Speculation: 2018-2019 Trade rumors thread

[Trojans86]

2 - Teams that suck over long periods of time suffer from bad trades ( win now type trades) and bad drafting. The act of trading for futures in itself do not cause the problems. Additionally, teams that struggle long term have so many holes that it takes a long time to fill. You can fill 8 holes in one draft. It will take multiple years of accumulating assets. The ducks, to the contrary, do not have that many holes. Hence, we could be back at it in a year and a half.

 

[ADHB]

“Team is only profitable” when they’re winning is nonsense for 2 reasons:

1) Henry and Susan’s wealth goes up by owning the Ducks no matter what happens on the ice. You manage the balance sheet more than the income statement with an investment like that

2) they claim to be losing money even when the team is successful

That being the 1st of your points for why we shouldn’t sell is just really weird to me. Team is horrible with Fowler this season, as if trading him is going to lower attendance. It’s already going to be bad if they don’t rebuild/retool properly

Exactly. This argument has been made many times before, but I’ll make it again. Owners of sports teams are filthy rich, and in most cases the teams are not their main source of income. Of course they’re in the business of making money, but it’s a long term investment. They’re not living and dying on year to year profits and losses, especially when those profits and losses are fractional percentages of their overall wealth, and overall value of the team. If an owner was worried about losses or profits of a few million here or there when the business itself is a half billion dollar or more venture, they are in the wrong business.

It’s especially true of the Samuelis, who have so much money that their main business is giving it away.

 

[Trojans86]

3 - They did not look ready this season, correct. But they didnt look horrendous and they were playing in the same system that made our whole team look like crap. If RC can make Getzlaf play way below his ability and make Rakell like average, he is going to have an even bigger negative impact on the young guys.
Also, the young guys will improve next year as we saw Terry looked better his second stint than his first. They will be better at the start of the season, better at midpoint and better at end.
Also, not every rookie plays up. Some will progress faster than others and you only play up the ones that are progressing the most.

 

[Trojans86]

4 - I'll give you that one

 

[Trojans86]

5. I have never seen Murray go through a retool but he never had the need to. I wouldnt expect a team that wins the division to go through a retool. Circumstances are different right now.

 

[Trojans86]

6 - This argument is just dumb. Yes there is no guarantee at anything. Could be better or worse. That variability doesnt mean you never try to accumulate picks.

 

[Trojans86]

7 - Henrique will be 29 in a week. Since we arent winning next year imo, I am looking at what he is worth 2 years from now. He will be 31 and his stats will start coming down and his value will definitely be coming Dow. I'd rather get a 1st, put him through our system for a few years and when we are coming out he is already a little seasoned then looking to trade Rico in a few years when we are looking to start competing again.

 

[Trojans86]

8. Not really that relevant if we trade Silf except it will save the Samuelis millions. Probably similar to what they would make being in the playoffs. Maybe those savings can be applied in the future to hitting the cap?

 

[AngelDuck]

Exactly. This argument has been made many times before, but I’ll make it again. Owners of sports teams are filthy rich, and in most cases the teams are not their main source of income. Of course they’re in the business of making money, but it’s a long term investment. They’re not living and dying on year to year profits and losses, especially when those profits and losses are fractional percentages of their overall wealth, and overall value of the team. If an owner was worried about losses or profits of a few million here or there when the business itself is a half billion dollar or more venture, they are in the wrong business.

It’s especially true of the Samuelis, who have so much money that their main business is giving it away.

I compare it to buying a house. If you bought a house in Beverley Hills in 1975 for $300,000...how’s that working out for you today?

Did you lose money because you had to pay for things like property taxes, insurance, maintenance?

Haha

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

@Pennaduck

1) What angel said

2) Doenst really matter, team isn't good enough to compete now.... and its only going to get worse.

3) Id disagree, I think Larsson, Jones, Terry and Comtois are all technically ready to play in nhl full time. Few others are close.

4) The reason we struggle to sign big name free agents is because we have no interest in investing that kind of money in said free agents.

5) At the rate murray is going he may be lookin for a new job sooner rather than later... he can move Henrique or fowler in retool type move(Mete + 1st + forward prospect), mete slides in as our 2 LHD, Lindholm 1 and Larsson 3... team gets younger loses some cap, adds another 1st and forward prospect. A trade like that would make a lot of sense to me.

