Injury Report: 2019-20 Injury Report

[Paul4587]

Thinking about it we are f***ed no matter who we call up.

Our depth now is
Lindholm
Fowler


MDZ/Guhle/Larsson
Holzer
Wideman/Benoit

You either load up Fowler and Lindholm and have them play 30 mins per night or you are forced to play one of Larsson/Holzer on the first pairing with Lindholm taking all the tough matchups. There’s no right answer, our defensive depth is arguably the worst it’s been since pre 2004 lockout (although the start of 2010-11 comes close).

 

[ADHB]

Thinking about it we are ****ed no matter who we call up.

Our depth now is
Lindholm
Fowler


MDZ/Guhle/Larsson
Holzer
Wideman/Benoit

You either load up Fowler and Lindholm and have them play 30 mins per night or you are forced to play one of Larsson/Holzer on the first pairing with Lindholm taking all the tough matchups. There’s no right answer, our defensive depth is arguably the worst it’s been since pre 2004 lockout (although the start of 2010-11 comes close).

Yeah, some of the moves over the last few seasons are looking pretty shortsighted now. We would be in pretty decent shape if we had kept Montour and Pettersson. We got assets for them, but Guhle instead of Montour at the absolute best is a wash, and while Tracey is a nice piece, he's not going to contribute for 2-3 more seasons. And Sprong evidently is a non-entity as well.

This doesn't even take into consideration the Theodore disaster, but that was long enough ago that you couldn't have foreseen what was going to happen with the rest of the d corps.

 

[Deuce22]

Theodore, Vatanen, Pettersson, Montour became Henrique, Sprong, Guhle, Tracey

 

[Paul4587]

Theodore, Vatanen, Pettersson, Montour became Henrique, Sprong, Guhle, Tracey

Even if you take out Theodore that’s pretty bad. Two second pair dmen and one fringe 2nd pair Dman for a 2C, a project and two b level prospects.

 

[MilesNewton]

Yeah, some of the moves over the last few seasons are looking pretty shortsighted now. We would be in pretty decent shape if we had kept Montour and Pettersson. We got assets for them, but Guhle instead of Montour at the absolute best is a wash, and while Tracey is a nice piece, he's not going to contribute for 2-3 more seasons. And Sprong evidently is a non-entity as well.

This doesn't even take into consideration the Theodore disaster, but that was long enough ago that you couldn't have foreseen what was going to happen with the rest of the d corps.

Any chance they don't call anyone up and go with 6D and say a prayer?

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Theodore, Vatanen, Pettersson, Montour became Henrique, Sprong, Guhle, Tracey

Theodore was traded away to keep Manson and Vatanen.
Vatanen was traded for Rico and Blandisi (along with swapping 3rd round picks, IIRC, Link ). Blandisi was traded to acquire Grant last year. (Link) The third round pick became F McLaughlin.
Pettersson was traded for Sprong.
Montour was traded for Guhle and Tracey.

Omission of the retention of Manson and Vatanen is disingenuous. Forgetting about Grant is forgivable, though.

To date, Monty has not played a single NHL game for the 2019-20 season. Monty cannot help the team right now since he's not available at all due to injury. So I don't know what the point of your incomplete list is for? Is it b/c Manson is now injured and we need a defenseman now? If we don't trade away Vatanen, then we don't have 2C Rico and 4C Grant. So this list boils down to Pettersson being the savior for our defense with Manson out? I guess people can sell beach front property in Idaho.

 

[MilesNewton]

So they play the Avs tomorrow night it could be a brutal game. What are they going to do?

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Any chance they don't call anyone up and go with 6D and say a prayer?

The Ducks have already done this before with Guhle out. We didn't recall anyone when Guhle was injured.

Guhle played the left side. So this made moving Del Zotto onto the left side natural. With Manson, he plays the right side (because he's also right handed). With Manson out, we have only two defensemen who play the right side: Fowler (shoots left) and Holzer (shoots right). That means we have three options to play the right side with Lindholm:

1) Move Holzer to the top line (shoots right)
2) Move Del Zotto to the top line (shoots left)
3) Move Larsson to the top line (shoots left)

I know we have played/tested Larsson on the right side before. As a longer term solution while Manson is out, it would probably be best to have Larsson onto the top line to protect the Guhle-Fowler pairing.

