Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

gorbachav5

Members
  • Content Count

    7,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    204

gorbachav5 last won the day on May 13

gorbachav5 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,094 Excellent

2 Followers

About gorbachav5

  • Rank
    Ultimate Ducks Fan

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As long as it's something LIKE that trade and not that trade itself. I don't want anything to do with Virtanen.
  2. That is true. They are in decent shape, though. They're at $59 million before making any moves, even with Johnson coming off of IR. They'll let Saad walk, I'm sure. They'll have $22 million to sign Landeskog, Makar, a starting goalie, and three depth forwards (including Jost). They'll get the depth forwards signed for $3 million, and I would guess Landeskog will go for $7.5 - $8. That leaves them with $11 million for Makar and whomever they get for their starting goaltender, or Grubauer, if he stays. I haven't followed it that closely, so their ace in the hole could be if Johnson is still hurt and needs to stay on IR. That could give them the cap relief they need to get everyone signed.
  3. I think we need a new GM. I don't think your team needs to be big and heavy to win in the playoffs (Tampa, Pittsburgh), but I honestly don't care at this point as long as our team has an identity and acquires players who fit that identity. Ideally, that identity should fit with the players who are already here and will be here long-term. Zegras and Drysdale don't strike me as a heavy players, although Selanne and Niedermayer weren't either, so their presence doesn't preclude that style. It just means the rest of the team needs to be built that way. I have a hard time seeing it happen in any real way, though, with the contracts we have and the guys we might want to keep: Zegras, Drysdale, Fowler, Shattenkirk, Terry, Steel, Henrique, Heinen, Milano, even Fleury (he's big but not punishing). That's a long way to go to get to mean and heavy.
  4. They couldn't sign him to an extension until last summer when they already knew about the expansion draft. I don't know for sure, of course, but I would be surprised if they didn't already have a deal in place and are just waiting for the expansion draft to happen. It's always possible Landeskog wants out, but he's got a sweet gig there and, as far as I know, Avs fans think he's great. I am not holding my breath on that one.
  5. Do we really think Landeskog makes it to free agency? I have to think he re-signs with Colorado right after the expansion draft. He's beloved there, and, as hard as it is to believe, he's still only 28. If he does make it to free agency, I'd much rather go after Landeskog for $7.5 million per year than Eichel for $10. You could make the argument that Landeskog won't be nearly as good without MacKinnon and Rantanen alongside him, and I can't say you're wrong, but I enjoy him as a player so much more than Eichel. And he wouldn't cost team assets.
  6. I used regulation points percentage because it was easily sortable without a subscription on hockey reference. There was no cherry-picking involved. Reg pt% is as good a proxy for team quality as any, but I know it's a little weird, so that's why I expanded my team list to include a few more. If you want to accuse me of debating disingenuously, then I want nothing further with this discussion. The whole point of that post is to show that teams that are Ducks-level bad and then make the playoffs the next year are not going to experience sustained success UNLESS they added or developed an MVP level player AND have at least one more superstar level player on the roster. The Ducks won't have that. Quite frankly, there isn't much more to say. Your belief that this team can compete next year is nice, and I appreciate optimism as much as the next guy, but doesn't reflect any sort of reality-based projection. Of course, I'll be going into next season rooting for the team to win and make the playoffs, because otherwise, fandom is stupid. However, I don't think it makes sense for the organization to pursue moves toward that goal this offseason. They should minimize long-term damage by protecting the right guys in the ED, they should explore trading guys who don't look like they're going to sign here past this season (potentially Lindholm, Rakell, Manson, although I'd really like to re-sign the former two), and they should focus on developing the youngsters. Given that Murray is still in charge and Eakins will most likely still be behind the bench, I don't see why I would believe their 5-on-5 systems or their special teams would improve. I hope they at least get some new assistants, but it's still Murray doing the hiring.
