Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
Fisix

Is Eichel a Duck Yet?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:

No, Eakins initially tried to turn him into a checker and penalty killer, which is what submarined Rico's first month of the season and led to the benching, scratches, and waivers. 

Eakins tried to get him to do anything positive, hockey wise, before BM waived him.  Hank wasn't playing well for weeks and weeks, regardless of how they tried to use him, and it was clear he just wasn't trying while he was on-ice.  Petulance. 

Share this post


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

I wouldn't be surprised if they want to play somewhere else given (a) how little GMBM has done to improve the team the past two seasons, and (b) how badly GMBM and Eakins have misjudged the talent of the 21- to 24-year-old players. Rakell and Lindholm (and Gibson) are literally wasting the best years of their careers if GMBM doesn't figure out a way to upgrade the talent immediately. Rakell and Lindholm are also very good friends (Lindholm was apparently a groomsman in Rakell's wedding in couple of weeks ago) and you can't help but wonder if trading Rakell would be the final domino that makes Lindholm want to leave too. Maybe a Rakell trade is on hold until GMBM determines whether Lindholm can be re-signed.

Rakell and Lindholm are good players but I wouldn't qualify them as the types that you need build your team around so that you don't waste their prime years. I think you do that for bonafide superstars like what Getzlaf and Perry were. Plus, I don't think there's anything that Murray can do to save the upcoming season to show them that things are going to turn around that quick to convince them. Unless he tells them that he won't be the GM next year lol. If Rakell and Lindholm want to stay in Anaheim then Murray is going to have to over pay in money and term for them, imo (I'd ballpark 7.75- for Lindholm, 5.5 for Rakell per year on 8-year deals). Then we get to my issue with him of keeping the core of the roster in tact despite all evidence pointing to that core being terrible together.

Shouldn't Murray have figured out whether Lindholm/Rakell could be re-signed by now though? If not then it seems like he's losing value by keeping them until the deadline and then making trades. You'd think he would have those things figured since he's had so much time doing absolutely nothing this offseason.

13 hours ago, dukitup said:

If Eichel has the surgery he wants, recovery time is 6 weeks. 

Lindholm should be resigned if in the $7M range. He's our best defenseman and his skill set ages well. If the team flounders (which seems inevitable but one never knows), Rakell and Manson should be traded at the deadline. Their value right now is not nearly as good as it "could" be if they rebound this season. 

Having Fowler and Lindholm counting for around 14 mil against the cap into their 30's isn't ideal, imo, and not when we'll have a logjam at LHD already. Move one of them out, which Lindholm is the more valuable and easier to move asset. Now, Murray going to get less of return and has to hope players produce enough to increase their value by the deadline while playing on one of the worst teams in the league. He could have moved them out over the last two seasons when the team was still very bad. He's left money on the table already. That's assuming he doesn't re-sign them. It is just hard to see Lindholm or Rakell getting more at the deadline than they would this offseason, but maybe you're right and that is what Murray is betting on.

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2021 at 11:41 PM, Fisix said:

it wasn't Eakins that wanted him gone.

Then who did? Bob? I was under the impression it was Eakin .

Share this post


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

Then who did? Bob? I was under the impression it was Eakin .

yes to bob, no to eakins, per Eakins' public comments.

Share this post


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

yes to bob, no to eakins, per Eakins' public comments.

Stubborn Bob has to let  Ducks Head Coach Eakins Do his Job...

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


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

yes to bob, no to eakins, per Eakins' public comments.

Citation?

Share this post


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

Rakell and Lindholm are good players but I wouldn't qualify them as the types that you need build your team around so that you don't waste their prime years. I think you do that for bonafide superstars like what Getzlaf and Perry were. Plus, I don't think there's anything that Murray can do to save the upcoming season to show them that things are going to turn around that quick to convince them. Unless he tells them that he won't be the GM next year lol. If Rakell and Lindholm want to stay in Anaheim then Murray is going to have to over pay in money and term for them, imo (I'd ballpark 7.75- for Lindholm, 5.5 for Rakell per year on 8-year deals). Then we get to my issue with him of keeping the core of the roster in tact despite all evidence pointing to that core being terrible together.

Shouldn't Murray have figured out whether Lindholm/Rakell could be re-signed by now though? If not then it seems like he's losing value by keeping them until the deadline and then making trades. You'd think he would have those things figured since he's had so much time doing absolutely nothing this offseason.

Having Fowler and Lindholm counting for around 14 mil against the cap into their 30's isn't ideal, imo, and not when we'll have a logjam at LHD already. Move one of them out, which Lindholm is the more valuable and easier to move asset. Now, Murray going to get less of return and has to hope players produce enough to increase their value by the deadline while playing on one of the worst teams in the league. He could have moved them out over the last two seasons when the team was still very bad. He's left money on the table already. That's assuming he doesn't re-sign them. It is just hard to see Lindholm or Rakell getting more at the deadline than they would this offseason, but maybe you're right and that is what Murray is betting on.

"All evidence" being five straight division titles and two trips to the WCFs? Aside from Rico (who arrived while Carlyle was dragging this group to the bottom of the ocean) and Manson in 2013-14, every single member of the "elder" core (Getzlaf, Gibson, Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, Rakell) were a part of those teams. I'm ready to die on the hill that the problem isn't that this current core is terrible together, it's that GMBM replaced critical members of our dominant core with borderline NHL players, and then compounded the problem by hiring inept coaches. We've essentially replaced Kesler, Perry, and Cogliano with Steel, Terry, and Devin Shore (who then turned into the ever-MIA Sonny Milano). We started the 2019-20 season with Getzlaf centering Terry and Shore on the top line and Steel centering Rakell and Silf on the 2nd line (with Ritchie-Rico-Kase as the 3rd line). Getzlaf didn't have a primary assist at 5-on-5 until around 30 games into that season. That doesn't mean Geztlaf was terrible, it means that his wingers were terrible and had zero finish.

