Fair enough; essentially the Ducks would be more apt to move Montour rather than Manson?
Rumor: “Everyone is fair game” in Ducks trade talks except Gibson
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
Fair enough; essentially the Ducks would be more apt to move Montour rather than Manson?
Spazkat
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2015
- 4,361
- 2,277
More like "ANA doesn't have enough RD left to trade any"
Contenderorpretender
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2017
- 1,785
- 1,772
I think when you read between the lines it's is clear that the ducks are interested in moving a defencemen to get help up front.
They are trading Gibson.
Doubtful they move their pick with their aging core.
Their forward group is a mix of three kinds of players:
- guys with full no trade clauses
- some guys with no value
- young players with upside (which is what they are after)
Their defensive group is filled with guys with tremendous value.
Maybe we will see another leafs/ducks trade???
They are trading Gibson.
Doubtful they move their pick with their aging core.
Their forward group is a mix of three kinds of players:
- guys with full no trade clauses
- some guys with no value
- young players with upside (which is what they are after)
Their defensive group is filled with guys with tremendous value.
Maybe we will see another leafs/ducks trade???
- Jul 25, 2012
- 39,672
- 34,391
Honestly help up front isn't going to help. The coach/system is the biggest problem and if BM is not willing to change that then really we might as well not win another game this season and hope for Hughes/dach/kakko…. and pray to the gods that a 40+ game losing streak is long enough to get RC fired.
Rob Brown
Way She Goes
- Dec 17, 2009
- 16,894
- 13,529
If the Ducks made that trade they'd be doing it for the long term, and Liljegren would be part of the right side long term.
Mr Quacksworth
Registered User
Dude, those deals for Lindholm are awful. Would you trade Reilly for Ondrej Kase and Jacob Larsson? Adding a 1st wouldn't get that done, either.
Lot of people putting together really poor trades for solid players. Maybe stick to window shopping, not like any of you brought your wallets anyway...
BAM
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2016
- 4,048
- 2,299
Nylander + 2019 1st + Liljegren for Lindholm
or
Kapanen + 2019 1st + Liljegren for Manson
Mr Quacksworth
Registered User
Those are decent offers.
The first one would be tough, but if the Ducks felt Nylander could slide into the 2C immediately, and eventually 1C AND Cam Fowler and Jacob Larsson can be an elite LHD Top 4 group. Maybe...
Lindholm (that hurts typing)
2nd Rounder (low 40s)
A depth RW if necessary
For
Nylander
Kapanen
Liljegren
1st rounder (high 20s)
Mr Quacksworth
Registered User
...I don't think the Ducks could refuse that one, even though it DEMOLISHES our RHD depth.
Spazkat
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2015
- 4,361
- 2,277
Liljegren is a mystery box that has not played a single NHL game. The AHL is littered with players that look amazing there and for whatever reason can't transition to the NHL game. Derrick Pouliot for example.... top 10 pick, was on fire in juniors, looked really good in the AHL and years later is still is a complete disaster at the NHL level.
This wouldn't work for the Leafs. They're letting go of two of their three best wingers in the system. They also have a pretty deep left side on the backend, so I doubt Lindholm would be the target in the first place. A more probable deal, at least from the leafs standpoint, would revolve around Montour or Manson, and it would involve Kapanen, Liligren/Sandin, and maybe a pick depending on which of the two we get.
On a side note it's incredible that the Ducks have three or four top pairing defenseman but still rely on their goaltender to bail them out as often as he does.
Very short sighted and uninformed. You do know how old Liljegren is? He was the youngest player in the AHL last year and played quite well. Was supposed to be in the top 3 of his draft year, but fell due to mono. Was also supposed to play for Sweeden and on the top pairing, but due to injury didnt make the tournament.
Spazkat
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2015
- 4,361
- 2,277
You realize not a word of that negates what I said right?
There have been many players that looked great in juniors and in the AHL that do not do well at the NHL level for any n umber of reasons. Liljegren may be one... he may not. Hence the term "mystery box". This is not specific to Liljegren - that risk exists with almost all young players short of McDavid levels of skill. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. All I was pointing out was that there was an element of risk there. Could end up great - could end up 3rd pairing - might never get past AHL. With zero NHL time its impossible to say for sure.
Again if you did some research prior you would know that all signs point to him being an NHL defenceman rather than not, You failed to elaborate on what level of risk; although if you did it would be contrary to your agenda.
bumperkisser
Registered User
- Mar 31, 2009
- 13,904
- 1,121
Are you sure you're a leafs fan? Lol that is a ridiculously good package. I'd add another significant piece from our end and I'd still feel like we robbed you
terranraida
#RyanGetzlafIsASaint
Being an NHL defenseman isn't some high bar when you're talking about the team getting him having to trade their best defenseman.
His point is valid. Even Justin Schultz dominated the AHL to an even greater degree than Liljegren is now. No one had an ounce of doubt that he'd be an NHLer but he fell pretty far short of what he was expected to become.
Doing well in the AHL is not a guarantee of success.
I'll do a more local example. Brendan Leipsic tore up the AHL and now he's a journeyman NHLer with all speed, hands, but no finish playing for one of the worst teams in the league.
If you want Lindholm you need to be willing to part with an asset that Anaheim can confidently bank on for the future. Not cross their fingers on.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 39,672
- 34,391
Anaheim says no actually. Id look at the Matt Duchene trade for reference. Similar production, cept Duchene was only signed 1.5 years at 6 mil, you are getting rakell for 3.5 years for 3.8 mil. Rakell can play all 3 forward positions, very versatile player. Your getting 1 of the best contracts in hockey for an extended period of time... its going to cost some stuff you really wouldn't want to get rid of.
Id want
Col 1st unprotected(id settle for top 5 protected)
Shane Bowers
Ott 3rd(if the 1st doesn't land in 5-15 spot, this turns to a 2nd)
1 of timmins/kaut/jost
Last edited:
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
Anaheim quite easily says no, zero motivation to trade Rakell for a mid 1st + B prospect.
BAM
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2016
- 4,048
- 2,299
Only one of Nylander and Kapanen are going, I put Nylander in the trade for Lindholm because he is more valuable than Kap going forward IMO potential wise. No need for the picks on the Ducks end either. If Nylander is traded for D then we can afford Kap
Nylander
Lilejegren
1st rounder
for
Lindholm
I can't see another team topping that (realistically)
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 5Staked: $318.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 12Staked: $16,404.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 8Staked: $3,310.00Event closes
- Updated: