2015-16 Line-up discussion - focus on D edition

[CrazyDuck4u]

Stewart wont be the same player untill his jaw is fully healed, He will hit less thats for sure.. He will try to avoid big hits.. Its just the nature of that injury, plus he will be playing with a cage or shield, For a player that be really annoying.

 

[alcolol]

No one on our roster will replace Perron in the slightest. However, if we need a LW for Getzlaf's line, Maroon is a much better option on the left side than those two. Plus, it'd allow us to have Ritchie in the AHL where he belongs. The point is that this is why you don't trade useful players right before the deadline for garbage returns.

As far as the lineup goes. My guess is:

Cogliano-Kesler-Silfverberg
McGinn-Rakell-Perry
Pirri-Getzlaf-Santorelli (Mother of god...)
Ritchie-Horcoff-Garbutt

Except Maroon wasn't a useful player. He had 13 points in 56 games. I agree Ritchie should be in the AHL but let's not pretend Maroon wasn't any less of a plug.

If Getzlaf was PPG with DSP and Bourque as his wingers, he'll be fine with whomever he plays with now. The Ducks have enough scoring depth to not flail in Perron's absence.

My lineup would be:

McGinn - Getzlaf - Perry
Cogliano - Kesler - Silfverberg
Pirri - Rakell - Santorelli
Ritchie/Thompson - Horcoff - Garbutt

 

[alcolol]

Stewart wont be the same player untill his jaw is fully healed, He will hit less thats for sure.. He will try to avoid big hits.. Its just the nature of that injury, plus he will be playing with a cage or shield, For a player that be really annoying.

Playing with a cage/shield is a nuisance but I don't think jaw injuries correlate with less physical play. For a big body, Stewart isn't overly physical either. His speed is more important than his physicality IMO.

 

[Duck Off]

Except Maroon wasn't a useful player. He had 13 points in 56 games. I agree Ritchie should be in the AHL but let's not pretend Maroon wasn't any less of a plug.

If Getzlaf was PPG with DSP and Bourque as his wingers, he'll be fine with whomever he plays with now. The Ducks have enough scoring depth to not flail in Perron's absence.

My lineup would be:

McGinn - Getzlaf - Perry
Cogliano - Kesler - Silfverberg
Pirri - Rakell - Santorelli
Ritchie/Thompson - Horcoff - Garbutt

Maroon definitely struggled this year, but he was most definitely not a plug, and he was a clear upgrade to Ritchie, as well as what we've seen from Pirri. The point is that you don't subtract depth for crap return at the deadline. Imagine if this Perron injury happened before Pirri was healthy.

You're probably right on those lines. Those bottom two lines are pretty subpar though.

 

[Getzmonster]

The Perron injury is just another example of why the Maroon trade was so asinine.

Exactly. Though I expect the "Maroon is useless" crowd to just keep on spinning harder than Hampus on a VO2 bike.

 

[Kalv]

Exactly. Though I expect the "Maroon is useless" crowd to just keep on spinning harder than Hampus on a VO2 bike.

 

[dracom]

Exactly. Though I expect the "Maroon is useless" crowd to just keep on spinning harder than Hampus on a VO2 bike.

 

[dracom]

Maroon definitely struggled this year, but he was most definitely not a plug, and he was a clear upgrade to Ritchie, as well as what we've seen from Pirri. The point is that you don't subtract depth for crap return at the deadline. Imagine if this Perron injury happened before Pirri was healthy.

You're probably right on those lines. Those bottom two lines are pretty subpar though.

And Santo is a clear upgrade over Ritchie. Santo will now get played in Perrons place. Santo has been just fine when he's played, but there have been better players ahead of him in the depth charts. Now, he can play. And still save cap space by trading Maroon, something people keep forgetting about...

Stewart will be back in 2-3 weeks, and we'll be just fine.

 

[alcolol]

Maroon definitely struggled this year, but he was most definitely not a plug, and he was a clear upgrade to Ritchie, as well as what we've seen from Pirri. The point is that you don't subtract depth for crap return at the deadline. Imagine if this Perron injury happened before Pirri was healthy.

