Do you want a new GM?

[Sticky2]

What are you even trying to say here? We can't magically make that contract disappear. I'd love for someone to take Perry and his salary, but that isn't realistic. We paid Perry that contract when he was still a prime player. That's what you have to do. Every team does it.

The last line is just stupid too.

Exactly what I said. I didn't say the contact could magically disappear. I pointed out it can't because it was idiotic to give him a NMC. Even if the Ducks could find a way to make it disappear we're stuck one way or the other. Giving away a major tool like that is what is actually stupid.

I've not seen anyone call Perry a top line player. Perry is a finisher. Yes, he feeds off better players, but let's not act like there aren't a ton of top 6 players who's numbers aren't greatly inflated due to playing with better players.

Then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Literally several posts in front and behind of yours call Perry a first line player.

Awesome. When teams are able to convince players to only sign for term that's only for their prime years, let us know. No one wanted to give that term to Kesler or Perry. It's just something you have to do to get guys signed.

That's a great attitude. Let's bring on more over the hill vets and talk about their prime years.

 

[Sticky2]

Clearly Anaheim should have let 28 year old Perry (a top 5 goalscorer in the NHL) walk instead of signing him to an 8 year extension (like ANY star player will get) because they have to have him for a few seasons in his 30's. Silly BM.

Have to say though, it's a few years since I heard the "Perry wouldn't score without Getzlaf argument" so kudos for that one.

Do you watch Ducks hockey? Perry either scores because Rackell created something or Getzlaf does his usual playmaking.

Getzlaf isn't fast but even he has enough speed that he can toss the puck in and go get it and score... shorthanded even.

Nobody put a gun to Murray's head and said let's make it impossible to move Perry until 2021.

 

[Sticky2]

Should also be noted that last year was Perry's first season with a child, and everyone knows what that did to Getzlaf awhile back. Here is a very recent ESPN interview with Getzlaf about that matter:
Ryan Getzlaf on chasing another Cup and how parenthood complicates hockey

The level people are reaching to defend Perry is hilarious. Oh, he had a kid, that must be it. It's like he gave birth to it himself and everything.

 

[Sticky2]

OK, but you don't cite any answers to the contract dilemma.

I haven't seen anyone on this board who thinks Perry is still great.

When it comes down to it, the Ducks have four options that I can think of.

1. Trade Perry and pick up most of his salary.
2. Release him and eat the rest of his term.
3. Play him less minutes on 3rd or 4th line.
4. Do what they are doing now. Play him on the first line and hope for the best.

#1 and 2 would not help the team be better. #3 was done earlier in the year when he was struggling due to coming of an injury. #4 is working out OK, since he is producing at a rate that is acceptable for a decent first line winger.

Maybe your argument is that BM should not have extended him, but that ship has sailed. No good can come from second guessing it now.

You would need Perry to sign off on any trade so that is why he is in fact an anchor.

As for people who still think Perry is great, read the above posts. People still think he's a first liner for some reason.

I have no answer to the contract dilemma but maybe for once with Bob Murray we could learn from the mistake and stop overpaying people who are over the hill and maybe instead give those roster spots to players for development?

 

[Deuce22]

You would need Perry to sign off on any trade so that is why he is in fact an anchor.

As for people who still think Perry is great, read the above posts. People still think he's a first liner for some reason.

I have no answer to the contract dilemma but maybe for once with Bob Murray we could learn from the mistake and stop overpaying people who are over the hill and maybe instead give those roster spots to players for development?

Doubt if an old dog is going to learn new tricks. In principle, I agree with you. But in reality, it's difficult to give top players short term deals. That can change (it's beginning to in baseball, for example) if teams get tired of paying players big money for past their prime performance.

I'm actually just as concerned with the Kesler and Fowler deals. Kesler because of the hip injury, Fowler because I don't see him progressing into the kind of player he's being paid to be.

