Speculation: ‘20-21 Trade/Free Agency Thread Part II

[bracer028]

Tough to make a dman trade right now due to the expansion draft.

IMO in an ideal world we protect Fowler/Lindholm/Larsson, trade Manson for picks and leave Shattenkirk up for grabs for Seattle. Hank is an upcoming UFA, so he should only be re-signed after the ED.

21-22 defense:

Lindholm - Trade/Drysdale (2021 1st rounder?)
Fowler - Hank
Larsson - Curran (Shattenkirk, if not selected by Seattle)

How many players can you protect in expansion draft?

 

[dracom]

How many players can you protect in expansion draft?

think it's 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, 1 goalie. or 8 skaters and 1 goalie.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Are we going to have to expose Hakanpaa for the expansion draft?

Either way it's time to trade Manson, Bob has let him become devalued enough.

 

[Gliff]

Are we going to have to expose Hakanpaa for the expansion draft?

Either way it's time to trade Manson, Bob has let him become devalued enough.

He is a UFA so only if he signs before the expansion draft.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

He is a UFA so only if he signs before the expansion draft.

that sucks.
one of the ways I was thinking they could try to inject offense into the team is some sort of Manson trade and bringing up Zegras around the same time, if they somehow hang around the playoff picture. My preference for a trade is futures but alot of trades seem to be based on money right now

 

[Hey234]

that sucks.
one of the ways I was thinking they could try to inject offense into the team is some sort of Manson trade and bringing up Zegras around the same time, if they somehow hang around the playoff picture. My preference for a trade is futures but alot of trades seem to be based on money right now

The only way Manson can get traded is for an improvement at RD. The Ducks can't run Shattenkirk with Lindholm the next 3 years, clearly. Drysdale, even if he plays with the Ducks next year (and I don't think he should), shouldn't be with Lindholm as it would be too many minutes and too tough. I am all for trading Manson, but it would need to be part of a bigger trade to get a better defensemen.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

bracer posted that top 3 picks have the highest percentage of success. You responded with an incomprehensible list of the ducks NOT TOP 3 PICKS. He didn't acknowledge your list of prospects because it was totally irrelevant to his post. He's saying top 3 and your responding with top 10 or lower.

Did you ever consider that many of the ducks prospects didn't take a step forward last year because . . . they're not that good? And one reason they're not that good is that they all were picked in the late first round (or after). None are top 3.

huh... Let's respond to this interjection by following the chronological receipts for actual context, shall we?

You guys are putting too much hope into zegras and drysdale. Ive seen enough the next wayne gretzky to know that you cant rely on 1 or 2 prospects in your pool

Thats why im in the boat to get hundreds of picks to see who floats

Bracer states, "im (sic) in the boat to get hundreds of picks to see who floats." I provided him a vast list of Ducks' drafted prospects since 2015 to present, which includes three draft years with two 1st round picks. Thus, sharing that GM Murray has been populating our system with a plethora of prospects and hoping some may stick because we all know the draft is still a gamble.

The percentages of panning out to be a star was 80% in the top 3. In the late teens, the percentage was about 16%.

If we get rid of some of our aging players to some teams that need that extra guy for the push. It will be worth it. Thats why i keep saying we need to dump rakell, silf, and henrique. They will get the most.

Either way, we need more picks to find talent. I wouldnt mind finding a perry or a connor late in the draft. Steel is a good pick as he somewhat emerged this year. So trading silf or henrique or rakell for a prospect like steel would be worth it

@duckpuck, you failed to comprehend the different statements here.

Top of the draft talents pan out more than lower ones.

1. Bracer doesn't trust Zegras and Drysdale's talent to help improve the team, as he is quoted above.
2.

You mean like this? We doubled up on first round picks in 2016, 2019, and 2020. The difference between Zegras and Drysdale with the rest of the picks is that they're both top-10 picks. Everyone else was selected 23rd overall or further. By historical percentage, top-10 picks have a higher percentage of making it in the NHL. The closer you are to #1, the better the chances of a player becoming an NHL player. Although we selected Zegras at #9 overall, some GMs had him pegged 3rd overall.

