Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
ChopSuey

Seems we are stuck with Bob

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dtsdlaw said:

I dunno about this. I think Seattle could easily pick him and then flip him for an asset. He could still help a good team, and I betcha Seattle will easily have the cap space to retain half his $3.9M cap hit. What does a contender in a flat cap world give you for Shattenkirk at $1.95M? A 2nd rounder maybe? That's probably more than you could get if you traded Steel or Jones straight up for a pick.

you're scaring me. we cannot protect Shat...that...that just makes no sense. Although, I thought i read something when Shatt came over with something like he talked with BM before signing about "unofficial" things or something like that...which makes me think it was something like not gonna negotiate a NTC/NMC but, wouldnt be exposed in the ED? i dunno, im just reading into things at this point

You really don't think Steel or Jones would get a 2nd rounder?? ouch... 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jasoaks said:

you're scaring me. we cannot protect Shat...that...that just makes no sense. Although, I thought i read something when Shatt came over with something like he talked with BM before signing about "unofficial" things or something like that...which makes me think it was something like not gonna negotiate a NTC/NMC but, wouldnt be exposed in the ED? i dunno, im just reading into things at this point

You really don't think Steel or Jones would get a 2nd rounder?? ouch... 😕

If the Shatt stays, I predict he will be significantly better in year 2 than he was this past year just based on the return of Lindholm, over all improvements to the roster, and the additions behind the bench. He still won't be worth the $$ the Ducks are paying him, but he should be better and may even have some good trade value at the deadline if the Ducks retain some salary and are out of the playoff race.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shattenkirk would be a good player for Seattle to take. The Pacific division is terrible on paper next season, and I could see them making the playoffs if they have a decent expansion draft/offseason. Maybe they use their cap space and get Landeskog if he’s all about getting the most money. I’m sure the organization wants to try and replicate what Vegas did to give their new team a lot of buzz early, even if they won’t be able to get to their level as quickly. 
 

If things go south they can always flip him at the deadline and retain salary to get a nice asset back. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Protection list - Fowards: Rakell, Terry, Lundestrom, Player X ; D-men: Lindholm, Fowler, Manson, Fleury

The question mark is Shattenkirk, who was GMBM's prized FA signing last summer. Does Bob bail on him after one season? Or could we possibly even see Bob protect him as a 5th D-man and then only protect 3 forwards? Or, does it even matter because Bob likely already has a deal in place with Seattle and this is all just noise?

there's no question mark.  Shatt said at the beginning of his Ducks tenure that he was prepared to be exposed in the ED, and that it was part of their discussion in him coming across.  if BM protects him, it would only be because he already has a deal in place with Seattle that makes all protections superfluous (but are dolled out as a sign of respect or to save face for a questionable acquisition).

i have to keep being reminded that MaxC is exempt from the draft.

i know it goes against all BM-logic, but i still like protecting Mahura over Manson.

question - if we don't have to protect Getz because he isn't signed yet, and that situation makes it too difficult for Seattle to grab him, why doesn't that logic also work with all the other unsigned players?  Lundestrom, Volkov, Heinen, Rowney, SS, MaxJ are all unsigned according to capfriendly (though it also still shows Backes on our roster).

if all those players are effectively protected, then yeah, might as well protect 5 d men (and both of the Joshes).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

there's no question mark.  Shatt said at the beginning of his Ducks tenure that he was prepared to be exposed in the ED, and that it was part of their discussion in him coming across.  if BM protects him, it would only be because he already has a deal in place with Seattle that makes all protections superfluous (but are dolled out as a sign of respect or to save face for a questionable acquisition).

i have to keep being reminded that MaxC is exempt from the draft.

i know it goes against all BM-logic, but i still like protecting Mahura over Manson.

question - if we don't have to protect Getz because he isn't signed yet, and that situation makes it too difficult for Seattle to grab him, why doesn't that logic also work with all the other unsigned players?  Lundestrom, Volkov, Heinen, Rowney, SS, MaxJ are all unsigned according to capfriendly (though it also still shows Backes on our roster).

if all those players are effectively protected, then yeah, might as well protect 5 d men (and both of the Joshes).