 

[Sticky2]

Doubt if an old dog is going to learn new tricks. In principle, I agree with you. But in reality, it's difficult to give top players short term deals. That can change (it's beginning to in baseball, for example) if teams get tired of paying players big money for past their prime performance.

I'm actually just as concerned with the Kesler and Fowler deals. Kesler because of the hip injury, Fowler because I don't see him progressing into the kind of player he's being paid to be.

Same here actually the Kesler one really is concerning due to the injury type and also because of how difficult his role would be to replace. I love the effort and heart he shows but he's a shell of himself out there. Although last game had some bright spots from him.

I want to see the team do well but some of these contract are not above criticism. Nobody has a crystal ball either. I doubt emphasizing some more youth over hoping vets play like they once did would be terrible for this team.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

The NHL’s biggest CBA blunder was not following through on the threat to die on the hill of the 5 year max contract.

 

[AngelDuck]

The NHL’s biggest CBA blunder was not following through on the threat to die on the hill of the 5 year max contract.

Yup. This is why another lockout is coming in a couple years

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Yup. This is why another lockout is coming in a couple years

I’m afraid that ship has sailed. I can’t see the PA ever conceding shorter contracts when they see how well it has benefitted every guy who signed one. They’re just on their way to a two tiered pay structure. Overpaid stars and minimum wage everybody else.

 

[Paul4587]

Do you watch Ducks hockey? Perry either scores because Rackell created something or Getzlaf does his usual playmaking.

Except for when he’s on a line with Henrique where he only produces because of everyone else on the ice. And that pass to Beauchemin tonight was an absolute fluke. Perry stole Getzlaf’s talent for a split second there.

 

[mightyquack]

Do you watch Ducks hockey? Perry either scores because Rackell created something or Getzlaf does his usual playmaking.

Getzlaf isn't fast but even he has enough speed that he can toss the puck in and go get it and score... shorthanded even.

Nobody put a gun to Murray's head and said let's make it impossible to move Perry until 2021.

You got me, I've never watched an Anaheim game before. Damn, can't believe my cover was busted so easily.

Go and look at every elite player who signed their 'UFA' extension, they are all the exact same type of contract as Perry's. That's the nature of the beast when it comes to re-signing superstar players (which Perry absolutely was at the time) it is likely to bite you in the ass in the last couple of years of the contract as players will typically decline into their 30's but that's an acceptable trade off for pretty much every NHL GM to be able to keep a superstar in the team through his prime. A superstar isn't re-signing unless a) he gets a top tier salary b) gets complete control of his future (NMC).

That being said, I'm all ears on how you believe Anaheim would have been able to retain Perry without giving him a big AAV and a NMC.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Do you watch Ducks hockey? Perry either scores because Rackell created something or Getzlaf does his usual playmaking.

Getzlaf isn't fast but even he has enough speed that he can toss the puck in and go get it and score... shorthanded even.

Nobody put a gun to Murray's head and said let's make it impossible to move Perry until 2021.

This guy.

 

[Duck Off]

Exactly what I said. I didn't say the contact could magically disappear. I pointed out it can't because it was idiotic to give him a NMC. Even if the Ducks could find a way to make it disappear we're stuck one way or the other. Giving away a major tool like that is what is actually stupid.

You're being ignorant if you think that NMC wasn't required. Look at all the deals around that time for star players. NMC were much more common back then. There's a couple of variables that you're conveniently ignoring:
-Perry's two prior seasons before that extension included a 50 goal, 98 point, MVP of the league year and a 37 goal, 60 point season (this is the year that Getzlaf was awful and Perry carried the team).
-What you (and many others) are also ignore is the lockout. The lockout didn't just affect the season, it affected the negotiations with free agents. Murray had half a season to get both of his franchise players locked up.

Murray signed Perry 3-4 months before several other teams would have given him more $ and that NMC would have been included without hesitation. Maybe you're trying to say that we shouldn't have signed Perry to that deal back then and just let him walk for free? I call BS, but assuming that's what you're saying; you're probably alone there. Murray would have gotten a ton of shit for letting his MVP walk for nothing.

I have been in favor of trading Perry for several years, but this hindsight BS you're trying to pull is lame.

Then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Literally several posts in front and behind of yours call Perry a first line player.

Is this bold part serious? Were you literally expecting me to know the future? Jesus Christ dude. You're right, I missed one, not several (work on your reading comprehension), poster who said he was still a 1st line player.

That's a great attitude. Let's bring on more over the hill vets and talk about their prime years.

Yeah, you should work on your reading comprehension. Clearly I meant you can't just sign star players for only their prime years. They want term, and they'll get it from someone.

 

[Duck Off]

This guy.

I'm convinced Perry f***ed his girlfriend or something.

 

[Getzmonster]

You're being ignorant if you think that NMC wasn't required. Look at all the deals around that time for star players. NMC were much more common back then. There's a couple of variables that you're conveniently ignoring:
-Perry's two prior seasons before that extension included a 50 goal, 98 point, MVP of the league year and a 37 goal, 60 point season (this is the year that Getzlaf was awful and Perry carried the team).
-What you (and many others) are also ignore is the lockout. The lockout didn't just affect the season, it affected the negotiations with free agents. Murray had half a season to get both of his franchise players locked up.

Murray signed Perry 3-4 months before several other teams would have given him more $ and that NMC would have been included without hesitation. Maybe you're trying to say that we shouldn't have signed Perry to that deal back then and just let him walk for free? I call BS, but assuming that's what you're saying; you're probably alone there. Murray would have gotten a ton of **** for letting his MVP walk for nothing.

I have been in favor of trading Perry for several years, but this hindsight BS you're trying to pull is lame.

You mentioned the lockout, and I think it's worth noting that Murray had to sign them as the first major contracts under the new CBA where those ridiculous cap circumvention contracts were no longer a thing. Just look at Pat Kane the next summer, he and Perry were arguably the top two elite RW's in the game at the time, and he signed for $10.5M AAV with a NMC.

I also think it's easy to overlook that Getzlaf and Perry were a package deal to some extent, there was a feeling that one wouldn't sign here without the other. Murray needed to get those two signed to keep the franchise afloat, and he was in a position with about zero leverage to get them on team-friendly deals. I think he did well under the circumstances.

 

[Sticky2]

You got me, I've never watched an Anaheim game before. Damn, can't believe my cover was busted so easily.

Well you clearly skipped last year.

Go and look at every elite player who signed their 'UFA' extension, they are all the exact same type of contract as Perry's. That's the nature of the beast when it comes to re-signing superstar players (which Perry absolutely was at the time) it is likely to bite you in the ass in the last couple of years of the contract as players will typically decline into their 30's but that's an acceptable trade off for pretty much every NHL GM to be able to keep a superstar in the team through his prime. A superstar isn't re-signing unless a) he gets a top tier salary b) gets complete control of his future (NMC).

That being said, I'm all ears on how you believe Anaheim would have been able to retain Perry without giving him a big AAV and a NMC.

I guess the option of not retaining Perry didn't cross your mind.

 

[Sticky2]

You're being ignorant if you think that NMC wasn't required. Look at all the deals around that time for star players. NMC were much more common back then. There's a couple of variables that you're conveniently ignoring:
-Perry's two prior seasons before that extension included a 50 goal, 98 point, MVP of the league year and a 37 goal, 60 point season (this is the year that Getzlaf was awful and Perry carried the team).
-What you (and many others) are also ignore is the lockout. The lockout didn't just affect the season, it affected the negotiations with free agents. Murray had half a season to get both of his franchise players locked up.

You're being ignorant if you think the only option was to sign Perry. Getting stuck with a bad contract just because everyone else is doing it isn't a good idea or smart on the part of the GM.

