Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
nieder

Deslauries

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, gorbachav5 said:

Yay.  This is what the team should be spending its time and money on.

Please fire Murray.

Bob must go......he has lost confidence of Ducks Fanbase in trades and signings he has made.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bob must go......he has lost confidence of Ducks Fanbase in trades and signings he has made.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

This money should be used to resign Derek Grant, not this useless guy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad signing.

Shore made $2.3M this year and has basically the same numbers. He's a RFA so BM will have money to resign Grant ($1.15M) with the 1/2 of Shore's salary he shouldn't get moving forward. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dunno...more and more teams seem to want term in their TDL peeps...i don't think this definitely means he's staying in Anaheim. Unless there's some sort of NMC....

Share this post


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

Not a bad signing.

Shore made $2.3M this year and has basically the same numbers. He's a RFA so BM will have money to resign Grant ($1.15M) with the 1/2 of Shore's salary he shouldn't get moving forward. 

This. 

And look at it this way - GMBM has gotten this 4th line plug signing out of the way now so we won’t have to be disappointed by it on July 1st when we all have our hopes up that we might finally get a good player.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, DuckFan4Life said:

Not a bad signing.

Shore made $2.3M this year and has basically the same numbers. He's a RFA so BM will have money to resign Grant ($1.15M) with the 1/2 of Shore's salary he shouldn't get moving forward. 

Competent GM's would trade an expiring UFA like Grant when his value is never going to be higher. Therefore, I fully expect for Murray to re-sign Grant even though he could always try to re-sign him on July 1st after flipping him at the TDL.

The Delauriers signing is just such a typical Murray move which really inspires me with hope for when he makes moves of actual consequence.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FanSince1993 said:

This money should be used to resign Derek Grant, not this useless guy.

Grant has earn the right to stay...simple as that Raise your Hand if you feel this way.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Competent GM's would trade an expiring UFA like Grant when his value is never going to be higher. Therefore, I fully expect for Murray to re-sign Grant even though he could always try to re-sign him on July 1st after flipping him at the TDL.

The Delauriers signing is just such a typical Murray move which really inspires me with hope for when he makes moves of actual consequence.

What makes you think we would be able to re-sign him on July 1st if he's traded at the deadline?  Conversely, if they think that Grant is not going to sign a deal with us for next year, the deadline would be the time to let him go so we can get something in return.  He is of no value to us down the stretch this season.

Share this post


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

What makes you think we would be able to re-sign him on July 1st if he's traded at the deadline?  Conversely, if they think that Grant is not going to sign a deal with us for next year, the deadline would be the time to let him go so we can get something in return.  He is of no value to us down the stretch this season.

We very well may not be able to. I said that the Ducks can try to re-sign if they still want to bring him back. If he has no value to us down the stretch for this season, and with his value only increasing, then it is the perfect time to trade him.

Also, what is his value to the Ducks in the future though? If we can't re-sign him and walks, then what's the real harm? We'd be losing a 4th line center after selling high on him. To me, that is good asset management.

 

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good signing. Now trade Ritchie.

Good signing?  How?  The team is last in goal scoring (or close enough not to matter).  Deslauriers doesn't help on offense or defense.  This is AT BEST meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DuckFan4Life said:

Not a bad signing.

Shore made $2.3M this year and has basically the same numbers. He's a RFA so BM will have money to resign Grant ($1.15M) with the 1/2 of Shore's salary he shouldn't get moving forward. 

Yes, it is a bad signing.  They should both be jettisoned into the sun.  I'd imagine we can get a two for one ticket.  Just because Deslauriers is cheaper than Shore doesn't make this signing good.

Share this post


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

Yes, it is a bad signing.  They should both be jettisoned into the sun.  I'd imagine we can get a two for one ticket.  Just because Deslauriers is cheaper than Shore doesn't make this signing good.

The team needs a 4th liner with snarl. Better to lose Del to a 5 minute penalty than Getz, Manson, etc. He serves a purpose. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant plays well with us...and i think he WANTS to stay here....im guessing he's our best piece in getting something pretty solid in return...although seeing what Coleman brought...probably not getting a first-rounder with anyone from our team right now that we'd be willing to trade...so...i dunno...i totally get the wanting to get something from him and then we either try to re-sign ala Michael DZ...or he walks and we got something for him.

super curious to see what kind of contract he'll be wanting after a season like this....

Share this post


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

Good signing?  How?  The team is last in goal scoring (or close enough not to matter).  Deslauriers doesn't help on offense or defense.  This is AT BEST meaningless.

