Player Discussion Rickard Rakell

[darkwingduck]

I thought when the season started we could go above his salary in cap, 1.6? Doesn't provide actual salary relief but cap relief.

Could definitely be mistaken.

 

[snarktacular]

I thought when the season started we could go above his salary in cap, 1.6? Doesn't provide actual salary relief but cap relief.

Could definitely be mistaken.

But that's the point. We're a budget team who can't spend at cap anyways. Since it doesn't provide salary relief, it won't really help us.

We could hope that the owners are willing to overspend the budget for injuries. Or that there is some insurance, but that's unlikely. I would guess only the top 2 or 3 might be insured, if any.

 

[Ducks DVM]

You read everyone else's statement and comment but mine.

I don't think he has them by the balls. Vermette replaces his production, and is better at actually being a venter. IF Fowler gets traded, that replaces him in the top 6. I'd rather Rakell sits and stews than we trade Cogliano because Rakell gets a contract he doesn't deserve yet. I want to see Ritchie play before I write him off. I don't think he was worse than Rakell was at the same age.

 

[Ducksgo*]

I don't think he has them by the balls. Vermette replaces his production, and is better at actually being a venter. IF Fowler gets traded, that replaces him in the top 6. I'd rather Rakell sits and stews than we trade Cogliano because Rakell gets a contract he doesn't deserve yet. I want to see Ritchie play before I write him off. I don't think he was worse than Rakell was at the same age.

Sounds like an awesome roster we got there DVM. Lace em up lets see em Tuesday.

You are really not evaluating how serious this is of an issue putting the brunt work on Ritchie. Vermette is old as dirt and only had 17 goals last season in 72 games. If you're expecting goal scoring out this dude then you need to re evaluate the 34 year old.

 

[duckpuck]

Why so so many posters accept as true that the ducks are, under all circumstances, a budget team? First of all $2M of Bernier's contract was paid by Toronto, so even if the Ducks are at the cap they are "below it" in actual dollars spent.

But I think the larger point is that IN THE SHORT RUN, the Ducks and their owners aren't going to allow an internal budget dictate bad hockey decisions. That is just bad business - bad hockey decisions based on $$ can lead to poor attendance for many years to come (not to mention missing the playoffs and related revenue).

I'm not defending ownership - I wish they'd spend to the cap every year. I just don't believe that ownership or BM are going to make a desperation move (such as dumping Rakell, Lindholm, or Fowler) solely to meet an internal budget.

Also, remember that there are expansion dollars coming - I think $15M+ or so - and players (with salary) will be lost in the expansion draft next year. The fee is more than enough money to cover a few years of higher spending if need be.

 

[broman]

Why so so many posters accept as true that the ducks are, under all circumstances, a budget team? First of all $2M of Bernier's contract was paid by Toronto, so even if the Ducks are at the cap they are "below it" in actual dollars spent.

Then again, Getzlaf and Kesler are paid real $$$ "above" cap hit. Not to mention Perry's signing bonuses. Put together they more than even out any "savings" with Bernier.

 

[mightyquack]

Sounds like an awesome roster we got there DVM. Lace em up lets see em Tuesday.

You are really not evaluating how serious this is of an issue putting the brunt work on Ritchie. Vermette is old as dirt and only had 17 goals last season in 72 games. If you're expecting goal scoring out this dude then you need to re evaluate the 34 year old.

Vermette 'only' had 17 goals? That's 3 less then Rakell had - with Rakell playing for a far superior team, they are far closer offensively as players at this stage then you apparently realise (or have chosen to willfully ignore). I guess if you don't expect any goalscoring out of Vermette we shouldn't be expectating much out of Rakell either going by your logic.

 

[Duck Off]

Why so so many posters accept as true that the ducks are, under all circumstances, a budget team? First of all $2M of Bernier's contract was paid by Toronto, so even if the Ducks are at the cap they are "below it" in actual dollars spent.

But I think the larger point is that IN THE SHORT RUN, the Ducks and their owners aren't going to allow an internal budget dictate bad hockey decisions. That is just bad business - bad hockey decisions based on $$ can lead to poor attendance for many years to come (not to mention missing the playoffs and related revenue).

I'm not defending ownership - I wish they'd spend to the cap every year. I just don't believe that ownership or BM are going to make a desperation move (such as dumping Rakell, Lindholm, or Fowler) solely to meet an internal budget.

Also, remember that there are expansion dollars coming - I think $15M+ or so - and players (with salary) will be lost in the expansion draft next year. The fee is more than enough money to cover a few years of higher spending if need be.

Current lineup with salaries (that we're paying):

____ - Getzlaf(9.25) - Perry(10)
Cogliano(3.1) - Kesler(7.875) - Silfverberg(3)
Ritchie(.925) - Vermette(1.75) - Raymond(.675)
Garbutt(1) - Wagner(.625) - Boll(.9)
Noesen(.6)

Fowler(4) - Despres(2.6)
_____() - Vatanen(5)
Manson(.825) - Bieksa(4)
Stoner(3.25), Holzer(.7)

Gibson(1.5)
Bernier(2.15)

Maroon retention(.5)
Fistric buyout(.45)
Thompson IR(1.7)

Total: 66.375 million.
Current cap hit: 66.975

We may be below our current cap hit, but not by much. Those numbers don't include Rakell or Lindholm either. Once signed, that pretty much puts us right at the cap.