3. I am identifying the difference between our top-10 selections of Zegras and Drysdale to the rest of our ducklings because their talents are much higher as top-10 picks. As you can see in Bracer's second quote that I provided, Bracer AGREES with my sentiment that the closer you are to the 1st overall pick the better the chances of a player panning out. Which means Bracer just contradicted himself in not putting hope into Zegras and Drysdale. @duckpuck, you failed to comprehend that aspect that Bracer is agreeing with me.
4. Why did Bracer bring up "top-3" picks when Bracer wants to trade away all of our veterans today? How many "top-3" draft picks can you get next draft? Three, four, five "top-3" draft picks in the same draft? This is where I call out Bracer's misdirection by sharing his "top-3" information. This is where you, @duckpuck, also got lost and fell for the misdirection. Trading away all of our veterans won't net us a plethora of "top-3" picks in the same draft, apparently. We have a quantity problem with trading our veterans to land only "top-3" picks in the same draft. Also, we have a quality problem. Trading our vets today will not net us "top-3" picks. Every bottom feeding team today is in our same disposition, which is in need of top end talent, and those teams are the teams that have a higher chance of landing a "top-3" pick.​

Trading our veterans today for the future

1. Bracer wants to trade away our veterans today for a plethora of picks.
2. Bracer states, "I wouldn't mind finding a perry or connor late in the draft. Steel is a good pick... ect". This means Bracers admits you can have lower first round picks can pan out. @duckpuck, I do hope you understand that Bracer is advocating for talent found later in the draft. Speaking of which...
3.

2015: rd 1, 27th D Larsson
.......... rd 2, C Nattinen (just did not pan out in NA)
.......... rd 5, RW Terry

2016: rd 1, 24th LW Jones
.......... rd 1, 30th C Steel
.......... rd 3, D Mahura

2017: rd 2, Comtois

2018: rd 1, 23rd C Lundestrom
.......... rd 2, C Groulx
.......... rd 3, LW McLaughlin
.......... rd 3, G Dostal

2019: rd 1, 9th C Zegras
.......... rd 1, 28th LW Tracey
.......... rd 2, D LaCombe
.......... rd 4, D Thrun

2020: rd 1, 6th D Drysdale
........... rd 1, 27th RW Perreault
........... rd 2, RW Colangelo
........... rd 3, D Moore

4. Trading away our veterans today will not help the Ducks next year, the year after that, or the year after that. Bracer likes Steel. Steel is only now starting to show he might be a fringe NHL'er, five years since his draft date. FIVE YEARS LATERS. Larsson and Terry are still fringe NHL'ers and this is SIX YEARS since their draft date.
5. Recently, the team and youth are doing better by making sure there is at least one veteran on their line.
Rico-Getz/Grant-Terry
Heinen-Steel-Silf
Comtois-Lundy-Rakell
It appear that Lundy might be a better center than Steel as that line doesn't get hemmed into the defensive zone as often when Steel was center it (although, it was with Terry). A Comtois-Steel-Terry line was getting abused night in and night out. Oh look, this is what we call immediate context on two points: 1) our veterans can help shield our youth and 2) some of our youths might be better than our other youths - seeing some talent rising to the top.​

Hopefully, this helps shed light on your misguidedness to interject in a thread you lack comprehension within. You need talent to win. The Ducks won the Cup without their own drafted top-3 picks. Scotty Nieds signed as a FA because we had his brother, Robby (a 5th overall pick who played on the 3rd line for us), and Prongs was acquired via a trade using our two non-top 3 picks (Lupul, Smid), a 1st rd pick, and 2nd rd pick. Oh my! What's that? We traded for top-end players to help put the team over the top?

