Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
Daffy_95

Djoos claimed by DET

Recommended Posts

Per Elliotte Friedman, Djoos has been claimed by DET.

Marcus Pettersson -> Daniel Sprong -> Christian Djoos -> Nothing. Really really bad asset management by Bob Murray here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Daffy_95 said:

Per Elliotte Friedman, Djoos has been claimed by DET.

Marcus Pettersson -> Daniel Sprong -> Christian Djoos -> Nothing. Really really bad asset management by Bob Murray here.

Yep. We are here quite a bit with Bob. Moves like this are how I know that he is still GM.

Add Pettersson to a list that include Theodore, Palmieri and Karlsson. Join us in three years when he trades Zegras for a broken down zamboni and half a roll of stick tape.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason he is a GM is because once a move is made, it's done.  If he managed assets like we do with this "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" game where we don't consider time, money, context, or other moves, he definitely would not last as a GM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yep. We are here quite a bit with Bob. Moves like this are how I know that he is still GM.

Add Pettersson to a list that include Theodore, Palmieri and Karlsson. Join us in three years when he trades Zegras for a broken down zamboni and half a roll of stick tape.

That SUCKS...I was hoping to see him prove himself with the Ducks...Losing Djoos is another example of Bob's mismangment of Players he gets only to lose them via FA,Trade or Waiver wire.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't make mistake about it, If the Samueli Family had a vested interest to win we would have a deferent lineup and management. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The reason he is a GM is because once a move is made, it's done.  If he managed assets like we do with this "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" game where we don't consider time, money, context, or other moves, he definitely would not last as a GM.

Pasted from the other thread because it's actually more relevant here:

We have a ton of 3rd pairing LHD.  But here's where this went:

- We traded a season and a half (plus three years of control) of a 3rd pairing d-man making the league minimum who was playing at the level of a 2nd pairing d-man

- We got for that two-thirds of a season of a scoring forward who did put up some goals but couldn't stay in the lineup because he's not aware that the defensive zone exists.

- We then cut bait on that guy to get nine games (plus a year of control) of a 3rd pairing d-man making nearly the league minimum who was playing (albeit briefly) at the level of a 2nd pairing d-man.  At this point you can say that Bob Murray tried something that the team arguably needed (trading a D-prospect for scoring), the experiment didn't work out, and we got back what we originally gave up, except the guy was older with less upside and control.  That's not good, but, hey, maybe we give Murray credit for the attempt.

- Murray then loses that guy for nothing.

 Yes, Pettersson is now getting paid $4 million a season, so he's no longer cheap.  But given how he played for Pittsburgh the prior two seasons, the BEST you can say about this is that Murray either a) sold way low on a guy and managed the return assets poorly or b) was never going to get more than that for Pettersson because the player development staff and coaches he's hired weren't going to help Pettersson to play at that level.  Those are the BEST things you can say about Murray regarding this deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing from that analysis is anything in real time.  

We had an inconsistent Dman, depth on the position (with a couple well-graded 3rd line prospects due to come up) , and a desperate need for scoring.  He didn't pan out.

We didn't have 1.5 years left with him.  His contract expired at the end of the 2019 season.  Pittsburgh resigned him to a one year contract in September of 2019, barely in time for the season to start.  So he got no offers and Pitt wasn't exactly scrambling to save him.

That doesn't happen with a 2nd liner. Sorry to burst that analysis.

The well-graded prospects weren't panning out, along with injuries among the D, requiring a need for temporary depth.  Spring was used to bring it in.  

Now that the depth is no longer needed, and new.prospects are now due, the need is now gone.

To present this as if it all occured in a vacuum and instead is a linear string of asset trading is why we aren't GMs.  All of your analysis was presented in retrospect. 

That's not reailty.  Low end pieces are shuffled around like this often to address immediate needs and situations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Missing from that analysis is anything in real time.  

We had an inconsistent Dman, depth on the position (with a couple well-graded 3rd line prospects due to come up) , and a desperate need for scoring.  He didn't pan out.

We didn't have 1.5 years left with him.  His contract expired at the end of the 2019 season.  Pittsburgh resigned him to a one year contract in September of 2019, barely in time for the season to start.  So he got no offers and Pitt wasn't exactly scrambling to save him.

That doesn't happen with a 2nd liner. Sorry to burst that analysis.

