Speculation: 2020-21 Management/Coach/Owner Discussion

[The Midnight Burrito]

How much worse can we get is the real question?
Would the Ducks actually be in a worse place if they trade their vets?

Honestly this should have started in the 2018-2019 season. When the Ducks were the 3rd worst team in the conference.
SIlfverberg never should have been resigned and should have been traded at the deadline.
Henrique should have been traded before his NTC kicked in and when he still had value.

If the Ducks had embraced the rebuild starting at the 2019 deadline then they would basically be in the same place they are now (rebuilding) but they would have had assets for those vets instead of terrible contracts.

Edit: I know hindsight is 20/20, but how did everyone not see the writing on the wall in 18-19?

Getzlaf just had his worst season ever and the music had clearly ended as far as him being a #1 center.
Perry was coming off of a torn ACL and clearly was not going to be a top 6 forward anymore.
Manson came back to earth from his 40 point season.
Kesler was done, with 8 points in 60 games.

I think signing Shattenkirk was the total opposite of a rebuild move. Not moving on from vets and players that we have an abundance of as well is not a rebuild system.

We are always in a suck but not owning it type of situation. Bob needs to commit fully either way - enough with this half and half.

People shouldn't conflate rebuilding with being terrible in the standings. Deliberately being terrible isn't rebuilding--it's tanking.

Tanking is bad, it requires that young players play significant on-ice roles potentially before they're ready, it places locker room responsibility on young players who often aren't mature enough to be leaders, it signals to everyone in the organization that losing is fine for the right result--the right result being the mere presence of talented young players. That's toxic, and it sends a corrosive message. It creates governability problems for coaches and leadership problems for players who might otherwise buy in to a team mentality.

Rebuilding is shifting from an old core to a new one, usually with young players (because teams don't usually trade legitimate core players). If you're tanking, that means you don't even have a plan, you're just hoping to get some good players and praying that they'll turn into core pieces for you. Some of our young players are finally showing signs of being able to carry some responsibility on their own - that's a success. We are clearly rebuilding and have been for two years now. Signing Shattenkirk doesn't change that, he's not a core piece nor is he meant to be one.

Keeping talented veterans around isn't de facto trying to compete or somehow pretending that your terrible team isn't terrible. It's necessary for a healthy team to have experienced leaders, even if they're not worth their contracts. A rebuild is arguably the best time to carry guys like that, honestly, because the contracts aren't blocking you from picking up pieces that you might need in a contending year.

edit - sorry for the wall of text, didn't realize it had gotten this long.

 

[Dryish]

You could really condense that wall of text into three sentences:

You don't want to trade away all your veteran players in a rebuild. You want to simultaneously acquire draft capital and develop newly drafted players into good NHL players. Keeping veterans around helps younger guys grow and settle into things.

Now what we can argue eternally about is whether or not we've traded away enough assets for draft capital, but the main point still stands. Most of us probably feel that we haven't, but even that doesn't mean you should ever advocate for an Edmonton or Buffalo style "blow it all up" rebuild. We've all seen how that ends up, and it's not something we want.

 

[Gliff]

People shouldn't conflate rebuilding with being terrible in the standings. Deliberately being terrible isn't rebuilding--it's tanking.

Tanking is bad, it requires that young players play significant on-ice roles potentially before they're ready, it places locker room responsibility on young players who often aren't mature enough to be leaders, it signals to everyone in the organization that losing is fine for the right result--the right result being the mere presence of talented young players. That's toxic, and it sends a corrosive message. It creates governability problems for coaches and leadership problems for players who might otherwise buy in to a team mentality.

Rebuilding is shifting from an old core to a new one, usually with young players (because teams don't usually trade legitimate core players). If you're tanking, that means you don't even have a plan, you're just hoping to get some good players and praying that they'll turn into core pieces for you. Some of our young players are finally showing signs of being able to carry some responsibility on their own - that's a success. We are clearly rebuilding and have been for two years now. Signing Shattenkirk doesn't change that, he's not a core piece nor is he meant to be one.

Keeping talented veterans around isn't de facto trying to compete or somehow pretending that your terrible team isn't terrible. It's necessary for a healthy team to have experienced leaders, even if they're not worth their contracts. A rebuild is arguably the best time to carry guys like that, honestly, because the contracts aren't blocking you from picking up pieces that you might need in a contending year.

edit - sorry for the wall of text, didn't realize it had gotten this long.