Ducks' championship season top-8 scorers, regular season
1. Selanne (age = 36): 94 pts (10th overall, Jets)
2. McDonald (29) = 78 pts (undrafted FA, Ducks)
3. Scotty Nieds (33) = 69 pts (3rd overall, Devils)
4. Kunitz (27) = 60 pts (undrafted FA, Ducks)
5. Prongs (32) = 59 pts (2nd overall, Whalers)
6. Getz (21) = 58 pts (19th, Ducks)
7. Penner (24) = 45 pts (undrafted FA, Ducks)
8. Perry (21) = 44 pts (28th, Ducks)​

Huh. Look at all those UDFA by the Ducks. Look at all those non-top-3 players on that list.

But you're disingenuous by only looking at Cup winners. We went to the Cup in 2002 with nothing more than one elite goalie in Giguere, who won that Hart. We went 7-games in the Cup finals. Now, after the Ducks won their Cup with the acquisition of Scotty and Nieds, then why didn't we win another one the next year? You have such a basic requirement, but then neglect when it doesn't work. We had #3 overall pick last year on our team with Gudbranson. Why didn't we win the Cup?

See, there's several ways to get to the Cup, but they all involve talent. The more you have, the better the chances of winning the cup. It doesn't really matter where you get picked. This is where having more picks helps to increase your chances of landing talent. The contention between Bracer and I is that I acknowledge that GM Murray has already been loading up on picks that should start helping us today or the near future, but Bracer doesn't acknowledge those actions and wishes to sell off the Ducks today and doesn't realize it might take five or more years for lower round picks to mature into NHL mainstays, if they somehow pan out. Guess that puts a pin in this correction of @duckpuck 's misguided interjection.

 

[bracer028]

There is something we all agree on and that is the need of a top 3 pick for a high level talent. We all agree on this assessment

I did not contradict myself in any way. I posted the statistics of how a players draft would impact his star status based on the draft order.

What im saying is there is a 16.6 percent of getting a star player in the late teens to early 20s. A la perry, connor and such

What im saying here is we should get rid of our aging players that can still net a first rounder to attempt at such a pick.

 

[Ducks DVM]

There is something we all agree on and that is the need of a top 3 pick for a high level talent. We all agree on this assessment

I did not contradict myself in any way. I posted the statistics of how a players draft would impact his star status based on the draft order.

What im saying is there is a 16.6 percent of getting a star player in the late teens to early 20s. A la perry, connor and such

What im saying here is we should get rid of our aging players that can still net a first rounder to attempt at such a pick.

You’d have to trade 6 veterans capable of returning a 1st round pick (which it’s debatable if we even have) to “guarantee” statistically ONE player likely to be a star player. Look at Edmonton to see how that works out. This isn’t the NBA. And that’s assuming that your math is correct, and not wildly variable as to the quality of players and scouting on a year to year basis.

 

[Hey234]

You’d have to trade 6 veterans capable of returning a 1st round pick (which it’s debatable if we even have) to “guarantee” statistically ONE player likely to be a star player. Look at Edmonton to see how that works out. This isn’t the NBA. And that’s assuming that your math is correct, and not wildly variable as to the quality of players and scouting on a year to year basis.

Furthermore, this year has shown what happens when you don't have vets surrounding young players. It doesn't matter how good the prospects are, if they are relied on to carry the play at the NHL during there first season, then something is wrong with the team.

 

[bracer028]

You’d have to trade 6 veterans capable of returning a 1st round pick (which it’s debatable if we even have) to “guarantee” statistically ONE player likely to be a star player. Look at Edmonton to see how that works out. This isn’t the NBA. And that’s assuming that your math is correct, and not wildly variable as to the quality of players and scouting on a year to year basis.

I wasnt the one that posted the article a year back. There was a graph specifically stating so

And what good is it now with a bunch of guys losing day in and day out. You say its bad to have your youth carry. But you arent carrying anything now

I love how you always refer to edmonton. But they at least have drysaddle, mcdavid, nh, and can sell tickets

 

[duckpuck]

You’d have to trade 6 veterans capable of returning a 1st round pick (which it’s debatable if we even have) to “guarantee” statistically ONE player likely to be a star player. Look at Edmonton to see how that works out. This isn’t the NBA. And that’s assuming that your math is correct, and not wildly variable as to the quality of players and scouting on a year to year basis.