With the games this Saturday and Sunday away games, they're both on the west side of the country. There's no need to call a defenseman up for the Colorado game this Saturday. On Sunday, we play at Vegas. The AHL club is playing in southern Cal between Fri (Oct 25th) to Sat (Nov 2nd). If an emergency defenseman needs calling up, then that player isn't that far away to bring up physically. Technically, the Ducks can get away from not calling a defenseman for the next two games. But seeing that Manson was on crutches, it's probably better to bring a defenseman up to get accustomed to the team and how it plays.

 

[bsu]

Larsson has played right before, although not well.

 

[anezthes]

Theodore, Vatanen, Pettersson, Montour became Henrique, Sprong, Guhle, Tracey

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Any chance they don't call anyone up and go with 6D and say a prayer?

I doubt it. The Ducks have a history of carrying 7 D. I don't think they will deviate now.

 

[ADHB]

Any chance they don't call anyone up and go with 6D and say a prayer?

When at home, sure, because they can always call up a player from SD if necessary on short notice. But they will carry an extra guy if they’re on the road.

 

[Frosted Tips]

Theodore, Vatanen, Pettersson, Montour became Henrique, Sprong, Guhle, Tracey

I find it hard to dislike the Vatanen-Henrique swap. Henrique has been good for us while I think Vatanen has not been quite the same and I'm not sure if he's been improving since his shoulder injury. The rest though is somewhat of a disheartening list to read. Loosing Theodore was obviously awful. Montour I'm on the fence with, but looking at the situation now, yeah we could use him right about now. Was not excited to trade Pettersson for Sprong and still am not. Same as Montour, we could use him right now.

 

[Deuce22]

Theodore was traded away to keep Manson and Vatanen.
Vatanen was traded for Rico and Blandisi (along with swapping 3rd round picks, IIRC, Link ). Blandisi was traded to acquire Grant last year. (Link) The third round pick became F McLaughlin.
Pettersson was traded for Sprong.
Montour was traded for Guhle and Tracey.

Omission of the retention of Manson and Vatanen is disingenuous. Forgetting about Grant is forgivable, though.

To date, Monty has not played a single NHL game for the 2019-20 season. Monty cannot help the team right now since he's not available at all due to injury. So I don't know what the point of your incomplete list is for? Is it b/c Manson is now injured and we need a defenseman now? If we don't trade away Vatanen, then we don't have 2C Rico and 4C Grant. So this list boils down to Pettersson being the savior for our defense with Manson out? I guess people can sell beach front property in Idaho.

I wasn't taking a position on the effectiveness of the moves, I was simply stating what Ducks lost and what Ducks gained. Not mentioning Manson and Vatanen wasn't necessary, just like you not mentioning that asking Bieksa to be bought out was an option, either.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Theodore, Vatanen, Pettersson, Montour became Henrique, Sprong, Guhle, Tracey

I wasn't taking a position on the effectiveness of the moves, I was simply stating what Ducks lost and what Ducks gained. Not mentioning Manson and Vatanen wasn't necessary, just like you not mentioning that asking Bieksa to be bought out was an option, either.

I think you don't know how things work. Bxa doesn't have to accept the request, but Manson and Vatanen have no choice. Then add it that only protects one of Manson or Vatanen. Is it possible the Ducks wanted to protect both Manson and Vatanen? You don't know. I don't know. Yet we both know Theo was traded to protect other defensemen on the roster. Don't play this stupid "well you missed out" when it wasn't even a possibility.

You didn't "simply state what the Ducks lost and what Ducks gained." You OMITTED information. That's called building a narrative.

• Theo wasn't traded straight up for nothing. But your "simply stating" truly removes all context why Theo was traded. That a very disingenuous and false "simply stating". The other defensemen that were exposed in the Expansion Draft were Manson and Vatanen. It's apparent that one or both were being protected when Theodore was traded away. Bieksa was nowhere in that equation. That's your own idea that you're trying to inject into history. You should only deal with what actually happened.
• The omission of Grant is a giant omission, especially if you included Pettersson for Sprong on your list.