Part of shifting from an old core to a new one is getting rid of the old guard and getting something to rebuild with. The Ducks have not traded one core veteran since the rebuild started.
It is hard to say the rebuild has started when the same vets are still around. Kesler and Perry are the only "core" players that are gone and they were both bottom 6 players at that point.

I'm not saying trade everyone, but couldn't they trade anyone?

 

[alcolol]

If I'm Henry/Susan Samueli, I fire Murray immediately. Name McNab as interim GM and begin vetting candidates with the intention of naming the new GM before the trade deadline. Bring Darryl Sutter more into the fold to aid Eakins for the remainder of the season (alternatively, fire Eakins and name Sutter as interim HC if it's something he'd agree to for the remainder of the season). Replace Eakins in the offseason (wish-list: Gallant, Gronberg, Jalonen, Lambert).

 

[Static]

Part of shifting from an old core to a new one is getting rid of the old guard and getting something to rebuild with. The Ducks have not traded one core veteran since the rebuild started.
It is hard to say the rebuild has started when the same vets are still around. Kesler and Perry are the only "core" players that are gone and they were both bottom 6 players at that point.

I'm not saying trade everyone, but couldn't they trade anyone?

2017-18 Anaheim Ducks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Here is the 2017 roster, last time we made the playoffs. There has been massive turnover.

 

[Bergey37]

People shouldn't conflate rebuilding with being terrible in the standings. Deliberately being terrible isn't rebuilding--it's tanking.

Tanking is bad, it requires that young players play significant on-ice roles potentially before they're ready, it places locker room responsibility on young players who often aren't mature enough to be leaders, it signals to everyone in the organization that losing is fine for the right result--the right result being the mere presence of talented young players. That's toxic, and it sends a corrosive message. It creates governability problems for coaches and leadership problems for players who might otherwise buy in to a team mentality.

Rebuilding is shifting from an old core to a new one, usually with young players (because teams don't usually trade legitimate core players). If you're tanking, that means you don't even have a plan, you're just hoping to get some good players and praying that they'll turn into core pieces for you. Some of our young players are finally showing signs of being able to carry some responsibility on their own - that's a success. We are clearly rebuilding and have been for two years now. Signing Shattenkirk doesn't change that, he's not a core piece nor is he meant to be one.

Keeping talented veterans around isn't de facto trying to compete or somehow pretending that your terrible team isn't terrible. It's necessary for a healthy team to have experienced leaders, even if they're not worth their contracts. A rebuild is arguably the best time to carry guys like that, honestly, because the contracts aren't blocking you from picking up pieces that you might need in a contending year.

edit - sorry for the wall of text, didn't realize it had gotten this long.

It's OK; it was well said.

 

[Gliff]

2017-18 Anaheim Ducks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Here is the 2017 roster, last time we made the playoffs. There has been massive turnover.

That doesn't mean the Ducks have made moves to rebuild. Most of the turnover was due to retirements, injury and lateral trades to shake things up.

Cogliano: lateral trade for a 4th liner
Ritchie: lateral trade for another bottom 6 player
Perry: Bought out
Beauchemin: Retirement
Vermette: Retirement
Bieksa: Retirement
Kesler: Retirement
Vatanen: Lateral move

Funny enough, the only trades that have been with an eye to a rebuild have been the 2 youngest players the Ducks have traded since then.
Kase
Montour

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

You could really condense that wall of text into three sentences:

You don't want to trade away all your veteran players in a rebuild. You want to simultaneously acquire draft capital and develop newly drafted players into good NHL players. Keeping veterans around helps younger guys grow and settle into things.

Now what we can argue eternally about is whether or not we've traded away enough assets for draft capital, but the main point still stands. Most of us probably feel that we haven't, but even that doesn't mean you should ever advocate for an Edmonton or Buffalo style "blow it all up" rebuild. We've all seen how that ends up, and it's not something we want.

See I don't know about this. I certainly agree with you but I think plenty of others don't at all. I think a lot of people very much want to burn it all down regardless of whether it's worked or not in the past.

