Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
hoxxey

Gerard Galant

Recommended Posts

Can the ducks PLEASE hire this guy???

Talk about no brainer...  Dude is perfect for what the ducks need right now

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to have Gallant behind our bench, but Gallant is far too vocal with his opinions regarding personnel decisions, and that's never going to gel with GMBM's autocratic rule over this team. GMBM doesn't even let his head coaches pick their own assistants. I can't picture GMBM and Gallant working together.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Would love to have Gallant behind our bench, but Gallant is far too vocal with his opinions regarding personnel decisions, and that's never going to gel with GMBM's autocratic rule over this team. GMBM doesn't even let his head coaches pick their own assistants. I can't picture GMBM and Gallant working together.

Ray Shero is available....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see us firing a coach that has been with the team for less than one season unless it's a new GM doing the firing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously other teams in the league have different views on quality of the product.  I read the article about GG's firing and it seems it performance driven - that GM wants success.  The ducks, not so much.  At all...

Rebuilding is fine.  It's probably a good thing and is time.  The problem is the coaching in my opinion will not create a successful environment for the young kids to thrive and learn the game.  Everything is "close enough".

 Even the AT&T commercial says that Just okay is never just Okay...

My only option is to root for the team and have zero expectations of a good product on the ice.  That sucks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Ray Shero is available....

This is the only hope.  Clean house right now (it's a lost season anyway), and get Shero in here.  Let him make his hire, but hopefully he can work with Gallant.

This just isn't going to happen because it would mean writing off two and a half seasons of salary for Murray and Eakins.  The Samuelis won't do that.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

This is the only hope.  Clean house right now (it's a lost season anyway), and get Shero in here.  Let him make his hire, but hopefully he can work with Gallant.

This just isn't going to happen because it would mean writing off two and a half seasons of salary for Murray and Eakins.  The Samuelis won't do that.

They do it for players, why not do it for coaches and GMs? I don't know what Eakins' salary is, but I'm guessing it's less than Patrick Eaves' salary. Elliott Friedman also reported that the Ducks are willing to take on bad contracts to add assets, so apparently the Ducks have money to burn right now (with more $$ coming due to the expansion fees that Seattle will be paying).  If I'm an owner, I'd rather eat Eakins' contract than pay for, say, David Backes just so I could get another 2nd round pick. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

They do it for players, why not do it for coaches and GMs? I don't know what Eakins' salary is, but I'm guessing it's less than Patrick Eaves' salary. Elliott Friedman also reported that the Ducks are willing to take on bad contracts to add assets, so apparently the Ducks have money to burn right now (with more $$ coming due to the expansion fees that Seattle will be paying).  If I'm an owner, I'd rather eat Eakins' contract than pay for, say, David Backes just so I could get another 2nd round pick. 

How often have they done it for players?  They only do it when it's absolutely abundantly clear they have to move on, and I think it's too early with Eakins (for them - I'm ready now).

Share this post


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

How often have they done it for players?  They only do it when it's absolutely abundantly clear they have to move on, and I think it's too early with Eakins (for them - I'm ready now).

A non-exhaustive list of players they have continued to pay despite the player not being on the active roster: Perry, Despres, Fistric, Maroon, Kesler, Eaves, Souray, Stoner.  The first three are buyouts, Maroon was a retained salary transaction, and the last four are LTIRs. Arguably you can't do anything about the LTIRs, although the issue with a few of those are with why GMBM signed those contracts in the first place.

Share this post


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

 Arguably you can't do anything about the LTIRs, although the issue with a few of those are with why GMBM signed those contracts in the first place.

I still think that Eaves' contract ended up being the highest per game contract in the history of the NHL.  $9.5 Million for 9 Games played.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HockeyIzCool said:

I still think that Eaves' contract ended up being the highest per game contract in the history of the NHL.  $9.5 Million for 9 Games played.

Despres technically played only 1 game under his new contract that started in 2016-17. He was ultimately paid $7.9M on that contract. For one game. 16:08 of TOI. Very sad situation, but still. One game, $7.9M. Ouch.

Edited by dtsdlaw

Share this post


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

A non-exhaustive list of players they have continued to pay despite the player not being on the active roster: Perry, Despres, Fistric, Maroon, Kesler, Eaves, Souray, Stoner.  The first three are buyouts, Maroon was a retained salary transaction, and the last four are LTIRs. Arguably you can't do anything about the LTIRs, although the issue with a few of those are with why GMBM signed those contracts in the first place.

Yeah, the LTIR guys aren't really relevant.  They would play if they were healthy.  I put Despres in the same category.  There was too much question about his health.

Maroon's money was kept in a trade, which is a slightly different transaction.  

