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

Status
Not open for further replies.

branmuffin17

Registered User
Sep 10, 2014
1,046
1,219
Santa Ana, CA
Thought I'd make a separate speculation thread for how next year might look.

In just a little over a week, this team has gone from tank/high draft pick target to completely unsure what's going on. 3 wins in 4 games, while seeing significantly stronger play overall does that.

On top of that, it puts the Ducks' trade deadline status of sellers into contention. The almost-assured re-signing of Silf at likely $5.25 x 5 years is the opposite of selling.

This doesn't mean GMBM might not still pull off some trades, but everything is rumor and speculation right now. This also creates strife, unrest, and rising tempers within the HF Ducks fanbase =P

The preference of some armchair GMs is to tank for a year or two, restock and get younger, then push for the cup. This is unlikely to happen, at least intentionally. From everything we've heard, ownership wants this team to be consistently competitive. Expect this team to try.

In our favor is the better potential play away from Carlyle, as well as possibly seeing our days of insane man-games lost due to injury being put behind us. This team is better than bottom 3rd or bottom 1/2 (IMO).

Possible trades:

From the fanbase, the names most consistently thrown out in an effort to save money/cap space, gain futures, and get younger include D Cam Fowler ($6.5 x 7 years), C Adam Henrique ($5.825 x 5 years), and RW Jacob Silfverberg (free agent or reported/future signing $5.25 x 5 years). Even G Ryan Miller (free agent) has had some rumors float, but high probability it's false.

2019-20 NHL Roster & Salaries (without potential trades considered, only those currently signed for 2019-20):
  • C: Getzlaf, Henrique, Kesler, Rowney
  • LW: Rakell, Ritchie, Shore (keeping Shore here for now), Jones (?)
  • RW: Perry, Silfverberg (assumed), Kase, Terry, Sprong
  • LD: Lindholm, Fowler
  • RD: Manson, Montour
  • G: Gibson
  • Missing for a full roster: 2 D, 1 G
Total against the cap: $74.278M with Silf, and with Eaves ($3.15M) buried in the minors/LTIR.

2018-19 Salary Cap: $79.5M

Trade Considerations, Filling In The Gaps

The goalie spot isn't a huge concern right now. However, the 2 D spots are concerning. People are suggesting trading Fowler. Unless we get someone roughly equal/serviceable on D back in that trade, then we're going to rely on any combination of 3 AHL players or free agent signings to complete our D. This is not a good idea. We can speculate all we want about who we might be able to trade for, but until that actually happens, we need to consider that Fowler is a part of the team.

If we agree for now that our 4 core D are to stay, then likely fill-ins for the last 2 spots are up between Larsson, Megna, Welinski, Mahura, and possibly Dotchin if he's re-signed...or we sign a free agent.

Trading Henrique is somewhat equally questionable, as our center depth is lacking with the decline of Kesler. Steel (AHL) is an option, but is untested. Other AHL centers are unlikely to make an impact. Lundestrom (SHL) is another option, but again untested. Possible situation here would be to trade C for C. We will not consider Kesler being bought out, as that is unlikely to happen.

Finally, trading Silfverberg (if we don't in fact re-sign him, which is unlikely due to all the reports from respectable groups) would actually make the most sense. Right now, we can fill out all of our wings with players that have seen extended looks on the Ducks roster. Trading Silf means only a smaller gap is opened. This is okay, and not okay. Technically, Terry, Sprong, and Jones aren't locks for being full roster players. Sprong SHOULD stay up, and we SHOULD give Terry and Jones solid looks. But if they aren't working out like we'd want, what then? And losing Silf means needing another AHL, trade, or signing. In any case, he's the best option for a move.

2019-20 Salary Cap: ?

Let's not assume a large increase in the cap. Let's just keep it at $80M. 3 additional roster spaces need to come from the AHL, trades, or signings. If we ride the cap, that's $5.722M spread between 3 players. If we get the D from the AHL (e.g. Larsson + Welinski? one would have to play on off-side), and let's assume we either use Boyle as main backup, or re-sign Miller for one more year at $2M, that allows us to stay under the cap.

In the chance Eaves is still being considered on the roster, the total is $77.428M, leaving us with $2.57 to fill out the 3 spots (4 with an extra body). This makes things extremely tight. Eaves is really the odd one out, and unfortunately it would be best if we could buy out his last year.

Summary

In the end, trading one of Fowler, Henrique, or Silf (before signing) will give us some cap flexibility and breathing room, but in most cases leaves us with gaps of some kind. These would have to be hockey trades, with an equally serviceable player coming back. $ savings there would then be questionable. It is possible to save maybe $2M, if we additionally trade a prospect (reasonable) or picks (not a good idea) and get someone cheaper/younger back that can at least fill a roster spot.