Read: https://www.google.com/amp/s/pucksofafeather.com/2020/02/16/anaheim-ducks-nicolas-deslauriers-better-think/amp/

He’s also a 13th forward who knows his role and is an outstanding team-first guy. He’s also not blocking anyone, since his whole cap hit can be buried in the AHL if enough forwards make him expendable. He’s also now signed past the expansion draft and only needs 25 more games between now and June 2021 to meet the 70-game exposure requirement, which is significant since the Ducks currently have only three other forwards who are under contract for the 2021-22 season. The Ducks have to expose TWO forwards who are under contract and who meet the minimum game requirements.

Good signing.

Edited by dtsdlaw
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Grant plays well with us...and i think he WANTS to stay here....im guessing he's our best piece in getting something pretty solid in return...although seeing what Coleman brought...probably not getting a first-rounder with anyone from our team right now that we'd be willing to trade...so...i dunno...i totally get the wanting to get something from him and then we either try to re-sign ala Michael DZ...or he walks and we got something for him.

super curious to see what kind of contract he'll be wanting after a season like this....

Yeah, Grant will get the best return of any player that needs to be moved by the TDL (the only other UFA's are Del Zotto and Holzer). If Murray can get a 4th rounder or maybe a conditional 3rd for Grant then I think that's he did well. The Ducks don't need to move out any other players before this deadline but for what Coleman and Greene got, Murray would be negligent to not look into seeing if he could get a better deal possible for anyone not named Gibson, Getzlaf, Lindholm or Fowler prior to next Monday. Aside from those four, I don't think anyone is untouchable and I am not sure why we wouldn't be willing to trade any player for the right price. 

 

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

Share this post


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

What makes you think we would be able to re-sign him on July 1st if he's traded at the deadline?  Conversely, if they think that Grant is not going to sign a deal with us for next year, the deadline would be the time to let him go so we can get something in return.  He is of no value to us down the stretch this season.

He’s played the best hockey of his career here in Anaheim we let him go last year to the Penguins  (boo) and signed him again afterwards. He likes Anaheim, we like him in Anaheim, and he’s an #Elite#1c . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 1:15 PM, gorbachav5 said:

Yay.  This is what the team should be spending its time and money on.

Please fire Murray.

You think we should only sign 8 players or something?

Please do tell of your new strategy of fielding two teams with only a handful of people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Read: https://www.google.com/amp/s/pucksofafeather.com/2020/02/16/anaheim-ducks-nicolas-deslauriers-better-think/amp/

He’s also a 13th forward who knows his role and is an outstanding team-first guy. He’s also not blocking anyone, since his whole cap hit can be buried in the AHL if enough forwards make him expendable. He’s also now signed past the expansion draft and only needs 25 more games between now and June 2021 to meet the 70-game exposure requirement, which is significant since the Ducks currently have only three other forwards who are under contract for the 2021-22 season. The Ducks have to expose TWO forwards who are under contract and who meet the minimum game requirements.

Good signing.

That piece was full of specious arguments.  Personally, I find fighting, particularly by enforcers, to be an anachronism, and will fast forward through it when I'm fortunate enough to have the ability to do so.  If you're entertained by it, good for you, but it doesn't help win hockey games in any meaningful way. He's been in the lineup way too much for a 13th forward.

As for the very flimsy statistical case made in that piece, the good things the author found seemed cherry-picked and framed to make Nick look good, but there wasn't anything substantive behind them.  Deslauriers' best attribute - shots that generate rebounds - comes with the caveat that he's doing this in limited ice time (small sample size) against the other team's worst players.  Other nice stats had him ranked in the lower third of the Ducks lineup in generating scoring chances, even when accounting for playing time - a lineup that has largely been bad at generating scoring chances.  He is drawing penalties, which is nice, but against the other team's 4th line/3rd pairing, which consist of the players most likely to commit penalties.

As for exposure, that's fine, but I guarantee you the Ducks will have plenty of other forwards under contract who meet the requirement at that point.  They have several RFAs, many of whom will be re-signed, and might have a UFA or two that they've signed to a multi-year deal.  There will be guys to expose.

Again this contract is pointless at best, which is better than bad, I suppose, but is still frustrating. It shouldn't be the goal of an organization to have contracts that can be buried in the AHL if necessary.  It should be their goal to have contracts that make the team better. I'd like our GM to be doing innovative things like, I don't know, having a 4th line that can score in addition to kill penalties, and I'd rather he not have to bury a million dollars in order to do so.  This is such a Bob Murray contract, and I've reached my Bob Murray saturation point.  It's a 4th line deal for an AHL+ level player who won't help the team win hockey games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, gotchabari said:

You think we should only sign 8 players or something?

Please do tell of your new strategy of fielding two teams with only a handful of people.

