Speculation: 2016-2017 Trade Rumors III - Free Agency Edition

[darkwingduck]

Makes sense then. Yeah I think he was pretty much done after we signed him. Bummer cause I enjoyed watching him.

 

[Duck Off]

It doesn't need defending. Nobody can really believe Murray was serious about that. He didn't like something about KP's attitude or play and doesn't badmouth players, so he made something up. It ended up being utterly devoid of logic. No chance that was his actual thought process.

So why would Murray say that? Why not throw some generic comment instead? "We thought that doing this trade was in the best interest of our team".

Murray sucks at knowing when to trade prospects/young players. He's actually garbage at it.

I just find it comical that he can make one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard a GM say, and then here people defend him with "he didn't mean that". You're more than welcome to give him the befit of the doubt, but I sure as hell will not.

 

[Duck Off]

This signing demonstrates to me that RC has not changed his ways at all. All his talk about learning to adapt to the modern game and the Ducks sign Boll? Not only to one season but Barstool and the hedgehog had the sense to sign this worthless player to a 2 year contract?

Hopefully I am wrong and Boll never sees the NHL ice but I will not be surprised when he is in the opening night lineup.

I also just noticed the Ducks are still paying Fistric! For several more years! He's our Bobby Bonilla!

I don't like the RC hiring, but I think it's a little premature to say he hasn't changed his ways at all. We haven't even seen him coach a game yet, and we're already saying he hasn't changed?

I still don't understand the fistric buyout. I thought he was pretty decent with us and wasn't getting paid a ton from what I remember.

I disliked that signing as soon as we made it. I thought they gave him that extension too early. That said, his extension probably doesn't look near as bad if he didn't get injured. I'm just not a big fan of paying 7th defenseman, which is what I believe what he was at the time of the signing, that much money and term.

Didn't he have severe back issues? Would've been better to LTIR him.

Yes he had a bad back.

LTIR would have been worse for us because all it helps with is cap, not budget.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

If he never intended to spend on forwards, why even bring up the "big left-shot LW"? He's just opening himself to disappointment.

I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that as things stood (and still stand), he couldn't really spend money on free agents, even our own. He still could get his guy. But first he has to deal with Lindholm/Rakell and then trade some guys to make financial room for forwards (most likely trading for the guy he wants in the process). And as time passes and Lindholm is still not signed, it becomes ever more "interesting" to see how he manages to shore up the roster.

 

[OCSportsfan]

Not sure how much this helps, but what about trading Vatanen and Stoner for Trouba.

We would actually save money in the deal, but would WPG do this. They get a signed young RHD (who is probably going to make less)for a non signed young RHD. We would have to send Stoner in order to afford since Trouba is going to sign for more than Vats I think, and they would need to take on a cap dump to make it equal. May have to send a pick as well, but who knows.

Fowler-Trouba
Lindholm-Manson
Bieksa-Despres

Looks pretty young, but good.

Forgot about Despres

 

[Vipers31]

So why would Murray say that? Why not throw some generic comment instead? "We thought that doing this trade was in the best interest of our team".

Because he very obviously doesn't like to throw around phrases. He'd rather greet a question with a 10-second pause before saying something than hand out a generic zero-content phrase like that. It seems to cause him physical pain when he can't maneuver around a dumb phrase like that.

Murray sucks at knowing when to trade prospects/young players. He's actually garbage at it.

Why? He picked the perfect moments to trade Holland and Etem, for example. It sucked with Palmieri, but other than him, I don't see the argument for garbage. It seems pretty average.

I just find it comical that he can make one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard a GM say, and then here people defend him with "he didn't mean that". You're more than welcome to give him the befit of the doubt, but I sure as hell will not.