However, until these trades actually happen, we can at least theorize on how next year's roster may shape up.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

GreatBear

Registered User
Feb 18, 2009
1,413
1,029
Newport Beach
I appreciate the work. What this tells me, if nothing else, is that there is cap room for the Ducks next year. However, I expect the Ducks to try to have some margin between their payroll and the cap to allow for flexibility throughout the season, particularly to give them room to add a player at the trade deadline if they are in a playoff position.

Having watched the Ducks for the last 25 years I am certain that there will be some changes to this roster even if it starts this way at the beginning of the season. There has never been a season in my memory without trades of some sort.
 

Masch78

Registered User
Oct 5, 2017
2,471
1,596
When talking about cap flexibility we also have to talk about for what we should use ist. Otherwise the situation is quite normal.
 

ohcomeonref

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 18, 2014
6,130
6,468
Alberta, Canada
When talking about cap flexibility we also have to talk about for what we should use ist. Otherwise the situation is quite normal.

Cap flexibility doesn't have to be earmarked for anything imo. That's the point of having flexibility, is being able to adapt to changes on the fly or maybe make a trade for a guy that wasn't previously available.
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,413
33,458
SoCal
Trade rakell to get into the top five, try and draft a 1C. Keep everyone else, maybe entertain buying out Kesler.

If we could get Krebs/Cozens/Zegras/Turcotte and Byrum that would be incredible for our future.
 

KyleJRM

Registered User
Jun 6, 2007
5,523
2,695
North Dakota
I’ll admit to sometimes being out of touch on trade valuations, but is Richard “barely at half a PPG in a year where scoring is way up” Rakell really going to warrant a top-5 pick?
 

Masch78

Registered User
Oct 5, 2017
2,471
1,596
Trade rakell to get into the top five, try and draft a 1C. Keep everyone else, maybe entertain buying out Kesler.

If we could get Krebs/Cozens/Zegras/Turcotte and Byrum that would be incredible for our future.

A team picking top 5 adds Rakell for what reason when they can pick one of those prospects by themselves?
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,413
33,458
SoCal
A team picking top 5 adds Rakell for what reason when they can pick one of those prospects by themselves?
I think edmonton, Colorado, and new Jersey would be open to it. Neither Edmonton nor Colorado are trying to find a 1C and aren't in the timeline of waiting for prospects, plus Colorado will likely have a second top pick. The word out of new Jersey is they are looking to spend big on the top UFAs this off-season, which means they might be open to moving their top pick for accelerated development.

Would rakell be enough? I don't know, but I would try and target those three teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: branmuffin17

branmuffin17

Registered User
Sep 10, 2014
1,046
1,219
Santa Ana, CA
I think edmonton, Colorado, and new Jersey would be open to it. Neither Edmonton nor Colorado are trying to find a 1C and aren't in the timeline of waiting for prospects, plus Colorado will likely have a second top pick. The word out of new Jersey is they are looking to spend big on the top UFAs this off-season, which means they might be open to moving their top pick for accelerated development.

Would rakell be enough? I don't know, but I would try and target those three teams.
Might take Rakell and a prospect add of some type, or a later pick. Or it might take a sequence of trades. Rakell gets moved to a contender that perhaps has an extra 1st from another trade so the pick isn't too late in the 1st. We take our 1st, and that first, and maybe even more (prospect or whatever), and trade for a guaranteed top 5. That's just one scenario, but there are ways of potentially getting there.
 

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
48,167
39,045
Orange County, CA
Should probably hold off on this until after the deadline. Might have a completely different outlook (though unlikely)
 

Getzmonster

Registered User
Jul 24, 2014
5,502
1,488
I really don't get the Rakell thing. Who trades a 30+ goal capable guy for a shot at a top 5 pick? If you want to Bobby Ryan him, you get a Bobby Ryan type of return. You get an NHL-ready prospect with solid upside and a couple decent draft picks. Trading him straight up for a draft pick, especially with his talent and sweet contract, seems like a way to set us back further. If he follows up this season with another one like it, then you entertain trading him. That could really suck, lowering his value and missing out on a draft that might be a better bet to get what we need, but I still don't think you justify making that move right now. I don't think GM's can operate that way. That is, unless of course Murray has sniffed out an issue with Rakell beyond what we see on the ice. That's a justifiable reason to move him now IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShadowDuck

branmuffin17

Registered User
Sep 10, 2014
1,046
1,219
Santa Ana, CA
Should probably hold off on this until after the deadline. Might have a completely different outlook (though unlikely)
I'm mostly speculating and laying the groundwork for further discussion once any changes are made. At least we know where the team is at currently, if no changes are made.