You're probably right on those lines. Those bottom two lines are pretty subpar though.

Since you've now introduced hypothetical scenarios, imagine the Perron injury doesn't happen and Maroon isn't traded. Going into the playoffs we'd have 16 forwards to choose from: Perron, Getzlaf, Stewart, Cogliano, Kesler, Silfverberg, McGinn, Rakell, Perry, Thompson, Horcoff, Garbutt, Santorelli, Maroon, Ritchie.

Maroon all but proved he isn't suited for a bottom-6 role; he's the worst skater on the team and he's defensively irresponsible. When he's producing offensively, he's a capable, complementary top-6 forward. Except Maroon wasn't producing offensively. In all likelihood, he's a healthy scratch in every playoff game. How does this benefit the Ducks or Maroon?

The impetus for making this trade was future cap savings. Do I like the return we received? No, but I'm no judge of player value. Frankly, nobody here is. Bob Murray, one of the best GMs in the NHL, had an opportunity to offload an underperforming player signed to a multi-year deal. Maroon was never going to return much more than what we received--crap (although I consider a top-100 pick to be valuable). Would I have rather GMBM traded Maroon in the offseason? Sure, but the fact he did so at the trade deadline suggests he wasn't confident in the prospects of making a similar deal in the offseason.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

And Santo is a clear upgrade over Ritchie. Santo will now get played in Perrons place. Santo has been just fine when he's played, but there have been better players ahead of him in the depth charts. Now, he can play. And still save cap space by trading Maroon, something people keep forgetting about...

Stewart will be back in 2-3 weeks, and we'll be just fine.

There's just something about that sentence that makes me laugh.

 

[Duck Off]

Since you've now introduced hypothetical scenarios, imagine the Perron injury doesn't happen and Maroon isn't traded. Going into the playoffs we'd have 16 forwards to choose from: Perron, Getzlaf, Stewart, Cogliano, Kesler, Silfverberg, McGinn, Rakell, Perry, Thompson, Horcoff, Garbutt, Santorelli, Maroon, Ritchie. .

So you're saying we have depth in case of injuries, like we're experiencing now. I fail to see the downside.

And before you say: "maybe we couldn't get same value for Maroon at the draft"; first, I don't agree with that, considering how awful the value we got for him was. Second, if he just had to go, waive him first. No, that's not much different than trading him to the worst team in the league. Sending him to the minors would be, but we obviously wouldn't do that.

The value he received was so bad, that holding onto Maroon for depth purposes would be worth it IMO. The off-season is easier to make trades. More teams have cap room, roster flexibility, etc... If you're going to get **** return, you may as well keep him as insurance in case of injuries.

Maroon all but proved he isn't suited for a bottom-6 role; he's the worst skater on the team and he's defensively irresponsible. When he's producing offensively, he's a capable, complementary top-6 forward. Except Maroon wasn't producing offensively. In all likelihood, he's a healthy scratch in every playoff game. How does this benefit the Ducks or Maroon?.

Maroon proved that he doesn't worth with guys that can't cycle. You can't stick players like Santorelli and Maroon on the same line and expect great results. He's been more than capable as a 4th liner. This poor season doesn't subtract that entirely.

How does it benefit the Ducks? Are you kidding? We have a capable 2nd line complimentary player in reserve in case of injuries (like right now).

T

he impetus for making this trade was future cap savings. Do I like the return we received? No, but I'm no judge of player value. Frankly, nobody here is. Bob Murray, one of the best GMs in the NHL, had an opportunity to offload an underperforming player signed to a multi-year deal. Maroon was never going to return much more than what we received--crap (although I consider a top-100 pick to be valuable). Would I have rather GMBM traded Maroon in the offseason? Sure, but the fact he did so at the trade deadline suggests he wasn't confident in the prospects of making a similar deal in the offseason.