There is no benefit of the doubt, because there is no doubt. And it isn't really defending him, because whatever he says doesn't make the trade any less bad. It's just clear as day that that comment wasn't genuine. BM obviously has his errors in judgement, but he's really never nonsensical in what he communicates. If you really want to believe he preferred a pick over a 25+ goal season from KP here because of it making it tough to sign him, in a season where we were going for a run, and when a strong season would only have made it easier to get a return on him afterwards, feel free. Taking that comment at face value seems absolutely absurd to me, though.

 

[Nordic*]

Not sure how much this helps, but what about trading Vatanen and Stoner for Trouba.

We would actually save money in the deal, but would WPG do this. They get a signed young RHD (who is probably going to make less)for a non signed young RHD. We would have to send Stoner in order to afford since Trouba is going to sign for more than Vats I think, and they would need to take on a cap dump to make it equal.

Fowler-Trouba
Lindholm-Manson
Bieksa-Despres

Looks pretty young, but good.

Forgot about Despres

Stoner has a negative value and Trouba holds a higher value than Vatanen.

 

[Ducks in a row]

You're right Anaheim hasn't done much for landing talent in late rounds. But when it comes to that, an extremely large portion of it falls down to luck. It's not like Dallas staff were sitting there in the 5th round going "alright, here's our art ross pick, lets go with Benn".

Scouting isn't an exact science especially when it comes to predicting which players from late rounds (with glaring holes in their game) will make drastic strides and become NHL stars. Unless it's being done consistently (Detroit is the only example I'd accept and even that is a small sample size), the majority of it is luck.

Well we must be a very very unlucky franchise when it comes to drafting forwards outside of round 1 then or maybe just maybe we as a franchise are the problem. When Matt Cullen is easily your best such drafted forward with over 20 years of drafts it is more then just bad luck.

 

[DavidBL]

Well we must be a very very unlucky franchise when it comes to drafting forwards outside of round 1 then or maybe just maybe we as a franchise are the problem. When Matt Cullen is easily your best such drafted forward with over 20 years of drafts it is more then just bad luck.

That also spans multiple GMs/Staffs. There are some players in more recent years that are likely to go on to have fine careers. DSP seems to have figured it out in NJ. Beleskey is a fine middle 6 winger. P.A. Parenteau also has had a fine career. Might also be worth pointing out that Cullen was picked 35th overall. That is almost a first rounder in itself.

Now all that said the Ducks do really appear to struggle finding later round success in forwards. My theory is that they generally target less risky "two-way" players. It is a bit concerning that we haven't ever really found a diamond in the later rounds. But how often does it really happen? How many Dastyuks and Benns are there really? Nyquist was late but hes not really in the same realm. Helm is fine but hes not anything more exciting than a guy like Beleskey. Nashville actually hasn't done too bad getting middle six level talent. This is all probably just a bit over blown. What kind of players are we expecting to come out of the later rounds? And How long does it take before they're supposed to become NHLers? For instance Nyquist was 24 when he finally made the NHL full time.

I'd say we have done okay finding NHLer's just not top 6 talent. To me this points more to the second round than any subsequent rounds. Kerdiles seems to have failed, Sorensen is unknown, Karlsson and DSP are both NHLs but not top 6ers. Burke was really a terrible drafter. Those years hurt a lot. Beleskey is literally the only forward in 4 years that has had a real NHL career and that is in ALL rounds. Not counting Ryan of course. Murray has already well eclipsed that number. I think we just need to wait another 2-3 years to see if Murray really isn't great at drafting forwards. All of his first rounders are NHLs and 2 are top 6.