 

[Gliff]

I think maybe there is a miscommunication here where some of you think that a desire to trade some veterans means ALL of them should be traded. That isn't the case. Atleast that isn't my opinion.
I don't want the teams average age to be 22. But I also don't want to keep every veteran, especially the ones that can bring back pieces to help the rebuild, until they have no value.

 

[Static]

That doesn't mean the Ducks have made moves to rebuild. Most of the turnover was due to retirements, injury and lateral trades to shake things up.

Cogliano: lateral trade for a 4th liner
Ritchie: lateral trade for another bottom 6 player
Perry: Bought out
Beauchemin: Retirement
Vermette: Retirement
Bieksa: Retirement
Kesler: Retirement
Vatanen: Lateral move

Funny enough, the only trades that have been with an eye to a rebuild have been the 2 youngest players the Ducks have traded since then.
Kase
Montour

So you would prefer, what, 100% roster turnover in three years? I don't understand why you want that. Part of rebuilding is the expiration of some players' careers, usually core pieces, and replacing them with younger guys slowly, but a lot of our core was/are still in prime years.

Pretty soon we will be left with fowler, lindholm, silf, gibson, and rakell as remnants of that era. That's a huge turnover.

 

[Gliff]

So you would prefer, what, 100% roster turnover in three years? I don't understand why you want that. Part of rebuilding is the expiration of some players' careers, usually core pieces, and replacing them with younger guys slowly, but a lot of our core was/are still in prime years.

Pretty soon we will be left with fowler, lindholm, silf, gibson, and rakell as remnants of that era. That's a huge turnover.

I think the whole point here is there is a difference between roster turnover and actually making moves to rebuild the roster.
All of that turnover has just been attrition or reshuffling the chairs on the Titanic. The only moves that were made with the focus of brining in more assets to rebuild the team were the last 2.

Edit: and by the way, it really isn't that uncommon to have that turnover. look at the Ducks 2010-2011 roster. The only players left from the cup were the following:

Beauchemin
Getzlaf
Perry
Marchant
Teemu
Parros

 

[Dryish]

Yeah, to be fair I'm also completely on board with the idea that, in hindsight, we probably ought to have traded at least one of Manson/Henrique/Rakell/Silfverberg last season or the one before. Doing it right now, I'm not so sure. The value is basically as good as gone, plus Rakell and Silf are both players that can effectively mentor younger guys. Maybe Manson could still bring in something, who knows.

But that's as far as it should go, honestly. There's no point in tearing down the whole roster, and if you can't get good returns it's smarter to just hang on to serviceable players even if they don't "get the job done".

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Part of shifting from an old core to a new one is getting rid of the old guard and getting something to rebuild with. The Ducks have not traded one core veteran since the rebuild started.
It is hard to say the rebuild has started when the same vets are still around. Kesler and Perry are the only "core" players that are gone and they were both bottom 6 players at that point.

I'm not saying trade everyone, but couldn't they trade anyone?

I didn't say keep everyone, and you didn't say just one guy. Let's keep the goalposts in just one place. edit - And the trigger for the post that you responded to initially was frustration about signing Shattenkirk, as if that somehow signaled that we were trying to contend or something.

 

[Gliff]

I didn't say keep everyone, and you didn't say just one guy. Let's keep the goalposts in just one place.

How am I moving the goalposts lol. I never said that you wanted to keep everyone. Im saying THEY HAVE KEPT EVERYONE.

 

[hermes20]

How am I moving the goalposts lol. I never said that you wanted to keep everyone. Im saying THEY HAVE KEPT EVERYONE.

How can u say that when u just posted a list of names that we didn't keep?

 

[Gliff]

How can u say that when u just posted a list of names that we didn't keep?

I guess I need to clarify... They have not traded any veterans that would have helped the rebuild since the rebuild supposedly started in the 2018-2019 season. Kase is the only one and we all know he was moved because he was a ticking time bomb.

 

[RakAttack]

As a longtime lurker, if I may interject. I think that much of the frustration/confusion going on here is due to the lack of foresight from the front office. Murray has demonstrated an inability to know when is the right time to sell off a veteran. Because he has waited too long on many veterans, he does not receive anything really of value for them. This leaves us fans in a very weird space where we have seen incredible roster turnover, from either frustration trades or retirements, but don't necessarily see the results that that kind of turnover is typically associated with (high-end prospects, draft picks, etc.).

