Player Discussion Sami Vatanen II

[Duck Off]

It might not be fair to say, but I think the big contract def. affected his preparations for this season.

That said, he finally is starting to look like the player deserving of said contract. I love how he is shooting the puck now.

Vatanen has never struck me as a guy who puts in a lot of work in the offseason. I didn't care too much for his comments after he was sat for a game either.

I love seeing him shoot more and playing with more confidence as well. I just don't want Murray to go blind again to the fact that Vatanen has still never shown the ability to carry a top 4 pairing.

 

[Ducks in a row]

https://www.nhl.com/ducks/news/murray-evaluates-team-gives-injury-updates/c-289612194

Injury Updates
As is customary for a team after its playoff run has ended, Murray gave some updates on several injured players, and they were not positive for two young defenseman in particular. Hampus Lindholm and Sami Vatanen each played through torn labrums suffered early in the playoffs, and both are likely to have surgery. Lindholm will be out 4-5 months and, "Sami's is worse," according to Murray.

Murray added that the injury that knocked Patrick Eaves out of the playoffs from the middle of the Second Round was a "deep bone bruise" that made it virtually impossible to skate. "He could be awhile with that one," Murray said. "Could be another month and a half with pain."

Meanwhile, Nate Thompson played from early in the first series with a hairline fracture in his ankle but did not miss a game. Rakell, who missed Games 5 and 6 with an ankle injury, "is going to get better quickly. He was really close [to returning]."

So Vatanen was really hurt this will be a big blow to his trade value

 

[DaGeneral]

It's not a big blow to his value.

It explains why he wasn't up to his capabilities. Should have no issues getting back to 100%

 

[Ducks in a row]

It's not a big blow to his value.

It explains why he wasn't up to his capabilities. Should have no issues getting back to 100%

Yes it is a big blow to trade value. He won't be healthy enough for a new teams training camp and won't start the regular season with them. You will have to wonder how this injury will effect him in the future.

Don't see us getting a top 6 forward now because a team wont want to trade such a player for someone who won't start the season for them.

 

[DaGeneral]

Yes it is a big blow to trade value. He won't be healthy enough for a new teams training camp and won't start the regular season with them. You will have to wonder how this injury will effect him in the future.

Don't see us getting a top 6 forward now because a team wont want to trade such a player for someone who won't start the season for them.

That's such a short sighted way to look a hockey team. In reality, teams would have him 3 more years. Missing the first month of the season, doesn't destroy his value.

 

[Ducks in a row]

That's such a short sighted way to look a hockey team. In reality, teams would have him 3 more years. Missing the first month of the season, doesn't destroy his value.

A team won't want to trade a top 6 forward who will start the season for them for someone who will be out with injury to start the season it's that simple.

 

[DaGeneral]

A team won't want to trade a top 6 forward who will start the season for them for someone who will be out with injury to start the season it's that simple.

Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

A team won't want to trade a top 6 forward who will start the season for them for someone who will be out with injury to start the season it's that simple.

They'd undoubtedly rather not, but if they needed a defenseman and identified Sami as their guy, tough to see them letting that change their minds. These oppportunities are rare, a team can't really pass on it for something that trivial.

 

[ADHB]

A team won't want to trade a top 6 forward who will start the season for them for someone who will be out with injury to start the season it's that simple.

So you wouldn't trade for a player that would really help your team, just because he'll only be available for 95% of his contract instead of 100%, and the 5% he'll miss is the very first month of the first season. Okay. Good thing you're not a GM.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

You don't weaken the start of your teams season by trading a top 6 forward away like that. Maybe you don't think a team cares about their team doing better but I am sure they do.

They'd undoubtedly rather not, but if they needed a defenseman and identified Sami as their guy, tough to see them letting that change their minds. These oppportunities are rare, a team can't really pass on it for something that trivial.

