Seravalli: Josh Manson mentioned as possible target for Flyers

[mercury]

Don't like this deal for the flyers. I'd maybe do Voracek for Rakell+Manson, but I'm not adding #13 overall to it for two rentals.

I would think that anything involving #13 for a player would have to be contingent upon a deal being worked out beforehand. Otherwise, it's 2022 and conditional on re-signing.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Ducks would't want another albatross contract in Voracek. Swap him for Konecny.

13th + Konecny for Rakell, Manson, 2nd round pick.

The value seems to favor the Ducks side but the premise is sort of what I've been preaching for awhile - Anaheim should flex its cap space for this year and move Rakell and/or Manson retained, either directly to acquire a younger long term top six F or at least to gain extra assets towards doing so. The trade market appears to be oddly saturated with youngish forwards who make more sense for the Ducks long term than Rakell/Manson.

After full retention, the two combine to make less than 4M, there's a ton of value there in this current cap climate, albeit only for the one year.

 

[mercury]

Rakell can fetch a mid to late 1st on his own, especially with retention. Recently have seen multiple Avs fans willing to give up their 1st + Barron for Rakell 50% retained, which seems favorable to 14th overall or at least similar.

As to the Voracek inclusion, I really don't think it makes sense for the Ducks to take on that contract unless they are being incentivized to do so. Cap space is a premium and you don't use it to do other teams a favor.

We would need to see proper value for Rakell + Manson and then incentive for eating that bloated contract. You are about 1/3 of the way there

"1/3rd of the way there" meaning what? You're getting the best player in the deal.

 

[duffy9748]

Yeah, taking on Voracek actually makes a lot of sense IF we’re getting paid to do so.

I find it bizarre that Flyer fans think Voracek has positive value without retention after what just went down with Ghost.

They just can’t afford to lose him for nothing with the production he still brings to the team. That’s all it really is.

 

[mercury]

In my opinion the original offer makes more sense if you exclude Rakell.

The pick is a fair bit higher than the Ducks could pull for Manson alone, which would be their incentive for taking on Voracek.

To add Rakell to that should cost another piece of 1st round value plus maybe a bit more.

That's nonsensical. You don't send two 1sts AND the best player in a deal like that. Come on.

 

[Boxscore]

Flyers need a shooter like Rakell.

Manson, Rakell and a 2nd

for

Voracek, 13th and a 4th

 

[Vipers31]

Flyers need a shooter like Rakell.

Manson, Rakell and a 2nd

for

Voracek, 13th and a 4th

That's another easy no for the Ducks.

 

[ponder719]

The value seems to favor the Ducks side but the premise is sort of what I've been preaching for awhile - Anaheim should flex its cap space for this year and move Rakell and/or Manson retained, either directly to acquire a younger long term top six F or at least to gain extra assets towards doing so. The trade market appears to be oddly saturated with youngish forwards who make more sense for the Ducks long term than Rakell/Manson.

After full retention, the two combine to make less than 4M, there's a ton of value there in this current cap climate, albeit only for the one year.

There's no sort of, there. The value absurdly favors the Ducks in that deal. I don't see a scenario where we move Konecny unless he's part of a package to acquire a star asset.

 

[Duck Off]

Flyers need a shooter like Rakell.

Manson, Rakell and a 2nd

for

Voracek, 13th and a 4th

easy pass from Anaheim

 

[Vinegar Strokes]

They just can’t afford to lose him for nothing with the production he still brings to the team. That’s all it really is.

I can understand that sentiment but at this point, it seems like the relationship between the player and management has deteriorated so far you may not have much of a choice.

You could probably get something if you retained 50% but it looks like your management is looking to clear as much cap space as possible, so that's probably not something they're looking to do.

 

[bsu]

Flyers need a shooter like Rakell.

Manson, Rakell and a 2nd

for

Voracek, 13th and a 4th

No.

 

[bsu]

I'd like to have 1 LOGICAL person tell me why the Ducks would want soon to be 32 year old Voracek with a 8.2 million dollar contract. Literally the last thing the Ducks at their current state would be interested in.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

That's nonsensical. You don't send two 1sts AND the best player in a deal like that. Come on.

