Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ChopSuey

Now that we are full Rebuild...

Recommended Posts

These are the players we should trade for youth or picks of value.  Not suggesting a fire sale but if we can 

load up on top youth or 1sts and 2nds in order to speed the rebuild.  I personally dont know if Bob Murray

has the spine to really cut an aggressive deal so we will see..

Getzlaf

Henrique

Rakell if the price is high enough (fleecing)

Silfverberg

Fowler if the price is high enough (fleecing)

Gudbranson

Manson

Miller

Rakell if the price is high enough (fleecing)

 

Obviously some players have a vote in being moved but in concept this is who I would attempt to move to futures 

 

 

Share this post


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

These are the players we should trade for youth or picks of value.  Not suggesting a fire sale but if we can 

load up on top youth or 1sts and 2nds in order to speed the rebuild.  I personally dont know if Bob Murray

has the spine to really cut an aggressive deal so we will see..

Getzlaf

Henrique

Rakell if the price is high enough (fleecing)

Silfverberg

Fowler if the price is high enough (fleecing)

Gudbranson

Manson

Miller

Rakell if the price is high enough (fleecing)

Forgot Kase

Obviously some players have a vote in being moved but in concept this is who I would attempt to move to futures 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I'd love to keep Kase as well, but it sounds like he's on the block.

he has a terrible season, only the last 3-4 games he now plays good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spike1981 said:

he has a terrible season, only the last 3-4 games he now plays good.

He’s still one of the Ducks best and most effective forwards. Trading a player because they have an off-year isn’t the best strategy, IMO. I think that Kase is more likely than not be traded but not because of his play.

Share this post


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

He’s still one of the Ducks best and most effective forwards. Trading a player because they have an off-year isn’t the best strategy, IMO. I think that Kase is more likely than not be traded but not because of his play.

The organization's surplus is on left wing, not right wing. Unless Sprong is finally able to make the jump to full-time NHL duty, trading Kase would be a dumb move. If the Ducks want to move a talented young forward, pick one of the LWs. We have a ton of those.

 

2 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

This is incorrect.  He has been good but has had some bad luck finishing and has played with a bunch of underperforming kids who can't put a puck in the net to save their lives.  Outside of Silfverberg and Getzlaf, he's been the Ducks' best forward.

Amen to this.

Share this post


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

This is incorrect.  He has been good but has had some bad luck finishing and has played with a bunch of underperforming kids who can't put a puck in the net to save their lives.  Outside of Silfverberg and Getzlaf, he's been the Ducks' best forward.

Can't help but wonder if there's some concern he's another Simon Despres given enough time? If that happens, he has zero trade value. Trading him is definitely a crap shoot.

Share this post


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

Can't help but wonder if there's some concern he's another Simon Despres given enough time? If that happens, he has zero trade value. Trading him is definitely a crap shoot.

Maybe, but he's now played 74 games spread over the last 14 1/2 months since his last concussion (caused by being jumped by Doughty and sucker punched in the back of the head during a preseason game) and he also survived that horrible collision with Roope Hintz earlier in the season that didn't cause a concussion, only a bruised jaw. In fact, that collision with Hintz (who is a BIG dude at 6'3", 220lbs) may have been a good omen for him, since it looked like there was substantial head contact with both Hintz shoulder and with the ice, and he still wasn't concussed as a result.

Lately I'm also seeing him making more of an effort to be a lot more aware of other players on the ice who are trying to take runs at him. He seems to be seeing the whole ice a little better, which IMO will help him to stay healthy. Although, I sure wish Eakins would put that Ritchie-Rico-Kase line from last season back together so that Ritchie could protect him a little more from cheap shots.

Share this post


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

The organization's surplus is on left wing, not right wing. Unless Sprong is finally able to make the jump to full-time NHL duty, trading Kase would be a dumb move. If the Ducks want to move a talented young forward, pick one of the LWs. We have a ton of those.

 

Amen to this.

I agree but if the Ducks are going to continue going through a rebuild then I think that Kase is likely to get traded (Murray’s already tried doing it!) He has more trade value than any LW other than Rakell and his contract is up after next season. Granted he’ll still be an RFA, but is Murray going to pay him under the team’s circumstances? If the Ducks are going to move Rakell then I think that Kase stays. The situation sucks something awful and we are likely going to move a key player or two going forward and I think Kase is a likely and unfortunate casualty.
 