The well-graded prospects weren't panning out, along with injuries among the D, requiring a need for temporary depth.  Spring was used to bring it in.  

Now that the depth is no longer needed, and new.prospects are now due, the need is now gone.

To present this as if it all occured in a vacuum and instead is a linear string of asset trading is why we aren't GMs.  All of your analysis was presented in retrospect. 

That's not reailty.  Low end pieces are shuffled around like this often to address immediate needs and situations.

Are you talking about Pettersson?  His entry level contract expired after 19, but he was still under team control for four more years at that point.  He was signed to a one-year bridge deal, most likely because Pettersson was betting on himself.  He knew he could sign a longer RFA deal, but hadn't done enough yet to warrant big bucks, so he waited a year before getting his current $4.0 million deal.  That happens ALL THE TIME with guys who are put in bottom line roles but are producing at higher levels for a season.  The team wants to lock them up for cheap, but the player wants more because he knows he's better than that.  When he doesn't get the long-term deal he wants, at the last minute, he signs a one-year "prove it" deal and then looks to get paid in the followings years.  This is not at all uncommon for guys playing above their level, and his stats show he's clearly a second pairing guy.

My analysis included real time.  Murray needed scoring, so he traded for a guy who could potentially give him that.  Instead of letting him be himself and score, he moved him up and down from the AHL, which was terrible for his development, and then traded him away for a defenseman who essentially replaced Pettersson.  Then he let that defenseman go for nothing.

Murray now has a parade of 3rd pairing LS d-men who are worse than Pettersson and Djoos.  And in return for those guys, he got two-thirds of a season of a forward who didn't give them consistently what they were looking for (and whom they mismanaged).  I don't see how you can call this good asset management, even in real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if your point is that, when he was traded, Pettersson didn't look like a 2nd pairing d-man, you're not wrong.  I was reluctantly okay with the gamble.  But now seeing what Pettersson has become, that's still an indictment either on Murray's scouting team or his player development methods, and maybe both.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And if your point is that, when he was traded, Pettersson didn't look like a 2nd pairing d-man, you're not wrong.  I was reluctantly okay with the gamble.  But now seeing what Pettersson has become, that's still an indictment either on Murray's scouting team or his player development methods, and maybe both.

Not Murray's scouting team.  We had Dmen ranked highly in the pipeline by multiple sources.

It just means that not all of them pan out.

Share this post


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

...and then traded him away for a defenseman who essentially replaced Larsson, and Mahura and Welinski to a degree. 

Fixed it for ya.  Djoos replacing Petersson is the linear fallacy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to see how ridiculous the "he became him" review goes, then the same set of trades that got us thw Petersson pick reveal that he turned nothing (free agent Brad Staubitz) into Ondre Kase, or into Jacob Perreault and Axl Anderson.

It's just ridiculous and arbitrary to pick random points to count as the "beginning" in the case of prospects and low level players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real kick in the nuts here is that Djoos could play both sides and was maybe even a bit better on his off side. He would have been invaluable as depth on the right side if either Manson or Shatty were to get hurt. I get why Bob tried to sneak him through waivers, but it’s really too bad Detroit snagged him. Hopefully Hakanpaa or Welinski can now provide some right side depth instead.

Regarding Pettersen, that was a bad trade at the time (several of us said so back then), but this doesn’t make the trade worse, just like if Djoos had somehow been traded for a 4th round pick that turned into a 2nd line forward wouldn’t have made the trade better. Sprong for Pettersen is what it is - a failure of GMBM to properly evaluate forward talent, which has been his Achilles heel since he took the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I see this just as much, if not more, his ability (or his staff's ability) to develop the talent he has in the system.  Pettersson for Sprong was only a good trade because Pettersson looked like he was going nowhere here, and he was.  Then Pettersson blossoms in Pittsburgh where they give him the tools he needs to improve his game while Sprong comes here, scores goals, and gets demoted.  Then Sprong stalls, he gets traded for a more finished product, we keep him for nine games (where he's very good, for a third pairing d-man), and then let him go for nothing.