6) Depends on what the trade is based around.

7) The reason we are even talking about trading them is because they hold value... and are movable unlike guys like kesler/perry/eaves etc.... and if we are going to be competitive, there really isn't much reason to keep them around if we can get younger assets to line up with our future core.

8) Agreed, but the problems with our cap are things we cant really fix... cap casualties exist.

9) It all depends on what is coming back, and what you can accomplish with the trade... if you tell me I can trade fowler for Mete 1st and solid forward prospect, and use the money saved to resign silf… id prob do that in a heart beat.... and I think over the next couple years the team is better for it.

10) I also agree with this, but it seems like management is going to keep RC at the helm... and they will sacrifice players to protect their decision not to fire RC. Ultimately it all depends what the trades look like.

11) Id hate to lose fowler/Henrique in an expansion draft... you could move them for young assets that don't need protection... that would be an awful move to hold on to them just to lose them in an expansion draft.

12) I could see guys like Henrique moving at deadline(lot of teams need to sure up the middle of the ice for a playoff run), fowler I agree, no chance hes moved until offseason if he is moved.... a guy like fowler you need an actual # on the draft pick + a better idea of what you are looking for.

13) Season sucks and a lot of us are bummed, most of everything said here is just speculation/ideas which is what forums are for... chances are none of it will ever happen... but honestly arguing about potential moves/ideas of what direction the franchise should go is much more exciting then watching this team actually play hockey. We wouldn't have a roster of 25 and unders, we have corner stones like Lindholm Montour rakell manson Gibson kase, older getzlaf etc.... as for teams
Chicago, Toronto, Tampa, Nashville..... building through the draft to make successful teams.... Leagues changing... getting younger/faster and building through the draft is the way to go.

 

[gunnergunther]

Its been proven time and time again the Samuelis are cheap as hell when it comes to the Ducks. This is a team that sends players up and down for a fews days at a time just to save a couple of thousands of dollars. This is a team that didnt even spend to the cap when they were a consistent true championship contender. Whatever money they make on their technology ventures, its obvious they dont see the Ducks as a charity.

 

[GreatBear]

The Ducks are not a charity. And who knows, given the creativity of accountants, if the Ducks are really losing money, and if so, how much. Given the increase in the value of the team since they purchased it, I don't feel sorry for the owners even if the team is losing money on a cash basis.

 

[AngelDuck]

Its been proven time and time again the Samuelis are cheap as hell when it comes to the Ducks. This is a team that sends players up and down for a fews days at a time just to save a couple of thousands of dollars. This is a team that didnt even spend to the cap when they were a consistent true championship contender. Whatever money they make on their technology ventures, its obvious they dont see the Ducks as a charity.

Yeah it's been proven, and it remains dumb. Dude's worth 3 billion dollars. He could afford to spend away some of the equity gains he's made since he bought the team. I actually know someone really close to ownership..I like them as owners. But some of the stuff I've heard makes them come off as pretty unnecessarily cheap.

And I also still don't see how the argument of them being cheap is a valid reason for why we shouldn't retool by selling off some players this season

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Yeah it's been proven, and it remains dumb. Dude's worth 3 billion dollars. He could afford to spend away some of the equity gains he's made since he bought the team. I actually know someone really close to ownership..I like them as owners. But some of the stuff I've heard makes them come off as pretty unnecessarily cheap.

And I also still don't see how the argument of them being cheap is a valid reason for why we shouldn't retool by selling off some players this season

Im just shocked would rather watch the crap we are currently playing on ice over young rookies trying to make a name for themselves. I don't think "watch a team get 12 shots in a game and lose while goalie makes 35+ saves" is going to pull in the crowds.

Honestly most exciting things this season as ducks fans
1. Gibson
2. Comtois trial
3. Terry 2nd tour with the ducks

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

One thing about Rico is he might be prime Seattle bait if he doesn't fall off. Center had probably the weakest choices for Vegas in their draft and I imagine that could get even worse next go round. Could be a way of keeping the D together.