Share this post


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

I agree but if the Ducks are going to continue going through a rebuild then I think that Kase is likely to get traded (Murray’s already tried doing it!) He has more trade value than any LW other than Rakell and his contract is up after next season. Granted he’ll still be an RFA, but is Murray going to pay him under the team’s circumstances? If the Ducks are going to move Rakell then I think that Kase stays. The situation sucks something awful and we are likely going to move a key player or two going forward and I think Kase is a likely and unfortunate casualty.
 

Murray tried to trade him for a 27-year-old Faulk, and it would have only happened if Faulk also agreed to a long-term deal (btw, how terrible does Faulk's deal with St Louis look right now... woof). That's not a rebuilding trade. That's 100% a "we want to compete now" trade, and it was made with the expectation that some of the other kids were going to be bigger contributors than they have shown they are capable of (so far). Totally different than what people are talking about now, which is moving Kase for picks/prospects to help with the rebuild. Unless Kase is part of a deal for a younger RW with a higher ceiling, moving him seems utterly foolish to me as long as Sprong and Terry (who are only 16 & 22 months younger than him!) are not showing significant signs of being able to take his place. 

I also think you're overvaluing Kase on the trade market. First, I really don't believe Kase-Faulk was going to be a one-for-one swap. The Ducks would have likely been kicking in draft picks and/or another player to get it done, so to assume you can get a Faulk-type of return for Kase I believe is wrong. If GMBM trades Kase now, he may get you a 2nd rounder from a contender (which would probably be in the 50-60 range), with maybe with a low to mid-ceiling roster player or prospect thrown in. Or he might get a depth defensive prospect. He's not getting you a significant piece for a rebuild though. Not with his injury history and slow start to the season. I have seen the Boston rumors (usually something like Kase for Backes + a 1st rounder), but does that really make sense? To trade a 24-year-old RW with Kase's skill set for $5M+ in dead weight salary and a pick that will likely be somewhere in the 26-31 range? Not to me. If you're rebuilding/re-tooling, you don't trade highly-skilled 24-year-olds for that.

Share this post


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

Murray tried to trade him for a 27-year-old Faulk, and it would have only happened if Faulk also agreed to a long-term deal (btw, how terrible does Faulk's deal with St Louis look right now... woof). That's not a rebuilding trade. That's 100% a "we want to compete now" trade, and it was made with the expectation that some of the other kids were going to be bigger contributors than they have shown they are capable of (so far). Totally different than what people are talking about now, which is moving Kase for picks/prospects to help with the rebuild. Unless Kase is part of a deal for a younger RW with a higher ceiling, moving him seems utterly foolish to me as long as Sprong and Terry (who are only 16 & 22 months younger than him!) are not showing significant signs of being able to take his place. 

I also think you're overvaluing Kase on the trade market. First, I really don't believe Kase-Faulk was going to be a one-for-one swap. The Ducks would have likely been kicking in draft picks and/or another player to get it done, so to assume you can get a Faulk-type of return for Kase I believe is wrong. If GMBM trades Kase now, he may get you a 2nd rounder from a contender (which would probably be in the 50-60 range), with maybe with a low to mid-ceiling roster player or prospect thrown in. Or he might get a depth defensive prospect. He's not getting you a significant piece for a rebuild though. Not with his injury history and slow start to the season. I have seen the Boston rumors (usually something like Kase for Backes + a 1st rounder), but does that really make sense? To trade a 24-year-old RW with Kase's skill set for $5M+ in dead weight salary and a pick that will likely be somewhere in the 26-31 range? Not to me. If you're rebuilding/re-tooling, you don't trade highly-skilled 24-year-olds for that.

I think Murray would have no qualms moving Kase, whether it’s in a “compete now” or “rebuild” trade. I’ll admit, it’s hard for me to gage what Kase’s trade value is, but it’s certainly higher than every Duck forward not named Getzlaf, Rakell, and Silfverberg. It’s even harder to determine what his next contract would look like and if Murray would even be willing to pay it. If he does get re-signed, then the question is what player(s) gets moved to help with the rebuild. If Rakell gets moved, then I think Kase absolutely gets re-signed and should be. That actually seems like the best approach if Kase is viewed as a mainstay on the team.