Oh cool Perry had MVP seasons. Guess what? He's never going to again. Admit he declined faster than anyone thought he would.

Murray signed Perry 3-4 months before several other teams would have given him more $ and that NMC would have been included without hesitation. Maybe you're trying to say that we shouldn't have signed Perry to that deal back then and just let him walk for free? I call BS, but assuming that's what you're saying; you're probably alone there. Murray would have gotten a ton of **** for letting his MVP walk for nothing.

I have been in favor of trading Perry for several years, but this hindsight BS you're trying to pull is lame.

You're pulling the hindsight BS justifying his current contract with his past performance. That is hindsight by definition. It's lame you don't know the meaning of the words you're trying to use.

Is this bold part serious? Were you literally expecting me to know the future? Jesus Christ dude. You're right, I missed one, not several (work on your reading comprehension), poster who said he was still a 1st line player.

No I'm literally expecting you to read the forum. This may surprise you but there can be replies after you post and before I post a reply to you. That's the very nature of how forums work. I can use those replies in between our posts to support my point. Did I just blow your mind? Or do I need to put this in bold?

Yeah, you should work on your reading comprehension. Clearly I meant you can't just sign star players for only their prime years. They want term, and they'll get it from someone.

Then let them get it from someone else. 'Everybody is doing it' is no reason to mortgage the future. We're not winning anything until Perry is gone and the window on this team closed last year. Gibson isn't going to bail this offense out every night.

 

[Sticky2]

I'm convinced Perry ****ed his girlfriend or something.

He'd probably need Getzlaf and Rackell's help to pull that off too.

 

[mightyquack]

I guess the option of not retaining Perry didn't cross your mind.

Because it's an incredibly dumb option?

Any GM in the NHL who decided to let a top 5 winger who is in his prime walk rather then re-sign him would be rightfully ridiculed and probably fired.

 

[Sticky2]

Because it's an incredibly dumb option?

Any GM in the NHL who decided to let a top 5 winger who is in his prime walk rather then re-sign him would be rightfully ridiculed and probably fired.

Not once he starts to feel like an albatross.

Don't worry, we get to watch the sharp decline for three more years. Should be fun...

 

[Duck Off]

You're being ignorant if you think the only option was to sign Perry. Getting stuck with a bad contract just because everyone else is doing it isn't a good idea or smart on the part of the GM.

The options were:
Re-sign him.
Trade him.
Let him walk with out getting any compensation.

Trading him was not an option. You don't trade one of your two best forwards prior to a playoff run. If you actually think fans and our ownership would have been just fine with losing Perry for nothing, you're high. I've always been one of the more critical fans of Murray, but you're criticism of him here is pure bullshit.

Oh cool Perry had MVP seasons. Guess what? He's never going to again. Admit he declined faster than anyone thought he would.

Not really. I think the most common thought process around here was that the last 2-3 years would hurt us. Seems to be as planned. Maybe you're just thinking it's worse than it is because you're grossly exaggerating how poor he's been.

You're pulling the hindsight BS justifying his current contract with his past performance. That is hindsight by definition. It's lame you don't know the meaning of the words you're trying to use.

You should study hindsight more because signing a player based on recent seasons is not hindsight.

Wait a minute; so you're saying that a GM can tell a player "Yeah, you've been MVP recently, but in a few years you're not going to be MVP material anymore so we're thinking 5-6 million?" Do you honestly think that is remotely realistic?

I'm not justifying his contract. I hate that contract. I'm saying Murray was justified in paying him it back then because of seasons prior to it. That isn't hindsight. That's how contracts work. Superstars get paid and they get term. If you think it would have been fine to just let him walk, then whatever. I call BS, but I fully don't expect you to admit it.

No I'm literally expecting you to read the forum. This may surprise you but there can be replies after you post and before I post a reply to you. That's the very nature of how forums work. I can use those replies in between our posts to support my point. Did I just blow your mind? Or do I need to put this in bold?