IMO, it's pretty obvious the primary reason for this trade was because Murray felt like Maroon was expendable now, and that a 4th round pick was worth retention. I fully disagree with his thinking.

I definitely see the argument that Maroon was expendable, and for the right deal, I would have been more okay with trading him now. However, he didn't just take a bad return, he took a god awful return. I fail to see how ANYONE on this board can justify the retention for a 4th round pick. Especially considering how stacked our prospect pool already is, and how budget restrictions have hurt us in the past. There's nothing anyone here can say that can justify not waiving him first IMO. You can't retain salary unless it's a worst case scenario. I'd feel differently if we tried waiving him first. I honestly believe Murray got worried about the lack of draft picks in the upcoming draft, and felt it was worth retaining to get a mid round pick. That's a really ********ed decision IMO.

A 4th round pick is a decent asset, but not when you retain salary. Not for a budget team. At least try and give the guy away for free first.

And spare me the "Murray is awesome" crap. I have not once said I think he's a bad or even mediocre GM. Just because I call out one of his moves and say it's beyond stupid, that is not me saying he's not a good GM.

 

[Duck Off]

And Santo is a clear upgrade over Ritchie. Santo will now get played in Perrons place. Santo has been just fine when he's played, but there have been better players ahead of him in the depth charts. Now, he can play. And still save cap space by trading Maroon, something people keep forgetting about...

Stewart will be back in 2-3 weeks, and we'll be just fine.

If Santo was a clear upgrade to Ritchie, he'd be playing over him. Ritchie playing probably means Bruce wants him on the left side, and wants Santo on the right or at center.

Question for you. If Maroon was here, is he playing before Ritchie? Yes or no?

And no one is forgetting the cap space savings. In fact it's the opposite. I'm saying why not waive him first to try and get more?

We'll be just fine when Stewart comes back? Never mind that Pirri has looked like crap so far (FYI, I am not one of the guys writing him off already like some). Never mind that Ritchie clearly isn't ready for the NHL.

This injury is exactly why Murray should have kept Maroon around for depth.

 

[alcolol]

So you're saying we have depth in case of injuries, like we're experiencing now. I fail to see the downside.

And before you say: "maybe we couldn't get same value for Maroon at the draft"; first, I don't agree with that, considering how awful the value we got for him was. Second, if he just had to go, waive him first. No, that's not much different than trading him to the worst team in the league. Sending him to the minors would be, but we obviously wouldn't do that.

The value he received was so bad, that holding onto Maroon for depth purposes would be worth it IMO. The off-season is easier to make trades. More teams have cap room, roster flexibility, etc... If you're going to get **** return, you may as well keep him as insurance in case of injuries.



Maroon proved that he doesn't worth with guys that can't cycle. You can't stick players like Santorelli and Maroon on the same line and expect great results. He's been more than capable as a 4th liner. This poor season doesn't subtract that entirely.

How does it benefit the Ducks? Are you kidding? We have a capable 2nd line complimentary player in reserve in case of injuries (like right now).

T

IMO, it's pretty obvious the primary reason for this trade was because Murray felt like Maroon was expendable now, and that a 4th round pick was worth retention. I fully disagree with his thinking.

I definitely see the argument that Maroon was expendable, and for the right deal, I would have been more okay with trading him now. However, he didn't just take a bad return, he took a god awful return. I fail to see how ANYONE on this board can justify the retention for a 4th round pick. Especially considering how stacked our prospect pool already is, and how budget restrictions have hurt us in the past. There's nothing anyone here can say that can justify not waiving him first IMO. You can't retain salary unless it's a worst case scenario. I'd feel differently if we tried waiving him first. I honestly believe Murray got worried about the lack of draft picks in the upcoming draft, and felt it was worth retaining to get a mid round pick. That's a really ********ed decision IMO.

A 4th round pick is a decent asset, but not when you retain salary. Not for a budget team. At least try and give the guy away for free first.