Ultimately, I’m open into looking into any trades that can bring back 1st round picks (Getzlaf and Gibson not included unless they demand out of town).

Share this post


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

I think Murray would have no qualms moving Kase, whether it’s in a “compete now” or “rebuild” trade. I’ll admit, it’s hard for me to gage what Kase’s trade value is, but it’s certainly higher than every Duck forward not named Getzlaf, Rakell, and Silfverberg. It’s even harder to determine what his next contract would look like and if Murray would even be willing to pay it. If he does get re-signed, then the question is what player(s) gets moved to help with the rebuild. If Rakell gets moved, then I think Kase absolutely gets re-signed and should be. That actually seems like the best approach if Kase is viewed as a mainstay on the team.

Ultimately, I’m open into looking into any trades that can bring back 1st round picks (Getzlaf and Gibson not included unless they demand out of town).

If the team can find a 2C, then Rico would be the one to go. But why does he have to move anyone now? None of the forwards except for Getzlaf is staring at UFA any time soon. Rakell is on a ridiculously cheap contract and Kase is cost controlled to since he goes RFA

Share this post


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

If the team can find a 2C, then Rico would be the one to go. But why does he have to move anyone now? None of the forwards except for Getzlaf is staring at UFA any time soon. Rakell is on a ridiculously cheap contract and Kase is cost controlled to since he goes RFA

I think that moves are going to start being made this offseason because of the expansion draft next summer. I think that we agree that Ritchie is as good of a bet as any to be traded. I can also see a defenseman getting moved. It depends on if/when Seattle stifles the trade market like Vegas did. I’m just looking ahead at who will be on this team beyond their current contracts lol.
 

Share this post


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

I think that moves are going to start being made this offseason because of the expansion draft next summer. I think that we agree that Ritchie is as good of a bet as any to be traded. I can also see a defenseman getting moved. It depends on if/when Seattle stifles the trade market like Vegas did. I’m just looking ahead at who will be on this team beyond their current contracts lol.
 

Moving a D-man because of the expansion draft doesn’t currently make sense. We’ll have 3 spots available for D-men to protect and Fowler, Lindholm and Manson the only NHL caliber D-men we currently have who will be under contract through the ED. I suppose Larsson, Guhle, and Mahura will technically need protection, but at their current rate of develop would anybody care if Seattle poached one of those guys from our roster? I wouldn’t. I say, keep the big-3 and agree in principle to Guddy extension (to be signed right after the ED) and the D should be set for a while. 

Share this post


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

Moving a D-man because of the expansion draft doesn’t currently make sense. We’ll have 3 spots available for D-men to protect and Fowler, Lindholm and Manson the only NHL caliber D-men we currently have who will be under contract through the ED. I suppose Larsson, Guhle, and Mahura will technically need protection, but at their current rate of develop would anybody care if Seattle poached one of those guys from our roster? I wouldn’t. I say, keep the big-3 and agree in principle to Guddy extension (to be signed right after the ED) and the D should be set for a while. 

I would hate to lose Guhle or Mahura honestly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sexlaf15 said:

I would hate to lose Guhle or Mahura honestly 

We’re going to lose someone we’d all rather keep. That’s the point of the ED rules. 

Guhle and Mahura are also both LHDs, and as long as the team is committed to keeping both Lindholm and Fowler, there is no room for both Guhle and Mahura since there’s only 3 LHD spots to fill in a starting lineup. So IMO, big deal if one goes. Neither have top pair potential and LHDs are much easier to find than RHDs.

Share this post


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

We’re going to lose someone we’d all rather keep. That’s the point of the ED rules. 

Guhle and Mahura are also both LHDs, and as long as the team is committed to keeping both Lindholm and Fowler, there is no room for both Guhle and Mahura since there’s only 3 LHD spots to fill in a starting lineup. So IMO, big deal if one goes. Neither have top pair potential and LHDs are much easier to find than RHDs.