I don't follow.  I would like the team to sign/re-sign good players that help score goals or prevent them.  I think our GM should be able to find a 20-man roster that can play hockey.  If that's too much to ask, we need a new GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DuckFan4Life said:

The team needs a 4th liner with snarl. Better to lose Del to a 5 minute penalty than Getz, Manson, etc. He serves a purpose. 

No, the team needs a 4th liner who can play offense or defense.  Or better yet, both!  They don't need a guy to go out there and pick fights.  Or, if they do, let it be Nick Ritchie, who can at least score a little bit.

Share this post


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

That piece was full of specious arguments.  Personally, I find fighting, particularly by enforcers, to be an anachronism, and will fast forward through it when I'm fortunate enough to have the ability to do so.  If you're entertained by it, good for you, but it doesn't help win hockey games in any meaningful way. He's been in the lineup way too much for a 13th forward.

As for the very flimsy statistical case made in that piece, the good things the author found seemed cherry-picked and framed to make Nick look good, but there wasn't anything substantive behind them.  Deslauriers' best attribute - shots that generate rebounds - comes with the caveat that he's doing this in limited ice time (small sample size) against the other team's worst players.  Other nice stats had him ranked in the lower third of the Ducks lineup in generating scoring chances, even when accounting for playing time - a lineup that has largely been bad at generating scoring chances.  He is drawing penalties, which is nice, but against the other team's 4th line/3rd pairing, which consist of the players most likely to commit penalties.

As for exposure, that's fine, but I guarantee you the Ducks will have plenty of other forwards under contract who meet the requirement at that point.  They have several RFAs, many of whom will be re-signed, and might have a UFA or two that they've signed to a multi-year deal.  There will be guys to expose.

Again this contract is pointless at best, which is better than bad, I suppose, but is still frustrating. It shouldn't be the goal of an organization to have contracts that can be buried in the AHL if necessary.  It should be their goal to have contracts that make the team better. I'd like our GM to be doing innovative things like, I don't know, having a 4th line that can score in addition to kill penalties, and I'd rather he not have to bury a million dollars in order to do so.  This is such a Bob Murray contract, and I've reached my Bob Murray saturation point.  It's a 4th line deal for an AHL+ level player who won't help the team win hockey games.  

The author of that piece hates fighting just like you do.

Also, I think you’re wrong that the Ducks will have plenty of forwards to meet the 40/70 games requirement who will also be under contract. If I’m an agent and I have a pending RFA going into summer 2021, I’m not letting my client sign anything until AFTER the ED unless I get assurances my client won’t be exposed. So having Deslauriers under contract is going to allow the Ducks to protect a FAR more valuable player. That alone is worth this contract. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The author of that piece hates fighting just like you do.

Also, I think you’re wrong that the Ducks will have plenty of forwards to meet the 40/70 games requirement who will also be under contract. If I’m an agent and I have a pending RFA going into summer 2021, I’m not letting my client sign anything until AFTER the ED unless I get assurances my client won’t be exposed. So having Deslauriers under contract is going to allow the Ducks to protect a FAR more valuable player. That alone is worth this contract. 

Admittedly, I skipped the part about fighting after reading the first sentence, since I think it's irrelevant.

As for the RFAs, I highly doubt that's going to be the practice.  Those guys have very little in the way of bargaining rights, and they can be selected in the expansion draft if left unprotected, regardless of whether they meet the Ducks' exposure requirements.  The Ducks can't protect all of them.  Max Jones can be selected if he's left unprotected whether he has a new contract or not.  So if the Ducks try to get any of these guys under extension, it will be business as usual. If it makes sense to lock in some security in a concussion-filled sport, these guys will do it.  It doesn't change the chances that they'll end up in Seattle.  And my guess is that we'll have plenty of them locked up.

And, worst case, even if not, there will be actual free agent hockey players out there to sign this offseason.  They can find a couple who can play on the 4th line and do a better job than Deslauriers.

Share this post


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

Admittedly, I skipped the part about fighting after reading the first sentence, since I think it's irrelevant.

As for the RFAs, I highly doubt that's going to be the practice.  Those guys have very little in the way of bargaining rights, and they can be selected in the expansion draft if left unprotected, regardless of whether they meet the Ducks' exposure requirements.  The Ducks can't protect all of them.  Max Jones can be selected if he's left unprotected whether he has a new contract or not.  So if the Ducks try to get any of these guys under extension, it will be business as usual. If it makes sense to lock in some security in a concussion-filled sport, these guys will do it.  It doesn't change the chances that they'll end up in Seattle.  And my guess is that we'll have plenty of them locked up.