And spare me the "Murray is awesome" crap. I have not once said I think he's a bad or even mediocre GM. Just because I call out one of his moves and say it's beyond stupid, that is not me saying he's not a good GM.

Our disagreement ultimately boils down to you thinking Edmonton's 4th round pick is valueless. It will be a higher pick than the picks used to select Vatanen, Beleskey, Bonino, Manson and even Maroon (just to name a few).

 

[Duck Off]

Our disagreement ultimately boils down to you thinking Edmonton's 4th round pick is valueless. It will be a higher pick than the picks used to select Vatanen, Beleskey, Bonino, Manson and even Maroon (just to name a few).

I'm saying a 4th round pick is not worth retaining 1 million for a budget team.

Great, you've cited some anomalies. Now go look up how often 4th rounders make the NHL.

Considering that and what budget restraints have done to us in the past, damn right I don't think it's worth it. Not to mention having Maroon around in case of injuries, like we have now.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

People still *****ing about maroon?

Get over it.

 

[alcolol]

I'm saying a 4th round pick is not worth retaining 1 million for a budget team.

Great, you've cited some anomalies. Now go look up how often 4th rounders make the NHL.

Considering that and what budget restraints have done to us in the past, damn right I don't think it's worth it. Not to mention having Maroon around in case of injuries, like we have now.

I know the ****ing probability of a 4th round pick making the NHL--it's not good. But to write off a 4th round pick is asinine.

 

[Duck Off]

I know the ****ing probability of a 4th round pick making the NHL--it's not good. But to write off a 4th round pick is asinine.

I'm not writing it off. I'm saying retaining salary isn't worth that slim chance. We need budget space and more forward depth for this playoff run more than another 4th round pick level prospect.

 

[dracom]

If Santo was a clear upgrade to Ritchie, he'd be playing over him. Ritchie playing probably means Bruce wants him on the left side, and wants Santo on the right or at center.

Question for you. If Maroon was here, is he playing before Ritchie? Yes or no?

And no one is forgetting the cap space savings. In fact it's the opposite. I'm saying why not waive him first to try and get more?

We'll be just fine when Stewart comes back? Never mind that Pirri has looked like crap so far (FYI, I am not one of the guys writing him off already like some). Never mind that Ritchie clearly isn't ready for the NHL.

This injury is exactly why Murray should have kept Maroon around for depth.

I don't know why Ritchie is playing over Santo, could be because of position, could be Bruce wants Ritchie to get the playing time to improve. But the eye test shows that Santo is better, so do stats. Ritchie has a good shot, but that's it. He's slow, not in position, creates turn overs constantly, bad defensively. He's just not ready, and we all agree with that.

If Maroon was here, I don't think he's playing over Ritchie, but that's because Bruce seems to want Ritchie to get some ice time. Maroon is better than Ritchie, but just like with Santo, Ritchie is playing instead.

We're just going to disagree on this point. I think waiving him and losing him for nothing isn't worth it when we got two assets back. The 4th is still a pick, and the prospect is meh (to crap, idk). Only the retaining 500,000 for the next two years is meh. We've already bought out Fistric for a similar range, so it's not like that 500,000 is going to break the bank.

Give Pirri time, let Santo play, and get Stewart back. We have the depth to deal with Perron's injury. Though none of the guys we have (maybe expect Pirri) will be able to replace Perron, and that include Maroon.

Still would have been great if Murray got another legit top 6 forward, but that ship has sailed.

 

[alcolol]

I'm not writing it off. I'm saying retaining salary isn't worth that slim chance. We need budget space and more forward depth for this playoff run more than another 4th round pick level prospect.

Fair enough. I can appreciate that reasoning.

 

[alcolol]

If Santo was a clear upgrade to Ritchie, he'd be playing over him. Ritchie playing probably means Bruce wants him on the left side, and wants Santo on the right or at center.

Question for you. If Maroon was here, is he playing before Ritchie? Yes or no?

And no one is forgetting the cap space savings. In fact it's the opposite. I'm saying why not waive him first to try and get more?