What are the odds the ducks obtain an additional star player if they don't trade vets? Answer. 0.0%.

And for the record, no one is saying to trade all veterans.

Furthermore, this year has shown what happens when you don't have vets surrounding young players. It doesn't matter how good the prospects are, if they are relied on to carry the play at the NHL during there first season, then something is wrong with the team.

I'm sorry (not really), but that is not what this and last season shows. The ducks have a TON of veterans on the current roster and, despite said veteran presence, the prospects are still not producing or developing. The reason for that is that the young NHL players simply aren't that good, consistent with the fact they were not high draft picks.

Current veterans: Rowney, Grant, Rakell, Getz, Lindholm, Gibson, Manson, Silf, Henrique, Shat, Fowler, Backes, Deslauriers. In what reality do the ducks not currently have "vets surrounding young players?"

FYI - the ducks are among the oldest teams in the league. It is a fact.

NHL: Roster Breakdowns by Age

Sizing up the NHL: 2020-21 NHL teams by age, height, weight and nationality

 

[AngelDuck]

Veterans I keep: Rowney, Grant, Deslauriers, Getzlaf, Lindholm, Gibson.
Fowler is probably going to stay and be a Duck forever, not sure I get it but they absolutely love him and view him as core seemingly.

Everyone else you shop to me. I respect the effort of Rakell this season. He clearly worked hard this offseason to get his game on track. On a better team playing with a true 1C he’d have way better numbers. It’s time to move on from him though. He’s a UFA next July and I highly doubt we’re gonna pay him to stick around. Time to get a 1st for him and a prospect hopefully.

Henrique is tough to trade but you have to explore some options there. Signed for 3 more seasons at a high price and is getting worse. Probably stuck with him unless Seattle wants him for some reason(doubtful)

Manson is self explanatory. Needed to go last year but we f***ed around

Silfverberg we’d all hate to see go but if you can get a young asset for him, why not? A contender might want him.

All in all, there are plenty of moves for Bob to make without “trading every veteran”. Pick the leadership group you want and get assets for the rest. We’ve been treading water the last 2 years, it’s not a hard situation to evaluate by now

 

[MMC]

Rowney is expiring after this season, have to shop him and hopefully get a 3rd/4th. If he has interest in coming back re-sign him in the offseason. Backes can take his spot on the fourth line after he's traded

 

[AngelDuck]

Rowney is expiring after this season, have to shop him and hopefully get a 3rd/4th. If he has interest in coming back re-sign him in the offseason. Backes can take his spot on the fourth line after he's traded

That’s true, I hope it’s a Grant situation with him where we can pick up a pick and then give him a 2-3 year deal at a low price this offseason

 

[Ducks DVM]

I wasnt the one that posted the article a year back. There was a graph specifically stating so

And what good is it now with a bunch of guys losing day in and day out. You say its bad to have your youth carry. But you arent carrying anything now

I love how you always refer to edmonton. But they at least have drysaddle, mcdavid, nh, and can sell tickets

They sold tickets when they were picking 1st overall year after year. McDavid isn’t why they sell tickets. RNH absolutely isn’t why they sell tickets. They sell tickets because it’s a city in Canada not based in Ottawa. Also, because they were so abysmal, they were forced to overpay for well past prime free agents to fill out their roster, and thus can’t afford to actually pay for better free agents now. Players did not take discounts to go there and play with all those 1st overall, they charged a premium. And they’re still a horrible team.

 

[Ducks DVM]

And for the record, no one is saying to trade all veterans.

Certain people absolutely are. And the fewer you trade, the lower and lower your chances of getting that “star” and the other picks will absolutely best case scenario hopefully be as good as the guys you shipped out 4-5 years from now.