The two buyouts purely for non-effectiveness were Perry and Fistric.  The team just doesn't do it often enough for me to believe that they'll eat two years of salary of a GM AND a coach, especially only one year after they got rid of a coach midseason.  I think it's worth it, since I don't think the current regime is the one to help develop the kids, from the GM on down.  And even sticking with Murray and Eakins one more year might mean Steel, Comtois, Jones, etc. all stagnate as 3rd/4th liners rather than develop into top 6 guys.  I think the team can afford that scenario far less than they can afford to eat the salaries of a couple of staff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say something here...IT'S TOO EARLY way too early to talk about Coaching Change and about Gallant.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

A non-exhaustive list of players they have continued to pay despite the player not being on the active roster: Perry, Despres, Fistric, Maroon, Kesler, Eaves, Souray, Stoner.  The first three are buyouts, Maroon was a retained salary transaction, and the last four are LTIRs. Arguably you can't do anything about the LTIRs, although the issue with a few of those are with why GMBM signed those contracts in the first place.

Wouldn't players in bold have their salaries covered by insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dukitup said:

Wouldn't players in bold have their salaries covered by insurance?

Unclear. I tried to educate myself on the NHL contract insurance process a while back and I remember reading some articles that indicated insurance will only cover a certain number of contracts each year (I think the number is 3). If true, I would assume that 10 & 15 took up two of those spots, and it's less likely that a Despres would. Also, I have read that insurance only covers up to 80% of the contract. Again, I don't know for sure how this works, but that's what I read when researching this previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shero doesn't have any deals that aren't money driven, to my knowledge.  I don't think he could fit our budget and doesn't seem to be good at finding the middle to low line players.  

Share this post


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

Shero doesn't have any deals that aren't money driven, to my knowledge.  I don't think he could fit our budget and doesn't seem to be good at finding the middle to low line players.  

Well if would be best Ducks just ignore Shero and not try to pursue him.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

First game back from a broken leg and they throw him on the top line with Getz and Raks, on the road, against a HUGE division rival. Why do they keep treating Terry like he's a veteran 30-goal scorer rather than a rookie with 3 goals on the season?? Ferchrissakes, Eakins, let kid work his way back into the lineup and gain some confidence before you pile so much pressure on him!

I posted this in the Sharks GDT before the game started, but since that GDT is now closed to comments I'm re-posting here (because I'm still kinda of mad about it). Sure enough, Terry was being marked by Vlasic (one of the best shut-down D-men in the league) for almost that entire 1st period (which was atrocious), and then when Eakins shuffled the lines in the 2nd period he was put on the second line with Rico and so he saw Dillon-Burns almost exclusively for the rest of the game. Result - Terry was the ONLY Duck to not register a single shot on goal. Meanwhile, the Sharks 3rd pairing consists of a 21-year old rookie (Ferraro) and a 27-year-old (Simek) with all of 70 NHL games under his belt. You'd think Eakins would want to find a way to get Terry out against that 3rd pairing a few times to boost his confidence a little in his first NHL game after a broken leg, no? Especially later in the game when it was clear to everyone they were going to lose? Apparently not, since Terry only saw that pair for one shift (by my count)... in the first period.

Eakins continues to make me scratch my head with his strategy and personnel decisions. <_<

Share this post


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

I posted this in the Sharks GDT before the game started, but since that GDT is now closed to comments I'm re-posting here (because I'm still kinda of mad about it). Sure enough, Terry was being marked by Vlasic (one of the best shut-down D-men in the league) for almost that entire 1st period (which was atrocious), and then when Eakins shuffled the lines in the 2nd period he was put on the second line with Rico and so he saw Dillon-Burns almost exclusively for the rest of the game. Result - Terry was the ONLY Duck to not register a single shot on goal. Meanwhile, the Sharks 3rd pairing consists of a 21-year old rookie (Ferraro) and a 27-year-old (Simek) with all of 70 NHL games under his belt. You'd think Eakins would want to find a way to get Terry out against that 3rd pairing a few times to boost his confidence a little in his first NHL game after a broken leg, no? Especially later in the game when it was clear to everyone they were going to lose? Apparently not, since Terry only saw that pair for one shift (by my count)... in the first period.

