Speculation: Anaheim and Expansion - Why the Ducks are in great shape

[nbducksfan19]

While Anahiem and Minnesota can potentially make a deal to keep their team in tact, the other 29 teams can now make offers to LVK. Essentially, the Ducks and Wild are now bidding with other teams to keep a guy.

If say team A is interested in Manson or Vatanen / Dumba; they are now able to offer LVK something to take said player and then trade with them. They will have to outbid other teams to keep their players. Manson/Vatanen and Dumba are now trade chips that can be used by LVK.

It has been widely reported that the ducks already had a deal in place with Vegas. If Vegas had not made a deal ahead of time then Vats/Manson would already be moved -like drouin was.

 

[silverfish]

Probably why you're not a GM lol. You're building a team and you'd make your own organization worse just to somewhat hurt a team you aren't competing with right now?

No. I'm taking the chance at potentially being able to select a cornerstone d-man in Manson, or a good d-man in Vatanen, if Anaheim can't accomplish everything they need to before expansion.

If they do, I'm moving on to other teams, and selecting whatever is left from the Ducks. Plenty of good d-men out there.

To me, it's worth losing the 'decent prospect and pick' to take that chance.

It may not be for you. That's cool. We're allowed to have differing opinions.

 

[exporta]

Except Anaheim already made their deal, possibly weeks ago.

We'll see.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Manson is not a cornerstone guy. He's a 3-4. I know that's his reputation on the boards from a fancy point of view, but he's not what he's being portrayed as.

 

[Leafidelity]

Vegas will end up with one of the following;

a) Vatanen
b) Manson
c) Picks and prospects equaling similar value to Vatanen or Manson

Anything else is just wishful thinking. Vegas won't just do Anaheim a solid out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

I think it will be like

Theodore, good prospect, First. Even then I'd probably still wait to see what would happen with Vat/Manson

 

[Tripod]

That's not true though.

Anaheim could have talked with LV and said this:

"we are going to ask Bieksa to waive. If he says no, we are buying him out"
"Then we are going to trade Vatanen for picks or ED exempt players"
"Then we are protecting Manson"
"So your choice will be Vermette, etc... To choose from"

"BUT DOING ALL THAT HURTS US AND HURTS LV"

"So instead, how about we (Anaheim) trade you a 1st or Theodore who both have more value than any exposed player we will leave you once we jump thru all the hoops"

"So your choice McPhee....do you want Vermette...or your choice of a 1st/Theodore?"

McPhee chooses option 2 which helps him AND Anaheim instead of option 1 that hurts LV and Anaheim and benefits a 3rd team.

I am quoting myself so others can see this again.

Sorry for Anaheim fans that have to deal with people,that can't see the above scenario likely happened.

 

[Territory]

Except Anaheim already made their deal, possibly weeks ago.

I suppose that makes sense. Ana and Vegas made a deal to keep Manson and Vatanen. If Vegas didn't agree to it Ana would have traded Vatanen and had Bieska waive, which in that case Vegas gets nothing.

And it would be scummy for Vegas to renege on their deal. It would be funny if they did though.

 

[Brock Radunske]

I cannot wait to see what the Ducks have to pay to protect both Vatanen and Manson.
I'd say it will be Theo+ 1st + whatever exposed player they take at a minimum

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

No. I'm taking the chance at potentially being able to select a cornerstone d-man in Manson, or a good d-man in Vatanen, if Anaheim can't accomplish everything they need to before expansion.

If they do, I'm moving on to other teams, and selecting whatever is left from the Ducks. Plenty of good d-men out there.

To me, it's worth losing the 'decent prospect and pick' to take that chance.

It may not be for you. That's cool. We're allowed to have differing opinions.

Again, why you're not a GM. In a scenario where Bieksa has waived or bought out, it's worth it more to Anaheim to trade Vatanen for even a 2nd round pick than lose him to Vegas for free, which isn't really true of any other team. You'd be chasing something that has no chance of ever happening, and then you'd be left holding your **** in your hand. Taking a hard line would've been a quick way to guarantee you don't get anything.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Vegas will end up with one of the following;

a) Vatanen
b) Manson
c) Picks and prospects equaling similar value to Vatanen or Manson

Anything else is just wishful thinking. Vegas won't just do Anaheim a solid out of the goodness of their hearts.

Yeah I think it will be C. Slightly less value then Vatanen/Manson in exchange for knowing they are getting x and y.