I found this article and thought we might do some math, using HockeyDB to get Murrays draft picks and see how he is fairing vs the % I'm going to exclude drafts 13-16 for now as it is really to early to tell. That gives us 2009-12 or 4 drafts.
Round 1(Expected article %=80). Murray is batting 100% every player he has picked in round 1 has become an NHL player to some degree.
Round 2(Expected article %=40). Murray is 3 for 5 in the second round with Kerdiles still in Limbo and a dark horse to make it 4-5. That is 60%
Round 3(Expected article %=30). Murray is 1 for 4 in this round with Welinski as a dark horse to make it 2 for 4. That is 25%
So I'm going to do a little guess work here. There aren't any actual percentages listed for rounds 4-7 but that all appear pretty close to 20 So I will look at the remaining players BM has drafted vs the expected. So in all the later rounds 1 in 5 should make the NHL. In those years we have drafted 15 players in that range. The two most notable success stories are Vatanen and Manson. Of the 15 players 7 were Forwards. None have made it to the NHL as a regular. That being said Wagner looks to make that jump this season and Roy and Friberg could be dark horses. So out of 15 players 2-5 may be NHL players. The safest bet would be on Vatanen, Manson and Wagner actually making it at this point. That is 3 for 15 which is right in line with expected NHLers. It also could suggest that BM has had trouble with later round Forwards. Though if any of Friberg, Roy, or the guys taken in the most recent drafts make it the numbers would work out to be right on.
So maybe Murray's biggest struggle has actually been in round 3. It appears to be the only round that he hasn't met or exceeded the expected %s.

 

[GermanRocket7]

I'd say arguing which round he was most successful or least successful in is splitting hairs. What we can effectively, positively confirm is that the Ducks have had huge trouble in drafting legit top-six forwards outside of the first, say, 10-15 picks.

The only (!) forward drafted outside of that margin actually developing into a true top-six forwards at the NHL level is Rakell, and he was projected to become a bonafide third- or fourth-line player with good two-way skills. Nobody could have really expected him to suddenly develop such an array of offensive tools. Granted, one might say Beleskey is a legit top-six player; however, I value him more of a middle-six player with good PP skills.

Eric Tangradi, Brandon McMillan, Emerson Etem, Devante Smith-Pelley, Peter Holland, Kyle Palmieri, pretty much all played as advertised in the NHL (read: middle-six players or worse) and only rarely seemed to surpass these expectations for a limited amount of time. One might make the case for Etem and Palmieri being the only ones off that list with an actuall skill set for creating chances and finding the back of the net, but only further underlies the apparent problems we have had at developing forwards: this franchise appears to target two-way forwards much more than real offensive forwards.

We have seen what happens when that secondary or tertiary scoring dries out over a longer stretch of time back at the beginning of last season. And since we usually do not attract bigger free agents and rarely trade for offensively-minded players, drafting would be the only route to go in order to obtain this scoring.

All of that being said, I do not think this is BM, but it is the entirety of our scouting and management staff combined.

Edit: based this all on the time post-lockout in 2005.

 

[Duck Off]

Because he very obviously doesn't like to throw around phrases. He'd rather greet a question with a 10-second pause before saying something than hand out a generic zero-content phrase like that. It seems to cause him physical pain when he can't maneuver around a dumb phrase like that.

I just don't buy this. If you do, that's fine. No matter how you spin it, Murray comes off as a fool. If you think he meant it, he's a dumbass. If that's his way of "getting around the question", he's still a dumbass. That comment isn't defendable in my eyes.

Why? He picked the perfect moments to trade Holland and Etem, for example. It sucked with Palmieri, but other than him, I don't see the argument for garbage. It seems pretty average.

Again, I strongly disagree here.

Like you said, the Palmieri timing was bad. Honestly it was ****ing horrible.

Not sure how you think he picked the perfect time to trade Etem or Holland either.

Etem was a throw in to the Hagelin trade. He was barely used when he was in NY, and was barely able to snag a contract soon after. I don't consider trading him when he was a throw in to be the perfect time. Maybe you're thinking he was a vital part of the Hags trade? I don't think Hagelin's value was much more than a 2nd, and honestly I think Etem was a "sweetner" at most. He added very little value IMO. Far from the perfect time to trade him.