They will be looking to trade prospects and or picks just don't see them trading a top 6 forward (at least not one we would want)

So you wouldn't trade for a player that would really help your team, just because he'll only be available for 95% of his contract instead of 100%, and the 5% he'll miss is the very first month of the first season. Okay. Good thing you're not a GM.

He will miss training camp and the start of the season for a new team. He will have to adjust to the difference of the new team during the season after returning from a injury. I don't see a team wanting to do that especially with them knowing how much we need to trade Vatanen because of expansion draft.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

They will be looking to trade prospects and or picks just don't see them trading a top 6 forward (at least not one we would want

And the Oilers were hoping to trade Eberle for the defenseman they wanted, RNH at worst. Can't always get what you want.

Speaking off, kind of surprising how that trade has had seemingly no effect on how people value defensemen. They just kind of ignore it.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Sami's availability is kind of unique given the ED. In a non ED year I could see his value being limited until he was healthy again. But I think that if teams were interested in Sami already, they probably still will be with the caveat that they be allowed to see his medical records. Because if Sami is somehow still on the roster after the ED, he probably isn't available anymore.

 

[DavidBL]

I think Sami's injury will affect value as it raises the question on how well will he recover? What are the chances of future injury? Med reports can help alleviate those concerns which can help minimize the loss of value there. For me I keep reading how his value will be low because the Ducks will lose him for nothing otherwise. Well how does that help anyone but LV? If trading Vatenen for an underwhelming return forces us to lose Manson too because Bxa might not waive his NMC that doesn't help the Ducks. This is the premise most other fans seem to be operating under, that Bxa won't waive. To me its not so much that the Ducks might lose him for nothing that affects his value but that the team that acquires him might lose something else of value because of the trade.

 

[70sSanO]

The Ducks number one issue is consistent goaltending as Gibson may always be an inconsistent injury prone goalie who never can solidify being a number one. After that comes the cap issues and how much we have tied up in 3 players, one of whom should be gone if this year is any indication of the rest of his career. I don't know how we re-sign our RFA's and take on the salary of a top 6 forward. In retrospect Murray should have let Vatanen go last summer for picks. It would not surprise me if we lost Sami in the ED.

John

 

[Exit Dose]

I think Sami's injury will affect value as it raises the question on how well will he recover? What are the chances of future injury? Med reports can help alleviate those concerns which can help minimize the loss of value there. For me I keep reading how his value will be low because the Ducks will lose him for nothing otherwise. Well how does that help anyone but LV? If trading Vatenen for an underwhelming return forces us to lose Manson too because Bxa might not waive his NMC that doesn't help the Ducks. This is the premise most other fans seem to be operating under, that Bxa won't waive. To me its not so much that the Ducks might lose him for nothing that affects his value but that the team that acquires him might lose something else of value because of the trade.

Recovery from shoulder injuries is well understood. So long as the Ducks share his medical records, which they've done in the past and have no reason not to do the same, those teams should have a clear idea of what to expect.

 

[broman]

Recovery from shoulder injuries is well understood. So long as the Ducks share his medical records, which they've done in the past and have no reason not to do the same, those teams should have a clear idea of what to expect.

Regardless, what they're buying is a January addition for the price of a full year. As a bare minimum we'll have to eat salary.

When was the last time a major player was traded 6 months before game shape. Horton? It didn't turn out exactly well, did it?

 

[xxreact9]

A team won't want to trade a top 6 forward who will start the season for them for someone who will be out with injury to start the season it's that simple.

Completely wrong.

His contract has 3 seasons on it, so missing 1 month of the very beginning of the first regular season is not going to affect his trade value much.

Digging further, any team trading for Vatanen is certainly close to being a playoff team or already one (otherwise why trade a young cost-controlled RFA for a 25 year old defender)

So why would a playoff team care about the first month of the season? In fact, they won't care at all.

The value may be affected very very very marginally (like an extra 4th round pick) but nothing more.

