break down. He was basically caught flat footed when Kesler broke and had to trade one of our best D-men to compensate for it. The Ducks should have started stockpiling young centers much earlier, not trading them for washed up veteran D-men.

 

Yes. Hips.

Well yeah, the contract isn't an issue as far as the cap and insurance covers it. It was more a problem when Kesler was still trying to play, and we were paying almost $7M to a guy on pace for 12 points in a full season. What if he tries to make a comeback next season? That could cause problems.

I'm not in favor of signing any player in their 30s to a deal that is longer than 4 years. Especially if they have known injury issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget our Ducks are amidst of Process of Rejuvenating,Rebuilding and Restoration. We will have some rough patches,mistakes and Pitfalls...For our Youth to win they must know what i means to face Adversity.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 4:34 PM, dtsdlaw said:

I still have no problem with Kesler's contract. Even though he still had another season left on his existing contract, he'd played a full season for the Ducks and had carried them to Game 7 of the WCF. Kesler was a superstar too. You have to get ahead of the curve before the UFA bidding war starts for superstars. Its a shame that Kesler broke, but he was really good for us when he was healthy. I'd forgotten about Despres though. I give GMBM some slack on that one because Despres was going to still be a 25-year-old RFA at the end of his existing contract, so getting out in front of his last RFA contract made sense at the time. But you're right that it was a lot of years to give him on an extension when he'd only played a total of 32 games for the Ducks to that point.

 

We're not immune from holdouts either. Ritchie missed 9 games due to a hold out last year. Rakell and Lindholm both missed the start of the 2017-18 season due to hold outs. 

Lindholm missed the start of the 17-18 season due to a torn labrum he had shoulder surgery along with Vatanen both injured during the playoffs.Both missed a big chunk of the start of the season due to the surgeries. Vatanen had more damage to the shoulder returning after Lindholm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 11:20 PM, g20topdogg said:

No on moving Grant. Unless he agrees to a deadline trade then we get him back. But he's exactly the kind of player you need on the bottom 6 in order to make a run at the cup. I don't particularly care if any of the other guys get moved. They won't get you much of anything though. But Grant is a keeper. He significantly improves our bottom 6. Imagine if we didn't have him, our bottom 6 depth would be terrible. He drives plays and scores, something we currently lack on most of our lines.

As a side note, I was watching The Hockey Guy and he did an interesting list where the best contacts (points to dollars) are ranked. Grant was number three on the list, meaning his salary compared to his points was/ is third in the entire league. This could be used to get a good pick or prospect at the deadline. But I'm against letting him go. For a bottom 6 guy, I find him entertaining to watch. 

 

On 11/20/2019 at 9:37 PM, BombaysTripleDeke said:

I agree about Despres and I am not going to criticize Murray for signing a 24 year old defensemen who was playing relatively well on the top pairing. His career getting cut short at such a young age because those ***** Gabriel Landeskog and Tyson Barrie went head hunting on him. The fact that Despres was under 26 when he bought out allowed the Ducks to pay out 1/3 of the remaining value of his contract instead of 2/3 if he was over. 

Eaves was a walking red-flag of injuries before he was diagnosed with his career-ending illness. I mean, he missed almost half of the 2017 playoff run and yet Murray still gave him an extension. With him, it's not hindsight to say that Murray should have just walked away and taken the "L" with giving up the first round pick.

The Bieksa trade and NMC are well document as being panned before he even played a game with Anaheim. The Kesler trade was great but the real risk was always with his extension, which we've all opined about on here.

Murray's recent trades, signings and overall strategy have left the Ducks in a position of not only having to add significant scoring talent but also to revamp our once vaunted defensive pipeline. He wanted to trade Kase for Faulk and hand out yet another awful extension just before the season started. As far as trade bait, if we are going to get anything of value then you'd have to move either Getzlaf, Lindholm, Rakell, Kase or Manson. Plus, we don't have any excess draft picks or top prospects to move. The rookies are definitely struggling early on in the season and if they don't progress enough then there's no way the Ducks are going to winning a lot of games or contending in two years. I just hope that we do nothing this season other than maybe move Shore, Del Zotto, Grant, if possible, and get something for them. I agree that we are more of a rebuild which isn't a selling point to pending UFA's but don't see that really changing until Murray is gone.

I beg the differ Despres, Eaves Bieksa, where horrible signing by an incompetent GM. He ran Chicago to the ground once he was replaced. They won the cup how many times? He is our GM since 2008 how many rings we got in that period?  

 

Share this post


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

Lindholm missed the start of the 17-18 season due to a torn labrum he had shoulder surgery along with Vatanen both injured during the playoffs.Both missed a big chunk of the start of the season due to the surgeries. Vatanen had more damage to the shoulder returning after Lindholm.