Holland was dealt for a 3rd rounder that should never have wound up a 2nd. The media and fans were pissed at Carlyle for allowing it to happen. I'm happy with the 2nd, but he was dealt for a conditional 3rd. Personally I think he should have been traded to upgrade the team for a playoff run at an earlier deadline. I don't want Murray to go full Hawk or Kings and trade his 1st every deadline, but I would like to see him be more aggressive at the deadline on occasion. This one isn't as bad as the other two, but I definitely wouldn't call it "perfect". The stupidity of Carlyle to allow it to become a 2nd makes it look much better than it was.

There is no benefit of the doubt, because there is no doubt. And it isn't really defending him, because whatever he says doesn't make the trade any less bad. It's just clear as day that that comment wasn't genuine. BM obviously has his errors in judgement, but he's really never nonsensical in what he communicates. If you really want to believe he preferred a pick over a 25+ goal season from KP here because of it making it tough to sign him, in a season where we were going for a run, and when a strong season would only have made it easier to get a return on him afterwards, feel free. Taking that comment at face value seems absolutely absurd to me, though.

His comments aren't what infuriate me. Obviously it's the pathetically bad timing of the trade that I hate (and what he was traded for). The comments don't do him any favors though. If you question the validity to his comments, that's fine, but there's no questioning the stupidity of them.

 

[OCSportsfan]

I just don't buy this. If you do, that's fine. No matter how you spin it, Murray comes off as a fool. If you think he meant it, he's a dumbass. If that's his way of "getting around the question", he's still a dumbass. That comment isn't defendable in my eyes.



Again, I strongly disagree here.

Like you said, the Palmieri timing was bad. Honestly it was ****ing horrible.

Not sure how you think he picked the perfect time to trade Etem or Holland either.

Etem was a throw in to the Hagelin trade. He was barely used when he was in NY, and was barely able to snag a contract soon after. I don't consider trading him when he was a throw in to be the perfect time. Maybe you're thinking he was a vital part of the Hags trade? I don't think Hagelin's value was much more than a 2nd, and honestly I think Etem was a "sweetner" at most. He added very little value IMO. Far from the perfect time to trade him.

Holland was dealt for a 3rd rounder that should never have wound up a 2nd. The media and fans were pissed at Carlyle for allowing it to happen. I'm happy with the 2nd, but he was dealt for a conditional 3rd. Personally I think he should have been traded to upgrade the team for a playoff run at an earlier deadline. I don't want Murray to go full Hawk or Kings and trade his 1st every deadline, but I would like to see him be more aggressive at the deadline on occasion. This one isn't as bad as the other two, but I definitely wouldn't call it "perfect". The stupidity of Carlyle to allow it to become a 2nd makes it look much better than it was.




His comments aren't what infuriate me. Obviously it's the pathetically bad timing of the trade that I hate (and what he was traded for). The comments don't do him any favors though. If you question the validity to his comments, that's fine, but there's no questioning the stupidity of them.

Okay we get that BM can only make poor decisions in your mind, but you are not helping your cause by rarely giving him any credit. If he always makes trades that are asset equal, then he is not doing a bad job. Most trades are asset equal, regardless how good a GM is.

If you think Hagelin for Etem was not a good trade, then you really have a bias. Sure he did not pan out, but anyone who thought Etem was going to be better for the Ducks than Hagelin for a cup run is crazy.

When Hagelin struggled, he traded him for Peron, who did pan out. So basically he traded Etem for Perron. That was a win and a good move by BM.

Now I hate the Carlyle signing, the fact that we have not traded for a top 6 winger, traded for Bieksa, but BM's victories out weigh his negative, by a good margin.

 

[Exit Dose]

The notion that Holland was going to fetch more is entirely in your head and your save file for NHL 13. It is always going to be a laughable proposition.

 

[Duck Off]

Okay we get that BM can only make poor decisions in your mind, but you are not helping your cause by rarely giving him any credit. If he always makes trades that are asset equal, then he is not doing a bad job. Most trades are asset equal, regardless how good a GM is. .

