Speculation: 2019-20 Roster, Cap, Trade Discussion (MOD WARNING POST #542)

[robbieboy3686]

I wonder what Zucker would cost.

Terry . I would make the trade ( especially with Tracey and zegs coming up next season as well as Comtois and jones hopefully growing meanwhile

 

[Gurglesons]

Is that the guy from Sportsnet that ranks Petry as better than Weber and a top Dman man in the league? You don’t actually believe that do you?

Berkshire has access to stats that only the league’s teams do. Fowler is easily one of the best transition D in the league and when Anaheim has been great it has been pretty clear he has been top dog since coming into the league.

 

[bsu]

Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....

 

[duxfan1101]

Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....

I dare you to go 1 day without mentioning Montour

 

[duckpuck]

Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....

You and others like to say that, but what makes you think Montour would adapt to this system any better than he did before? If the rumors are correct, the ducks PLAYERS (particularly, defense partners) didn't like playing with Montour because he was not dependable. Certainly, his play was inconsistent.

Just because the ducks now have a better system that emphasizes speed doesn't mean that Montour would automatically be a better fit. The new system requires structure and teamwork - arguably more than Carlyle's - and it is no guarantee Montour would adapt or be better in it.

 

[Kalv]

Idk what went on in the dressing room, I doubt anybody does, but Montour was dominant AF with the Gulls, under Eakins. Given our D depth, I still think it was not right to trade Monty, albeit the return was solid and I do think that there are good arguments why he had to be traded.
We also have Guhle often injured so I still don`t know what we have in him, but he`s not better than Montour now, and there is a good to great possibility - ever.

 

[Leonardo87]

Idk what went on in the dressing room, I doubt anybody does, but Montour was dominant AF with the Gulls, under Eakins. Given our D depth, I still think it was not right to trade Monty, albeit the return was solid and I do think that there are good arguments why he had to be traded.
We also have Guhle often injured so I still don`t know what we have in him, but he`s not better than Montour now, and there is a good to great possibility - ever.

Buffalo needs to shed a D. I wonder if a Montour return is possible? But do they really want him back if there were maybe locker room issues? Like you said a new coach and system now. So things could be different with performance. The only other D I see them trading is McCabe or Scandella. The price for Risto is too much.

 

[AngelDuck]

Terry . I would make the trade ( especially with Tracey and zegs coming up next season as well as Comtois and jones hopefully growing meanwhile

No way in hell im doing that

 

[Kalv]

Buffalo needs to shed a D. I wonder if a Montour return is possible? But do they really want him back if there were maybe locker room issues? Like you said a new coach and system now. So things could be different with performance. The only other D I see them trading is McCabe or Scandella. The price for Risto is too much.

I doubt we see Montour back, if we pay any lesser price, the Buffalo GM will look dumb and he probably will not like that. McCabe and Scandella ar lefties, but might be an option for Bob to improve our depth.
In the past I could see us targeting Scandella, but with the changed system approach, McCabe could very well be something Bob likes - and rightfully so, he is a good defenseman, could work well with Fowler

 

[KelVarnsen]

Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....

who would play defense?

 

[KyleJRM]

who would play defense?

Ideally, the other team. The best defensive play in hockey will always be taking the puck 180 feet in the other direction.

 

[wraparound]

I know it’s a snowball’s chance in hell but nabbing Colin Miller would be a huge get.

I wouldn’t mind getting Montour back; he thrived under Eakins in San Diego. That familiarity could be the catalyst that gets the most out of him.

 

[bracer028]

Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....

Montour is trash. He skates the puck up and doesn't know what to do with it after.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

You and others like to say that, but what makes you think Montour would adapt to this system any better than he did before? If the rumors are correct, the ducks PLAYERS (particularly, defense partners) didn't like playing with Montour because he was not dependable. Certainly, his play was inconsistent.

Just because the ducks now have a better system that emphasizes speed doesn't mean that Montour would automatically be a better fit. The new system requires structure and teamwork - arguably more than Carlyle's - and it is no guarantee Montour would adapt or be better in it.

Because he played under the same system with Eakins and was the best dman in the AHL, also Eakins would put him in situations beneficial to his skills like he has done with Fowler

 

[Ducks DVM]

Because he played under the same system with Eakins and was the best dman in the AHL, also Eakins would put him in situations beneficial to his skills like he has done with Fowler

I am suspicious that Montour was a better AHL player because of the lower level of structure and organization in the AHL. It’s more freewheeling, and individual skills can overcome a lack of systems play.

 

[bsu]

I am suspicious that Montour was a better AHL player because of the lower level of structure and organization in the AHL. It’s more freewheeling, and individual skills can overcome a lack of systems play.

I am suspicious Montour was in a dinosaur system and is a new age defensemen that would have been perfect in the system we are currently playing with defensemen driving the center lane and joining the rush

 

[KaseMeOutside]

I am suspicious that Montour was a better AHL player because of the lower level of structure and organization in the AHL. It’s more freewheeling, and individual skills can overcome a lack of systems play.

Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent

 

[DavidBL]

Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent

Just speculating here but the fact that BM traded him after he got down there for a number of games maybe suggests that the skills weren't the issue?

 

[bsu]

Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent

He's not

 

[Ducks DVM]

Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent

I won’t argue that. I’d assume that GMBM had conversations with Eakins about how Montour had played for him though.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I am suspicious Montour was in a dinosaur system and is a new age defensemen that would have been perfect in the system we are currently playing with defensemen driving the center lane and joining the rush

I don’t think the issues with him are about skills. What I’ve heard sounds more like his partners never knew what he was going to do.

 

[bsu]

Since Manson has forgot to play hockey it could be
Lindholm Montour
Fowler Manson
Larsson MDZ

One D and one OFD on each all can skate and move puck

 

[AngelDuck]

Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent

I agree with your thesis, but the trade wasn't Montour for Guhle straight up. Tracey is a significant asset as you know. I wouldn't have done the trade, but it's not awful

 

[duckpuck]

Because he played under the same system with Eakins and was the best dman in the AHL, also Eakins would put him in situations beneficial to his skills like he has done with Fowler

I specifically asked Stephens the question last year and was told the Ducks played the same system in the AHL as in the NHL. I don't think the two systems were different and, keep in mind, Montour was always older than his peers.

Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent

Guhle is unproven and seemingly injury prone. In terms of talent, you need to be more specific. Sprong is more talented (in some respects) than some of the players on the ducks roster. But he's not a better player. I think there's a decent chance that Guhle becomes the better (or more useful) player because Montour has yet to show his "talent" will translate to production in the NHL. Montour is tantalizing - and I am not bashing him. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking he has been consistent in producing.

Taking into account age, contract, and actual production, Guhle is not too far off from Montour. And of course, as others pointed out, there is the matter of the pick the ducks also received.

 

[mightyquack]

Wouldn't say Montour hasn't been able to translate his talent to NHL production tbh. 45th among defenseman in scoring the last two seasons while playing on teams that were either 3rd last (Anaheim) or 2nd last (Buffalo) in scoring the last two seasons.