You are correct. I had my years mixed up. Lindholm and Rakell sat out the start of the 2016-17 season due to contract holdouts, not 2017-18. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through the Rejuvenation and Rebuild requires us to be Patient...Seeing Ducks we see Future honing their skills and learn what i makes to not only Win but bring honor to Ducks and Ducks Fans alike. FYI to all Rebuilding is process ALL NHL,MLB,NFL AND Sports teams go through it's a natural Process.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look for more minor trades to come for the Ducks. It won't be surprise if a team trade to add some Depth on Defence.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

anyone with an account want to give us the gist of this article?  was it about not wanting to take a year off helping a team rebuild (for the $$ offered)?

 

https://theathletic.com/1405672/2019/11/25/lightnings-kevin-shattenkirk-explains-why-it-was-tough-to-turn-down-the-ducks-free-agent-offer/

He said Anaheim seemed like a really good fit, but in the end Tampa gives him a better chance to win (although there wasn't a direct quote on that, it was just implied by the article - he actually said there was nothing specific that deterred him from Anaheim, but Tampa was just a little better for him right now). He said that he would be happy playing with Fowler in Anaheim or with Hedman in Tampa (nothing against Cam but I'd rather play with Hedman myself, lol). He also said that being out east was a factor, but it was near the bottom of the list, though he just had a kid and his wife's parents are out East so that may be more of a factor right now than it would be when the baby gets a bit older.

He said Anaheim was one of the final teams he was considering and it was tough to turn them down, he had some good talks with Eakins and Cam about the lifestyle in So Cal.

The Ducks were offering 2 years at $5M per. Tampa gave him 1 year at $1.75M. I get the feeling that he would be happy to move out west if that offer were there again  and his kid is a little older.

Edited by nieder
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

He said Anaheim seemed like a really good fit, but in the end Tampa gives him a better chance to win (although there wasn't a direct quote on that, it was just implied by the article - he actually said there was nothing specific that deterred him from Anaheim, but Tampa was just a little better for him right now). He said that he would be happy playing with Fowler in Anaheim or with Hedman in Tampa (nothing against Cam but I'd rather play with Hedman myself, lol). He also said that being out east was a factor, but it was near the bottom of the list, though he just had a kid and his wife's parents are out East so that may be more of a factor right now than it would be when the baby gets a bit older.

He said Anaheim was one of the final teams he was considering and it was tough to turn them down, he had some good talks with Eakins and Cam about the lifestyle in So Cal.

The Ducks were offering 2 years at $5M per. Tampa gave him 1 year at $1.75M. I get the feeling that he would be happy to move out west if that offer were there again  and his kid is a little older.

That seems rather high for a guy who was bought out by his former team. Yikes! I'm sure there's a ntc in there as well with all the money as a signing bonus lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, g20topdogg said:

That seems rather high for a guy who was bought out by his former team. Yikes! I'm sure there's a ntc in there as well with all the money as a signing bonus lol

I think it was $5M total, so $2.5M/season AAV.

Share this post


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

ah, good.  that $5M per was awfully large for him to turn us down and take $1.75M per instead.  it's still not chump change, but I could see, with him receiving his buyout $$, not quibbling over a few $100k, given the other intangibles.

i think i'm not alone: i don't mind players choosing (between roughly equal offers) not to come here this year, when the other team is set to make a cup run this season.  i'd be much more worried if players didn't want to come here because they thought the league wouldn't let us compete properly, or they thought there were impossible infrastructural team issues.  I don't think we deserve those reps, not currently anyway.

  

There’s a good chance he comes out ahead based on the 1-year deal too. He’s already got 5G/12A in 21 games this season. If he ends up near or above 50 points this season, he’ll be looking at a much better contract next season than the $2.5M he would have gotten with the Ducks. You get the sense that Shatty was as much banking on himself with a 1-year “show-me” contract as he was looking for a contender.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ducks do have necessary Pieces to land High Scoring LW...Just saying. i am willing to part with some Players if the Price is Right.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

Ducks do have necessary Pieces to land High Scoring LW...Just saying. i am willing to part with some Players if the Price is Right.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

can you be more specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FanSince1993 said:

can you be more specific?

Nic Ritchie,Jacob Larrson and Kase would be good Trade Bait for the Ducks along with 1st Round.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

Nic Ritchie,Jacob Larrson and Kase would be good Trade Bait for the Ducks along with 1st Round.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Unless we go on to win The Cup this season our 1st rounder should be untouchable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DucksFan_08 said:

Unless we go on to win The Cup this season our 1st rounder should be untouchable.

We will see.....of course Ducks need to make Demands that are Higher like rest of 30 NHL Teams including our Enemies.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...