Either you can present facts appropriately or it's just your bias showing. You have people responding to that inaccurate list as if it were accurate. It's not.

Examples:

Even if you take out Theodore that’s pretty bad. Two second pair dmen and one fringe 2nd pair Dman for a 2C, a project and two b level prospects.

I find it hard to dislike the Vatanen-Henrique swap. Henrique has been good for us while I think Vatanen has not been quite the same and I'm not sure if he's been improving since his shoulder injury. The rest though is somewhat of a disheartening list to read. Loosing Theodore was obviously awful. Montour I'm on the fence with, but looking at the situation now, yeah we could use him right about now. Was not excited to trade Pettersson for Sprong and still am not. Same as Montour, we could use him right now.

In both of these responses, none of them cite Manson was retained or was Grant mentioned. Manson is a top pairing defenseman. Grant is a 4C who's ATOI is 13 minutes for the Ducks, which includes the PK. You're omitting NHL assets.

You're not "simply stating". You're "incorrectly stating".

 

[Paul4587]

I think you don't know how things work. Bxa doesn't have to accept the request, but Manson and Vatanen have no choice. Then add it that only protects one of Manson or Vatanen. Is it possible the Ducks wanted to protect both Manson and Vatanen? You don't know. I don't know. Yet we both know Theo was traded to protect other defensemen on the roster. Don't play this stupid "well you missed out" when it wasn't even a possibility.

You didn't "simply state what the Ducks lost and what Ducks gained." You OMITTED information. That's called building a narrative.

• Theo wasn't traded straight up for nothing. But your "simply stating" truly removes all context why Theo was traded. That a very disingenuous and false "simply stating". The other defensemen that were exposed in the Expansion Draft were Manson and Vatanen. It's apparent that one or both were being protected when Theodore was traded away. Bieksa was nowhere in that equation. That's your own idea that you're trying to inject into history. You should only deal with what actually happened.
• The omission of Grant is a giant omission, especially if you included Pettersson for Sprong on your list.

Either you can present facts appropriately or it's just your bias showing. You have people responding to that inaccurate list as if it were accurate. It's not.

Examples:




In both of these responses, none of them cite Manson was retained or was Grant mentioned. Manson is a top pairing defenseman. Grant is a 4C who's ATOI is 13 minutes for the Ducks, which includes the PK. You're omitting NHL assets.

You're not "simply stating". You're "incorrectly stating".

What’s Manson got to do with the three trades I referenced?

Also Manson should never have had to be unprotected. Murray should have bought out Bieksa. The fact Manson had to be left exposed is on Murray signing Bieksa to an extension with a NMC before he ever played a game for us.

 

[Deuce22]

I think you don't know how things work. Bxa doesn't have to accept the request, but Manson and Vatanen have no choice. Then add it that only protects one of Manson or Vatanen. Is it possible the Ducks wanted to protect both Manson and Vatanen? You don't know. I don't know. Yet we both know Theo was traded to protect other defensemen on the roster. Don't play this stupid "well you missed out" when it wasn't even a possibility.

You didn't "simply state what the Ducks lost and what Ducks gained." You OMITTED information. That's called building a narrative.

• Theo wasn't traded straight up for nothing. But your "simply stating" truly removes all context why Theo was traded. That a very disingenuous and false "simply stating". The other defensemen that were exposed in the Expansion Draft were Manson and Vatanen. It's apparent that one or both were being protected when Theodore was traded away. Bieksa was nowhere in that equation. That's your own idea that you're trying to inject into history. You should only deal with what actually happened.
• The omission of Grant is a giant omission, especially if you included Pettersson for Sprong on your list.

Either you can present facts appropriately or it's just your bias showing. You have people responding to that inaccurate list as if it were accurate. It's not.

Examples:




In both of these responses, none of them cite Manson was retained or was Grant mentioned. Manson is a top pairing defenseman. Grant is a 4C who's ATOI is 13 minutes for the Ducks, which includes the PK. You're omitting NHL assets.

You're not "simply stating". You're "incorrectly stating".