This team's identity has been strong defense and center play ever since Burkie came aboard, and the only times this team has floundered in the past 15 years is when the depth at Center has been bad. Fix the Center depth, and the rest of this team will follow. Like in 2011-12, when we were icing Getzlaf, a 37-year-old Saku Koivu, and a rotation of Cogs, Max Macenauer, Rod Pelley, a rookie Nick Bonino as our center depth. We righted that ship the following season by adding Mathieu Perreault and making Bonino the full-time 4C. Then after the Kings kicked our heads in during the 2014 playoffs, we righted the ship even further by adding Kesler to make one of the most dominant 1-2 C combos in the league. Fix the Center depth, fix the team.

We also don't have a logjam at LHD. Larsson sucks and shouldn't be a full-time NHL player. Guhle and Mahura are not NHL players. Neither is 31-year-old Kodie Curran. LaCombe and Thrun are both 20 and haven't even signed with the Ducks yet, and may not. Or they could be traded for forward help, which GMBM said publicly he could trade D prospects to improve the offence. And Zellweger is still only 17-years-old. So there is no logjam there, unless you think Simon Benoit creates a logjam. Frankly, I'm just hoping Benoit can be a serviceable 3rd pair guy, because we don't even really have one of those at LHD on this roster. $14M for your two best D-men is also not cap prohibitive. Lots of teams have more than this committed to their top-2 paid D-men. It's not like this is San Jose with Karlsson-Burns-Vlasic combining for $26.5M in cap. The top teams typically have 25-30% of their cap taken up by D-men, which works out to about $20.6M-$24.75M of next year's expected $82.5M cap. Shattenkirk's $3.9M goes away the same season that Drysdale is due a raise too. They'll be more than fine.

Edited by dtsdlaw
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

"All evidence" being five straight division titles and two trips to the WCFs? Aside from Rico (who arrived while Carlyle was dragging this group to the bottom of the ocean) and Manson in 2013-14, every single member of the "elder" core (Getzlaf, Gibson, Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, Rakell) were a part of those teams. I'm ready to die on the hill that the problem isn't that this current core is terrible together, it's that GMBM replaced critical members of our dominant core with borderline NHL players, and then compounded the problem by hiring inept coaches.

I think your hill is under heavy bombardment at this point.  The Ducks last made the playoffs four seasons ago.  Getzlaf and Manson are not the players they were then.  And while I like Rakell (and Silf), neither seems like a guy who can carry a line; both are highly dependent on guys around them.  

Which isn't to say that I disagree with the bolded.  Murray has handled the last three years terribly.  But putting the coaching issue aside, how do we fix the problem of having bad players?  One is to develop better, which I'm convinced at this point won't happen until Murray is gone.  I loved Todd Marchant as a player, but it seems he and the other guys Murray has hired to run player development have not done their jobs well.  Maybe Bouchard will help, but I think the problem goes deeper than that.  Two is to acquire players from outside the organization.  Free agency requires players wanting to come here or the organization throwing so much money at them that they are willing to, neither of which seems likely.  The Ducks have been fine at the draft, but then the development thing comes into play, and they'd be better off with as many draft picks as possible to maximize their chances of finding good players. 

And then there are trades - you have to trade something to get something, and the Ducks' most tradeable assets are the members of the core on expiring deals.  Nobody wants Henrique or Silf.  I'd be happy if we traded Grant or Deslauriers for something, but it's not going to be much, and it's clear Murray values those guys anyway.  Even if Murray had the skill to do what you want him to do (retain the current core and bolster it with good players), I don't think he could get it done.  Some of those guys will have to leave in trades.

Which leaves us with the fact that, for the last three years, the current core has not been able to get it done.  They aren't good enough to lift bad or mediocre players to the level they need to be.  I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that makes them terrible together, but the proof is in the pudding.  By the time we get a new coach and/or development staff in to help these guys get back to their former glory, it might be impossible to do that since they'll be too old or injured or will have left through free agency.

Share this post


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

"All evidence" being five straight division titles and two trips to the WCFs? Aside from Rico (who arrived while Carlyle was dragging this group to the bottom of the ocean) and Manson in 2013-14, every single member of the "elder" core (Getzlaf, Gibson, Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, Rakell) were a part of those teams. I'm ready to die on the hill that the problem isn't that this current core is terrible together, it's that GMBM replaced critical members of our dominant core with borderline NHL players, and then compounded the problem by hiring inept coaches. We've essentially replaced Kesler, Perry, and Cogliano with Steel, Terry, and Devin Shore (who then turned into the ever-MIA Sonny Milano). We started the 2019-20 season with Getzlaf centering Terry and Shore on the top line and Steel centering Rakell and Silf on the 2nd line (with Ritchie-Rico-Kase as the 3rd line). Getzlaf didn't have a primary assist at 5-on-5 until around 30 games into that season. That doesn't mean Geztlaf was terrible, it means that his wingers were terrible and had zero finish.

