Value of: Sami Vatanen and Josh Manson

[CrypTic]

Do you know that Bieksa won't be ready to start the season? Players have corrective off-season surgery ALL THE TIME. It doesn't mean they are "injured". Bieksa was well enough to play in the final games of the playoffs so how "injured" could he have been???

FWIW, I can see this going either way. Which means that both GMGM and (if getting Bieksa to waive might not be going as smoothly as he'd hoped) GMBM probably sent feelers out to the NHL and NHLPA to see if it would present a problem for buying Bieksa out. IOW, whatever the answer here is, both parties probably had similar info about the potential problems (or not) and negotiated accordingly. While the answer to the question may have changed the negotiating power here, I doubt that the uncertainty made the situation all that murky. If a buyout would have raised questions, LV got a better deal than they otherwise would have. If it didn't, Anaheim is in a fairly strong position.

My guess is that Bieksa (or, more realistically, his agent) balked at waiving and Anaheim wasn't getting stellar offers for Vatanen. They may have also been concerned about leaving a sour taste in vets' mouths if they forced Bieksa to waive or bought him out. (To be clear, I think this is a good thing if it happened bc it shows that GMBM realizes that he needs to keep his players mostly happy.) Had it been easy to get Bieksa to waive and if they were getting great returns for Vats, they would have had Bieksa waive, traded Vats, and protected Manson.

My guess is that, whatever the situation, GMGM had less info than GMBM but much better info than the guesses from ppl here. IOW, both parties are operating from relatively similar info and would have been able to strike a deal that helped them both. If they struck a deal, I can't see GMGM going back on it bc a better trade is offered. That would blow his credibility for years.

I think Theo + Kerdiles + 2nd or 1st seems reasonable. I'd be very surprised if there was no deal in place but it could be anything that is better for Anaheim than getting a bad value for Vats and better for LV than only having whomever is left on Anaheim's list after they trade Vats and buy out Bieksa. That's a pretty big range.

It will be interesting to see what happens for both Anaheim and Minnesota.

 

[DavidBL]

Some of the logic in these threads seem so skewed its getting ridiculous. As a Ducks fan I know we have to give something up to Vegas that helps them. What that is however is very much up for debate. That being said lets look at this from a logocal stand point from the Ducks point of view.

We are not going to spend more assets/value to protect Vatanen or Manson than they're worth. Why? Because it hurts the team. Losing a player like Vats for nothing would certainly suck. No denying it. But we could survive it because of the players people are suggesting we will give up to make sure he is protected. So following that logic we don't meet that price to get them protected. This leads to trading players to make sure he gets value. Instead of losing them for nothing. We know for a fact that this did not happen. Further I believe is was reported at the season ticket holder event straight out of Murrays mouth that he would be fired if players like Vats were taken for free. So now we are circling back to "well then what did he have to pay to protect those players?" Ive sen it here pretty frequently that we would have to give up pretty much equal value to these players to entice LV to not take them. Well in the valuation stand point that is giving up the the value of Vatanen for free which is essnetially the same thing and in which case is a fireable offense. So in essence it is being suggested that GM is about to get himself fired. Lets not forget that most opposing teams fans already believd these values were lower because of injuries/having to move players.

So lets recap the FACTs about this case.
1. Vats and Manson were not traded
2. Bieksa wasnt even asked to waive(even Phaneuf was asked though it was reported earlier he'd refuse)
3. There is reportedly a deal in place between the Ducks and LV. Though no deal is offical yet.

Based on these facts what is more likely, BM is giving up a kings Ransom in value to protect players he could have easily traded and in essence get himself fired for asset mismanagment, or he worked out a mutually benificial deal that maximizes value for both the Ducks and the Knights?

 

[Crazy8oooo]

There is the occasionally poster that says crazy stuff, but I think most of us are okay losing a decent prospect in Larsson/Theodore/jones and a pick to keep vatanen and manson, and vatanen will likely be moved after for a prospect/elc player and a pick at the draft.

Speak for yourself....I'll be pissed if I find out the Ducks are giving away Theo or Larsson. If that's the cost, buying out Bieksa and trading Vatanen (even if under value) would have been a better route.

 

[Mallard]

Speak for yourself....I'll be pissed if I find out the Ducks are giving away Theo or Larsson. If that's the cost, buying out Bieksa and trading Vatanen (even if under value) would have been a better route.

I agree 100%. With the Ducks cap situation, cheap options like Theo and Larsson are highly valuable to the Ducks.

 

[ColdSteel2]

I'm throwing my guess out there. For whatever reason, they were forced to protect Bieksa, so they had to expose Manson and Vatanen. Murray made a deal with McPhee that Vegas would take Vatanen and not Manson. The Ducks will pay a small price for that. In the meantime, Murray tried to trade his way out of his mess but couldn't find anything that made sense since he would still have to expose the other guy anyway.