It's pretty funny you accusing me of having a bias when you defend/justify all of Murray's moves. I have no bias, just am disturbed at how our GM has pissed away a team strength, defensive depth. Neither one of us knows if Bieksa being bought out was even explored. What we do know is that Theodore was traded so we could retain Vatanen, who was then traded a short while later. I know he got us Henrique, but our defensive depth still remains a problem. The Pettersson trade you have justified, right now one guy is in San Diego, the other is a fixture on defense for the Pens. I have liked some of Bob's moves, others I haven't. But there is no denying that he has turned our defensive depth from a strength to a weakness.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

What’s Manson got to do with the three trades I referenced?

Also Manson should never have had to be unprotected. Murray should have bought out Bieksa. The fact Manson had to be left exposed is on Murray signing Bieksa to an extension with a NMC before he ever played a game for us.

Bieksa was traded for in June of 2015, and signed a two-year NMC extension. (Bieksa history: link) A year later, Vegas was officially approved to be an NHL expansion team that would start in 2017-18 season. (VGK history: link) (Maybe you can conclude what's being implied here.)

But hey, if you like vacuumed, revisionist history, then that's your thing. The Ducks traded away Theodore for nothing. If that's you're story and you're sticking by it, then I'll leave you be because there's no point discussing this idea if we're not on the same page of facts.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

It's pretty funny you accusing me of having a bias when you defend/justify all of Murray's moves. I have no bias, just am disturbed at how our GM has pissed away a team strength, defensive depth. Neither one of us knows if Bieksa being bought out was even explored. What we do know is that Theodore was traded so we could retain Vatanen, who was then traded a short while later. I know he got us Henrique, but our defensive depth still remains a problem. The Pettersson trade you have justified, right now one guy is in San Diego, the other is a fixture on defense for the Pens. I have liked some of Bob's moves, others I haven't. But there is no denying that he has turned our defensive depth from a strength to a weakness.

"Neither one of us knows if Bieksa being bought out was even explored."
This is false. Bieksa was never asked to waive his NMC. (TSN link: here )

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It&#39;s believed ANA has a pre-arranged deal in place with VGK so it isn&#39;t necessary to ask Kevin Bieksa to waive his NMC.</p>&mdash; Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie) <a href="">June 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"What we do know is that Theodore was traded so we could retain Vatanen, who was then traded a short while later."
This is also false. Manson was the protected defenseman, not Vatanen. (TSN link, same article: here )

TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun reports that under no circumstances will the Ducks allow Manson to be taken off their roster and will make a trade with another team, if necessary, to make sure they do not lose Manson.

Again, don't perpetuate false information.

*****
As for our defensive depth has turned from a strength to a weakness, that's all true. It came at the expense of spending more draft capital on forwards. We lost a first round pick because of Eaves' amazing chemistry after trading for him. What we do have now is a forward corps that used to be non-existent (which is why we traded for Eaves, Henrique & Blandisi, Grant (via Blandisi), and Sprong). The Ducks can boast a Kase, Ritchie, Terry, Steel, Jones, Comtois, Lundestrom, Groulx, Zegras, and Tracey youth contingent. Anaheim went from defense laden to offense laden. We don't have any defense that can contribute in the near future that could be a top-4 pairing defenseman, outside of the prospects of Guhle and Larsson.

That's why Murray went after Shattenkirk and Faulk. It wasn't until we tried to trade for Faulk did I realize how badly we needed Faulk b/c if any of our top-3 defenseman were to falter, then we're in deep fowl manure. It's because we possess so much forward talent asset that Murray even considered moving Kase for Faulk. (That contract length has me soured fast on Faulk once the term came out.) This situation is akin to us using our defensive depth to acquire scoring forwards or NHL centers. Vatanen netted two NHL centers in Rico and Grant. Monty netted prospect D Guhle and 2019 first rounder F Tracey.