What I got out of looking this up for the writeup is that the cap situation isn't quite as bad as I thought it might be...but that's at least if some of our players trend back toward the mean in terms of expected output and play level.

Personally, I'm still an optimist in ways. I see these sparks of old Perry, and start thinking maybe his repaired knee is actually going to give him new life as he continues to heal and get back into game shape. I see Kes skating waaaay better and also playing harder since coming back from IR, and feel...maybe he can still be serviceable rather than just a complete dead-weight/black hole. I have hopes for Terry, Jones, and Lundestrom, and maybe for Steel as well (loved Steel on the right half wall on the PP).

I'm not saying that all these things together make us true contenders...but I do think we can be way better, and I'm excited to see what next season might bring with a new head coach that maybe is able to do some really good things with the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trojans86

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,413
33,458
SoCal
I really don't get the Rakell thing. Who trades a 30+ goal capable guy for a shot at a top 5 pick? If you want to Bobby Ryan him, you get a Bobby Ryan type of return. You get an NHL-ready prospect with solid upside and a couple decent draft picks. Trading him straight up for a draft pick, especially with his talent and sweet contract, seems like a way to set us back further. If he follows up this season with another one like it, then you entertain trading him. That could really suck, lowering his value and missing out on a draft that might be a better bet to get what we need, but I still don't think you justify making that move right now, I don't think GM's can operate that way. That is, unless of course Murray has sniffed out an issue with Rakell beyond what we see on the ice. That's a justifiable reason to move him now IMO.
I would have much rather traded Bobby for a chance at a 1c than what we got. That's the whole point though, we need to find one of those guys. Just like a QB in football, if a team doesn't have a 1C they don't have anything.
 

branmuffin17

Registered User
Sep 10, 2014
1,046
1,219
Santa Ana, CA
I really don't get the Rakell thing. Who trades a 30+ goal capable guy for a shot at a top 5 pick? If you want to Bobby Ryan him, you get a Bobby Ryan type of return. You get an NHL-ready prospect with solid upside and a couple decent draft picks. Trading him straight up for a draft pick, especially with his talent and sweet contract, seems like a way to set us back further. If he follows up this season with another one like it, then you entertain trading him. That could really suck, lowering his value and missing out on a draft that might be a better bet to get what we need, but I still don't think you justify making that move right now. I don't think GM's can operate that way. That is, unless of course Murray has sniffed out an issue with Rakell beyond what we see on the ice. That's a justifiable reason to move him now IMO.
I'm not saying I agree with moving Rakell, but I also wonder what the hell is wrong with him. He just doesn't look as committed. I worry that outside of playing with Getzlaf (who might be declining a bit), he's maybe not nearly a 30 goal scorer.

At the same time...what if moving Rakell gave us a shot at our potential 1C of the future? If the stars aligned, perhaps that ends up being a move worth the risk.
 

Trojans86

Registered User
Dec 30, 2015
3,085
2,008
I think this thread should take on the scenario that we roll with a new coach and next year we are a top 1/3 team in the league. Under that scenario we are not sellers.

There are many here that are skeptical of that scenario but if that scenario is our basis we can avoid the to tank or not to tank arguments.
 

Getzmonster

Registered User
Jul 24, 2014
5,502
1,488
I would have much rather traded Bobby for a chance at a 1c than what we got. That's the whole point though, we need to find one of those guys. Just like a QB in football, if a team doesn't have a 1C they don't have anything.
I wanted Murray to trade Bobby for an equivalent 2C, which was a glaring need at the time, and I don't recall what that draft looked like but I wouldn't have agreed with trading Bobby for a top-5 draft pick back then, either. I get where you're coming from, look at the Duchene trade for Colorado right now, it's enticing, but unless we're rebuilding and taking multiple shots at the top of the draft over the next few seasons, it feels like too big a gamble to put all our eggs in one basket. If we lose Rakell, and our draftee doesn't reach his potential, that's a pretty major blow to the franchise.
 