"The best player in the deal" is far from the only consideration and is a far too narrow minded viewpoint. I simply don't believe that Voracek has any positive trade value due to his contract. Given his age and contract it simply makes no sense for a rebuilding team to take him off your hands without being paid to do so. If they are moving some of their better trade pieces like Rakell and Manson, the very last thing they are looking for in return is a guy like Voracek. They can trade them for young assets and simply sign a FA winger.

The massive cap relief gained by Flyers far outweighs anything the Ducks get out of taking on Voracek.

 

[mercury]

I would say 32 years old when next season starts, 3 more years at $8.25, a flat cap and a decline in production over the past couple seasons might indicate more than just a bit overpaid.

He hasn't had a decline in production over the past couple of seasons, though.

 

[mercury]

Will be a nice top six:

Provorov Ellis
Sanheim Manson
Hägg Braun

You mean "four."

 

[mercury]

Voracek's picture is in the dictionary under "negative value".

It really isn't. He is a 1st line winger.

 

[mercury]

Rakell undoubtedly has more trade value than Voracek and it wouldn't be remotely close.

It's fair to suggest that Voracek has zero or negative value due to his contract, even if he still is a pretty good player. Contending teams would covet Rakell due to his cap hit and simply wouldn't have room to take on Voracek. The team's that have space to take on Jake, really have no reason to when they could just sign a FA for less, I really think you're paying a team to take that contract off your hands.

You are dead wrong on both Rakell vs. Voracek and Voracek's value overall. Unbelievably so.

 

[mercury]

your GM just paid a 2nd and a 7th to dump a much much more manageable contract and you think Voracek has positive value?

Yes, because he is a better player not yet 32 and still putting up 1st line production. In other words, absolutely.

 

[bsu]

I'd like to have 1 LOGICAL person tell me why the Ducks would want soon to be 32 year old Voracek with a 8.2 million dollar contract. Literally the last thing the Ducks at their current state would be interested in.

I've posted this 3 times and not a single reply. Lets just stop talking about Voracek and the Ducks then, it makes no sense. Unless Ducks are getting an asset from taking a contract that big it makes no sense.

 

[Boondock]

He hasn't had a decline in production over the past couple of seasons, though.

Sounds like you should keep him

 

[mercury]

"The best player in the deal" is far from the only consideration and is a far too narrow minded viewpoint. I simply don't believe that Voracek has any positive trade value due to his contract. Given his age and contract it simply makes no sense for a rebuilding team to take him off your hands without being paid to do so. If they are moving some of their better trade pieces like Rakell and Manson, the very last thing they are looking for in return is a guy like Voracek. They can trade them for young assets and simply sign a FA winger.

It's not narrow-minded; it's correct.

The massive cap relief gained by Flyers far outweighs anything the Ducks get out of taking on Voracek.

Not in any way, shape, or form. I understand that you are a fan of another team in the other conference and don't know as much about Flyers, but that statement is guano-level insane.

 

[mercury]

Sounds like you should keep him

I am fine with that, actually. The rumor is that Voracek isn't, but he signed the contract.

 

[mercury]

That 67 would be a 47 on the Ducks. He's also old as shit, way over paid, doesn't make any sense for the Anaheim Ducks.... literally makes zero sense for the Ducks....

I wouldn't touch him with a 50 foot pole if I was the Ducks.

He is not even 32. What are you talking about???

 

[mercury]

I guess its more of a decline from what was expected when he got an $8+ million dollar contract. When he was scoring 80+ points a season no one cared about his cap hit. Last season Voracek was #437th in the league in cap hit per point. I don't see him improving as a 32, 33, 34 year old.

He only broke 80 points twice. He cashed in after one of those seasons, which was brilliant on his part. He was a 65-70 point guy really.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

You are dead wrong on both Rakell vs. Voracek and Voracek's value overall. Unbelievably so.

Nah I'd say you are totally disregarding the notion that contracts play a huge factor in trade value, more so now than ever.