Mahura definitely has top pair potential.  Are you thinking of Jaycob Megna?  He gone, yo.

Share this post


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

Moving a D-man because of the expansion draft doesn’t currently make sense. We’ll have 3 spots available for D-men to protect and Fowler, Lindholm and Manson the only NHL caliber D-men we currently have who will be under contract through the ED. I suppose Larsson, Guhle, and Mahura will technically need protection, but at their current rate of develop would anybody care if Seattle poached one of those guys from our roster? I wouldn’t. I say, keep the big-3 and agree in principle to Guddy extension (to be signed right after the ED) and the D should be set for a while. 

Very fair point, for me, Manson and Lindholm will be UFA's that season and I don't see both of them getting extensions. If we were to lose Mahura (who I like and think that Seattle could realistically take), only then to trade #47 or #42 then I wouldn't be happy with that asset management. Plus, the last time we lost a young left handed defensemen to an expansion team really didn't work out too well for us lol.

I'm also not really gung-ho on this the current defense group. It's serviceable but still needs to be upgraded if the Ducks are going to contend. I doubt that two of our top-4 will be on the roster by the time the Ducks are legit again.

Share this post


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

Very fair point, for me, Manson and Lindholm will be UFA's that season and I don't see both of them getting extensions. If we were to lose Mahura (who I like and think that Seattle could realistically take), only then to trade #47 or #42 then I wouldn't be happy with that asset management. Plus, the last time we lost a young left handed defensemen to an expansion team really didn't work out too well for us lol.

I'm also not really gung-ho on this the current defense group. It's serviceable but still needs to be upgraded if the Ducks are going to contend. I doubt that two of our top-4 will be on the roster by the time the Ducks are legit again.

I don’t know how often you can get a top 4 of 
Lindholm - Manson 

Fowler - Gudbranson (who’s played amazing)

I think what we’ve needed for like several seasons is a competent third pairing. 
 

Mahura has looked pretty good every single time he’s been up. I like his potential. If we start dismantling our D then I think we gotta look at drafting Drysdale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, I'm not protecting Manson.  Gbud - we can lose him whether we sign him or not, if we don't protect him.  I think players that aren't currently signed are treated as if they would be drafted from the last team that signed them... except because they're not under contract, they don't count as the necessary exposed player(s).  If they get selected, that's the one player from the team.

7 forward, 3 defense, 1 goalie.  

Getz
Hank
Silf
RR
(TT, MaxJ, SamS, MaxC) - whichever need to be protected, based on games played, injuries, etc. 
All others not protected.  Don't think Seattle would want any of them, either.  NR and Kase might be a draw, but depends on the rest of the league.

Cam
Hampus
GBud
All others not protected.  I think Seattle would take Manson over Mahura, but not sure.  Really wouldn't want to lose Mahura.

Gibson
Miller might retire by then, will probably have to expose a Gulls goalie.

I could see Seattle either taking Manson or horse trading Guhle and NR for us keeping Manson.  If Miller was exposed, they might take him.  Anyone else we think has value better be traded before Seattle has a chance to snap them up.

I forget, someone had some good strategy stuff involving Getz and resigning him....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sexlaf15 said:

I don’t know how often you can get a top 4 of 
Lindholm - Manson 

Fowler - Gudbranson (who’s played amazing)

I think what we’ve needed for like several seasons is a competent third pairing. 
 

Mahura has looked pretty good every single time he’s been up. I like his potential. If we start dismantling our D then I think we gotta look at drafting Drysdale. 

The blueline has been pretty much dismantled already over the last two years with Despres, Vatanen, Montour, Theodore, Pettersson all now gone. To me, the problem is that by the time you get a competent third pairing, and more importantly, the offensive upgrades and hopeful progression of the current rookies to go along with it, then Gudbranson, Fowler and Manson would all be in their 30's. That's also assuming that Manson and Lindholm are both re-signed, which I don't think is likely. Murray drafting LaCombe, Thrun, Hill and Francis last year seemed to be the start of rebuilding the defensive pipeline. If Drysdale is the best player on the board when the Ducks draft then I have no problem with taking him but not at the expense of a better offensive talent. 