Trade Rakell. Please. He’s the only one likely to get the return people want. Fowler might get a late 1st, or he might get 2 2nd’s, or a 2nd and a B prospect. Gibson won’t be traded. It’s be stupid to trade Lindholm. Nobody is sending a 1st for Henrique, you just hope whatever contract you take back isn’t as bad. Silfverberg will be a 2nd and maybe a B prospect. Where are we getting all these 1sts from? Getzlaf, if he wants to waive during a pandemic? If we could get 3-6 1sts There might at least be some merit to the idea (still not what I’d pay to see). But I just don’t see this roster pulling these amazing assets.

 

[bracer028]

Certain people absolutely are. And the fewer you trade, the lower and lower your chances of getting that “star” and the other picks will absolutely best case scenario hopefully be as good as the guys you shipped out 4-5 years from now.

Trade Rakell. Please. He’s the only one likely to get the return people want. Fowler might get a late 1st, or he might get 2 2nd’s, or a 2nd and a B prospect. Gibson won’t be traded. It’s be stupid to trade Lindholm. Nobody is sending a 1st for Henrique, you just hope whatever contract you take back isn’t as bad. Silfverberg will be a 2nd and maybe a B prospect. Where are we getting all these 1sts from? Getzlaf, if he wants to waive during a pandemic? If we could get 3-6 1sts There might at least be some merit to the idea (still not what I’d pay to see). But I just don’t see this roster pulling these amazing assets.

Even you are admitting that we have absolutely no talent. So whats the problem of needing anyone of these guys?

 

[Ducks DVM]

That’s true, I hope it’s a Grant situation with him where we can pick up a pick and then give him a 2-3 year deal at a low price this offseason

This will likely be his cash-in contract, especially if he can continue his defensive play and points production, and you can’t blame him for that. Bottom six guys don’t get many bites at that apple.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Even you are admitting that we have absolutely no talent. So whats the problem of needing anyone of these guys?

The same answer as I gave the last 73 times. The team can be considerably worse, there is a difference between lack of top talent and complete lack of talent, building though rookies runs the risk of letting the rookies run the show (which doesn’t work), running with just rookies runs the risk of ruining the rookies.

There’s a difference between blowing it up and capitalizing on SOME assets. We put that line at very different places.

 

[bracer028]

The same answer as I gave the last 73 times. The team can be considerably worse, there is a difference between lack of top talent and complete lack of talent, building though rookies runs the risk of letting the rookies run the show (which doesn’t work), running with just rookies runs the risk of ruining the rookies.

There’s a difference between blowing it up and capitalizing on SOME assets. We put that line at very different places.

Ive never once said to trade fowler or lindholm. Those are the vets you keep and they are on the younger side

I have always said to dump silf, henrique, rakell, and bald (if he wants one last shot), and gibson who can probably get us 2 1sts

 

[dracom]

Ive never once said to trade fowler or lindholm. Those are the vets you keep and they are on the younger side

I have always said to dump silf, henrique, rakell, and bald (if he wants one last shot), and gibson who can probably get us 2 1sts

you want to keep lindholm and fowler because they are vets and on the young side. but also want to trade Gibson who is a vet, on the young side, signed to a great contract, and literally the only real elite talent we have. all for maybe 2 draft picks...makes perfect sense. lol

 

[bracer028]

you want to keep lindholm and fowler because they are vets and on the young side. but also want to trade Gibson who is a vet, on the young side, signed to a great contract, and literally the only real elite talent we have. all for maybe 2 draft picks...makes perfect sense. lol

Cuz he can fetch more.

My mistake. I thought fowler was still 26 or 27. Hes 29. if he can get a first. Do it too

 

[dracom]

Cuz he can fetch more.

My mistake. I thought fowler was still 26 or 27. Hes 29. if he can get a first. Do it too

so can Lindholm, hell Lindholm would return the most value out of anyone on the roster.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Ive never once said to trade fowler or lindholm. Those are the vets you keep and they are on the younger side

I have always said to dump silf, henrique, rakell, and bald (if he wants one last shot), and gibson who can probably get us 2 1sts

Again, then you’re getting a bunch of 2nd’s and non-top prospects, outside of Rakell.
You’re in a very small group wanting to trade Gibson.