The bold is simply not true. I give credit to BM when it's warranted. I generally speak up more when I disagree with the popular opinion because it's more entertaining to discuss differences rather than just sing along with each other like all ducks does. I've been more critical of Murray this off-season because he deserves it. I disagree with anyone who thinks Bruce should have been fired, and that Murray shouldn't at least be on the hot seat. When someone is on the hot seat, of course their moves are going to be more critiqued.

I defended Murray's trade of Wiz the other day, and I applauded it the day it was made. Even though it looks bad now, IMO, it would be unfair to talk negatively about it, because there's no way we'd all have been fine with trading Lovejoy for an unproven in Despres.

If you think Hagelin for Etem was not a good trade, then you really have a bias. Sure he did not pan out, but anyone who thought Etem was going to be better for the Ducks than Hagelin for a cup run is crazy. .

I'm not biased at all, and yes, that was a terrible trade. Not in terms of value, but it shows how much vision Murray lacks. You can't let finishers leave (Palmieri and Beleskey) and then add another Cogliano. I love Cogs, but he is not a finisher, and what that team clearly lacked was finishers.

I didn't say anything that hints of what you said in bold. I said Etem wasn't traded at the "perfect" time in terms of value. Not sure how you read that as "I prefer Etem over Hagelin for a cup run".

When Hagelin struggled, he traded him for Peron, who did pan out. So basically he traded Etem for Perron. That was a win and a good move by BM. .

That's been mine and several others issue with Murray. His best moves are direct results from stupid decisions. Hagelin was a stupid addition in the first place. Me, the casual fan, could easily see that. Unacceptable for Murray not to see it.

You're right, the Perron move was great. I agree now, and agreed then. I just don't think as highly of moves that he caused by mistakes he made.

Example: If you gain 10lbs by being lazy, is it a huge achievement to work hard and lose that 10lbs? For me, it's rewarding, but I look at it as "shouldn't have been lazy in the first place." It's similar to Murray. I said great trade, but should have had the vision/knowledge to know that Hags was a terrible fit for this team in the first place.

Now I hate the Carlyle signing, the fact that we have not traded for a top 6 winger, traded for Bieksa, but BM's victories out weigh his negative, by a good margin.

I don't disagree with anything here. I felt the same about Bruce. Carlyle won us a cup and people wanted him gone. Murray has shown that he can do a great job at rebuilding a team, but can't get over the hump. He's now gone through two coaches. At some point, despite him being a good GM, maybe he runs out of time/chances too?

The notion that Holland was going to fetch more is entirely in your head and your save file for NHL 13. It is always going to be a laughable proposition.

That's fine if you think that, I don't care. Obviously he wasn't worth more than what he received when he was traded. That's because he was traded after his value started to drop IMO.

 

[Static]

If Hollands value wasn't dropping then that means he would have been playing to his potential, which means we wouldn't have been looking to trade him in the first place.

 

[Duck Off]

If Hollands value wasn't dropping then that means he would have been playing to his potential, which means we wouldn't have been looking to trade him in the first place.

I'm of the mind that you use some of your prospects in deals to make the team better immediately. To do that, you have to identify which ones you prefer to hold on to. Sometimes you have to trade them earlier than you'd like. Murray doesn't do this very often (Karlsson is really the only exception I can think of). I understand why. It's very risky, but there's been a few deadlines where I think he could have upgraded our teams more than he did, and he obviously didn't because he didn't want to trade some of his better prospects or high draft picks.

The Holland trade doesn't come close to the Palmieri trade, but I don't agree that we traded Holland at the perfect time.

 

[Static]

Holland was a mid first round center prospect at a time when we were desperate for centers. What wouldve been a good time to move such a player?

 

[Duck Off]

Holland was a mid first round center prospect at a time when we were desperate for centers. What wouldve been a good time to move such a player?