 

[xxreact9]

Regardless, what they're buying is a January addition for the price of a full year. As a bare minimum we'll have to eat salary.

When was the last time a major player was traded 6 months before game shape. Horton? It didn't turn out exactly well, did it?

Yeah that's an awfully poor comparison. You're comparing a degenerative back disease of a 30+ year old to a shoulder injury of a 25 year old.

6 months before game shape, season doesn't even start for over 5 months. It's fine.

 

[xxreact9]

I think Sami's injury will affect value as it raises the question on how well will he recover? What are the chances of future injury? Med reports can help alleviate those concerns which can help minimize the loss of value there. For me I keep reading how his value will be low because the Ducks will lose him for nothing otherwise. Well how does that help anyone but LV? If trading Vatenen for an underwhelming return forces us to lose Manson too because Bxa might not waive his NMC that doesn't help the Ducks. This is the premise most other fans seem to be operating under, that Bxa won't waive. To me its not so much that the Ducks might lose him for nothing that affects his value but that the team that acquires him might lose something else of value because of the trade.

It's the concept of bargaining power. See Edmonton for example where all the other GMs were wise to the fact that they were generally forced to trade a forward (especially when drafting Puljujarvi).

When you HAVE to make a move (just like when a player demands a trade), the return is always going to be less by nature of bargaining power. This happens by means of an unspoken agreement among the remaining GMs, but doesn't end up having a tremendous effect on trade value as there is always 1 or 2 teams who will be willing to fork over something close to the original market value.

 

[broman]

Yeah that's an awfully poor comparison. You're comparing a degenerative back disease of a 30+ year old to a shoulder injury of a 25 year old.

6 months before game shape, season doesn't even start for over 5 months. It's fine.

Ok fair cop. It's still a gambler's deal to me but I guess there are bold betting GMs out there. Let's see.

 

[Exit Dose]

Ok fair cop. It's still a gambler's deal to me but I guess there are bold betting GMs out there. Let's see.

Except it's not a big gamble. You don't understand shoulder injuries. They do.

 

[dracom]

Regardless, what they're buying is a January addition for the price of a full year. As a bare minimum we'll have to eat salary.

When was the last time a major player was traded 6 months before game shape. Horton? It didn't turn out exactly well, did it?

Lol, we're not eating any of Vats salary. A team trading for him is still getting a good player for three more seasons. His value might have taken a hit, but not near enough that we have to retain salary or take a bad return.

 

[Terry Yake]

great

this totally ruins any potential trade they could have included him in

 

[Ducks DVM]

It's the concept of bargaining power. See Edmonton for example where all the other GMs were wise to the fact that they were generally forced to trade a forward (especially when drafting Puljujarvi).

When you HAVE to make a move (just like when a player demands a trade), the return is always going to be less by nature of bargaining power. This happens by means of an unspoken agreement among the remaining GMs, but doesn't end up having a tremendous effect on trade value as there is always 1 or 2 teams who will be willing to fork over something close to the original market value.

It's also the power of supply and demand. There were no top flight defensemen available to be traded period, much less for the players Edmonton was willing to trade.

There still aren't.

 

[Crosbysux]

Regardless, what they're buying is a January addition for the price of a full year. As a bare minimum we'll have to eat salary.

When was the last time a major player was traded 6 months before game shape. Horton? It didn't turn out exactly well, did it?

It sounds as if we are leaning towards keeping him for the time being. It's good to reflect on similar situations when trying to diagnose this. I'm sure some teams will back away from a trade, but did we back away from offering Rakell a long term offer when coming off a surgery and missing the first part of the season? No. If Vatanen was a FA, he wouldn't have any issues getting what he would have gotten if he didn't need the surgery, since teams are aware that he will be back shortly into the season. Would stir away some teams, but others would still see an opportunity. Many FAs need surgery and still get good contracts. Hopefully we swing the deal with LV and wait until he is healthy to flip him. Can probably get a greater package at next years deadline anyways.