I think it's appropriate to look at this linearly because it's an interconnected series of asset mismanagement.  One guy, undervalued and underdeveloped, gets traded for a project whose development is mismanaged, who is traded for an asset let go for nothing while he still had value to the team.  We could look at all those moves in a vacuum if we want, and they still don't look great, but they're even more damning as part of an overall picture of incompetence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Again, I see this just as much, if not more, his ability (or his staff's ability) to develop the talent he has in the system.  Pettersson for Sprong was only a good trade because Pettersson looked like he was going nowhere here, and he was.  Then Pettersson blossoms in Pittsburgh where they give him the tools he needs to improve his game while Sprong comes here, scores goals, and gets demoted.  Then Sprong stalls, he gets traded for a more finished product, we keep him for nine games (where he's very good, for a third pairing d-man), and then let him go for nothing.

II think it's appropriate to look at this linearly because it's an interconnected series of asset mismanagement.  One guy, undervalued and underdeveloped, gets traded for a project whose development is mismanaged, who is traded for an asset let go for nothing while he still had value to the team.  We could look at all those moves in a vacuum if we want, and they still don't look great, but they're even more damning as part of an overall picture of incompetence.

I have a quibble with the bolded. Sprong, Sekac, Pirri... they’re all basically the same guy, and I don’t think these guys are being mismanaged in their development. They’re just not legitimate NHL players, no matter how badly Bob wants believe he can turn them into one by “teaching them to play defense”. So I don’t see it as a development problem. I see it as a talent recognition problem. It’s the same reason the Ducks gave up on Karlsson too soon, why Bob thought Devin Shore was the answer for an under-skilled forward group, and why Terry is still a RW. Bob isn’t great at evaluating forward talent.

I also disagree a bit that Pettersen was underdeveloped. I watched him play with the Gulls and he was developing just fine after coming over from the bigger ice in Europe. He was 22 and in his first full NHL season (only 49 NHL games under his belt) when he was traded. IMO they were doing everything right for Pettersen, they just did a panic trade in a desperate (yet futile) search for offense because RC was running this team into the ground and they couldn’t score. The trade wasn’t necessary at the time though. They just needed to fire Carlyle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I see this just as much, if not more, his ability (or his staff's ability) to develop the talent he has in the system.

this, 100% is my main concern with this team.

13 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:

Bob isn’t great at evaluating forward talent.

And this...I'm starting to truly feel this....

Share this post


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

Not Murray's scouting team.  We had Dmen ranked highly in the pipeline by multiple sources.

It just means that not all of them pan out.

Too bad the young defensemen actually panning out are the ones Murray is trading away.

I fully expect Murray to pick up somebody from Detroit from waivers just to teach them a lesson for picking up Djoos. Filppula incoming.

Share this post


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

Too bad the young defensemen actually panning out are the ones Murray is trading away.

I fully expect Murray to pick up somebody from Detroit from waivers just to teach them a lesson for picking up Djoos. Filppula incoming.

How do we know this wasn't Yzerman getting back at Bob for claiming JT Brown off waivers in 2018? Maybe the two GMs are now square.

Share this post


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

Too bad the young defensemen actually panning out are the ones Murray is trading away.

I fully expect Murray to pick up somebody from Detroit from waivers just to teach them a lesson for picking up Djoos. Filppula incoming.

Grab Svechnikov from them, that’ll make em sorry.

 https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/corey-perry-loui-eriksson-headline-busy-day-nhls-waiver-wire/

Edited by yeaitsme
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I have a quibble with the bolded. Sprong, Sekac, Pirri... they’re all basically the same guy, and I don’t think these guys are being mismanaged in their development. They’re just not legitimate NHL players, no matter how badly Bob wants believe he can turn them into one by “teaching them to play defense”. So I don’t see it as a development problem. I see it as a talent recognition problem. It’s the same reason the Ducks gave up on Karlsson too soon, why Bob thought Devin Shore was the answer for an under-skilled forward group, and why Terry is still a RW. Bob isn’t great at evaluating forward talent.

I also disagree a bit that Pettersen was underdeveloped. I watched him play with the Gulls and he was developing just fine after coming over from the bigger ice in Europe. He was 22 and in his first full NHL season (only 49 NHL games under his belt) when he was traded. IMO they were doing everything right for Pettersen, they just did a panic trade in a desperate (yet futile) search for offense because RC was running this team into the ground and they couldn’t score. The trade wasn’t necessary at the time though. They just needed to fire Carlyle.