I like Mahura also and think he has by far the most upside of any defensemen not on the Ducks which is why I'd be concerned about Seattle taking him.

Share this post


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

This is incorrect.  He has been good but has had some bad luck finishing and has played with a bunch of underperforming kids who can't put a puck in the net to save their lives.  Outside of Silfverberg and Getzlaf, he's been the Ducks' best forward.

Everyone was upset by him and the wrong decisions and bad passes… now he played 3-4 good games and everything is okay.... people are so quickly forgetful.

Gudbrandson I take over Manson, so trade Manson and keep GB for the third spot at Seattle Draft.

as I said, its the best time to rebuild before the Seattle Draft, trade some pieces now away and you will not lose a better player for nothing to Seattle.

Share this post


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

Everyone was upset by him and the wrong decisions and bad passes… now he played 3-4 good games and everything is okay.... people are so quickly forgetful.

Gudbrandson I take over Manson, so trade Manson and keep GB for the third spot at Seattle Draft.

as I said, its the best time to rebuild before the Seattle Draft, trade some pieces now away and you will not lose a better player for nothing to Seattle.

Very few people were upset with him. It was mostly just the same few posters making the same negative comments over and over again. He’s been one of the better forwards since the season started, even with his unusually low shooting %.

Share this post


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

The blueline has been pretty much dismantled already over the last two years with Despres, Vatanen, Montour, Theodore, Pettersson all now gone. To me, the problem is that by the time you get a competent third pairing, and more importantly, the offensive upgrades and hopeful progression of the current rookies to go along with it, then Gudbranson, Fowler and Manson would all be in their 30's. That's also assuming that Manson and Lindholm are both re-signed, which I don't think is likely. Murray drafting LaCombe, Thrun, Hill and Francis last year seemed to be the start of rebuilding the defensive pipeline. If Drysdale is the best player on the board when the Ducks draft then I have no problem with taking him but not at the expense of a better offensive talent. 

I like Mahura also and think he has by far the most upside of any defensemen not on the Ducks which is why I'd be concerned about Seattle taking him.

Why wouldn’t that be likely? Getzlaf’s big contract will be off the books. Kesler’s contract will be off the books. The team will have a TON of cap space. In fact, with all these kids coming up, they may need to worry about just reaching the cap floor unless they are able to add a few players with bigger contracts from outside the organization. 

Lindholm is also a must re-sign for the organization IMO, if he wants to stay. You have to make every effort possible to re-sign your #1 D-man when he’s in his prime. And we have no RHD prospects currently in the system, so it’s not like Manson needs to “step aside” to make way for a younger player. Re-signing both should actually be a priority.

Share this post


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

Why wouldn’t that be likely? Getzlaf’s big contract will be off the books. Kesler’s contract will be off the books. The team will have a TON of cap space. In fact, with all these kids coming up, they may need to worry about just reaching the cap floor unless they are able to add a few players with bigger contracts from outside the organization. 

Lindholm is also a must re-sign for the organization IMO, if he wants to stay. You have to make every effort possible to re-sign your #1 D-man when he’s in his prime. And we have no RHD prospects currently in the system, so it’s not like Manson needs to “step aside” to make way for a younger player. Re-signing both should actually be a priority.

I agree that lindholm should be the guy that they try to re-sign but I don’t think both will. Why re-sign two valuable expiring UFA contracts when your team is in the midst of a rebuild? This assumes that both want to stay in Anaheim and want see the rebuild through rather than sign with a team  that’s better able to contend. You can always use the assets you get from a trade to bring in another player and Murray could take on a bad contract for assets a la the Coyotes for the cap floor.

The other issue with re-signing both of them is that you’d then have Lindholm, Manson and Fowler all locked up well into their 30’s and declining years. I don’t think that they’ll get better or moves them closer to contending then. So, I don’t know why you’d keep them all three given the circumstances.

 

Oh ****, I just remembered how much Murray loves giving out big contracts to defensemen. So, yeah you are probably  right.

Share this post


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

Right now, I'm not protecting Manson.  Gbud - we can lose him whether we sign him or not, if we don't protect him.  I think players that aren't currently signed are treated as if they would be drafted from the last team that signed them... except because they're not under contract, they don't count as the necessary exposed player(s).  If they get selected, that's the one player from the team.