Agree with everything you said except Mahura.  His first three steps is so slow he is a liability.  Might be a combination of reaction time and or  first 3 steps but he get skated around far to often imho

Edited by ChopSuey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spencer_12 said:

Shattenkirk would be a good player for Seattle to take. The Pacific division is terrible on paper next season, and I could see them making the playoffs if they have a decent expansion draft/offseason. Maybe they use their cap space and get Landeskog if he’s all about getting the most money. I’m sure the organization wants to try and replicate what Vegas did to give their new team a lot of buzz early, even if they won’t be able to get to their level as quickly. 
 

If things go south they can always flip him at the deadline and retain salary to get a nice asset back. 

Ducks Leaving ShattenKirk unprotected for Seattle to take will increase our Ducks Cap Space which can be benefical to our team in trades or Free Agency.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

there's no question mark.  Shatt said at the beginning of his Ducks tenure that he was prepared to be exposed in the ED, and that it was part of their discussion in him coming across.  if BM protects him, it would only be because he already has a deal in place with Seattle that makes all protections superfluous (but are dolled out as a sign of respect or to save face for a questionable acquisition).

i have to keep being reminded that MaxC is exempt from the draft.

i know it goes against all BM-logic, but i still like protecting Mahura over Manson.

question - if we don't have to protect Getz because he isn't signed yet, and that situation makes it too difficult for Seattle to grab him, why doesn't that logic also work with all the other unsigned players?  Lundestrom, Volkov, Heinen, Rowney, SS, MaxJ are all unsigned according to capfriendly (though it also still shows Backes on our roster).

if all those players are effectively protected, then yeah, might as well protect 5 d men (and both of the Joshes).

I agree with ChopSuey on Mahura. He’s too slow to react on defense, both mentally and physically. He’ll probably be a great D-man in the AHL or Europe for a long time though.

For the RFAs, it’s different than the UFAs because Seattle only has a brief period to negotiate a contract before the UFAs go into the UFA pool for everyone to pursue, and why use a selection on a UFA if you can just sign him when the UFA signing period opens anyway? But with the RFAs, Seattle would be acquiring the rights to those players and could then control them the same as we would if we kept them. I could maybe see arbitration rights as a bit of a deterrent to Seattle for some RFAs, but for Ducks with arb rights we’re really only talking about Volkov and Heinen. Meanwhile, Heinen’s qualifying offer is probably more of a deterrent than his arb rights, and Volkov is, well, Volkov.

Edited by dtsdlaw
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree with ChopSuey on Mahura. He’s too slow to react on defense, both mentally and physically. He’ll probably be a great D-man in the AHL or Europe for a long time though.

For the RFAs, it’s different than the UFAs because Seattle only has a brief period to negotiate a contract before the UFAs go into the UFA pool for everyone to pursue, and why use a selection on a UFA if you can just sign him when the UFA signing period opens anyway? But with the RFAs, Seattle would be acquiring the rights to those players and could then control them the same as we would if we kept them. I could maybe see arbitration rights as a bit of a deterrent to Seattle for some RFAs, but for Ducks with arb rights we’re really only talking about Volkov and Heinen. Meanwhile, Heinen’s qualifying offer is probably more of a deterrent than his arb rights, and Volkov is, well, Volkov.

excellent, thanks.  sorry to keep rehashing the details, i keep forgetting the 3rd layer strategy gotchas.

in Mahura's defense, i remember that more than a few people thought last season's defensive strategy was pretty flawed, and on top of the coach driven questionable on-ice tactics, Mahura was given fairly abysmal TOI over the season (camping on the taxi squad if i remember right).  i fear discounting Mahura is similar to discounting Pettersen and Theo.

in any event, the noise floor right now is very, very high with respect to evaluating most of the Ducks players' performances.  too many issues to list, some under the team's (questionable) control, and some not.  at least there is absolutely going to be some clarity in the coming season.