This team's identity has been strong defense and center play ever since Burkie came aboard, and the only times this team has floundered in the past 15 years is when the depth at Center has been bad. Fix the Center depth, and the rest of this team will follow. Like in 2011-12, when we were icing Getzlaf, a 37-year-old Saku Koivu, and a rotation of Cogs, Max Macenauer, Rod Pelley, a rookie Nick Bonino as our center depth. We righted that ship the following season by adding Mathieu Perreault and making Bonino the full-time 4C. Then after the Kings kicked our heads in during the 2014 playoffs, we righted the ship even further by adding Kesler to make one of the most dominant 1-2 C combos in the league. Fix the Center depth, fix the team.

We also don't have a logjam at LHD. Larsson sucks and shouldn't be a full-time NHL player. Guhle and Mahura are not NHL players. Neither is 31-year-old Kodie Curran. LaCombe and Thrun are both 20 and haven't even signed with the Ducks yet, and may not. Or they could be traded for forward help, which GMBM said publicly he could trade D prospects to improve the offence. And Zellweger is still only 17-years-old. So there is no logjam there, unless you think Simon Benoit creates a logjam. Frankly, I'm just hoping Benoit can be a serviceable 3rd pair guy, because we don't even really have one of those at LHD on this roster. $14M for your two best D-men is also not cap prohibitive. Lots of teams have more than this committed to their top-2 paid D-men. It's not like this is San Jose with Karlsson-Burns-Vlasic combining for $26.5M in cap. The top teams typically have 25-30% of their cap taken up by D-men, which works out to about $20.6M-$24.75M of next year's expected $82.5M cap. Shattenkirk's $3.9M goes away the same season that Drysdale is due a raise too. They'll be more than fine.

Yes, the core is terrible together as the last three years have shown. A lot has happened since those playoff days. Back then you had Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler as the driving forces and a far better defensive group that’s no longer here. Getzlaf may retire after this season. When you lose players like that your heading towards a rebuild and like Gorbachav said, Rakell Lindholm, Silfverberg, Manson, Fowler have not been able to carry the group. That’s not a knock against them, they are very good to solid players but the Ducks need an infusion of multiple great players. Hopefully, we’ve acquired some of those pieces over the last three drafts.

Murray being inept is the overarching theme but replacing cornerstone players due to age, injury and decline eventually befalls every GM that has a perennially good team. He was just too late to the party in and now has very limited options with no rapid turnaround really possible, imo.

The logjam on defense is going to hit in the next 2-3 years with the players that you mentioned. So, having 14 mil tied up in fowler and Lindholm isn’t the best use of funds when they’ll be in their early 30’s even if a cap crunch isn’t coming. The next really good Ducks team won’t be driven by having Fowler and Lindholm as your best defensemen, imo. I’m looking beyond next season. If the Ducks are still very dependent on Fowler and Lindholm in 3 years then I’ll bet that we aren’t going to be contending for much.

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gorbachav55 said:

I think your hill is under heavy bombardment at this point.  The Ducks last made the playoffs four seasons ago.  Getzlaf and Manson are not the players they were then.  And while I like Rakell (and Silf), neither seems like a guy who can carry a line; both are highly dependent on guys around them.  

Which isn't to say that I disagree with the bolded.  Murray has handled the last three years terribly.  But putting the coaching issue aside, how do we fix the problem of having bad players?  One is to develop better, which I'm convinced at this point won't happen until Murray is gone.  I loved Todd Marchant as a player, but it seems he and the other guys Murray has hired to run player development have not done their jobs well.  Maybe Bouchard will help, but I think the problem goes deeper than that.  Two is to acquire players from outside the organization.  Free agency requires players wanting to come here or the organization throwing so much money at them that they are willing to, neither of which seems likely.  The Ducks have been fine at the draft, but then the development thing comes into play, and they'd be better off with as many draft picks as possible to maximize their chances of finding good players. 

And then there are trades - you have to trade something to get something, and the Ducks' most tradeable assets are the members of the core on expiring deals.  Nobody wants Henrique or Silf.  I'd be happy if we traded Grant or Deslauriers for something, but it's not going to be much, and it's clear Murray values those guys anyway.  Even if Murray had the skill to do what you want him to do (retain the current core and bolster it with good players), I don't think he could get it done.  Some of those guys will have to leave in trades.

Which leaves us with the fact that, for the last three years, the current core has not been able to get it done.  They aren't good enough to lift bad or mediocre players to the level they need to be.  I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that makes them terrible together, but the proof is in the pudding.  By the time we get a new coach and/or development staff in to help these guys get back to their former glory, it might be impossible to do that since they'll be too old or injured or will have left through free agency.

The bolded is where I disagree with you. Nobody is talking about trading Manson, Rakell, or Lindholm in a package for Eichel. It's basically all futures (+ cap) being discussed for Eichel. For a guy like Dylan Strome, Chicago would need younger, cheaper assets that they could control longer because they can't take on more cap hit and aren't really ready to go all-in on expiring contracts. So something like Terry + LaCombe (or a 2nd) for Dylan Strome. Maybe the Rangers do Ryan Strome for Rakell as a 1-for-1 (which I'd be fine with). Christian Dvorak would likely be acquired for futures since Arizona is in full, unabashed rebuilding mode. Or even perhaps an asset + Rico (with 1/2 retained) so Arizona could flip him (at 1/2 retained again) for another asset. Rico at a $1.47M cap hit might even get a late 1st rounder from a contender for the Yotes. Saying that Rakell, Manson, and Lindholm are the most tradeable assets lacks imagination IMO. Sure, they're the most tradeable if your goal is to get picks and prospects that may or may not end up being NHL players. But if we want to fill the gaping holes left by Kesler, Perry, and Cogs, the Ducks have to show some bravery and creativity and trade for pieces that will actually make a difference. 