 

[silverfish]

Again, why you're not a GM. In a scenario where Bieksa has waived or bought out, it's worth it more to Anaheim to trade Vatanen for even a 2nd round pick than lose him to Vegas for free, which isn't really true of any other team. You'd be chasing something that has no chance of ever happening, and then you'd be left holding your **** in your hand. Taking a hard line would've been a quick way to guarantee you don't get anything.

Feel free to DM me on Wednesday when the Ducks somehow manage to get out of the biggest **** show of expansion management by only losing a 'decent prospect and or pick and Clayton Stoner'.

I don't share your optimism that this is the case. Is that okay?

 

[Static]

I cannot wait to see what the Ducks have to pay to protect both Vatanen and Manson.
I'd say it will be Theo+ 1st + whatever exposed player they take at a minimum

Willing to stick around after the fact when you are horribly wrong?

I have a feeling this thread will be a ghost town on Wednesday.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

No. I'm taking the chance at potentially being able to select a cornerstone d-man in Manson, or a good d-man in Vatanen, if Anaheim can't accomplish everything they need to before expansion.

If they do, I'm moving on to other teams, and selecting whatever is left from the Ducks. Plenty of good d-men out there.

To me, it's worth losing the 'decent prospect and pick' to take that chance.

It may not be for you. That's cool. We're allowed to have differing opinions.

But just for the sake of clarity - let's say you're McPhee and the following conversation takes place.

" George, I have a deal in hand for Vatanen that I'm prepared to accept right now. Bieksa has indicated to me that he's willing to waive his NMC, and if he flips on that I'm prepared to buy him out.

If I make those two moves, you're going to be left to pick from Kerdiles/Megna/Vermette who we both know are mildly interesting to you at best. However I would prefer to trade Vatanen after expansion as I feel (or know) I can get a more ideal return. Can we agree to a fair deal that gets you some better assets to pick one of those three now, or even greater assets to take some salary off my hands?"

If that's the scenario (Murray guaranteeing McPhee that he's fully prepared to pull the trigger on those two moves and leave him with nothing), do you still demand a premium or pass and get left with nothing? Or if those were the parameters would you agree that the two sides have likely come to some sort of reasonable, mutually beneficially agreement?

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I suppose that makes sense. Ana and Vegas made a deal to keep Manson and Vatanen. If Vegas didn't agree to it Ana would have traded Vatanen and had Bieska waive, which in that case Vegas gets nothing.

And it would be scummy for Vegas to renege on their deal. It would be funny if they did though.

Pretty much, it kind of sounded like McPhee actually initiated things, from some of BMs comments. I could see that, this wasnt a hard scenario to envision. I'm guessing they locked in a prospect they really like and knew they couldn't have ever gotten otherwise.

 

[TheBPA]

Ducks did a great job managing the expansion draft and despite having valuable players exposed, aren't going to lose anything of real value.

/thread

 

[Static]

Ducks did a great job managing the expansion draft and despite having valuable players exposed, aren't going to lose anything of real value.

/thread

"I don't understand critical thinking".

I think that works better.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Feel free to DM me on Wednesday when the Ducks somehow manage to get out of the biggest **** show of expansion management by only losing a 'decent prospect and or pick and Clayton Stoner'.

I don't share your optimism that this is the case. Is that okay?

I'm definitely not gonna do that. And it's not that you're not optimistic, it's just that your logic is pretty bad.

 

[TheBPA]

But just for the sake of clarity - let's say you're McPhee and the following conversation takes place.

" George, I have a deal in hand for Vatanen that I'm prepared to accept right now. Bieksa has indicated to me that he's willing to waive his NMC, and if he flips on that I'm prepared to buy him out.

If I make those two moves, you're going to be left to pick from Kerdiles/Megna/Vermette who we both know are mildly interesting to you at best. However I would prefer to trade Vatanen after expansion as I feel (or know) I can get a more ideal return. Can we agree to a fair deal that gets you some better assets to pick one of those three now, or even greater assets to take some salary off my hands?"

If that's the scenario (Murray guaranteeing McPhee that he's fully prepared to pull the trigger on those two moves and leave him with nothing), do you still demand a premium or pass and get left with nothing? Or if those were the parameters would you agree that the two sides have likely come to some sort of reasonable, mutually beneficially agreement?

In this scenario every ducks fan is assuming that the team that would have acquired vatanen had a protection slot open for him. If not, the acquiring team would be losing a valuable piece.