7 forward, 3 defense, 1 goalie.  

Getz
Hank
Silf
RR
(TT, MaxJ, SamS, MaxC) - whichever need to be protected, based on games played, injuries, etc. 
All others not protected.  Don't think Seattle would want any of them, either.  NR and Kase might be a draw, but depends on the rest of the league.

Cam
Hampus
GBud
All others not protected.  I think Seattle would take Manson over Mahura, but not sure.  Really wouldn't want to lose Mahura.

Gibson
Miller might retire by then, will probably have to expose a Gulls goalie.

I could see Seattle either taking Manson or horse trading Guhle and NR for us keeping Manson.  If Miller was exposed, they might take him.  Anyone else we think has value better be traded before Seattle has a chance to snap them up.

I forget, someone had some good strategy stuff involving Getz and resigning him....

Getz does not need to be protected, his contract is up before the ed.

I like Gbud and his play is really good. But I'm not sold on giving him one of the protection spots. He was an overpriced defenseman before we got him and I'd still consider his contract an overpayment. It's possible Seattle would take him but I wouldn't be too concerned if we lost him. 

There is no way Seattle would choose Miller if he was available. They would have to be absolutely crazy. This might be his last year, but even if it isn't and Seattle takes him that should fire their gm on the spot without going into further selections. Unless we give up someone else so they choose him a la stoner there is no way that thought even goes through their mind. 

Share this post


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

Getz does not need to be protected, his contract is up before the ed.

I like Gbud and his play is really good. But I'm not sold on giving him one of the protection spots. He was an overpriced defenseman before we got him and I'd still consider his contract an overpayment. It's possible Seattle would take him but I wouldn't be too concerned if we lost him. 

There is no way Seattle would choose Miller if he was available. They would have to be absolutely crazy. This might be his last year, but even if it isn't and Seattle takes him that should fire their gm on the spot without going into further selections. Unless we give up someone else so they choose him a la stoner there is no way that thought even goes through their mind. 

Isn't he also UFA before the ED?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go read the rules.  if we don't protect them (Getz, Gbud, whoever), they're eligible to be drafted by Seattle, regardless of whether they're currently under contract or not.  there's not some magical force field in place just because they're an unsigned UFA/RFA.

Leaving them unsigned means one of them can be drafted by Seattle, and it also means some other team who lost a good player to Seattle can snap them up before we do.

If we want to keep them, we should at least sign them before the draft.

Share this post


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

go read the rules.  if we don't protect them (Getz, Gbud, whoever), they're eligible to be drafted by Seattle, regardless of whether they're currently under contract or not.  there's not some magical force field in place just because they're an unsigned UFA/RFA.

Leaving them unsigned means one of them can be drafted by Seattle, and it also means some other team who lost a good player to Seattle can snap them up before we do.

If we want to keep them, we should at least sign them before the draft.

Yeah, Seattle can select them but can not force them to sign a contract and doesn’t own their rights. Getzlaf and Gudbranson will be UFA’s. If they selected one of them and they don’t sign with Seattle, they’d just pick a different player from the Ducks.

Share this post


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

go read the rules.  if we don't protect them (Getz, Gbud, whoever), they're eligible to be drafted by Seattle, regardless of whether they're currently under contract or not.  there's not some magical force field in place just because they're an unsigned UFA/RFA.

Leaving them unsigned means one of them can be drafted by Seattle, and it also means some other team who lost a good player to Seattle can snap them up before we do.

If we want to keep them, we should at least sign them before the draft.

The magical force field would be the fact that Seattle would only have about 10 days to sign them to a UFA before every other team became eligible to sign them on July 1st. So if the UFA doesn't feel like playing for an expansion team, he simply doesn't sign before July 1st and then Seattle loses out on their pick from the Ducks. Seattle would also only have about 3 days between drafting the UFA and when other teams can start talking to the UFA, so the odds would not be in their favor to get a contract done before everyone else gets to make their pitches to the UFA. Also, if the rules are the same, the 31 players drafted by Seattle will have to have cap hits that aggregate to at least 60% of the cap limit, which will be a challenge if they focus on drafting younger players on cheaper deals. If they draft a UFA, that player's contract will only count towards the 60% threshhold if the UFA then signs a deal during the expansion draft. So there's a lot of factors working against Seattle drafting a UFA. Vegas didn't draft any UFAs in 2017, and I don't think Seattle will either. 

