You guys must think Bob has gone truly and well senile if you seriously think him saying he wants 24-27 yo's in return for assets means he's going to trade Rakell for Virtanen. Especially after we heard they were trying to trade Heinen for Virtanen earlier.
Speculation: ‘20-21 Trade/Free Agency Thread Part II
- Thread starter Ducks DVM
- Start date
- Status
DavidBL
Registered User
Do they? It seems they are about what we should expect for their draft positions which LA likely will find out in 2-3 years when their hot prospects finally start making their own way to the NHL. Difference is ours are starting to make inroads now while LA is going to have another gap before they see meaningful impacts from most of their prospects.
DavidBL
Registered User
If that is all that is offered id expect Rakell to remain a Duck.
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
Inventing shit that hasn't happened and then getting mad about it.
Here is the full part of the article not sure if it was posted or not....
The Ducks remain a team of interest on the trade front, something GM Bob Murray acknowledged to The Athletic’s Eric Stephens. “I’m openly talking and listening about lots of things,” Murray said. “We’ve got to.” One player whose value has surged since the original trade board published is forward Rickard Rakell. As February wrapped up, Rakell was in the midst of one of the worst scoring slumps of his career. That has changed dramatically. He had 12 points in a six-game stretch that ended March 10, which vaulted him to the top of the Anaheim scoring lead and reinforced the question we asked originally – does Anaheim want to move a player who is only 27 with a modest cap hit? It would take some convincing.
• As always, it comes down to return. The Ducks are no longer interested in swapping players off their roster for future draft choices, where they’ll need to wait three seasons or more before they can plug a prospect into their lineup. They’re looking for players in the 24-to-27 age range to mesh seamlessly with the maturing youngsters who are gradually finding their NHL way. Any deal involving Rakell would likely be a hockey deal. Given that Anaheim and Boston have developed a trade pipeline of sorts these past few years (and Boston’s desperate need for secondary scoring) a Rakell-for-Jake DeBrusk deal might make sense. DeBrusk was a healthy scratch recentlyand could be a candidate for a scenery change. The more likely forward candidates to move from Anaheim: Danton Heinen, Adam Henrique (with the team eating a big percentage of his contract) and maybe Jakob Silfverberg, who is the sort of reliable, two-way presence who’s often played a top-six role with the Ducks before but has seen his ice-time and contributions shrink. Silfverberg’s contract (three more years at $5.25 million) is hard to move.
• Another name to watch on the Ducks front is defenseman Josh Manson. He’s a heavy, physical throw-back sort of a player, a right-shot defenseman who, on that 2016-17 Ducks’ playoff run, averaged over 20 minutes per night. Injuries have limited his effectiveness the past two years – he got into only 50 games a year ago and this year has been limited to six. But there is a precedent for a team acquiring an injured defensive asset at the deadline – last year, that’s what Carolina did with Sami Vatanen, hoping he’d heal by the time the playoffs rolled around. What will tempt teams is Manson’s potential impact if he does stay healthy. He’s a Jake Muzzin, low-maintenance sort of a contributor who could make a smooth and easy transition to any new team and would be a bit of a fallback plan for any team that comes up short in the Mattias Ekholm sweepstakes. Manson has this year and next left on a contract that pays him $4.1 million, so he does create an expansion draft quandary for any team that picks him up.
The Ducks remain a team of interest on the trade front, something GM Bob Murray acknowledged to The Athletic’s Eric Stephens. “I’m openly talking and listening about lots of things,” Murray said. “We’ve got to.” One player whose value has surged since the original trade board published is forward Rickard Rakell. As February wrapped up, Rakell was in the midst of one of the worst scoring slumps of his career. That has changed dramatically. He had 12 points in a six-game stretch that ended March 10, which vaulted him to the top of the Anaheim scoring lead and reinforced the question we asked originally – does Anaheim want to move a player who is only 27 with a modest cap hit? It would take some convincing.
• As always, it comes down to return. The Ducks are no longer interested in swapping players off their roster for future draft choices, where they’ll need to wait three seasons or more before they can plug a prospect into their lineup. They’re looking for players in the 24-to-27 age range to mesh seamlessly with the maturing youngsters who are gradually finding their NHL way. Any deal involving Rakell would likely be a hockey deal. Given that Anaheim and Boston have developed a trade pipeline of sorts these past few years (and Boston’s desperate need for secondary scoring) a Rakell-for-Jake DeBrusk deal might make sense. DeBrusk was a healthy scratch recentlyand could be a candidate for a scenery change. The more likely forward candidates to move from Anaheim: Danton Heinen, Adam Henrique (with the team eating a big percentage of his contract) and maybe Jakob Silfverberg, who is the sort of reliable, two-way presence who’s often played a top-six role with the Ducks before but has seen his ice-time and contributions shrink. Silfverberg’s contract (three more years at $5.25 million) is hard to move.