  7. I don't think draft+ season is as relevant as seasons in the NHL. For Stamkos, it was his third full NHL season when he went to the playoffs. I also think, barring a miracle, there is no set of offseason roster moves that get the Ducks to the conference finals next season, so that's not a realistic goal. All of these teams have something in common, though - multiple candidates for major awards. Tampa has Stamkos, Hedman, Kucherov, and Point. Colorado has MacKinnon, Rantanen, and Makar, not to mention a legitimate star in Landeskog. Pittsburgh has Crosby and Malkin and Letang. Toronto now has Matthews, Marner, and Tavares. Zegras and Drysdale are very promising, but the Ducks need one or two more guys of that caliber. They can come from a different organization, but that will require trading a bunch of picks and prospects - picks and prospects that have the chance to turn into those good secondary players that all of those teams also have. If they can make that happen this offseason by trading for a guy like Eichel without giving up Zegras or Drysdale, maybe they can speed this thing up. But they're a lot more likely to do it by drafting a stud prospect next year. As my research above shows, tasting success early is no guarantee of sustained success. Is Nico Hischier any better off because he got to the playoffs three years ago? Were the Avs any better because they made the playoffs in 2010? I think the Ducks should realistically be looking to compete for a playoff spot in 22-23, and be looking to move up and start to become legitimate contenders the year after. I don't think waiting one more year is getting into Buffalo territory yet. Of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that they find a GM and coach who know what they're doing. That's the biggest hurdle.
  8. I worry that the Ducks making the playoffs next season would just be the 09-10 Avs - a precocious youngster-fueled bounceback season under a bad coach but with no real substance behind it. Can you imagine if the Ducks make the playoffs under Eakins next season? We'll be stuck with that guy (and Murray) for three more years, at least. And we won't win a playoff series until 2026 at the earliest. And it means that, unlike the Avs who managed to win the lottery in a terrible season that happened to coincide with a great draft, the Ducks won't be able to take advantage of the best top of the draft players in 2022. I'm on record countless times as saying how much I hate tanking. It's the antithesis of sports. However, if there was ever a year I could tolerate it, it would be next season. The Ducks are coming off of an atrocious year and have no realistic chance to contend. All of their valuable players are young, and even though they'll struggle, the experience will help them grow. A bad season will help get their bad coach and bad GM fired. The 2022 draft is LOADED. There are no free agents available who will be difference makers. All signs point to tank next season.
  9. The Ducks finished with a .330 regulation points percentage this season (the number of points they earned in regulation divided by the total possible). Here is a list of teams with a .350 or below regulation points percentage (since the lockout) to make the playoffs the following year: 16-17 Colorado Avalanche: Have an MVP on their team, Nathan MacKinnon (picked 1st overall), benefitted from drafting in the top 10 five times in nine years, including four top 4 picks. 08-09 Colorado: A terrible team who had a dead cat bounce the following year to make the playoffs (where they lost in the first round) and didn't win a playoff series for the next 10 years 06-07 Philadelphia: A weird one-season blip in the middle of a lot of good seasons. This was a strange year where a bunch of guys were hurt and their next wave of star players weren't ready until the following season (Richards, Carter, etc.) 05-06 Pittsburgh: Sidney Crosby (drafted 1st overall) To expand the search further, teams with a .375 or below reg. pt. pct. to make the playoffs the following year: 16-17 NJ Devils: They made it the following year entirely because they had the MVP (Taylor Hall - drafted 1st overall), and they promptly went into the toilet again immediately afterward. 15-16 Toronto: Their final season of being bad after missing the playoffs for 10 out of 11 seasons since the lockout. Also, Auston Matthews (drafted 1st overall) 15-16 Edmonton: Connor McDavid (drafted 1st overall), and they went back to being bad immediately afterward for another few years. 12-13 Colorado: Had a crazy good year the following year, then went back to being bad for three more years What does this tell us? In order to go from abjectly terrible to playoffs in one year, here are the options: Be consistently good and just have one off year (06 Philly) - not this year's Ducks. Get lucky for a season and then immediately go back to being bad for several years (09 Avs, 13 Avs, 17 Devils, 16 Oilers) - this could be the Ducks, but do we want it to be? These teams were arguably set back by their weird lucky year. They didn't use it to build a culture of winning. Have a superstar MVP join your team, probably drafted 1st overall, generally following a long period of sustained awfulness, and then build around him (17 Avs, 06 Pens, 16 Leafs) - I would love for this to be the Ducks, but they haven't been as consistently bad as these teams, and Beniers does not project to become the next MacKinnon, Crosby, or Matthews. I think the Ducks' best hope is to be a category 3 team after NEXT season or the season after. Let's use the Avs as the example. Zegras and Drysdale could be Rantanen and Makar in a few years. They've got some solid depth pieces to form a decent supporting cast. But they need their MacKinnon in the 2022 draft. It's similar if we want to compare to Toronto - Zegras and Drysdale can be Marner and Rielly. And they could sign a free agent to be their Tavares. But they need to draft a Matthews. The only way to speed this up is if literally everyone is wrong about this upcoming draft, the Ducks choose the right guy, and he becomes a top line forward from day 1. It's not impossible, just incredibly unrealistic.