Edited by dtsdlaw

Share this post


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

The bolded is where I disagree with you. Nobody is talking about trading Manson, Rakell, or Lindholm in a package for Eichel. It's basically all futures (+ cap) being discussed for Eichel. For a guy like Dylan Strome, Chicago would need younger, cheaper assets that they could control longer because they can't take on more cap hit and aren't really ready to go all-in on expiring contracts. So something like Terry + LaCombe + 2nd for Dylan Strome. Maybe the Rangers do Ryan Strome for Rakell as a 1-for-1 (which I'd be fine with). Christian Dvorak would likely be acquired for futures since Arizona is in full, unabashed rebuilding mode. Or even perhaps an asset + Rico (with 1/2 retained) so Arizona could flip him (at 1/2 retained again) for another asset. Rico at a $1.47M cap hit might even get a late 1st rounder from a contender for the Yotes. Saying that Rakell, Manson, and Lindholm are the most tradeable assets lacks imagination IMO. Sure, they're the most tradeable if your goal is to get picks and prospects that may or may not end up being NHL players. But if we want to fill the gaping holes left by Kesler, Perry, and Cogs, the Ducks have to show some bravery and creativity and trade for pieces that will actually make a difference. 

But what if your NHL team with those players isn’t good??


The Ducks drafted Perry and traded for Kesler when they were a playoff team trying to get over the hump, not when they were in the cellar of the standings. To get those kind of players now via trade would be to pretty much gut the prospect pool, imo. The Ducks will eventually replace those players but it won’t be or even has to be this season.

Let the imagination start flowing next summer after we sort through our UFA, coaching and GM issues.

Edited by BombaysTripleDeke

Share this post


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

The Ducks drafted Perry and traded for Kesler when they were a playoff team trying to get over the hump, not when they were in the cellar of the standings. To get those kind of players now via trade would be to pretty much gut the prospect pool, imo. The Ducks will replace those players but it won’t be or even has to be this season.

Let the imagination start flowing next summer after we sort through our UFA, coaching and GM issues.

Yeah, it's not going to gut the prospect pool. That's hyperbole. Eichel requires assets, sure. But the best prospects (Zegras, Drysdale) will remain Ducks and some of the pieces it would take to get him are becoming redundant the longer we remain bottom feeders (i.e. Lundestrom being redundant with McTavish and Groulx coming up). Getting Dylan Strome would barely cause a ripple, except to Bob Murray's ego since he so terribly overvalues the "golden boys" he has drafted. Ryan Strome<-->Rakell would actually be a fantastic lateral move. Even Dvorak could be a no brainer if Bob would just make the call. 

All of those options are better than playing the 2021-22 season with a 20-year-old Zegras + five 3rd/4th line centers as the center depth. The Ducks are going to seriously hurt Zegras' development if they make him the 1C without any support from another scoring line. Good luck against Kopitar + Danault. 

Share this post


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

Citation?

the quotes here are taken from the after game interview where he made more comments about Hank, and there is/was video after prior games and games after.

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/02/20/ducks-place-struggling-forward-adam-henrique-on-waivers/

more:

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/02/28/ducks-center-adam-henrique-back-in-lineup-after-brutal-week-in-limbo/

Share this post


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

Yeah, it's not going to gut the prospect pool. That's hyperbole. Eichel requires assets, sure. But the best prospects (Zegras, Drysdale) will remain Ducks and some of the pieces it would take to get him are becoming redundant the longer we remain bottom feeders (i.e. Lundestrom being redundant with McTavish and Groulx coming up). Getting Dylan Strome would barely cause a ripple, except to Bob Murray's ego since he so terribly overvalues the "golden boys" he has drafted. Ryan Strome<-->Rakell would actually be a fantastic lateral move. Even Dvorak could be a no brainer if Bob would just make the call. 

All of those options are better than playing the 2021-22 season with a 20-year-old Zegras + five 3rd/4th line centers as the center depth. The Ducks are going to seriously hurt Zegras' development if they make him the 1C without any support from another scoring line. Good luck against Kopitar + Danault. 

I feel like they are gonna go with (if they don't make any trades):

1C - Henrique

2C - Zegras

3C - Getzlaf

4C - Lundestrom

Now, that may not even be close to what they will do, and with the way they have "handled" Henrique maybe that is not plausible.  But that's what I would do (except I would switch Getzlaf and Lundestrom).

 

The other thing I could see them do would be to switch Henrique to LW and go:

1C - Getzlaf (not a fan)

2C - Zegras

3C - Steel/Lundestrom

4C - Steel/Lundestrom

 

I, like you, do not think they should be putting Zegras at 1C, at least not to start the season. He should get more sheltered zone starts for the first 30 games or more.  I would be okay with him getting 1PP minutes, but even that maybe would be better at W than C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the general trade strategy posts:

i'm pretty sure the team is standing pat for now and looking towards another development year.  if a trading partner pops up for one of the underperforming vets, BM will ship them out over the season or by the deadline, hopefully for a decent return.  i haven't heard anything about Seattle making any moves yet... they could be a trade partner for us, two way or three way (as yet unclear).  currently, their whole franchise plan is a fraking mystery (to me), except for them taking Fleury from us.