that said, like you, i don't think i'd choose Mahura over Fleury, if that was the choice.  Fleury seems like he could be a young Gbud that has some room to grow.  but Manson over Mahura?  that's a really tough one for me right now.  Manson has only steadily declined of late... i'm not even sure what we could get for him in a trade right now that wouldn't just be more useless baggage slated for the Gulls.  he does seem to be able to fill the roll of an on-ice defensemen coach (actually quite well, from what we saw last season)... but only when he isn't injured, and he's gotten expensive on a $$/games played basis.  Mahura is younger, cheaper, and while he has also shown decline over the past 2 seasons, last season was a mulligan for him (more than most other Ducks players), and i don't think he's shown himself to be as fragile.  it seems like there's a higher probability for a realized upside for Mahura, and he helps with cap space (not that we need that right this second). 

i guess the counter argument is that first Cogs then Kesler and Perry sort of stole the soul of the forwards, would losing Manson do the same for the defense?  i don't see the Shatt being proficient in that roll (he wasn't as good as Manson in the roll last season), Fowler has never stepped into that roll, and Lindholm seems not to be predisposed for that kind of roll.  we could import someone into that roll (Gbud might be a decent fit), but we'd have to make room for them.

ok, babbling at this point. 

i think the best result would be to lose Shatt and Manson, keep Mahura, and then import a top 2 offensive D-man in one of these buyouts/nope-outs that're seizing the league right now.  that way, when we inevitably lose Linds or Fowler to injury this season, we have someone who can keep us alive with the AHLer that'll have to cycle in.  and, we get to do it without too damaging a cap hit if we can get both Shatt and Manson off the books, which would mean there'd still be room for a forward acquisition of some kind.  the only slight hitch is that we'd have to find a d-man that Linds is as comfortable with as he is with Manson.  Could Fleury serve that roll, or is he better with Fowler?  in any event, i'm hoping our choices in the ED leave this defense rework available to pursue as we head into the regular draft.

Edited by Fisix
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

excellent, thanks.  sorry to keep rehashing the details, i keep forgetting the 3rd layer strategy gotchas.

in Mahura's defense, i remember that more than a few people thought last season's defensive strategy was pretty flawed, and on top of the coach driven questionable on-ice tactics, Mahura was given fairly abysmal TOI over the season (camping on the taxi squad if i remember right).  i fear discounting Mahura is similar to discounting Pettersen and Theo.

in any event, the noise floor right now is very, very high with respect to evaluating most of the Ducks players' performances.  too many issues to list, some under the team's (questionable) control, and some not.  at least there is absolutely going to be some clarity in the coming season.

that said, like you, i don't think i'd choose Mahura over Fleury, if that was the choice.  Fleury seems like he could be a young Gbud that has some room to grow.  but Manson over Mahura?  that's a really tough one for me right now.  Manson has only steadily declined of late... i'm not even sure what we could get for him in a trade right now that wouldn't just be more useless baggage slated for the Gulls.  he does seem to be able to fill the roll of an on-ice defensemen coach (actually quite well, from what we saw last season)... but only when he isn't injured, and he's gotten expensive on a $$/games played basis.  Mahura is younger, cheaper, and while he has also shown decline over the past 2 seasons, last season was a mulligan for him (more than most other Ducks players), and i don't think he's shown himself to be as fragile.  it seems like there's a higher probability for a realized upside for Mahura, and he helps with cap space (not that we need that right this second). 

i guess the counter argument is that first Cogs then Kesler and Perry sort of stole the soul of the forwards, would losing Manson do the same for the defense?  i don't see the Shatt being proficient in that roll (he wasn't as good as Manson in the roll last season), Fowler has never stepped into that roll, and Lindholm seems not to be predisposed for that kind of roll.  we could import someone into that roll (Gbud might be a decent fit), but we'd have to make room for them.

ok, babbling at this point. 

i think the best result would be to lose Shatt and Manson, keep Mahura, and then import a top 2 offensive D-man in one of these buyouts/nope-outs that're seizing the league right now.  that way, when we inevitably lose Linds or Fowler to injury this season, we have someone who can keep us alive with the AHLer that'll have to cycle in.  and, we get to do it without too damaging a cap hit if we can get both Shatt and Manson off the books, which would mean there'd still be room for a forward acquisition of some kind.  the only slight hitch is that we'd have to find a d-man that Linds is as comfortable with as he is with Manson.  Could Fleury serve that roll, or is he better with Fowler?  in any event, i'm hoping our choices in the ED leave this defense rework available to pursue as we head into the regular draft.