Murray and his pro scouts decided to move on RHD Dotchin, RHD Welinski, and LHD Megna. I was high on Welinski for so long, even touting he was an AHL all-star. But Andy couldn't beat out Pettersson last year. It's disheartening knowing we really don't have talent depth. All those three players aren't on any NHL roster, AFAIK as they have no recorded stats on Hockey-Reference. Murray is gambling on both Guhle and Larsson to progress. Aside from that, we're kinda stuck until the off-season and draft. I wanted D Broberg in the draft, but I'll sheepishly grin at having Zegras as the consolation prize for losing out on Broberg. Yet, Murray drafted four defensemen after the first round (Lacombe 2nd, Thrun 4th, Francis 6th, and Hill 6th). LaCombe and Thrun are NCAA bound, which means they could be there for four seasons. I don't expect 6th rounders to be NHL players (even though we have Manson. He's the outlier.).

Look at the list of previous drafts and see how little we've invested on defense recently: link

2014: 2nd round Montour; 2nd round Petterson
2015: 1st round Larsson, 6th round Ruggerio
2016: 3rd round Mahura
2017: = none =
2018: 6th round Drew

I guess you can blame the scouts, but it's also possible the talent coming out had forwards rated higher than defensemen. Our defensive depth is dire because we haven't drafted high level talent since 2015. Murray tried to circumvent that by exchanging Monty for Guhle. Guhle was a 2nd round pick in 2015. Essentially, Murray swapped out Monty and Pettersson for Larsson and Guhle. We still have no talent after them. Which is why an ATO defenseman from San Diego earned an NHL contract this past season in Simon Benoit.

We have a top-3. We have two unknowns in Guhle and Larsson. Then we have a plethora of plugs with veterans in the bottom pairing or fringe 4th defenseman (Del Zotto). It's the uncertainty of Guhle and Larsson that has all of us in a panic with Manson out. I thought Larsson did well his rookie season last year and can build upon it. Guhle was the joker card and still is. If neither Larsson or Guhle can rise to the occasion, then we're duly stuck until the trade deadline or the off-season. The gamble was always Guhle and Larsson, but the risk was heightened when we missed out on Shattenkirk and Faulk.

If we did still retain Monty and everything still played out the same with respect to health, then we're in the same disposition. Monty is still out on injury (hasn't played a single game this year). We're now out with Manson. That leaves us with the exact same defensive roster in need to talent. We'd probably still trade for Gud because Monty and Manson are out due to injuries. Except, we don't have Tracey in our system.

So the Monty for Guhle and Tracey trade actually was a good move b/c we'd still be in the same disposition we are now, with only a top-2 defensemen situation. The silver lining is that Guhle is playing again, which Monty is not available still.

 

[Paul4587]

Bieksa was traded for in June of 2015, and signed a two-year NMC extension. (Bieksa history: link) A year later, Vegas was officially approved to be an NHL expansion team that would start in 2017-18 season. (VGK history: link) (Maybe you can conclude what's being implied here.)

But hey, if you like vacuumed, revisionist history, then that's your thing. The Ducks traded away Theodore for nothing. If that's you're story and you're sticking by it, then I'll leave you be because there's no point discussing this idea if we're not on the same page of facts.

I can conclude what's being implied but you're ignoring that signing Bieksa to that deal was a huge mistake. Most Ducks fans at the time knew it was a mistake and hindsight shows they were right. A player of Bieksa's calibre at that time should never have had a NMC (he should never have been extended before playing a single game either but that's a different argument).

Oh and I have never said anything about Theodore being traded for nothing in any of my posts you've quoted.

 

[Deuce22]

"Neither one of us knows if Bieksa being bought out was even explored."
This is false. Bieksa was never asked to waive his NMC. (TSN link: here )

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It&#39;s believed ANA has a pre-arranged deal in place with VGK so it isn&#39;t necessary to ask Kevin Bieksa to waive his NMC.</p>&mdash; Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie) <a href="">June 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"What we do know is that Theodore was traded so we could retain Vatanen, who was then traded a short while later."
This is also false. Manson was the protected defenseman, not Vatanen. (TSN link, same article: here )



Again, don't perpetuate false information.

*****
As for our defensive depth has turned from a strength to a weakness, that's all true. It came at the expense of spending more draft capital on forwards. We lost a first round pick because of Eaves' amazing chemistry after trading for him. What we do have now is a forward corps that used to be non-existent (which is why we traded for Eaves, Henrique & Blandisi, Grant (via Blandisi), and Sprong). The Ducks can boast a Kase, Ritchie, Terry, Steel, Jones, Comtois, Lundestrom, Groulx, Zegras, and Tracey youth contingent. Anaheim went from defense laden to offense laden. We don't have any defense that can contribute in the near future that could be a top-4 pairing defenseman, outside of the prospects of Guhle and Larsson.