Toronto tells me that simply acquiring talented players, vets or not, isn't enough.
Tampa tells me that competing within the cap won't get you the cup (until Tampa plays close to the cap, anyway).
Montreal tells me 1) heart matters, 2) goaltending is king, 3) coaching isn't everything, and 4) better have Corey on your team (or something really similar).

there are similar lessons from each team in the league (Colorado, Vegas, woof).  when you compare the Ducks, who are in a much deeper rebuild than almost any other team out there right now, to these other teams, i don't think a reasonable person would be pessimistic about our future, nor would they start making super erratic and panicky personnel moves.

BM is almost gone.  Eakins gets his last chance to rally a development team this season, and even if you're super anti-Eakins, there are new assistants and a ton of development support for him and the team that'll actually be at the practice and gameday rinks regularly (unlike whatever was going on with Sutter, who is sucking on his own anyway as far as I can tell, though i'd entertain blaming that on his on-ice personnel for now).

we have assets.  there's no need to blow them on a poor trade now (and all the suggested trades i've seen here suck, or are at best milquetoast, imho).  heck, realistically, this coming season could end up as covid season part deux, even with everyone vaccinated and boostered etc. 

i think you guys need to at least contemplate that the smartest long term position for the Ducks right now is to stand pat and develop the frak out of our prospect and rookie pools.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

i think you guys need to at least contemplate that the smartest long term position for the Ducks right now is to stand pat and develop the frak out of our prospect and rookie pools.

That would be a good plan, except that the Ducks suck at this.  Bigly.

I've long debated that they have, when given a chance to pick a kid who can really play, pretty much missed on their chances, specifically in the first round.

But I am also on board now with the evidence that they draft some good Junior/College players and do not develop them into good NHL players.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I get bummed about the Ducks' drafting, I always like to look at BOS's first round in 2015, when they had three first round picks (in order) and they drafted

13th overall - Jakob Zboril

14th overall - Jake Debrusk

15th overall - Zachary Senyshyn

 

and the next three picks were Matthew Barzal, Kyle Connor and Thomas Chabot.

SAW-Wing and a miss!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

The bolded is where I disagree with you. Nobody is talking about trading Manson, Rakell, or Lindholm in a package for Eichel. It's basically all futures (+ cap) being discussed for Eichel. For a guy like Dylan Strome, Chicago would need younger, cheaper assets that they could control longer because they can't take on more cap hit and aren't really ready to go all-in on expiring contracts. So something like Terry + LaCombe (or a 2nd) for Dylan Strome. Maybe the Rangers do Ryan Strome for Rakell as a 1-for-1 (which I'd be fine with). Christian Dvorak would likely be acquired for futures since Arizona is in full, unabashed rebuilding mode. Or even perhaps an asset + Rico (with 1/2 retained) so Arizona could flip him (at 1/2 retained again) for another asset. Rico at a $1.47M cap hit might even get a late 1st rounder from a contender for the Yotes. Saying that Rakell, Manson, and Lindholm are the most tradeable assets lacks imagination IMO. Sure, they're the most tradeable if your goal is to get picks and prospects that may or may not end up being NHL players. But if we want to fill the gaping holes left by Kesler, Perry, and Cogs, the Ducks have to show some bravery and creativity and trade for pieces that will actually make a difference. 

These things are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they're dependent on each other.  If you're trading young guys and future assets for high level talent, you need to replace those young guys and future assets.  Otherwise you wind up with no cheap, solid players to supplement your top players.  You end up with the Ducks in the early teens, where it was Getzlaf and Perry and very little aside from them who could move the needle.  So yes, be creative and trade a bunch of guys for Eichel.  I'm not as sold on either Strome, but sure, why not.  Then trade Rakell, Lindholm, Manson for assets to replace the ones you just moved before those guys leave for free or start declining to the point where they're burdens on the salary cap for what they're producing.  As I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to keep Lindholm if he'll sign for a reasonable amount, but I do think the Ducks have guys coming up who can hopefully replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tommer-1 said:

That would be a good plan, except that the Ducks suck at this.  Bigly.

I've long debated that they have, when given a chance to pick a kid who can really play, pretty much missed on their chances, specifically in the first round.

But I am also on board now with the evidence that they draft some good Junior/College players and do not develop them into good NHL players.

it's definitely going to take a village to suck at it this year.  they got coaches out the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gorbachav55 said:

These things are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they're dependent on each other.  If you're trading young guys and future assets for high level talent, you need to replace those young guys and future assets.  Otherwise you wind up with no cheap, solid players to supplement your top players.  You end up with the Ducks in the early teens, where it was Getzlaf and Perry and very little aside from them who could move the needle.  So yes, be creative and trade a bunch of guys for Eichel.  I'm not as sold on either Strome, but sure, why not.  Then trade Rakell, Lindholm, Manson for assets to replace the ones you just moved before those guys leave for free or start declining to the point where they're burdens on the salary cap for what they're producing.  As I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to keep Lindholm if he'll sign for a reasonable amount, but I do think the Ducks have guys coming up who can hopefully replace him.

But if you trade those guys, you've now created additional holes that need filling. Which you then have to trade more assets to fill. The same way the Kings just traded assets to get Arvidsson to fill the gaping hole in their top-6 that they created by trading Toffoli instead of re-signing him.