• Another name to watch on the Ducks front is defenseman Josh Manson. He’s a heavy, physical throw-back sort of a player, a right-shot defenseman who, on that 2016-17 Ducks’ playoff run, averaged over 20 minutes per night. Injuries have limited his effectiveness the past two years – he got into only 50 games a year ago and this year has been limited to six. But there is a precedent for a team acquiring an injured defensive asset at the deadline – last year, that’s what Carolina did with Sami Vatanen, hoping he’d heal by the time the playoffs rolled around. What will tempt teams is Manson’s potential impact if he does stay healthy. He’s a Jake Muzzin, low-maintenance sort of a contributor who could make a smooth and easy transition to any new team and would be a bit of a fallback plan for any team that comes up short in the Mattias Ekholm sweepstakes. Manson has this year and next left on a contract that pays him $4.1 million, so he does create an expansion draft quandary for any team that picks him up.
Its hard to do period. Tanking doesn't give any more of an advantage than just being organically bad, but does introduce new risks for staying bad for a lot longer.
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
Deuce22
Registered User
This shouldn't be an apples or oranges argument. The goal should be to acquire good players while maintaining flexibility via contract length and/or contract value. Tanking hasn't worked in the majority of cases, citing outliers that were fortunate to draft elite players that particular year isn't a good argument. On the other side, locking up guys to long term contracts doesn't aid in the rebuild, either. Fowler, Silf, and Henrique are very replaceable talents, the term lengths given to them make no sense. Gibson is/was elite, but goalies performance is so unpredictable that I don't like that deal's length, either. A middle ground should be taken, neither tanking nor signing up non-elite vets to long deals are optimal strategies.
The ducks have a much higher opinion of their core than I do if they think it's time to transition to the next phase
If we spend the next three years developing troy terry and Sam steel, holding on to our productive veterans and adding young but established NHL talent, we are going to be set for a good long run of getting 4-2'd in the first round every year
In my mind trading rakell won't solve our problems but also won't kill us. I'm actually indifferent because I see both sides of the argument. I also don't think us tanking is actually a question or not anymore because we have already sunk to the bottom organically. Now it's a matter of developing our young assets and trying to find a few more. In my mind a serious cup contender typically has 3 top pair d and 3 elite forwards. If things go well I see us trending towards 2 elite d (lindholm and drysdale) and a few more solid ones and only 1 elite forward (zegras). Hopefully comtois can give us 2 elite forwards in the future. If we can somehow get a third elite forward or an superstar d next draft and make some trades to round out or forward group I think we are getting close to what we need for a core. Then we need to hope like hell that our young guys keep developing, find another stud in the draft or find a high end player in free agency and overpay for him.
Yes, we have already sunk to the bottom on our own, there is no need or benefit in trying to get worse by jettisoning all NHL talent over 25 years old.
MMC
Global Moderator
Lol @ people saying trading for roster players is bad because we need to be building through the draft. We are going to have our 3rd consecutive top 10 pick this season. Is that not building through the draft?
McDonald19
Registered User
Which is why that probably wouldn't happen, which is why getting mad about it is a waste of time.
Bob setting unrealistically high parameters for trading rakell is not a bad thing. That's a good thing.
McDonald19
Registered User
I do agree with that part. The whole thing is pointless, because no team is trading a 24-27 year old 1st liner for Rakell.
High parameters are great. I don’t see why it can’t be futures though. First round pick and a team’s top prospect.
Because too many futures and not enough present is also a bad thing. Everyone bitching about zegras having nobody to play with and in the same breath demanding we make the current roster worse. Can't have it both ways, pick a lane.
McDonald19
Registered User
True, but we also still need more elite futures. Zegras is the only elite forward prospect in the organization. Perreault is maybe borderline elite upside.
DavidBL
Registered User
We are bad enough on our own. We are going to be a lottery team for the third year in a row, what more do you want?
Rakell isn't bringing in a lottery pick or a zegras type talent, so the odds of a late first even ending up as good as rakell are incredibly low.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Useless Thread MDCCCLXXXVVIII - The Cancun Capitals Appreciation Thread- Latest: Oogie Boogie
-
-
Post-Game Talk: ECSF GAME 6 - HIBERNATION BEGINS - Florida wins series 4-2- Latest: PatriceBergeronFan