Why are people assuming we're a budget team? Maybe because we've been one pretty much every year (aside from one or two during the Burke era) we've been in the league. I think it's a fair assumption to assume we're still a budget team. I think everyone here hope we're not, but even with the expansion, we're probably 10 million over last year, which is a huge jump.

I'd like to think that they won't make a really stupid decision because of the budget, but I'm not convinced we're not going to do a move that's due to it, and I think it will be one we all don't like. Hopefully I'm wrong though.

 

[heffbe]

6 yr deal is surprising.. 6 x 3.xx would seem like a good deal in my opinion.

 

[Static]

Us not being interested in a bridge is somewhat surprising

 

[Ducks DVM]

Well, I was way off thinking they'd demand a bridge. I guess cost certainty is what they're after.

I wonder who gets moved? Cogs? Despres? Fowler +?

 

[Exit Dose]

Us not being interested in a bridge is somewhat surprising

Yeah, that caught me off guard, but that explains why it's taken so long to get him signed.

 

[heffbe]

Stephens knew all along.

 

[Static]

Stephens is eklunding us.

 

[Static]

Yeah, that caught me off guard, but that explains why it's taken so long to get him signed.

Yeah, if he signs for six years and under four million per he should fire his agent.

 

[gratefulyours]

glad mckenzie is dishing out more news than our beat writer. easy money eh stephens

 

[heffbe]

So if Rakell signs for ~3.75 and Lindholm for ~6.. That will put us a ~2.5 mil over cap. (pure estimation via generalfanager)

I'd have to imagine there is a trade agreement in place for someone to be shipped out the minute lindholm signs.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Surprising to me, but given these parameters, it would seem the team has to be committed to a long term deal with Hampus as well. And has been mentioned, that has to lead to moving salary elsewhere.

 

[TripleDekeGloveSide]

I know this is REALLY looking into it but does anyone think they played Fowler last night on his off side because another team wanted to see him there or they were just trying to get him in the first game without really caring where he slotted in? Seemed like such a weird babysitting role he played last night. I think he is the most likely candidate to be traded because he has some value (and we're likely to lose him in the expansion draft) unlike our other defense-tradebait-pylons (Stoner and Bieksa). I dunno, just a thought.

GET THE SWEDES SIGNED ALREADY!

 

[Sojourn]

I know this is REALLY looking into it but does anyone think they played Fowler last night on his off side because another team wanted to see him there or they were just trying to get him in the first game without really caring where he slotted in? Seemed like such a weird babysitting role he played last night. I think he is the most likely candidate to be traded because he has some value (and we're likely to lose him in the expansion draft) unlike our other defense-tradebait-pylons (Stoner and Bieksa). I dunno, just a thought.

GET THE SWEDES SIGNED ALREADY!

Not even a little. It's pre-season, and he's had baby-sitting duties many times before. Carlyle will play him like he's a member of the team until he isn't one.

 

[Exit Dose]

So if Rakell signs for ~3.75 and Lindholm for ~6.. That will put us a ~2.5 mil over cap. (pure estimation via generalfanager)

I'd have to imagine there is a trade agreement in place for someone to be shipped out the minute lindholm signs.

I would use 5.5 for what they're shooting for, but that does point to what sort of return would be coming back. NHL-ready forward on an ELC, prospect, and pick or two NHL-ready guys on ELCs and no pick seem like the two most likely return scenarios(unless someone like Stoner is dealt as well).

 

[gilfaizon]

I would use 5.5 for what they're shooting for, but that does point to what sort of return would be coming back. NHL-ready forward on an ELC, prospect, and pick or two NHL-ready guys on ELCs and no pick seem like the two most likely return scenarios(unless someone like Stoner is dealt as well).

Wings have 15 forwards under contract. Only waiver exempt is Larkin. Something needs to be done here.

 

[Exit Dose]

Wings have 15 forwards under contract. Only waiver exempt is Larkin. Something needs to be done here.

Yep, Detroit would have to be the leading candidate. Holland's remarks make me think he has a couple of offers on the table for Cam. If only Murray would wise up and trade for Ennis, though...

 

[Duck Off]

6 yr deal is surprising.. 6 x 3.xx would seem like a good deal in my opinion.

If this was anyone but McKenzie, I'd say they were full of ****. This goes against everything Bob has done. Then there's the budget/cap. Just doesn't make any sense at all. That said if we get him at 6 years x 3.5 million that's a pretty damn good deal.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

a long term deal for rakell seems risky given the fact he's only had 1 really good year. you have to be really sure he is going to outplay the value of that contract, given risks involved