That's why Murray went after Shattenkirk and Faulk. It wasn't until we tried to trade for Faulk did I realize how badly we needed Faulk b/c if any of our top-3 defenseman were to falter, then we're in deep fowl manure. It's because we possess so much forward talent asset that Murray even considered moving Kase for Faulk. (That contract length has me soured fast on Faulk once the term came out.) This situation is akin to us using our defensive depth to acquire scoring forwards or NHL centers. Vatanen netted two NHL centers in Rico and Grant. Monty netted prospect D Guhle and 2019 first rounder F Tracey.

Murray and his pro scouts decided to move on RHD Dotchin, RHD Welinski, and LHD Megna. I was high on Welinski for so long, even touting he was an AHL all-star. But Andy couldn't beat out Pettersson last year. It's disheartening knowing we really don't have talent depth. All those three players aren't on any NHL roster, AFAIK as they have no recorded stats on Hockey-Reference. Murray is gambling on both Guhle and Larsson to progress. Aside from that, we're kinda stuck until the off-season and draft. I wanted D Broberg in the draft, but I'll sheepishly grin at having Zegras as the consolation prize for losing out on Broberg. Yet, Murray drafted four defensemen after the first round (Lacombe 2nd, Thrun 4th, Francis 6th, and Hill 6th). LaCombe and Thrun are NCAA bound, which means they could be there for four seasons. I don't expect 6th rounders to be NHL players (even though we have Manson. He's the outlier.).

Look at the list of previous drafts and see how little we've invested on defense recently: link

2014: 2nd round Montour; 2nd round Petterson
2015: 1st round Larsson, 6th round Ruggerio
2016: 3rd round Mahura
2017: = none =
2018: 6th round Drew

I guess you can blame the scouts, but it's also possible the talent coming out had forwards rated higher than defensemen. Our defensive depth is dire because we haven't drafted high level talent since 2015. Murray tried to circumvent that by exchanging Monty for Guhle. Guhle was a 2nd round pick in 2015. Essentially, Murray swapped out Monty and Pettersson for Larsson and Guhle. We still have no talent after them. Which is why an ATO defenseman from San Diego earned an NHL contract this past season in Simon Benoit.

We have a top-3. We have two unknowns in Guhle and Larsson. Then we have a plethora of plugs with veterans in the bottom pairing or fringe 4th defenseman (Del Zotto). It's the uncertainty of Guhle and Larsson that has all of us in a panic with Manson out. I thought Larsson did well his rookie season last year and can build upon it. Guhle was the joker card and still is. If neither Larsson or Guhle can rise to the occasion, then we're duly stuck until the trade deadline or the off-season. The gamble was always Guhle and Larsson, but the risk was heightened when we missed out on Shattenkirk and Faulk.

If we did still retain Monty and everything still played out the same with respect to health, then we're in the same disposition. Monty is still out on injury (hasn't played a single game this year). We're now out with Manson. That leaves us with the exact same defensive roster in need to talent. We'd probably still trade for Gud because Monty and Manson are out due to injuries. Except, we don't have Tracey in our system.

So the Monty for Guhle and Tracey trade actually was a good move b/c we'd still be in the same disposition we are now, with only a top-2 defensemen situation. The silver lining is that Guhle is playing again, which Monty is not available still.

So McKenzie's tweet says that Bob would rather trade Theodore to Vegas than even ask Bieksa to waive. How do you defend that? As for Manson, are you implying that Vatanen would not have been selected by Vegas if he was exposed?

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I can conclude what's being implied but you're ignoring that signing Bieksa to that deal was a huge mistake. Most Ducks fans at the time knew it was a mistake and hindsight shows they were right. A player of Bieksa's calibre at that time should never have had a NMC (he should never have been extended before playing a single game either but that's a different argument).

Oh and I have never said anything about Theodore being traded for nothing in any of my posts you've quoted.