  10. It's not a good lineup, though. How is it good? You can't add a healthy Lindholm (not a guarantee) and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (not a difference maker) to the second worst roster in the NHL and call it good. It's like if God looked at Nebraska, added an Applebee's, and said, "Yep, this is one of the best states now." I don't disagree that the team should try to get back to contention as quickly as possible, but with the dearth of talent at the top level of the organization, the quickest way to do it at this point is through a rebuild. They need another high draft pick in 2022 and THEN they can consider adding outside pieces. Other teams have done it: Chicago (04 - 07), LA (07 - 09, and they were pretty mediocre before that, too). As Bombay said, if EVERYTHING breaks right next year, they could contend for the last spot in the playoffs. But you can't bet on that. There would need to be significant changes made (we're talking multiple blockbuster trades and a free agent signing or two) to get to be more than that, and, aside from presuming that an extremely unlikely set of moves would come to fruition, we're still talking a roster that would need a real coach and some luck to compete with the Avs or the Knights. I don't know how you can say that all this team needs is Beniers, a guy who most project to be a second line center (and certainly won't be that next season). He's a nice prospect that I'd love to have, but is just one piece, and a future one at that. I'm sorry, I just don't see it for next season. There isn't a realistic path to contention for this team.
  11. I do think you're delusional, sorry. I convinced myself to believe at various points before and even at the beginning of this season, but it's clear the talent is severely lacking, and the player development isn't there. Signing RNH - a two-way second line forward at best - is not the cure for this team's ills. Some team is going to overpay that guy based on his draft pedigree and his affiliation with McDavid and Draisaitl. I don't want it to be us. If we fired Eakins and brought in a great coach, you could probably appeal to my optimistic side and convince me that there's a chance if they make the right moves. But there's no sign that Eakins is getting fired. There's also no sign that our blueline is going to be any healthier next year. This is the second straight year that Lindholm has missed a decent chunk of time, and I'm not convinced Manson will be a healthy, top-4 d-man ever again. Silf will be coming off of hip surgery. Who knows what happens in the expansion draft? I want to believe, but they were so, so bad this season, and it doesn't look like they're going to change much for next season.
  12. The chances of this happening are roughly 0.0001% because they're the cross-town rivals. However (warning, self-congratulation incoming), as I mentioned at the beginning of the season, the Kings are absolutely the best fit for a trade partner. They are just about ready to be good (and even if they're a year away, Gibson's contract and age don't preclude him being a fit), they have a need at goalie (Cal Petersen does not look like the long-term answer), and they have a plethora of forward prospects that the Ducks would take in a heartbeat. If the Kings were, say, the Devils, this deal would make a ton of sense. You start with asking for Turcotte, then you ask for another of their top 10 prospects (Kaliyev? Fagemo? Grans?), and work out the details from there. If Dostal projects to be at least a league average starter in the NHL, I think you make a deal like that, even though they're the Kings.
  13. I don't think there's any realistic way to return to winning next year. It would take some roster maneuvering that our current GM is incapable of, or that our current ownership is unwilling to do. And we're probably looking at a tough situation the year after, as well. So I think the Ducks need to explore offers, at the very least. That said, if the organization doesn't think Dostal will be able to take the reins eventually, trading Gibson leaves a giant hole at the goaltender position that will be difficult to fill. I don't think you need an elite goaltender to contend for Cups and division titles. But you need to have a competent one. Losing 6 - 4 every night instead of 4 - 1 would be more enjoyable, but still frustrating. Is Dostal projected to be able to provide that? He looked great at the beginning of the AHL season but has leveled off. Maybe the Ducks trade Gibson and get another 1st to use on drafting Wallstedt?
  14. I don't. Why would I? He's rude and surly. I don't want to see a middle-aged guy berate a bunch of reporters and generally behave like a jerk.
  15. None, and I mean that honestly. The excitement is on the ice. I don't give a hoot what any hockey player says (or any athlete, really) off the ice/court/field. I watch them because they're really good at slinging a disc of vulcanized rubber around, not because I'm interested in verbal sparring. Which isn't to say I think athletes should just shut up and play sports - I'm happy that more and more athletes are speaking out for social justice and the like. But that, to me, is completely separate from the on-ice product, which doesn't need any "enhancement" from colorful personalities. Sorry, I know where you're going with it, but Connor McDavid sells himself. If you watch him play hockey for three minutes and aren't interested in continuing to watch, no jersey is going to sell you on the sport.
×
×
  • Create New...