And, worst case, even if not, there will be actual free agent hockey players out there to sign this offseason.  They can find a couple who can play on the 4th line and do a better job than Deslauriers.

Time will tell on the bolded. I’m convinced the RFAs won’t sign early because it’s not in their interest to do so, except for maybe Kase (if he is even still here by then) due to his injury history. Ritchie already showed that he is willing to sit out the beginning of a season, so it’s unlikely he signs early. And with Jones/Steel, again, if I’m their agent I am  waiting through the early summer to see what the going rates are for my clients. I’m not signing early just so GMBM can use my client to meet the exposure requirement. I’m forcing GMBM to expose someone else who is already under contract. 

With UFAs, that would mean signing someone this summer to a multi-year contract to play a 4th line role. Why bother? You get Deslauriers 20 more games this season and then you can park him in the press box or in San Diego for all but 5 games next season, whereas any UFA signed this summer (who is presumably better that Deslauriers like you are hoping) is only going to sign here if he is promised games, which means the new guy is just going to block a kid from getting in the lineup. No thanks. I’ll take Deslauriers for just a handful of games. He blocks no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent signing - good spirit animal for the team, someone we need to help protect the rooks and other forwards, and someone who fits really well into both the team and, in particular, his line.

lets put it this way: if the 4th line doesn't matter, then your panties are in a bunch for absolutely no reason, because he's as good or better than any other team's 4th line F, and we got him locked in for cheap. 

if you're worried about trade value, i mean, wtf are you on?  him being under contract increases his trade value, across the board, at this salary and cap hit.  

if the 4th line actually does matter (and frankly, it totally does in this league, particularly with our team and it's outlook going forward through the ED), then what, exactly are you complaining about?  you can't be watching the games if you think our 4th line isn't super solid compared to other teams' 4ths.

aside from all that, we've been playing roulette with 4th line Fs since BM took the reigns, and it's hurt us as much as it's helped us (if at all).  if you have a 4th line with good chemistry that can be had for cheap, JFC, you keep that line together.  it's an absolute no-brainer.  why treat 4th line Fs like mega super trading chips when they are not that?  isn't that what you've been complaining about with BM for years now?  and, why shuffle a 4th line when you don't have to, when we all know (or should know by now) that keeping a line together over a couple of seasons makes that line outperform their individual parts?

i really don't know what your thinking is, if you think this signing is poor.  no vision.  

Grant should be next, for at least the same amount.  all three should be signed at about the same salary, and kept together for the foreseeable future.  they're only going to get better, if we keep them here and together.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

excellent signing - good spirit animal for the team, someone we need to help protect the rooks and other forwards, and someone who fits really well into both the team and, in particular, his line.

lets put it this way: if the 4th line doesn't matter, then your panties are in a bunch for absolutely no reason, because he's as good or better than any other team's 4th line F, and we got him locked in for cheap. 

if you're worried about trade value, i mean, wtf are you on?  him being under contract increases his trade value, across the board, at this salary and cap hit.  

if the 4th line actually does matter (and frankly, it totally does in this league, particularly with our team and it's outlook going forward through the ED), then what, exactly are you complaining about?  you can't be watching the games if you think our 4th line isn't super solid compared to other teams' 4ths.

aside from all that, we've been playing roulette with 4th line Fs since BM took the reigns, and it's hurt us as much as it's helped us (if at all).  if you have a 4th line with good chemistry that can be had for cheap, JFC, you keep that line together.  it's an absolute no-brainer.  why treat 4th line Fs like mega super trading chips when they are not that?  isn't that what you've been complaining about with BM for years now?  and, why shuffle a 4th line when you don't have to, when we all know (or should know by now) that keeping a line together over a couple of seasons makes that line outperform their individual parts?

i really don't know what your thinking is, if you think this signing is poor.  no vision.  

Grant should be next, for at least the same amount.  all three should be signed at about the same salary, and kept together for the foreseeable future.  they're only going to get better, if we keep them here and together.

Personally, I’d like to see guys like Sherwood or Carrick on the 4th line.  Delauriers signing isn’t the worst, because like dtsdlaw said, he can be buried in the minors or used as a 13th forward as to not take up a roster spot for a younger player. Plus, it adds an extra body for the expansion draft.
 

IMO, keeping the 4th line together really isn’t much of a priority. We can disagree about Grant because I think that he should be traded at the TDL. I just don’t see where he fits in with the future of the team with Lundestrom and Zegras being close to taking up center positions and Getzlaf, Henrique and Steel already there. So, who gets left out/traded if Grant is in the lineup then? Who should get traded in general outside of likely whipping boy, Ritchie lol?

 

 

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

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...