This leaves us as fans in this strange gray area where some feel the desire to sell off the veterans that we have while we still can to recoup some of the valuable assets that we have missed out on, while others want to pump the breaks to slow down roster turnover, which would benefit the kids who are currently developing. Very strange "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation for us.

TLDR: Blame Bob, you're both technically correct.

 

[DavidBL]

As a longtime lurker, if I may interject. I think that much of the frustration/confusion going on here is due to the lack of foresight from the front office. Murray has demonstrated an inability to know when is the right time to sell off a veteran. Because he has waited too long on many veterans, he does not receive anything really of value for them. This leaves us fans in a very weird space where we have seen incredible roster turnover, from either frustration trades or retirements, but don't necessarily see the results that that kind of turnover is typically associated with (high-end prospects, draft picks, etc.).

This leaves us as fans in this strange gray area where some feel the desire to sell off the veterans that we have while we still can to recoup some of the valuable assets that we have missed out on, while others want to pump the breaks to slow down roster turnover, which would benefit the kids who are currently developing. Very strange "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation for us.

TLDR: Blame Bob, you're both technically correct.

I'd have to disagree, we have seen a lot of prospects and picks due to do moving players out. They're just not of the Zegras/Drysdale caliber so people are left wanting more. In the last 5 years we have drafted
2016 - Jones, Steel,
2017 - Comtois, Morand
2018 - Lundestrom, Groulx
2019 -Zegras, Tracey, LaCombe
2020-Drysdale, Perreault, Colangelo
That's 12 players in the last 5 drafts in the first 2 rounds. A number of those were extra first rounders. We're only starting to see these players starting their NHL Careers. Even if we had traded guys like Silf, or Rico last year those picks would be in the same quality of Steel, Jones, Lundestrom MC. Guys who show promise but are real difference makers. Sure there is a chance that they could be the next Pastrnak but the reality is more of what we have PLENTY of, in which case they wouldn't even be contributing for another 2-3 years. Lets not forget that we were still competing in 2016 and 2017 and should likely have in 2018. When we fell off we started getting extra firsts. Sure extra picks is nice but we already have too many prospects then we know what to do with. adding more 2nds and 3rds doesn't do us much good. IMO.

 

[McDonald19]

This leaves us as fans in this strange gray area where some feel the desire to sell off the veterans that we have while we still can to recoup some of the valuable assets that we have missed out on, while others want to pump the breaks to slow down roster turnover, which would benefit the kids who are currently developing. Very strange "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation for us.

Are you saying half the fans want to hang on to the veteran core? From what I have seen, the vast majority have been asking for a full rebuild.

 

[hermes20]

I guess I need to clarify... They have not traded any veterans that would have helped the rebuild since the rebuild supposedly started in the 2018-2019 season. Kase is the only one and we all know he was moved because he was a ticking time bomb.

So let me get this straight then. You agreed earlier that a happy medium between selling off all veterans and doing nothing is a reasonable rebuild. But your upset that for the most part the veterans we did get rid of held no value in trade, or is that u think we kept too many veterans for the rebuild?

I think what your really upset about is that players like rico and silf arent producing like they should and now hold no value in trade. But this is simply a case of hindsight being 20/20. If it were fowler who was struggling instead of Rico, then no doubt you would have been saying he should've been traded and would have been quiet on Rico. Being upset with bob because he wasn't clairvoyant enough to predict their sudden lack of production is unreasonable. And I also really doubt that the 2nd round pick we could've got for silfverberg is going to make or break the rebuild.

Even if u think that this team could have afforded to move 1 or 2 of the current veterans on this team, this is minor nitpick and not the lack of a fundamental understanding of how to execute a rebuild like you seem to be suggesting.

 

[KyleJRM]

Well the good news is that many of our veterans have zero trade value, so you can keep them while still rebuilding as much as possible.

 

[AngelDuck]

So let me get this straight then. You agreed earlier that a happy medium between selling off all veterans and doing nothing is a reasonable rebuild. But your upset that for the most part the veterans we did get rid of held no value in trade, or is that u think we kept too many veterans for the rebuild?