Okay, I'll explicitly explain in laymen terms to you that you could not deduce. GM Murray had no idea that VGK expansion draft would occur when Bieksa was signed. Whether the extension was good or not, it's a non-factor because VGK was not an entity when the contract was given. There was nothing to protect at the time of extension.

Maybe you don't comprehend what you write and its implications.

Even if you take out Theodore that’s pretty bad. Two second pair dmen and one fringe 2nd pair Dman for a 2C, a project and two b level prospects.

The omission of Manson in your response directly implies Theodore was traded for nothing. Also, you omitted Grant into that list. Your agreement with the list as fact

What’s Manson got to do with the three trades I referenced?

Also Manson should never have had to be unprotected. Murray should have bought out Bieksa. The fact Manson had to be left exposed is on Murray signing Bieksa to an extension with a NMC before he ever played a game for us.

Again, you responded to a listing that included Theodore and not Manson. You also omitted a player in your trade. This recognition is becoming repetitive as you're now trying to omit the premise of this whole discussion, which began with this list:

Theodore, Vatanen, Pettersson, Montour became Henrique, Sprong, Guhle, Tracey

Since the premise is incorrect, then your subsequent responses based upon said premise is also incorrect. If you want to keep moving the goal posts to keep you happy, then that's on you (Bieksa's NMC was a huge mistake). Still doesn't change the fact that VGK did not exist at Bieksa's NMC extension. Also, it still doesn't change the fact that Manson was being protected at all cost, who was not part of the OP list, and that cost was Theodore being traded. I've cited all the sources and now put them all in laymen's terms to avoid implying, but rather explicitly stating what the chronology means.

 

[Paul4587]

Okay, I'll explicitly explain in laymen terms to you that you could not deduce. GM Murray had no idea that VGK expansion draft would occur when Bieksa was signed. Whether the extension was good or not, it's a non-factor because VGK was not an entity when the contract was given. There was nothing to protect at the time of extension.

Maybe you don't comprehend what you write and its implications.



The omission of Manson in your response directly implies Theodore was traded for nothing. Also, you omitted Grant into that list. Your agreement with the list as fact



Again, you responded to a listing that included Theodore and not Manson. You also omitted a player in your trade. This recognition is becoming repetitive as you're now trying to omit the premise of this whole discussion, which began with this list:



Since the premise is incorrect, then your subsequent responses based upon said premise is also incorrect. If you want to keep moving the goal posts to keep you happy, then that's on you (Bieksa's NMC was a huge mistake). Still doesn't change the fact that VGK did not exist at Bieksa's NMC extension. Also, it still doesn't change the fact that Manson was being protected at all cost, who was not part of the OP list, and that cost was Theodore being traded. I've cited all the sources and now put them all in laymen's terms to avoid implying, but rather explicitly stating what the chronology means.

My god. You have absolutely no idea what you’re quoting or what you’re talking about. You’re just creating what you think I’ve posted and written a bunch of nonsense trying to prove your point.

 

[Deuce22]

Okay, I'll explicitly explain in laymen terms to you that you could not deduce. GM Murray had no idea that VGK expansion draft would occur when Bieksa was signed. Whether the extension was good or not, it's a non-factor because VGK was not an entity when the contract was given. There was nothing to protect at the time of extension.

Maybe you don't comprehend what you write and its implications.



The omission of Manson in your response directly implies Theodore was traded for nothing. Also, you omitted Grant into that list. Your agreement with the list as fact



Again, you responded to a listing that included Theodore and not Manson. You also omitted a player in your trade. This recognition is becoming repetitive as you're now trying to omit the premise of this whole discussion, which began with this list:



Since the premise is incorrect, then your subsequent responses based upon said premise is also incorrect. If you want to keep moving the goal posts to keep you happy, then that's on you (Bieksa's NMC was a huge mistake). Still doesn't change the fact that VGK did not exist at Bieksa's NMC extension. Also, it still doesn't change the fact that Manson was being protected at all cost, who was not part of the OP list, and that cost was Theodore being traded. I've cited all the sources and now put them all in laymen's terms to avoid implying, but rather explicitly stating what the chronology means.

Your effort in defense of every Murray move is admirable. I just don't agree.

 

[MMC]