As an addendum to this post, Sonny Milano has good speed and some really silky mitts and I think he could be a diamond in the rough now that he's out from under Tortorella's thumb. And the fact that we got him for Devin Shore has me cautiously optimistic that Milano will end up being a rare huge win for GMBM with respect to acquiring a skilled forward. Just want to get that on the record before Milano blows up... :P

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

As an addendum to this post, Sonny Milano has good speed and some really silky mitts and I think he could be a diamond in the rough now that he's out from under Tortorella's thumb. And the fact that we got him for Devin Shore has me cautiously optimistic that Milano will end up being a rare huge win for GMBM with respect to acquiring a skilled forward. Just want to get that on the record before Milano blows up... :P

Hope you're right about Milano, but if he is skating with Backes and Zegras (who just joined the team today), then I don't like his chances of blowing up lol. Mahura was assigned to the Gulls so it looks like the battle of the bottom pair/7th defensemen are Larsson, Hutton, Curran and Hakanpaa.

 

 

Share this post


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

Hope you're right about Milano, but if he is skating with Backes and Zegras (who just joined the team today), then I don't like his chances of blowing up lol. Mahura was assigned to the Gulls so it looks like the battle of the bottom pair/7th defensemen are Larsson, Hutton, Curran and Hakanpaa.

 

 

What better way to get Zegras up to NHL speed than to have him skate with the super-fast Milano and the NHL-savvy Backes?? :lol:  

Also, have the Ducks finished all of their scrimmages? They were supposed to have four during camp. If not, then I don't think the lines will be anywhere near set yet, and they certainly could be fluid for the first few weeks of the season as Eakins figures out if Zegras is NHL ready.

And come to think of it, swap Zegras and Backes at C/RW (but keep Backes taking draws) and that's a perfectly fine 3rd line IMO. I'd bet good money that Milano-Zegras-Backes could outscore Jones-Steel-Terry.

Share this post


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

What better way to get Zegras up to NHL speed than to have him skate with the super-fast Milano and the NHL-savvy Backes?? :lol:  

Also, have the Ducks finished all of their scrimmages? They were supposed to have four during camp. If not, then I don't think the lines will be anywhere near set yet, and they certainly could be fluid for the first few weeks of the season as Eakins figures out if Zegras is NHL ready.

And come to think of it, swap Zegras and Backes at C/RW (but keep Backes taking draws) and that's a perfectly fine 3rd line IMO. I'd bet good money that Milano-Zegras-Backes could outscore Jones-Steel-Terry.

Sorry but I don't want Backes anywhere near the 3rd line. He's a borderline 4th line talent at this stage of his career.

I do agree that the lines will probably get mixed up again before opening night. I'm not sure that putting Zegras with Backes is really giving him the best chance to succeed.

Share this post


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

Sorry but I don't want Backes anywhere near the 3rd line. He's a borderline 4th line talent at this stage of his career.

I do agree that the lines will probably get mixed up again before opening night. I'm not sure that putting Zegras with Backes is really giving him the best chance to succeed.

This.  I'm fine playing Zegras with Backes because unlike the other 4th liners we've got floating around the lineup, Backes at least remembers what the offensive zone looks like.  But this should be the 4th line.  Of course, that means Derek Grant is on the third line, which, as much as I love some Grantzlaf, is also a disaster for a team trying to get that last playoff spot.  Eakins is in a tough spot, so we'll see what he can do. He's got one first line talent who hasn't played in the NHL yet (Zegras), and a bunch of veterans who are middle six guys, and kids who are bottom six guys hoping to be more.  Just throw them in the ol' Boudreau line-blender and see what happens.

Share this post


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

Sorry but I don't want Backes anywhere near the 3rd line. He's a borderline 4th line talent at this stage of his career.

I do agree that the lines will probably get mixed up again before opening night. I'm not sure that putting Zegras with Backes is really giving him the best chance to succeed.