I rather see the Ducks Trade Manson or ShattenKirk.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Also For Fowler's Return imho should be Role Player on D and Prospect.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

A warm body and a meah prospect in exchange for dumping salary of non-productive player, I would take this trade.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Anyone know where I can find a prop bet of Seattle finishing higher in the standings than the Ducks next season? It's rare to get a chance at early retirement.

Lol, you’d have to put in $20k to win $2. Not a retirement worthy bet. 

Share this post


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

Anyone know where I can find a prop bet of Seattle finishing higher in the standings than the Ducks next season? It's rare to get a chance at early retirement.

Way too early to bet on the Squidheads there TripleDeke.....btw Ducks Protected List was revealed...imho I am not surprise yet pleased with what I saw cept few surprises.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qualifying offers are due on Monday for all RFAs. What do you all think, does Bob give a QO to Heinen? His QO minimum is $2.775M.

Share this post


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

Qualifying offers are due on Monday for all RFAs. What do you all think, does Bob give a QO to Heinen? His QO minimum is $2.775M.

Pass.  Let him test the market so he realizes that his absolute ceiling is $2M.  More likely $1.5M.

Share this post


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

Pass.  Let him test the market so he realizes that his absolute ceiling is $2M.  More likely $1.5M.

I’d rather be smarter with our assets. Ducks don’t have to worry about the cap, so they might as well give him the QO if it’s between that or losing him for nothing. He could probably return a 3rd at the trade deadline even if he doesn’t improve much. Ducks just drafted a guy with a lot of potential in the 3rd round. Got a good looking player in the 5th. 

Edited by Spencer_12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spencer_12 said:

I’d rather be smarter with our assets. Ducks don’t have to worry about the cap, so they might as well give him the QO if it’s between that or losing him for nothing. He could probably return a 3rd at the trade deadline even if he doesn’t improve much. Ducks just drafted a guy with a lot of potential in the 3rd round. Got a good looking player in the 5th. 

But we want to be worried about the cap, and this is one where if we miss someone because we overspent, everyone will say we misspent our assets by overpaying for Heinen.

Wouldn't we get a pick in exchange for someone else offering him, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently neither Nick Ritchie nor Danton Heinen are getting qualifying offers. Kase didn't get one from Boston either.

 

Share this post


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

So apparently neither Nick Ritchie nor Danton Heinen are getting qualifying offers. Kase didn't get one from Boston either.

 

yeah, was seeing that, too....i don't know what to think...no wonder Bob was trying to get a trade with him done lol

Share this post


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

So apparently neither Nick Ritchie nor Danton Heinen are getting qualifying offers. Kase didn't get one from Boston either.

i hope we can all agree that we did well in the trade with Boston.  this seems to back that eval?

Share this post


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

yeah, was seeing that, too....i don't know what to think...no wonder Bob was trying to get a trade with him done lol

Henien not getting QO from our Ducks shows you a Spot is opening for one of the Young Ducks to take it's place.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

i hope we can all agree that we did well in the trade with Boston.  this seems to back that eval?

I don't know.

The genesis of Ritchie is that 10th overall pick in 2014.

Considering that seven years later they have nothing to show for it - and got VERY little out of it previously - I would have to chalk this scenario up to horrible drafting/development/asset management.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:

I don't know.

The genesis of Ritchie is that 10th overall pick in 2014.

Considering that seven years later they have nothing to show for it - and got VERY little out of it previously - I would have to chalk this scenario up to horrible drafting/development/asset management.

I chalk it up to Ritchie having the IQ of a gnat.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I chalk it up to Ritchie having the IQ of a gnat.

Well, that would point to it all starting at the 2014 draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ritchie not getting a QO is probably all about the cap. He actually had a decent season with the Bruins scoring 15 goals in 56 games. I’d think Boston would like to keep him at a lower number if they could. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:

I don't know.

The genesis of Ritchie is that 10th overall pick in 2014.

Considering that seven years later they have nothing to show for it - and got VERY little out of it previously - I would have to chalk this scenario up to horrible drafting/development/asset management.

Considering how many other draft busts occur more regularly with other teams, I would just call it odds.  We ain't gonna be perfect.

I'm also not sure he was entirely a waste.  He served a purpose in 2017.

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...