Hard to say since we don't know what the offers/players were available. Ideally you move them at their peak value point (if you decide to trade them). I think of SOB when we traded him. I guess my answer would be when they decided that Rakell had surpassed him depth wise. Not sure when that was though.

 

[Static]

First round center prospects that are playing up to their pedigree are almost never moved unless packaged for a star player. It's a reach to have expected that, I'd say.

 

[Duck Off]

First round center prospects that are playing up to their pedigree are almost never moved unless packaged for a star player. It's a reach to have expected that, I'd say.

Fair enough. Although moving them him as part of a package for a great player/rental is kind of what I was getting at. I understand the hesitation. I just don't know if I'd say we moved Holland at the "perfect time".

 

[DavidBL]

Fair enough. Although moving them him as part of a package for a great player/rental is kind of what I was getting at. I understand the hesitation. I just don't know if I'd say we moved Holland at the "perfect time".

I'd probably argue it was the "perfect time" in the sense that we had seen enough to know he wasn't going to fit into the future plans or we couldn't wait for him any more. Rakell is a good comparison I think of BM sticking with the player and moving on from another.

On a side note, I tend to agree that KP wasn't actually moved because BM couldn't afford him. After we were eliminated that season I recall BM talking about some "young players not living up to expectations." Then he trades 2 of our young forwards who struggled in that playoffs. When BM says he couldn't afford KP he wasn't lying, it just wasn't the whole truth. There is no way we could afford his new deal right now without moving a large D contract, something we are going to have to do anyway. Now if we had kept him it would have been a lot easier to take futures in a Fowler type deal. Maybe we could have settled for 8th over all if we already had that top 6 winger in KP still on the roster.

I'm sure BM had his reasons for moving KP and I would be shocked if the money was the only reason. For me what makes the deal egregious is that if BB was already planning to split the twins he had a much cheaper Perron already on the roster in KP. KP had shown plenty of promise playing with Getzlaf when Perry was hurt in years past. If would have been cheaper and smarter IMO to hold onto just for that reason. If you really want to add speed Im sure they could have figured something else out for Hagelin. We really did need to add picks that summer though. BM had thrown too many away. Nattinen looks nice but he probably never becomes the player KP is now. In the end I think moving KP was very dumb and what he said about it was even dumber but I doubt very strongly money was the main reason it was done. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we never see. The Ducks are a very quiet organization, we don't really hear about the dirty laundry stuff and gossip and that stuff can have just as much impact on while a player is moved.

 

[Static]

Palms was moved because he was stagnating here. He was terrible in the playoffs and didn't improve during the regular season either. Instead of blasting him on the way out, Murray made a stupid one off comment that tried to spin it in a positive light for the player. It blew up in his face. The end.

 

[Duck Off]

I'd probably argue it was the "perfect time" in the sense that we had seen enough to know he wasn't going to fit into the future plans or we couldn't wait for him any more. Rakell is a good comparison I think of BM sticking with the player and moving on from another.

I disagree, as the perfect time would be when his value is at his highest. To do that though, our scouts/management would have to know he's not part of the team long term. That's extremely hard to pull off though, so your claim isn't far fetched, and more than likely, mine is. However, it's hard to ever pull any move like that at the perfect time. When we traded SOB is what I'd consider perfect timing. Max value when we knew the return was worth letting him go. Again though, extremely hard to pull off. Just difficult for me to say that traded Holland for a conditional 3rd was "perfect timing". Point made though.

On a side note, I tend to agree that KP wasn't actually moved because BM couldn't afford him. After we were eliminated that season I recall BM talking about some "young players not living up to expectations." Then he trades 2 of our young forwards who struggled in that playoffs. When BM says he couldn't afford KP he wasn't lying, it just wasn't the whole truth. There is no way we could afford his new deal right now without moving a large D contract, something we are going to have to do anyway. Now if we had kept him it would have been a lot easier to take futures in a Fowler type deal. Maybe we could have settled for 8th over all if we already had that top 6 winger in KP still on the roster..