I think what your really upset about is that players like rico and silf arent producing like they should and now hold no value in trade. But this is simply a case of hindsight being 20/20. If it were fowler who was struggling instead of Rico, then no doubt you would have been saying he should've been traded and would have been quiet on Rico. Being upset with bob because he wasn't clairvoyant enough to predict their sudden lack of production is unreasonable. And I also really doubt that the 2nd round pick we could've got for silfverberg is going to make or break the rebuild.

Even if u think that this team could have afforded to move 1 or 2 of the current veterans on this team, this is minor nitpick and not the lack of a fundamental understanding of how to execute a rebuild like you seem to be suggesting.

I Think your last paragraph nails it for me. I have zero fundamental issues with the rebuild we’re doing. I simply believe we should have moved 2-3 veterans last year and believe it was a massive mistake not to. I’m not going to say they have no value now because it’s a little dramatic but I do believe it’s reduced and we are going to end up getting a lesser return than we should have

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Original Contract lenghts
	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
Getzlaf	x	x	x	x	x
Perry	x	x	x	x	x
Kesler	x	x	x	x	x	x
Eaves	x (TDL)	x	x	x
Playoffs	WCF	1st rd	n/a	n/a	TBD

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Getz and Perry got their extensions in 2013. Kesler got extended in 2016. Eaves got extended in 2017.

None of us knew just how Kesler was fighting through to want to stay on the ice when he really should have just shut it down. That man's drive is freaking amazing to a fault. His play dropped significantly after the 2016-17 season. With recent articles about his Crohn's disease, the pain he tolerated just to want to keep playing makes me very sad.

When we traded for Eaves, he played in 20 regular season games to score 11 goals and 3 assists. Also, he participated in the playoffs by playing 7 games to score 2 goals and 2 assists before succumbing to injury. Because we made it to the WCF, the second round pick was elevated to a 1st round pick for Eaves. That's a total of 27 games to score 13 goals and 5 assists when we traded for him. On Eaves' contract extension, he played a total of 9 games to score 1 goal and 0 assists in two seasons, not ever setting his skates on ice for the third season. We still don't know what exactly went wrong medically for Eaves, but it was a serious condition.

I'd have to disagree, we have seen a lot of prospects and picks due to do moving players out. They're just not of the Zegras/Drysdale caliber so people are left wanting more. In the last 5 years we have drafted

2016 - Jones (1st rd, 24th overall), Steel (1st, 30th OA)
2017 - Comtois (2nd), Morand (2nd) [no 1st round pick due to Eaves' contract]
2018 - Lundestrom (1st, 23 OA), Groulx (2nd)
2019 -Zegras (1st, 9th OA), Tracey (1st, 29th OA), LaCombe (2nd)
2020-Drysdale (1st, 6th OA), Perreault (1st, 27th OA), Colangelo (2nd)

That's 12 players in the last 5 drafts in the first 2 rounds. A number of those were extra first rounders. We're only starting to see these players starting their NHL Careers. Even if we had traded guys like Silf, or Rico last year those picks would be in the same quality of Steel, Jones, Lundestrom MC. Guys who show promise but are real difference makers. Sure there is a chance that they could be the next Pastrnak but the reality is more of what we have PLENTY of, in which case they wouldn't even be contributing for another 2-3 years. Lets not forget that we were still competing in 2016 and 2017 and should likely have in 2018. When we fell off we started getting extra firsts. Sure extra picks is nice but we already have too many prospects then we know what to do with. adding more 2nds and 3rds doesn't do us much good. IMO.

* I added player draft rounds, picks, and comments with all in parenthesis or brackets.

The 2016 kids of LW Jones and C Steel would be making their bigger debuts in 2020 if all things went great. Comtois should still be splitting time between the AHL and NHL. This year should be C Lundestrom's first year in the AHL as well as he ELC.

Things went SNAFU in 2017-18. Eaves and Kesler were out. Getz was out to start the season, iirc. We were forced to trade D Vatanen for C Rico. We traded D Pettersson for F Sprong mid-season to get more socring offense. 2018 had a rash of injuries down the middle to start the season again to where we forced C Lundestrom into the NHL club as an 18-year old, he lasted longer than 20-year old C Steel as well as started Lundy's ELC. Perry's injury made him a former shell of himself and his drive. At the TDL, we traded away Monty for prospect D Guhle and a late first round pick (Tracey, 29th overall). We were rewarded with the 9th overall pick, Zegras. We bought out Perry's contract before the 2019 season, knowing it will balloon up over $6 mil in 2020-21 season. This was the signal that GM Murray thought it was time for a culture shift. Our top-4 forwards of Getz, Perry, Kesler, and Eaves that GM Murray was banking on to carry us between 2017-2019 seasons had only Getz being the last player standing for the Ducks.