Trading those guys would make more sense to me if the Ducks had their clear heir-apparent already in the system or if this team could attract high quality UFAs without grossly overpaying. But I just don't see it for Rakell and Lindholm (but I'm good with trading Manson). If Lindholm isn't re-signed, which player currently in the system plays 22+ minutes/game as the Ducks' top shut-down defenseman against McDavid, MacKinnon, Pettersson, etc. for the next 3-4 years? Not a single one of our LHD prospects project to be that type of player, so to replace what Lindholm does, the Ducks will have to look outside the organization and either (a) overpay in free agency or (b) trade assets to get one. I'd make the same argument for Rakell. Who takes Rakell's spot as a top-6 RW for the next 3 seasons? We've had a couple of promising drafts with Perreault and Pastujov, but those guys are far from sure-thing NHLers and it could be several seasons before they're even ready for full-time NHL duty. And even Terry is a borderline top-6 winger (he's at best a 3rd liner on any good NHL teams). So if you move Rakell, you're probably looking at 3+ seasons without a legit top-6 RW. I don't see how that is ideal given our scoring woes and for how we are currently rebuilding. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

But if you trade those guys, you've now created additional holes that need filling. Which you then have to trade more assets to fill. The same way the Kings just traded assets to get Arvidsson to fill the gaping hole in their top-6 that they created by trading Toffoli instead of re-signing him.

Trading those guys would make more sense to me if the Ducks had their clear heir-apparent already in the system or if this team could attract high quality UFAs without grossly overpaying. But I just don't see it for Rakell and Lindholm (but I'm good with trading Manson). If Lindholm isn't re-signed, which player currently in the system plays 22+ minutes/game as the Ducks' top shut-down defenseman against McDavid, MacKinnon, Pettersson, etc. for the next 3-4 years? Not a single one of our LHD prospects project to be that type of player, so to replace what Lindholm does, the Ducks will have to look outside the organization and either (a) overpay in free agency or (b) trade assets to get one. I'd make the same argument for Rakell. Who takes Rakell's spot as a top-6 RW for the next 3 seasons? We've had a couple of promising drafts with Perreault and Pastujov, but those guys are far from sure-thing NHLers and it could be several seasons before they're even ready for full-time NHL duty. And even Terry is a borderline top-6 winger (he's at best a 3rd liner on any good NHL teams). So if you move Rakell, you're probably looking at 3+ seasons without a legit top-6 RW. I don't see how that is ideal given our scoring woes and for how we are currently rebuilding. 

The Ducks aren't going to contend in the next two years, with or without Rakell and Lindholm.  There might be a path to get there in two years, but they're certainly not taking any steps to do so.  By year 3, Rakell and Lindholm are both 30 and are into their decline.  Certainly the hope is that Perreault is ready to step in by that point and replace Rakell.  If he's not, they'll have to go outside the organization anyway.  Lindholm is less replaceable, but if he's not going to re-sign, we don't have a choice.  And if it's even unsure or if he's looking to ask for more than $7.5 million, I think the assets are worth more to the Ducks.  If Thrun or LaCombe or Benoit don't become that guy, then they use the assets to acquire someone outside the organization.  

That's a long way of saying that while Rakell is fine and Lindholm is still good (as long as he's healthy), neither one is irreplaceable, and neither one is going to push this team into the postseason in the next two years, unless it's a lucky 2014-Avalanche-esque run.  

To summarize for me: Manson should be traded. Deslauriers should be traded.  Rakell should probably be traded.  Lindholm can be retained, but if he hasn't signed an extension by the trade deadline, the team cannot risk letting him walk for nothing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gorbachav55 said:

The Ducks aren't going to contend in the next two years, with or without Rakell and Lindholm.  There might be a path to get there in two years, but they're certainly not taking any steps to do so.  By year 3, Rakell and Lindholm are both 30 and are into their decline.  Certainly the hope is that Perreault is ready to step in by that point and replace Rakell.  If he's not, they'll have to go outside the organization anyway.  Lindholm is less replaceable, but if he's not going to re-sign, we don't have a choice.  And if it's even unsure or if he's looking to ask for more than $7.5 million, I think the assets are worth more to the Ducks.  If Thrun or LaCombe or Benoit don't become that guy, then they use the assets to acquire someone outside the organization.  

That's a long way of saying that while Rakell is fine and Lindholm is still good (as long as he's healthy), neither one is irreplaceable, and neither one is going to push this team into the postseason in the next two years, unless it's a lucky 2014-Avalanche-esque run.  

To summarize for me: Manson should be traded. Deslauriers should be traded.  Rakell should probably be traded.  Lindholm can be retained, but if he hasn't signed an extension by the trade deadline, the team cannot risk letting him walk for nothing.

Manson,Deslauriers and Rakell should have been traded. Not trading them is miscalucation on Stubborn Bob's part.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2021 at 1:24 PM, dtsdlaw said:

Yeah, it's not going to gut the prospect pool. That's hyperbole. Eichel requires assets, sure. But the best prospects (Zegras, Drysdale) will remain Ducks and some of the pieces it would take to get him are becoming redundant the longer we remain bottom feeders (i.e. Lundestrom being redundant with McTavish and Groulx coming up). Getting Dylan Strome would barely cause a ripple, except to Bob Murray's ego since he so terribly overvalues the "golden boys" he has drafted. Ryan Strome<-->Rakell would actually be a fantastic lateral move. Even Dvorak could be a no brainer if Bob would just make the call. 

All of those options are better than playing the 2021-22 season with a 20-year-old Zegras + five 3rd/4th line centers as the center depth. The Ducks are going to seriously hurt Zegras' development if they make him the 1C without any support from another scoring line. Good luck against Kopitar + Danault. 

To get a Perry and Kesler level impact players wouldn’t crush the prospect pool? Eichel would do damage on its own and add another top end scorer certainly would cripple it imo. Zegras, Drysdale then absolutely no one else in the system behind them lol. 
 