We'll be just fine when Stewart comes back? Never mind that Pirri has looked like crap so far (FYI, I am not one of the guys writing him off already like some). Never mind that Ritchie clearly isn't ready for the NHL.

This injury is exactly why Murray should have kept Maroon around for depth.

One last thing. When both Maroon and Ritchie were in the lineup, Ritchie played in a top-6 role (almost always alongside Rakell and Perry) whereas Maroon had been relegated to the fourth line. Considering our current injuries are to top-6 forwards, I do think GMBM and Boudreau would play Ritchie over Maroon (despite my opinion that Ritchie should be in the AHL right now).

 

[Getzmonster]

People still *****ing about maroon?

Get over it.

People are still *****ing about Ritchie sucking, and even Pirri (prematurely), those are guys we have to use because Maroon isn't here.

I'm not saying Pat was the answer to the top six, like Sekac was, but he would have been a nice option to have in the rotation now that Perron is out.

 

[Duck Off]

I don't know why Ritchie is playing over Santo, could be because of position, could be Bruce wants Ritchie to get the playing time to improve. But the eye test shows that Santo is better, so do stats. Ritchie has a good shot, but that's it. He's slow, not in position, creates turn overs constantly, bad defensively. He's just not ready, and we all agree with that.

If Maroon was here, I don't think he's playing over Ritchie, but that's because Bruce seems to want Ritchie to get some ice time. Maroon is better than Ritchie, but just like with Santo, Ritchie is playing instead.

We're just going to disagree on this point. I think waiving him and losing him for nothing isn't worth it when we got two assets back. The 4th is still a pick, and the prospect is meh (to crap, idk). Only the retaining 500,000 for the next two years is meh. We've already bought out Fistric for a similar range, so it's not like that 500,000 is going to break the bank.

Give Pirri time, let Santo play, and get Stewart back. We have the depth to deal with Perron's injury. Though none of the guys we have (maybe expect Pirri) will be able to replace Perron, and that include Maroon.

Still would have been great if Murray got another legit top 6 forward, but that ship has sailed.

I think it's pretty clear Santo is not playing because Ritchie plays LW, so comparing he and Santo doesn't really mean anything in the Maroon argument. I agree that Santo is a better player right now.

I disagree that Maroon would not be playing over Ritchie. I think Ritchie is in because of lack of options on the left side. There's no one better to replace him in the AHL.

We've had too many budget restrictions for me to just say "oh it's only 500k". I respect your opinion, although completely disagree, but do yourself a favor, when a scenario comes up where we sign or obtain a player for less value than an available better player, don't say "we're a budget team". I could name several posters who cited that as reasons about Bieksa, and now, this 500k is no big deal. I don't know if you're one of them (and not trying to insinuate you are), and I won't name the others, because I respect our mods too much to start that **** show, but just keep that in mind in upcoming off-seasons.

I agree about Pirri. He needs more time, and IMO, we'll need him to step up more than most if Perron is out long term.

 

[Duck Off]

One last thing. When both Maroon and Ritchie were in the lineup, Ritchie played in a top-6 role (almost always alongside Rakell and Perry) whereas Maroon had been relegated to the fourth line. Considering our current injuries are to top-6 forwards, I do think GMBM and Boudreau would play Ritchie over Maroon (despite my opinion that Ritchie should be in the AHL right now).

It's possible, and obviously we can't know that answer. I don't agree though. I think Bruce would go to lines he thinks would work.

 

[Nordic*]

If Ritchie has to be on the team, he should play with the twins, where he has the biggest chance to utilize his strenghts and benefit the team the most.

He's useless on the 3rd and 4th line - and has no place on Kesler's line.

If Perron is out.

Ritchie-Getzlaf-Perry

Cogliano-Kesler-Silfver

McGinn-Rakell-Noesen

Garbutt-Horcoff-Pirri/Thompson/Santorelli

 

[Ducks Nation*]

Maroon had value on 10% of the ice surface.