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

[dracom]

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.

This thread will be great when we don't lose either Manson or Vats and that we actually knew our situation more than anyone else did.

You know, just like we were with Freddy, or Lindholm, or Rakell. Maybe fans of the team in question know the situation more than other teams fans do...

 

[WhatTheDuck]

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"

Every credible insider was indicating a strong market for Vatanen. The Ducks also would have had room to take back a forward in need of protection in that scenario. I don't doubt that Murray would have been prepared to trade him if forced to, and may very likely still trade him shortly after expansion anyway.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

If Ducks fans are measuring success by keeping the lineup intact than that is very doable. The point is if it costs other assets like picks/prospects, you still stand to have to give more assets than almost any other team. Again, the product of having a good team in an expansion year. It'll ouch a bit but won't be a club killer.

IMO no one will pay market value for Vatenen right now, so like another poster mentioned, a likely outcome would be to pay Vegas a reasonable amount to take him since they can afford to wait for his return.

 

[Leafidelity]

Ducks fans right now

 

[TheGroceryStick]

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?

If that is the case, Vegas better have a conference arranged with Anaheim to discuss the scenario in its entirety ; why it made sense to leave both on the table; while they sat in your grasp.

The idea makes sense, but to the average fan - it better take some serious explaining. It's more than a good favour by Vegas to save Bieska buyout, increase Vatanen trade window (or allow them to remain with all their D) , and actually take the word that the scenario (waive/buyout/trade) was actually legit.

There is a lot going on here, if it actually turns out as you say.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

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"

It kind of is. If Bieksa waives, then any return for Vatanen is probably better than losing him for nothing. You have to lose someone, but for Anaheim, that dropoff is so uniquely large where that wasnt the case in Minny and Long Island and other places.

So its obviously preferable for Anaheim to avoid that, but it's preferable for Vegas as well.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

This thread will be great when we don't lose either Manson or Vats and that we actually knew our situation more than anyone else did.

You know, just like we were with Freddy, or Lindholm, or Rakell. Maybe fans of the team in question know the situation more than other teams fans do...

If you don't lose vatanen or Manson you'll be losing other valuable assets. Don't trumpet losing value as a win until you know what it is

 

[wingsfan17]

Ducks fans right now

I got boxes full of Pepe!

 

[Exit Dose]

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.

Don't get me wrong, if Vegas reneged on their deal, then no doubt if I wasn't a Ducks fan I'd have a good laugh over it, too. I'd be worried as a Knights fan, though.

 

[dracom]

If you don't lose vatanen or Manson you'll be losing other valuable assets. Don't trumpet losing value as a win

This whole thread has been people saying we're going to lose Vats or Manson for nothing. If the price to not lose Vats or Manson, and get a better return for Vats is giving up Theo, then I will take that as a win.

 

[HookKing]

My prediction is that the Ducks will give Vegas a + to take Vatanen instead of Manson.

Don't be surprised if its the other way around. Vegas offered the Ducks something to expose Vatanen.

 

[Vipers31]

Ducks fans right now

I love Always Sunny, and I love that episode, so any reference is at least a little appreciated.

But, for the life of me, I cannot understand how some people don't have the mental capacity to understand that today's exposed list is a result of a deal already done. It's as if one is unable to understand the concept of time.

 

[pbgoalie]

Well, I guess my thoughts would be..
If we lose Vatanen or Manson, for nothing, I'd say GMBob needs to go.
I'd rather get futures for Vats instead of letting him go for free.
If Bieksa didn't waive so we could protect Manson and we didn't buy him out.....

I don't think it's impossible for us to lose one of them, heck, maybe after Montours arrival, losing Vatanen and his salary makes sense, especially with injury.

But I do believe they have a reasonable deal in place, that will give Vegas a valuable piece or pieces, maybe Theo, maybe Cogs, and likely a decent piece with a Stoner to get cap relief. Losing Sami with Stoner ,mallowing Fowler to sign and leave some cap space is pretty valuable too..

I'll really be sad if we can't find a way to get JVR......haha

 

[nbducksfan19]

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"

Not as simple, but obviously better than losing him for nothing..

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I love Always Sunny, and I love that episode, so any reference is at least a little appreciated.

But, for the life of me, I cannot understand how some people don't have the mental capacity to understand that today's exposed list is a result of a deal already done. It's as if one is unable to understand the concept of time.

It's funny, because its actually weirdly simple. Anaheim had a clear way out, Vegas saw that, they made a deal, the protected list is irrelevant. A short run-on sentence, nothing complex about it.

 

[Aceboogie]

Ducks fans right now

Actually tho

 

[xxreact9]

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?

This is a great way of looking at it, especially as some people are having trouble following the hypothetical logic here.

This is exactly the scenario that happens and the exact reason why BM has a lot more bargaining power than anyone is willing to believe.

He can simply call McPhee's bluff, there is no instance in which LV takes Bieksa over Kerdiles, it's just a terrible move for their franchise.

BM has all the power here. He could have easily asked Bieksa to waive and traded Vatanen for market value, he just didn't because McPhee actually knows what he's doing and sees the reality here.

IMO Vegas takes Stoner and Anaheim pays them Jacob Larsson for the trouble, then trades Vatanen for a top forward.

That's the most sensible solution for GMBM

 

[BB88]

This thread will be great when we don't lose either Manson or Vats and that we actually knew our situation more than anyone else did.

You know, just like we were with Freddy, or Lindholm, or Rakell. Maybe fans of the team in question know the situation more than other teams fans do...

Could be said this will be great also if Anaheim loses more than Vermette+ Megna.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

This is a great way of looking at it, especially as some people are having trouble following the hypothetical logic here.

This is exactly the scenario that happens and the exact reason why BM has a lot more bargaining power than anyone is willing to believe.

He can simply call McPhee's bluff, there is no instance in which LV takes Bieksa over Kerdiles, it's just a terrible move for their franchise.

BM has all the power here. He could have easily asked Bieksa to waive and traded Vatanen for market value, he just didn't because McPhee actually knows what he's doing and sees the reality here.

IMO Vegas takes Stoner and Anaheim pays them Jacob Larsson for the trouble, then trades Vatanen for a top forward.

That's the most sensible solution for GMBM

How is losing Larsson better than trading Vatanen and getting Bieksa to waive in order to protect Manson?

 

[TheGroceryStick]

I wonder if the more realistic deal is -

Anaheim asked LV about saving on buying out Bieksa?
Saying -
Our scenario is this:
We buyout Bieksa and protect Manson anyway.
We are actively looking to move Vatanen

So give us the the Bieksa protection spot(Manson) for pick ....and if we don't move Vatanen, we will work on something then.

Maybe they end up moving just for Vatanen value. (Montour/Theo + )

 

[duxfever]

Alright, alright, alright. Let me clear this up.

We all have no ****ING clue what is going to happen.

As a Duck fan, I'm a little worried. This "deal" is worth as much as the paper it is written on. Unless it is written somewhere?

 

[g00n]

next thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=133482677#post133482677