Besides, Getzlaf has already made it clear that he doesn't want to go anywhere, so there's no reason to sign him and then use up a protected spot on him. It's the exact same situation as when San Jose left Joe Thornton unprotected in 2017. Everyone knew that Jumbo wasn't going to re-sign anywhere but San Jose, so there was no reason to sign him before the ED and take up a protected spot to keep him.

Guddy is a different story than Getzlaf since he's not a "lifer" in Anaheim. But if he likes Anaheim and wants to stay and also gets the terms he wants from the team ($$ and contract length), he can just as easily sign his UFA extension after the ED and before July 1st and not worry about being on the protected list. He and management can certainly agree to an extension in principle before the ED and then sign it after the ED. And if it turns out he isn't interested in re-signing here, odds are that Ducks management will know that long before the ED. In fact, they'll probably have that sorted out by the 2021 TDL, and if they don't have an agreement in principle he'll be moved at the deadline (if he isn't moved at this deadline, which I think is 50/50 right now).

Share this post


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

I agree that lindholm should be the guy that they try to re-sign but I don’t think both will. Why re-sign two valuable expiring UFA contracts when your team is in the midst of a rebuild? This assumes that both want to stay in Anaheim and want see the rebuild through rather than sign with a team  that’s better able to contend. You can always use the assets you get from a trade to bring in another player and Murray could take on a bad contract for assets a la the Coyotes for the cap floor.

The other issue with re-signing both of them is that you’d then have Lindholm, Manson and Fowler all locked up well into their 30’s and declining years. I don’t think that they’ll get better or moves them closer to contending then. So, I don’t know why you’d keep them all three given the circumstances.

 

Oh ****, I just remembered how much Murray loves giving out big contracts to defensemen. So, yeah you are probably  right.

1.If the Ducks are still in the midst of a full rebuild on July 1, 2022 when both go UFA, this franchise is in a heap of trouble. I am going to give the organization the benefit of the doubt and assume that the rebuild-re-tool timeline is shorter and that Ducks management will be taking active steps to be competitive again before then.

2. Re-signing Lindholm seems like a no brainer to me. He's an outstanding D-man who will still be in his prime.

3. For Manson, who takes his place if he gets moved? Here's a complete list of the right-shooting D-men the Ducks have in their organization: Manson (age 28), Gubdranson (28), Holzer (31), Hakanpaa (27), and Wideman (30). That's it. And only Manson and Guddy are signed past this season. They also drafted RHDs William Francis (6th rd 2019) and Hunter Drew (6th rd 2018), but neither have been signed to a contract yet, and what are the odds management is banking on two 6th rounders to fill out the right side of the defense?  Obviously things change if GMBM finds another RHD via trade or free agency. But until that happens, keeping Manson should be part of the plan, if for no other reasons than the Ducks have NO ONE ELSE to play the right side. 

4. D-men like Manson and Lindholm don't necessarily start the rapid decline as soon as they hit 30 the same way many players who rely on speed and hands do. For example, Beauchemin had arguably his best season in the NHL at age 32 (4th in the Norris voting) and then potted 11 goals in 64 games two years later at age 34. Manson will start his first UFA season as a 31-year-old, and I think a 3 year extension for him would be just fine. He doesn't score enough to demand a big raise, and if he eventually slips to a 3rd pair guy because he's overtaken on the depth chart by younger/better players, its not going to hurt the team at all. Fowler's contract also brings cost certainty and I expect he will be playing into his late 30s anyway due to his skill set and style of play (as long as he stays away from Giordano). And Lindholm won't be "well into his 30s" when Fowler's contract expires in 2026. He'll be 32, and likely still a very good player. Honestly, IMO keeping those 3 together for the long haul is going to keep continuity on the Ducks blue line and enable younger players (both forwards and D-men) to develop better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...