Trojans86

Registered User
Dec 30, 2015
3,085
2,008
I really don't get the Rakell thing. Who trades a 30+ goal capable guy for a shot at a top 5 pick? If you want to Bobby Ryan him, you get a Bobby Ryan type of return. You get an NHL-ready prospect with solid upside and a couple decent draft picks. Trading him straight up for a draft pick, especially with his talent and sweet contract, seems like a way to set us back further. If he follows up this season with another one like it, then you entertain trading him. That could really suck, lowering his value and missing out on a draft that might be a better bet to get what we need, but I still don't think you justify making that move right now. I don't think GM's can operate that way. That is, unless of course Murray has sniffed out an issue with Rakell beyond what we see on the ice. That's a justifiable reason to move him now IMO.
I'm with you on this but I think people need to clarify what the pick is because a #5 is very different than a #2 or #3.
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,413
33,458
SoCal
I wanted Murray to trade Bobby for an equivalent 2C, which was a glaring need at the time, and I don't recall what that draft looked like but I wouldn't have agreed with trading Bobby for a top-5 draft pick back then, either. I get where you're coming from, look at the Duchene trade for Colorado right now, it's enticing, but unless we're rebuilding and taking multiple shots at the top of the draft over the next few seasons, it feels like too big a gamble to put all our eggs in one basket. If we lose Rakell, and our draftee doesn't reach his potential, that's a pretty major blow to the franchise.
I don't think losing rakell would be as big a blow as people think. I hoped I wouldn't but I pretty view him as a worse version of Bobby.
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,413
33,458
SoCal
I don't think losing rakell would be as big a blow as people think. I hoped I wouldn't but I pretty view him as a worse version of Bobby.
And amplifying things is how good this draft is down the middle. Even at 5 there is a really good shot at a 1C.

Hughes
Cozens
Krebs
Dach
Zegras
Turcotte

All of those guys have a legitimate shot of 1C status. That just doesn't come around often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trojans86

Zegs2sendhelp

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2012
39,566
34,211
Jensen just got 2nd + bowey …. D market looks fairly pricey right now. I was surprised at what muzzin got too.
 

Getzmonster

Registered User
Jul 24, 2014
5,502
1,488
I'm not saying I agree with moving Rakell, but I also wonder what the hell is wrong with him. He just doesn't look as committed. I worry that outside of playing with Getzlaf (who might be declining a bit), he's maybe not nearly a 30 goal scorer.

At the same time...what if moving Rakell gave us a shot at our potential 1C of the future? If the stars aligned, perhaps that ends up being a move worth the risk.
Maybe his mental toughness isn't up to par, you just never know what the Carlyle effect and this sort of soul-sucking season can do to a guy's mentality. Not saying he isn't trying, but I wouldn't want to base a decision on his future here in this sort of disaster season. Getlzaf and others have looked like ass as well, tough to single anyone out right now. That's why I think you have to judge him by his effort the rest of the way here and how he shows up ready to play next season. I recall him once saying his goal was to be the best player in the league or something along those lines. I think the drive is there, not sure why he's looked so aloof.

I'm with you on this but I think people need to clarify what the pick is because a #5 is very different than a #2 or #3.
For sure. Big difference, and maybe the sticking point for me. That said, I'd still feel a bit wary.

I don't think losing rakell would be as big a blow as people think. I hoped I wouldn't but I pretty view him as a worse version of Bobby.
That's fair, and I've been seeing him as a passenger for a while, but this season has made it extremely difficult to isolate individual effort. You might be right on this, agree to disagree. It's probably just too progressive for my thinking.
 

branmuffin17

Registered User
Sep 10, 2014
1,046
1,219
Santa Ana, CA
I'm with you on this but I think people need to clarify what the pick is because a #5 is very different than a #2 or #3.
Rather than saying "top 5 pick," I'd say the target would be to get the opportunity to draft a prospect that has a good chance of becoming a 1C.

I don't follow the upcoming draft classes so I'm not sure which ones would fit that, and if that would equate to needing the #3 pick, the #2, or what.
 

Masch78

Registered User
Oct 5, 2017
2,471
1,596
I think edmonton, Colorado, and new Jersey would be open to it. Neither Edmonton nor Colorado are trying to find a 1C and aren't in the timeline of waiting for prospects, plus Colorado will likely have a second top pick. The word out of new Jersey is they are looking to spend big on the top UFAs this off-season, which means they might be open to moving their top pick for accelerated development.

Would rakell be enough? I don't know, but I would try and target those three teams.

All of them look for top pairing defense or elite winger. I also don't believe they don't need a elite center man. You can have that kind of talent on your 3rd line for 3years ELC.
 

Trojans86

Registered User
Dec 30, 2015
3,085
2,008
Rather than saying "top 5 pick," I'd say the target would be to get the opportunity to draft a prospect that has a good chance of becoming a 1C.

I don't follow the upcoming draft classes so I'm not sure which ones would fit that, and if that would equate to needing the #3 pick, the #2, or what.
The problem is multiple guys have a shot at being a 1c, some guys just have a better shot than others. The value to move up from 5 to 2 can be enormous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->