 

[gilfaizon]

I'm throwing my guess out there. For whatever reason, they were forced to protect Bieksa, so they had to expose Manson and Vatanen. Murray made a deal with McPhee that Vegas would take Vatanen and not Manson. The Ducks will pay a small price for that. In the meantime, Murray tried to trade his way out of his mess but couldn't find anything that made sense since he would still have to expose the other guy anyway.

Could have bought Bieksa out and protected Manson, leaving no price to pay to "take" Vatanen. Your theory is flawed.

 

[dracom]

I'm throwing my guess out there. For whatever reason, they were forced to protect Bieksa, so they had to expose Manson and Vatanen. Murray made a deal with McPhee that Vegas would take Vatanen and not Manson. The Ducks will pay a small price for that. In the meantime, Murray tried to trade his way out of his mess but couldn't find anything that made sense since he would still have to expose the other guy anyway.

We protected Bieksa because the deal BM has didn't require us to ask him to waive. Why does no one get this?

 

[nucksauce]

We protected Bieksa because the deal BM has didn't require us to ask him to waive. Why does no one get this?

Because there is no substantial proof and you're on a hockey forums board where we all speculate. Why does no one get this?

 

[dracom]

Because there is no substantial proof and you're on a hockey forums board where we all speculate. Why does no one get this?

Guess we're just ignoring what GMs say as long as it fits our narrative now.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Because there is no substantial proof and you're on a hockey forums board where we all speculate. Why does no one get this?

There's actually pretty good proof of exactly that, about as good as we tend to get.

 

[nucksauce]

Guess we're just ignoring what GMs say as long as it fits our narrative now.

Words are just that, GMs have a narrative too you know. Until Vegas doesn't pick Manson/Vatanen and receives compensation in doing so, we hockey fans will speculate.

 

[McHaNugYakEbNurDra]

There's actually pretty good proof of exactly that, about as good as we tend to get.

At the risk of admitting that I have only read ~30 pages of the theories on what will happen with the Vegas pick from the Ducks....I haven't seen any 'proof'. But what 'proof' is out there that the Ducks won't lose Vatanen or Manson?

For the record (and I'm not trying to troll any Ducks fans) my prediction is that the Ducks lose Vatanen to Vegas.

If there is any convincing proof, I could easily be convinced otherwise though. So far all I have seen in opinion and conjecture of what will happen.

 

[Cypher]

Anaheim and Vegas may of had a deal in place, but once the list came out on Sunday and other teams saw Manson and Vantenan were exposed, they might have offered something better to Vegas than what Anaheim was offering Vegas.

I mean, for example, let's say the Avs offered Duchene and #4 for Manson and De Haan, which let's say is better than what ANA/NYI agreed to with Vegas on Sunday. Vegas would go back to ANA/NYI, saying hey, I got a better deal from Team x for Manson/De Haan, can you better your deal; if not, our orginally deal is now void. Sure ANA/NYI would be pissed, but in the end, McPhee has to do what's best for Vegas. It's a business.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

At the risk of admitting that I have only read ~30 pages of the theories on what will happen with the Vegas pick from the Ducks....I haven't seen any 'proof'. But what 'proof' is out there that the Ducks won't lose Vatanen or Manson?

For the record (and I'm not trying to troll any Ducks fans) my prediction is that the Ducks lose Vatanen to Vegas.

If there is any convincing proof, I could easily be convinced otherwise though. So far all I have seen in opinion and conjecture of what will happen.

I was talking about Bieksa being protected, it was reported a week ago by Bob McKenzie. Thats as good as its gonna get in this situation.

But the other stuff has been reported too. Believe or don't, I guess, but it's pretty obvious which side is ignoring more evidence.

 

[dracom]

Words are just that, GMs have a narrative too you know. Until Vegas doesn't pick Manson/Vatanen and receives compensation in doing so, we hockey fans will speculate.

You suggesting Murray was just lying to season ticket holders? Ridiculous.

At the risk of admitting that I have only read ~30 pages of the theories on what will happen with the Vegas pick from the Ducks....I haven't seen any 'proof'. But what 'proof' is out there that the Ducks won't lose Vatanen or Manson?

For the record (and I'm not trying to troll any Ducks fans) my prediction is that the Ducks lose Vatanen to Vegas.

If there is any convincing proof, I could easily be convinced otherwise though. So far all I have seen in opinion and conjecture of what will happen.

Murray is not expecting to lose a big asset to the expansion draft. Which means he is not losing Vats or Manson for nothing.



Basically the best evidence we can get besides a confirmation from the teams themselves on Wednesday.

 

[McHaNugYakEbNurDra]

Thank you for that. I can't imagine he would say he doesn't expect to lose something big if he didn't have a deal in place to protect these two....(I also can't imagine George McPhee not extorting a big price not to pick either one though). The speculation in my head was that the deal in place was only to protect Manson.