Eakins continues to make me scratch my head with his strategy and personnel decisions<_<

Don't all Ducks Head Coachs and Coaches in Teams Sports do that?.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

I posted this in the Sharks GDT before the game started, but since that GDT is now closed to comments I'm re-posting here (because I'm still kinda of mad about it). Sure enough, Terry was being marked by Vlasic (one of the best shut-down D-men in the league) for almost that entire 1st period (which was atrocious), and then when Eakins shuffled the lines in the 2nd period he was put on the second line with Rico and so he saw Dillon-Burns almost exclusively for the rest of the game. Result - Terry was the ONLY Duck to not register a single shot on goal. Meanwhile, the Sharks 3rd pairing consists of a 21-year old rookie (Ferraro) and a 27-year-old (Simek) with all of 70 NHL games under his belt. You'd think Eakins would want to find a way to get Terry out against that 3rd pairing a few times to boost his confidence a little in his first NHL game after a broken leg, no? Especially later in the game when it was clear to everyone they were going to lose? Apparently not, since Terry only saw that pair for one shift (by my count)... in the first period.

Eakins continues to make me scratch my head with his strategy and personnel decisions. <_<

Well, at least we can count on his top notch player development skills and cutting edge offensive/defensive/breakout systems. 🙄

Ugh, I hate ragging on Eakins because I knew this was the likely outcome of canning Carlyle.  And I really do like Eakins the person and want him to succeed.  But he's really bad, and I'm mad at myself for hoping that he wouldn't be.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Don't all Ducks Head Coachs and Coaches in Teams Sports do that?.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Fair point. However, while nitpicking D-pairings, forward lines, and matchups on a game to game basis may be a bit tedious, we're talking here about the long-term development of young players that are supposed to change the fortunes of this franchise over the next decade. Eakins has consistently not been putting his younglings in a position to gain confidence, develop, and ultimately succeed. This is just the latest example. And he should be criticized for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believed it was a lazy choice by GMBM to hire Eakin. Felt like there were other more qualified coaches available. In my opinion Murray wanted a coach who would not challenge him. I just don't believe Eakins has the chops for coaching  at the NHL level. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I believed it was a lazy choice by GMBM to hire Eakin. Felt like there were other more qualified coaches available. In my opinion Murray wanted a coach who would not challenge him. I just don't believe Eakins has the chops for coaching  at the NHL level. 

Agree.  What exactly did Eakins do to earn his position?  Did he lead the Gulls to a title? I must have missed that. 
 

With Gallant and Laviolette available, keeping Eakins around speaks to continued mediocrity.  Would he have been hired if both of them were available last off-season?  I highly doubt it. 
 

Its time for a complete reset. From GM to coach to scouts.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crazy.

it wasn't a lazy decision.  they were grooming Eakins for multiple seasons to take over for RC, and it took planning and involved constant oversight - it was a completely controlled process, and that's what they wanted - something different from an abrupt mid-season coaching change, where the GM drops a load of cash and hopes the new guy doesn't nuke the chemistry of the team.  AND, while there is currently a glut of head coaches out there, there really hasn't been a lot to go after previously, and they had a plan in place that looked good on paper.

Eakins didn't take home a championship in the AHL, but the Gulls did well under his watch.  And the kids he developed in the AHL have done well... while not under RC, at least.

Eakins was a good option for all the circumstances.  Rebuild, new system, needing young talent, bridging the gap, expansion draft...

For this season, we're looking for the implementation of a new system, and we're looking for a steady increase in team performance under the new system; we're not really looking for a high rate of success against other teams (not right now, anyway), just better execution of the new system. 

That said, even by that metric, the team isn't doing what it should.  That's part of the reason why they're still talking about using up the LTIR.  The other reason is that they don't mind getting a deal done before the ED, if it's a good deal, and they know other teams are going to want to move things around before the ED (and not have to shunt a bunch of second line players to Seattle like they did with VGK and set up another instant-competitor).  I mean, you'll note that the language they're using now about the trade deadline is pretty much word for word what VGK said going into the last ED (we'll take your heavy cap players, we want to load up on picks, etc.).

While I admit we're on a low ebb in terms of performance, I think we're still withing the error bars of what they expected this season to be... and what we should have been expecting this season to be.  They have space to experiment, and they're doing that.  It's not meant to look pretty all the time.

My grump: why the F would you split up Gbud and Fowler?  I don't get what the heck is wrong with Manson, but Fowler doesn't deserve to get saddled with Manson given his performance of late.  That switch seems really, really weird.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 1:42 PM, gorbachav5 said:

This is the only hope.  Clean house right now (it's a lost season anyway), and get Shero in here.  Let him make his hire, but hopefully he can work with Gallant.

This just isn't going to happen because it would mean writing off two and a half seasons of salary for Murray and Eakins.  The Samuelis won't do that.

I would never consider this season as Lost...more like rejuvenation/Rebuild imho.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ready for Bob to go.

His last two coaching hires have been complete garbage. None of the kids seem to be developing into anything more than borderline NHL forwards. I realise we are in a rebuild but short of lucking out and getting a top-2 pick this year, or Zegras and Tracey turning into the second comings of Getzlaf and Perry, this team is going nowhere in the near or distant future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...