There were probably several factors to why we moved KP. Some we probably know and some we don't. I should reiterate that I'm not mad that we traded KP. It's somewhat about when we traded him, but it's mostly because of what he was traded for. Going into that draft, I was fine with trading Palmieri. However, only as part of a package that would bring us a better top 6 scorer. Palms had underperformed for a while, and I was also having doubts if he'd ever be more than he'd shown. However, one thing the guy could do was finish. We traded Palmieri for exactly what we didn't need, more prospects. On top of that, it was pretty obvious that Beleskey was leaving, who was one of the better finishers that previous season. If someone wants to try and say Palms trade was somewhat related to Hagelin, well, that's just as bad, because Hagelin was exactly the type of player we didn't need.

I'm sure BM had his reasons for moving KP and I would be shocked if the money was the only reason. For me what makes the deal egregious is that if BB was already planning to split the twins he had a much cheaper Perron already on the roster in KP. KP had shown plenty of promise playing with Getzlaf when Perry was hurt in years past. If would have been cheaper and smarter IMO to hold onto just for that reason. If you really want to add speed Im sure they could have figured something else out for Hagelin. We really did need to add picks that summer though. BM had thrown too many away. Nattinen looks nice but he probably never becomes the player KP is now. In the end I think moving KP was very dumb and what he said about it was even dumber but I doubt very strongly money was the main reason it was done. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we never see. The Ducks are a very quiet organization, we don't really hear about the dirty laundry stuff and gossip and that stuff can have just as much impact on while a player is moved.

The bold is what I find beyond irritating as well. We literally traded Palmieri (for something that we didn't really need) when we probably had the biggest need for him. Just a **** move any way you look at it.

 

[Crosbysux]

I disagree, as the perfect time would be when his value is at his highest. To do that though, our scouts/management would have to know he's not part of the team long term. That's extremely hard to pull off though, so your claim isn't far fetched, and more than likely, mine is. However, it's hard to ever pull any move like that at the perfect time. When we traded SOB is what I'd consider perfect timing. Max value when we knew the return was worth letting him go. Again though, extremely hard to pull off. Just difficult for me to say that traded Holland for a conditional 3rd was "perfect timing". Point made though.



There were probably several factors to why we moved KP. Some we probably know and some we don't. I should reiterate that I'm not mad that we traded KP. It's somewhat about when we traded him, but it's mostly because of what he was traded for. Going into that draft, I was fine with trading Palmieri. However, only as part of a package that would bring us a better top 6 scorer. Palms had underperformed for a while, and I was also having doubts if he'd ever be more than he'd shown. However, one thing the guy could do was finish. We traded Palmieri for exactly what we didn't need, more prospects. On top of that, it was pretty obvious that Beleskey was leaving, who was one of the better finishers that previous season. If someone wants to try and say Palms trade was somewhat related to Hagelin, well, that's just as bad, because Hagelin was exactly the type of player we didn't need.



The bold is what I find beyond irritating as well. We literally traded Palmieri (for something that we didn't really need) when we probably had the biggest need for him. Just a **** move any way you look at it.

I understand the frustration with moving KP, especially for the return. He was definitely worth a 1st rounder and didn't like the move from the get go. Glass half full though, we wouldn't have Nattinen w/out trading KP. I think there were multiple reasons BM got rid of KP that have been mentioned in the past and KP went to a better situation for himself. I'm happy with Nattinen and his potential for our future.

 

[Ducks DVM]

People are judging what Palmieri was worth based on last year, not on his performance prior to being traded. He was inconsistent, couldn't stay healthy, and disappeared in the playoffs two straight seasons. His career high was 14 goals and 31 points. That's middle 6 production, and that doesn't net you a 1st rounder as a return.