More confused than ever now as to what the Ducks will lose....Wednesday will be interesting for sure.

(and for the record, based on this 'evidence' alone, I'm prepared to admit that it doesn't appear to be Manson or Vatanen as I previously speculated).

I would also say if Minnesota or NYI lose a significant asset and Anaheim does not, both of those GM's should be under scrutiny for not trying harder to negotiate something with LV beforehand, as if a division rival can do it clearly another GM should be able to (IMO).

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Thank you for that. I can't imagine he would say he doesn't expect to lose something big if he didn't have a deal in place to protect these two....(I also can't imagine George McPhee not extorting a big price not to pick either one though). The speculation in my head was that the deal in place was only to protect Manson.

More confused than ever now as to what the Ducks will lose....Wednesday will be interesting for sure.

(and for the record, based on this 'evidence' alone, I'm prepared to admit that it doesn't appear to be Manson or Vatanen as I previously speculated).

I would also say if Minnesota or NYI lose a significant asset and Anaheim does not, both of those GM's should be under scrutiny for not trying harder to negotiate something with LV beforehand, as if a division rival can do it clearly another GM should be able to (IMO).

I think those two are pretty different situations. I thought the Isles were in a similar spot where they were one trade away, but I forgot about Pulock and didn't realize they valued Pelech over pretty much all their forwards. Or maybe Snow had his deal agreed to previously and decided to troll everyone, thats stupid but I really want to believe it. As for Minny, I never understood the talk of them trading one guy, I never thought that would really help. They were easily put in the worst spot of any team and were three trades away from still losing Haula, their situation is just awful. I also wouldn't doubt if Ottawa made a deal before the freeze, they're kind of in that one trade away situation.

 

[darkwingduck]

The only thing opened to interpretation is whether the deal originally protected vatanen or not. When the report came out that BM never asked bieksa to waive, many assumed that a deal was in place Manson only. Other tweets were about vatanen being available for a trade but they were purely speculative. I think the original deal always included vatanen and Manson protection outright, but BM could still take calls on vatanen.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

The only thing opened to interpretation is whether the deal originally protected vatanen or not. When the report came out that BM never asked bieksa to waive, many assumed that a deal was in place Manson only. Other tweets were about vatanen being available for a trade but they were purely speculative. I think the original deal always included vatanen and Manson protection outright, but BM could still take calls on vatanen.

I'm guessing it was to pick a specific player and not protect only certain guys. Maybe he'd hold off on a Vatanen deal no matter what, but if that was the case and he did trade him, Vegas wouldn't have minded. Probably the opposite.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Speak for yourself....I'll be pissed if I find out the Ducks are giving away Theo or Larsson. If that's the cost, buying out Bieksa and trading Vatanen (even if under value) would have been a better route.

Agree. If the Ducks give up a Theo or Larsson it will be a terrible mismanagement of assets.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Anaheim and Vegas may of had a deal in place, but once the list came out on Sunday and other teams saw Manson and Vantenan were exposed, they might have offered something better to Vegas than what Anaheim was offering Vegas.

I mean, for example, let's say the Avs offered Duchene and #4 for Manson and De Haan, which let's say is better than what ANA/NYI agreed to with Vegas on Sunday. Vegas would go back to ANA/NYI, saying hey, I got a better deal from Team x for Manson/De Haan, can you better your deal; if not, our orginally deal is now void. Sure ANA/NYI would be pissed, but in the end, McPhee has to do what's best for Vegas. It's a business.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it would work. The trade would already be official I'm sure. If it wasn't and went down like you described McPhee would probably never find a GM willing to make a trade with him ever again.

 

[Razzdazzle1]

I'm pretty sure that's not how it would work. The trade would already be official I'm sure. If it wasn't and went down like you described McPhee would probably never find a GM willing to make a trade with him ever again.

That's exactly how it would work. It's a new franchise that's expected to make money and compete. Making friends and pinky promising other gm's is a nice thought, but if you get offered Duchene + #4 you take it.

 

[Exit Dose]

That's exactly how it would work. It's a new franchise that's expected to make money and compete. Making friends and pinky promising other gm's is a nice thought, but if you get offered Duchene + #4 you take it.

It has nothing to do with being buddies, it's about establishing the fact that you are negotiating with someone in good faith. That's important to establish in a business, particularly one this insular.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

That's exactly how it would work. It's a new franchise that's expected to make money and compete. Making friends and pinky promising other gm's is a nice thought, but if you get offered Duchene + #4 you take it.

So integrity is out the window if you can lie your way to a better deal?

 

[The Noot]

That's exactly how it would work. It's a new franchise that's expected to make money and compete. Making friends and pinky promising other gm's is a nice thought, but if you get offered Duchene + #4 you take it.

How old are you?