6 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:

But if you trade those guys, you've now created additional holes that need filling. Which you then have to trade more assets to fill. The same way the Kings just traded assets to get Arvidsson to fill the gaping hole in their top-6 that they created by trading Toffoli instead of re-signing him.

Trading those guys would make more sense to me if the Ducks had their clear heir-apparent already in the system or if this team could attract high quality UFAs without grossly overpaying. But I just don't see it for Rakell and Lindholm (but I'm good with trading Manson). If Lindholm isn't re-signed, which player currently in the system plays 22+ minutes/game as the Ducks' top shut-down defenseman against McDavid, MacKinnon, Pettersson, etc. for the next 3-4 years? Not a single one of our LHD prospects project to be that type of player, so to replace what Lindholm does, the Ducks will have to look outside the organization and either (a) overpay in free agency or (b) trade assets to get one. I'd make the same argument for Rakell. Who takes Rakell's spot as a top-6 RW for the next 3 seasons? We've had a couple of promising drafts with Perreault and Pastujov, but those guys are far from sure-thing NHLers and it could be several seasons before they're even ready for full-time NHL duty. And even Terry is a borderline top-6 winger (he's at best a 3rd liner on any good NHL teams). So if you move Rakell, you're probably looking at 3+ seasons without a legit top-6 RW. I don't see how that is ideal given our scoring woes and for how we are currently rebuilding. 

But then we are keeping players that are part of one of the worst offenses and teams in the NHL as the head towards their less productive years while being more expensive. Moving players and then replacing them is part of the circle of life when your team is butt, imo. It’s not like there is a dire need to try and fill their spots for the lost cause of next season or even in the season after that when they still won’t be contending but can take a jump forward.
 

The returns you get for them can be used to help get their replacements if the prospect pool isn’t panning out or to supplement it.

The Kings replacing Toffoli with Arvidsson is a pretty solid move on the surface, imo. VA is a year younger and they are paying him less money than they would have had to pay Toffoli on his extension. Not bad for a two-time 30 goal scorer, where as Toffoli has been once. Plus, Toffoli may have wanted to test FA because the Kings haven’t been good also or LA may have just not wanted to pay him. 

 

Share this post


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

But if you trade those guys, you've now created additional holes that need filling. Which you then have to trade more assets to fill. The same way the Kings just traded assets to get Arvidsson to fill the gaping hole in their top-6 that they created by trading Toffoli instead of re-signing him.

Trading those guys would make more sense to me if the Ducks had their clear heir-apparent already in the system or if this team could attract high quality UFAs without grossly overpaying. But I just don't see it for Rakell and Lindholm (but I'm good with trading Manson). If Lindholm isn't re-signed, which player currently in the system plays 22+ minutes/game as the Ducks' top shut-down defenseman against McDavid, MacKinnon, Pettersson, etc. for the next 3-4 years? Not a single one of our LHD prospects project to be that type of player, so to replace what Lindholm does, the Ducks will have to look outside the organization and either (a) overpay in free agency or (b) trade assets to get one. I'd make the same argument for Rakell. Who takes Rakell's spot as a top-6 RW for the next 3 seasons? We've had a couple of promising drafts with Perreault and Pastujov, but those guys are far from sure-thing NHLers and it could be several seasons before they're even ready for full-time NHL duty. And even Terry is a borderline top-6 winger (he's at best a 3rd liner on any good NHL teams). So if you move Rakell, you're probably looking at 3+ seasons without a legit top-6 RW. I don't see how that is ideal given our scoring woes and for how we are currently rebuilding. 

Couldn´t agree more. For those who are saying we should go outside the organisation you have a point but it´s not that easy if you´re Anaheim. Kesler wanted to be here because we were contenders. But as long as we´re not that... There´s also nice weather and beaches in florida and lower taxes.

Don´t forget Justin Faulk didn´t want to come here and that we overpaid for Shattenkirk. Attracting UFA´s is hard for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Manson,Deslauriers and Rakell should have been traded. Not trading them is miscalucation on Stubborn Bob's part.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

At the trade deadline last year, there was only ONE trade involving players with term (more than one year on their contract). Any team trading for the players you mentioned would have had to protect them in the Entry Draft. Teams had trouble protecting their own players. Trade them this off season maybe, but with Rakell scoring 9 goals and Manson hurt most of the season, their value right now is at its lowest level imo. If the team flounders, and the players you mentioned have a decent season going, I think their trade value will be higher at the deadline. 

Edited by dukitup
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

At the trade deadline last year, there was only ONE trade involving players with term (more than one year on their contract). Any team trading for the players you mentioned would have had protect them in the Entry Draft. Teams had trouble protecting their own players. Trade them this off season maybe, but with Rakell scoring 9 goals and Manson hurt most of the season, their value right now is at its lowest level imo. If the team flounders, and the players you mentioned have a decent season going, I think their trade value will be higher at the deadline. 

Rakell would probably not net as big of a haul as he would have 3 years ago when he scored 30 goals but I think he would still have good value. At least, I think he still has good value for this team even if he wouldn't get us a ton in a trade. Last season was his lowest scoring season points wise since his rookie year, but other than that he's been reasonably consistent outside of that one year when he popped off with 69 points. He also has consistently decent possession stats. Personally I would be trying to keep him - the trade return probably wouldn't move the needle that much for this team, Rakell is still relatively young/in his prime years, and seemed to have good chemistry with Zegras. Plus if that helps convince Lindholm to re-sign then that's just gravy.