So by your logic, everyone should go edit every comment based on later responses? Is that right?

And no you don't say several people already said something and then claim you're right when they say it afterwards. That's not how it works. I don't expect you to understand that since you're incapable of admitting anything. Did you have an older user name with TJM as the initials?

Then let them get it from someone else. 'Everybody is doing it' is no reason to mortgage the future. We're not winning anything until Perry is gone and the window on this team closed last year. Gibson isn't going to bail this offense out every night.

Murray did what he had to keep his superstar. I think he did what every other GM in the league would have done. I'm not a Murray fan, but saying he's an idiot for re-signing one of his better players during our window is stupid.

 

[Duck Off]

He'd probably need Getzlaf and Rackell's help to pull that off too.

you'd know since he clearly did. Guessing your mom as well based on the hate?

 

[Duck Off]

Because it's an incredibly dumb option?

Any GM in the NHL who decided to let a top 5 winger who is in his prime walk rather then re-sign him would be rightfully ridiculed and probably fired.

Come on. Why are you limited to logical/realistic thinking?

 

[Sticky2]

you'd know since he clearly did. Guessing your mom as well based on the hate?

You know you're making a good argument when you resort to mom jokes.

Let me guess, you carry one of these in your wallet?

 

[Sticky2]

The options were:
Re-sign him.
Trade him.
Let him walk with out getting any compensation.

Trading him was not an option. You don't trade one of your two best forwards prior to a playoff run. If you actually think fans and our ownership would have been just fine with losing Perry for nothing, you're high. I've always been one of the more critical fans of Murray, but you're criticism of him here is pure bull****.

Trading him was an option. It's not suddenly off the board because some random on a message board says so. Were you in the meetings or something or just sitting on your couch like you are now?

Not really. I think the most common thought process around here was that the last 2-3 years would hurt us. Seems to be as planned. Maybe you're just thinking it's worse than it is because you're grossly exaggerating how poor he's been.

Maybe you're grossly exaggerating how good you seem to think he's been?

You should study hindsight more because signing a player based on recent seasons is not hindsight.

Wait a minute; so you're saying that a GM can tell a player "Yeah, you've been MVP recently, but in a few years you're not going to be MVP material anymore so we're thinking 5-6 million?" Do you honestly think that is remotely realistic?

No but I think you don't have to lock yourself into the contract. There were other options. What benefit is there now? You know, the present? Reality? Not your fictional world where it's a smart move to give max deals with NMC's to guys who can't live up to them. The price has to be paid at some point and now it's being paid sooner than anyone thought. That by itself shows he was grossly overpaid.

I'm not justifying his contract. I hate that contract. I'm saying Murray was justified in paying him it back then because of seasons prior to it. That isn't hindsight. That's how contracts work. Superstars get paid and they get term. If you think it would have been fine to just let him walk, then whatever. I call BS, but I fully don't expect you to admit it.

Well then stop jerking off to it. You hate the contract? Great, that's entirely my argument because it is in fact a bad contract that is hurting us NOW and in the YEARS TO COME. Other people passing out bad contracts like candy doesn't make it any better.

So by your logic, everyone should go edit every comment based on later responses? Is that right?

And no you don't say several people already said something and then claim you're right when they say it afterwards. That's not how it works. I don't expect you to understand that since you're incapable of admitting anything. Did you have an older user name with TJM as the initials?

Murray did what he had to keep his superstar. I think he did what every other GM in the league would have done. I'm not a Murray fan, but saying he's an idiot for re-signing one of his better players during our window is stupid.

No by my logic you understand new messages can come from others in between replies. Why you equate new posts to editing past posts I have no clue.

Cool, Murray did what had to do to keep Perry. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend Perry is something special in an NHL that puts a premium on speed which is the asset he coincidentally lost the quickest.