 

[silverfish]

But just for the sake of clarity - let's say you're McPhee and the following conversation takes place.

" George, I have a deal in hand for Vatanen that I'm prepared to accept right now. Bieksa has indicated to me that he's willing to waive his NMC, and if he flips on that I'm prepared to buy him out.

If I make those two moves, you're going to be left to pick from Kerdiles/Megna/Vermette who we both know are mildly interesting to you at best. However I would prefer to trade Vatanen after expansion as I feel (or know) I can get a more ideal return. Can we agree to a fair deal that gets you some better assets to pick one of those three now, or even greater assets to take some salary off my hands?"

If that's the scenario (Murray guaranteeing McPhee that he's fully prepared to pull the trigger on those two moves and leave him with nothing), do you still demand a premium or pass and get left with nothing? Or if those were the parameters would you agree that the two sides have likely come to some sort of reasonable, mutually beneficially agreement?

I think this scenario is totally plausible, but another best case scenario for Anaheim.

There has been quite a bit of speculation regarding Anaheim and expansion that has not happened, I'm inclined to continue believing that perhaps the above is fiction as well.

It also still seems like a major favor from McPhee to Murray.

But, as we've all been made well-aware of today, I'm not an NHL GM.

Thanks for at least being respectable in all these conversations, huesy. For your sake, I hope you're right. For the rest of Ducks fans, I hope y'all lose a ton and Vatanen

Let's revisit Wednesday night.

 

[Trojans86]

Vegas wasn't going to get Manson or Vatanen no matter what IMO.

If the Ducks buyout Bieksa (or get him to waive) and trade Vatanen - Manson is protected and Vegas has very little to choose from.

Instead it seems as though Anaheim has paid Vegas in order to not be forced into making said moves above.

Again I believe we are talking about the price to not force Anaheim into leaving them with nothing - which is a far cry from the larger premium it would take to get Vegas to leave those players alone, had the Ducks not had those avenues at their dispense.

I don't see why everyone has such a hard time understanding this. If we were in trouble we couldve bought out Bieksa to protect Manson, and we have to move vats anyway so we could've got a ton in a trade of vats and theo or vats and Larsson. So the options for the ducks are

Buyout Bieksa and trade vats and have vegas probably select kerdiles

Or

give them theo or Larsson and protect vats and manson

One scenario we lose a legit prospect the other we lose close to nothing for us...it is pretty clear we would choose just trading vats, which is perfect for us anyways because we we have too many d and we are always looking to cut salary so trading vats for a forward makes sense. It isn't like this expansion draft crept up on us and we didn't have time to make a deal to move,vats, it is the opposite. We had a deal with vegas for quite some time. We wouldnt do that if we could've made a 100x better deal by moving vats.

There is just no logic in thinking we lose a valuable asset unless we get something in return, like shedding stoners contract.

 

[silverfish]

I'm definitely not gonna do that. And it's not that you're not optimistic, it's just that your logic is pretty bad.

I guess we'll see! Happy to be wrong. I learn more that way.

Best of luck.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Mighty duck man would look at an empty glasss and say his cup runneth over

 

[TheBPA]

I don't see why everyone has such a hard time understanding this. If we were in trouble we couldve bought out Bieksa to protect Manson, and we have to move vats anyway so we could've got a ton in a trade of vats and theo or vats and Larsson. So the options for the ducks are

Buyout Bieksa and trade vats and have vegas probably select kerdiles

Or

give them theo or Larsson and protect vats and manson

One scenario we lose a legit prospect the other we lose close to nothing for us...it is pretty clear we would choose just trading vats, which is perfect for us anyways because we we have too many d and we are always looking to cut salary so trading vats for a forward makes sense. It isn't like this expansion draft crept up on us and we didn't have time to make a deal to move,vats, it is the opposite. We had a deal with vegas for quite some time. We wouldnt do that if we could've made a 100x better deal by moving vats.

There is just no logic in thinking we lose a valuable asset unless we get something in return, like shedding stoners contract.

You would have moved vatanen for what? Solely for futures so that they didn't have to protect whoever they acquired? In which case, the team that took vatanen would have needed to have a protection slot open.

It's not nearly as simple as saying "oh we could have traded vatanen, bought out bieksa, Vegas gets nothing lol"

 

[Irishguy42]

This will be a Top 5 thread of all time come Thursday morning when Ducks fans come back realizing their team wasn't in great shape like they thought.

But you know, they have Montour. So nothing matters.