And if not you're probably getting a quality center in his early 30s. Centers are so hard to find, I don't see the need to rush to trade him away.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

One thing about Rico is he might be prime Seattle bait if he doesn't fall off. Center had probably the weakest choices for Vegas in their draft and I imagine that could get even worse next go round. Could be a way of keeping the D together.

And if not you're probably getting a quality center in his early 30s. Centers are so hard to find, I don't see the need to rush to trade him away.

Getting 1st line minutes for Seattle with a sane coach he will probably still be a 50 point center by then.

 

[pbgoalie]

Samuelis paid what, $70 million in 2005
Forbes value in 2010 $188 million
Right now estimated $460

I am certain those numbers are not perfect, just what I found searching.
With expansion fees and values, they may be worth more....

But losing operationally every year is a small part compared to the capital gain the Samuelis are building it seems

 

[Masch78]

This sounds like a fantasy. Look at our non-lottery first round picks and how long it took them to make an impact. Larsson, Theodore, Rackell, Etem, Holland, Palmeiri. None of those guys were effective nhl players within 4 years of being drafted and it looks to be the same for Jones and Steel.

This is hfboards, picks and prospects over all. People should look at the usual suspects and how good they are. Not always Chicago as a role model.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

This is hfboards, picks and prospects over all. People should look at the usual suspects and how good they are. Not always Chicago as a role model.

All the good teams had lottery picks... i agree we should get top picks this year and next and go from there

 

[MoMM]

Samuelis paid what, $70 million in 2005
Forbes value in 2010 $188 million
Right now estimated $460

I am certain those numbers are not perfect, just what I found searching.
With expansion fees and values, they may be worth more....

But losing operationally every year is a small part compared to the capital gain the Samuelis are building it seems

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the owners (NHL, NBA, NFL, etc) buy a team for investment reasons, they just have it as a hobby and at some point, when they don't want to play anymore, they decide to sell it (and pocket a lot of money in the way). I really don't think they care about losing a few millions every year because it's kind of just a small part of their portfolio, but the joy of winning a championship is great and that's their goal.

 

[AngelDuck]

This is hfboards, picks and prospects over all. People should look at the usual suspects and how good they are. Not always Chicago as a role model.

Yawn

 

[Trojans86]

It blows my mind when people dont think we should be building through the draft when we have one of the worst goal differentials in the league. Is the alternative to buy through free agency or will our plays age like a fine win and lead us to a cup without an infusion of young talent? It is so clear to see that winning in this league starts with building through the draft and capitalizing off of elcs.

 

[AngelDuck]

“The usual suspects”

You mean like Toronto? Matthews(1st overall), Marner 4th overall, Reilly 4th overall, Nylander 8th overall,

How about Tampa Bay? Stamkos 1st overall, Hedman 2nd overall

Winnipeg - Laine 2nd overall, Ehlers 9th overall, Trouba 8th overall, Scheifle 7th,

Calgary - monahan 8th, Tkachuk 6th, Bennett 3rd

I won’t even go into Pittsburgh and Washington

The list goes on and on. This is not a post advocating a full scorched earth tear down and Edmonton situation. But it can be extremely beneficial to capitalize on a bad year or two every once in a while

 

[AngelDuck]

The only team I can think of that has remained competitive for a decade without a top 10 pick is Nashville. Maybe Boston? San Jose? They missed the playoffs and got Meier I’m pretty sure

I could be forgetting some but pretty much every other team that’s been a winner was bad for at least a year or two

The point is the Ducks have had an unbelievable run of success. Bad years happen , guys age and at some point you have to restock with a top talent or two. The easiest way to do that is picking top 10 by far

 

[mightyquack]

The only team I can think of that has remained competitive for a decade without a top 10 pick is Nashville. Maybe Boston? San Jose? They missed the playoffs and got Meier I’m pretty sure

I could be forgetting some but pretty much every other team that’s been a winner was bad for at least a year or two

The point is the Ducks have had an unbelievable run of success. Bad years happen , guys age and at some point you have to restock with a top talent or two. The easiest way to do that is picking top 10 by far

Nashville had 4th overall in 2013, and ended up turning Jones into Johansen so that was a pretty huge one for them.