I would disagree with this, and I'll point to Ryan Kesler as a case study. Kesler talked on his podcast (with Bieksa) about playing his rookie season on the 4th line with a 35-year-old washed-up Trevor Linden on his wing and how much that benefitted Kesler's early development. I think Backes could do the same for Zegras, especially if the kid is coming in a bit cocky and over-confident (like Kesler). I don't know what Zegras' work ethic is like, but I do know that GMBM questioned the work ethic of other younger Ducks players this past summer and HCDE does not exactly have a reputation as someone who holds his players accountable. So IMO, Backes' work ethic and leadership on and off the ice is exactly what a kid like Zegras needs early in his career if we expect him to become our next franchise player. I also didn't think Backes looked all that bad in his six games with us last season. He's not a top-6 guy. Probably not really a top-9 guy either. But I'll double-down on my belief that a Milano-Zegras-Backes line could outscore the current kid line (Jones-Steel-Terry) if given a chance. They would certainly be more productive than the Deslauriers-Grant-Rowney line we will probably see.

Edited by dtsdlaw
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This.  I'm fine playing Zegras with Backes because unlike the other 4th liners we've got floating around the lineup, Backes at least remembers what the offensive zone looks like.  But this should be the 4th line.  Of course, that means Derek Grant is on the third line, which, as much as I love some Grantzlaf, is also a disaster for a team trying to get that last playoff spot.  Eakins is in a tough spot, so we'll see what he can do. He's got one first line talent who hasn't played in the NHL yet (Zegras), and a bunch of veterans who are middle six guys, and kids who are bottom six guys hoping to be more.  Just throw them in the ol' Boudreau line-blender and see what happens.

Can you even imagine what BB would do with this mix-and-match lineup?!?! LOL. We would see a different combo every period for the first two months.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can you even imagine what BB would do with this mix-and-match lineup?!?! LOL. We would see a different combo every period for the first two months.

Heck, maybe every commercial break.  I don't even know if Boudreau could keep track.  Ahlers and Hayward would be wrecks 10 games into the season.

Share this post


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

I would disagree with this, and I'll point to Ryan Kesler as a case study. Kesler talked on his podcast (with Bieksa) about playing his rookie season on the 4th line with a 35-year-old washed-up Trevor Linden on his wing and how much that benefitted Kesler's early development. I think Backes could do the same for Zegras, especially if the kid is coming in a bit cocky and over-confident (like Kesler). I don't know what Zegras' work ethic is like, but I do know that GMBM questioned the work ethic of other younger Ducks players this past summer and HCDE does not exactly have a reputation as someone who holds his players accountable. So IMO, Backes' work ethic and leadership on and off the ice is exactly what a kid like Zegras needs early in his career if we expect him to become our next franchise player. I also didn't think Backes looked all that bad in his six games with us last season. He's not a top-6 guy. Probably not really a top-9 guy either. But I'll double-down on my belief that a Milano-Zegras-Backes line could outscore the current kid line (Jones-Steel-Terry) if given a chance. They would certainly be more productive than the Deslauriers-Grant-Rowney line we will probably see.

A lineup of:

  • Rakell - Getzlaf - Heinen
  • Henrique - Steel - Silfverberg
  • Comtois/Jones - Grant - Terry
  • Milano - Backes - Zegras

That's not good, but I think it makes some sense.  I think that fourth line has the potential to be good against the bottom of the opponents' lineup.  That third line is a defensive line, I guess?  It's kind of a mess.  I have no idea how Steel would do between Henrique and Silf, but if Steel can't step up and provide good second line minutes, Bob's got to move on.  

I just threw this together, but it at least reflects who I'd like to see get the most playing time.  I really have no need to see Deslauriers or Rowney.

Share this post


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

A lineup of:

  • Rakell - Getzlaf - Heinen
  • Henrique - Steel - Silfverberg
  • Comtois/Jones - Grant - Terry
  • Milano - Backes - Zegras

That's not good, but I think it makes some sense.  I think that fourth line has the potential to be good against the bottom of the opponents' lineup.  That third line is a defensive line, I guess?  It's kind of a mess.  I have no idea how Steel would do between Henrique and Silf, but if Steel can't step up and provide good second line minutes, Bob's got to move on.  

I just threw this together, but it at least reflects who I'd like to see get the most playing time.  I really have no need to see Deslauriers or Rowney.

Zegras and Drysdale got sent to the Gulls so we will have to wait a bit until we see them in the lineup. Curious to see if they are able to get any NHL action before the AHL season starts. 

Deslauriers is functional and will be a player who can meet the exposure requirement for the ED. So, that’s a good thing for this season.

Milano on the 4th line just seems odd but I like the splitting up of Steel and Terry because their line would probably have to pass the puck into the net.

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...