Manson should have been traded 2 years ago. If Bob can get anything decent for him now it will be miracle. Maybe if a contending team has some kind of blueline injury crisis this upcoming season.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Eichel changed agents today. The saga continues….hope this helps end it.

His new agent is Pat Brisson, who is basically the number one agent in hockey. He's got many of the biggest names in hockey - Crosby, MacKinnon, Kane, Toews, Tavares, Kopitar, Giroux, Elias Pettersson, Jack Hughes, etc. He also represents Fowler, Zegras, Max Jones, and Jacob Perreault. According to puckpedia.com, the Ducks have the second highest number of Brisson clients behind Chicago, so there is substantial familiarity between GMBM and Brisson. 

You have to think that this is a move to add leverage to Eichel's trade demand. IMO, it would be in Kevyn Adams long term best interest to not tick off Brisson by continuing to jerk around his shiny new client.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

To get a Perry and Kesler level impact players wouldn’t crush the prospect pool? Eichel would do damage on its own and add another top end scorer certainly would cripple it imo. Zegras, Drysdale then absolutely no one else in the system behind them lol. 

But then we are keeping players that are part of one of the worst offenses and teams in the NHL as the head towards their less productive years while being more expensive. Moving players and then replacing them is part of the circle of life when your team is butt, imo. It’s not like there is a dire need to try and fill their spots for the lost cause of next season or even in the season after that when they still won’t be contending but can take a jump forward.
 

The returns you get for them can be used to help get their replacements if the prospect pool isn’t panning out or to supplement it.

The Kings replacing Toffoli with Arvidsson is a pretty solid move on the surface, imo. VA is a year younger and they are paying him less money than they would have had to pay Toffoli on his extension. Not bad for a two-time 30 goal scorer, where as Toffoli has been once. Plus, Toffoli may have wanted to test FA because the Kings haven’t been good also or LA may have just not wanted to pay him. 

 

Perry had 19G/34A in 2016-17, which is the last time this team went to the WCFs. I'm not talking 50G Perry. You can get a 53 point player without selling off the entire farm system. That's a Drouin or a Dylan Strome.

"Toffoli has been a 30-goal scorer once"... lol. He just had 28G last season in 52 games. That's not a 30-goal season, but it's a 45-goal pace over a full, non-Covid season. Meanwhile, Arvidsson had 10G in 50 games last season. It's also the exact same cap hit for both players over the same remaining term. I also don't think deep pocket teams care that much if slightly more or less actual salary is allocated to one contract or the other, especially if Toffoli continues to double up on Arvidsson's goal totals. Does anyone actually think the Kings wouldn't trade Arvidsson straight up for Toffoli right now? Hell, they'd probably offer Arvidsson + Madden + 2nd to get Toffoli back. And Bergevin would turn it down. :lol:

Edited by dtsdlaw

Share this post


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

His new agent is Pat Brisson, who is basically the number one agent in hockey. He's got many of the biggest names in hockey - Crosby, MacKinnon, Kane, Toews, Tavares, Kopitar, Giroux, Elias Pettersson, Jack Hughes, etc. He also represents Fowler, Zegras, Max Jones, and Jacob Perreault. According to puckpedia.com, the Ducks have the second highest number of Brisson clients behind Chicago, so there is substantial familiarity between GMBM and Brisson. 

You have to think that this is a move to add leverage to Eichel's trade demand. IMO, it would be in Kevyn Adams long term best interest to not tick off Brisson by continuing to jerk around his shiny new client.

I hope that Eichel goes to Chicago then lol. 
 

28 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

Perry had 19G/34A in 2016-17, which is the last time this team went to the WCFs. I'm not talking 50G Perry. You can get a 53 point player without selling off the entire farm system. That's a Drouin or a Dylan Strome.

"Toffoli has been a 30-goal scorer once"... lol. He just had 28G last season in 52 games. That's not a 30-goal season, but it's a 45-goal pace over a full, non-Covid season. Meanwhile, Arvidsson had 10G in 50 games last season. It's also the exact same cap hit for both players over the same remaining term. I also don't think deep pocket teams care that much if slightly more or less actual salary is allocated to one contract or the other, especially if Toffoli continues to double up on Arvidsson's goal totals. Does anyone actually think the Kings wouldn't trade Arvidsson straight up for Toffoli right now? Hell, they'd probably offer Arvidsson + Madden + 2nd to get Toffoli back. And Bergevin would turn it down. :lol:

Do you think Toffoli puts up last years numbers on a far worse Kings team rather than Montreal who got to the SCF? He hadn't been on a 30-goal pace since 2015-2016 and hadn’t put up more than 24 goals. His goal scoring took off after LA traded him to Vancouver. LA has been bad so he may have wanted out or LA not have viewed him as part of their future and got something for him. So, it’s hard to rip either side if they wanted to move on when the team was in the bottom-5 of the league.

The Ducks 2016-2017 playoff team also had to go through Calgary and perennial train wreck Edmonton to get to the WCF. We had a fortunate route. Plus, Getzlaf isn’t a 70 point player anymore, Kesler is done and our defense was so disgustingly loaded and deep. So, those things are gone and Silfverberg is older and coming off major hip surgery. We haven’t had a 50-point pace player since Getzlaf three seasons ago, who got exactly 50. I think we’d need a 50-goal Perry, two prime centers and a much better defense before we can even try to roll against Vegas, Colorado for a WCF spot and I think those are going to require an absolute draining of our prospect pool while also  taking away from the current roster

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...