The 2019-20 season was a clusterDuck. We got played by D Justin Faulk to increase his trade value to stay out east before the season started. D Shattenkirk turned down a 2-year deal to play on a 1-year deal with the TB Lightning before the season started. Then we pushed the youth movement. Afterwards, our defensemen were dropping like flies to injuries that we traded for D Gudz and his $4 mil contract. At the TDL, we moved on from LW Ritchie (2014 1st rd, 10th OA) and RW Kase (2014 7th rd), but for different reasons. Ritchie was a wrong fit and Kase was made out of glass despite being one of our offensive drivers. Sometimes, the best ability is availability. Ritchie netted F Heinen. Kase netted us prospect RHD Andersson, Backes and his $4.25 mil cap hit (iirc) for the 2020-21 season, and a late first round pick (RW Perreault). Backes' salary dump was worth a late first round pick to be packaged for Kase. F Shore was shipped for LW Milano. We were rewarded with the 6th overall pick, RHD Drysdale.

In the off-season, we discovered that GM Murray was hands off the team completely because he wanted to shield HC Eakins' first year back at the NHL from media scrutiny. Murray admitted that it backfired as some of his veterans simply gave up to the thought it was a tank year because of all of the youths being played. This is an important piece of note because GM Murray has been more involved with personnel. Probably why we've seen so many youths be benched and Rico waived.

Before the season started, all we did was swap defensive D Gudz for offensive D Shattenkirk. It was needed because the salaries matched and we were already above the salary cap due to Kesler's salary and the bump up with Perry's buyout. Oh, we also swapped D Djoos for D Hutton because we wanted to maximize Kesler's salary towards a bigger LTIR. There really wasn't a significant change in roster as we were banking on the youths improving and maybe Shattenkirk improving our PP. Welp, it seems the injury script from 2019-20 followed us into 2020-21 season as Manson fell to injury early and on a long term injury status while Lindholm fell too, but, hopefully, not for too long as he's missed 3 games thus far. Our youths are odd. It's the much younger kids that are making more contributions on the ice in LW Comtois and C Lundestrom than RW Terry, C Steel, and D Larsson. LW Jones is slowly coming around this year. Also, we did try to acquire PLD, but couldn't beat out a Laine offer.

Why we're bashing on the youths when their time really is still relatively early on their progression? Look at the contractual chart above. Our youths were supposed to be be sheltered through the 2019-20 seasons with Getz, Perry, Kesler, and Eaves. 2020-21 should still have Getz, Perry, and Kesler to help shelter the youth, but we don't. The org lost a lot of bite, grit, and integrity with the loss of C Kesler on the ice. It's very difficult to replace all those talents that so many of us fans are bickering about GM Murray not securing. He did secure them, but their salaries paralyzed us along with a created talent vacuum.

There's a long game afoot here. Eaves' contract ended last season. Perry's buyout will give the Ducks $4.625 mil in relieve after this season. Backes' contract comes off this season. Anaheim now has something it hasn't had in a very long time, cap flexibility. There could be more cap space if a very needy playoff team would want Rico at the TDL. Comtois-Lundestrom-Rakell is a real thing. Daily Faceoff has them listed as Anaheim's first line. Zegras is already getting NHL ice time this year. D Hakanpaa has turned into a gem and a fit for D Fowler (finally!). Drysdale maybe NHL bound in 2021-22 season.

The 2020-21 season was all about the youth growth and effort. We got a few youths growing, but that team effort is very inconsistent. Last year, Rico was our leading scorer (43 points) and goal scorer (27 goals). I didn't expect Rico to drop off completely. For the past three games that Lindholm's been out, we've allowed 13 goals (one being shootout goal included). That's 4.33 goals per game allowed in the past three games. The previous 17 games, we have allowed 45 goals, or 2.65 goals allowed per game. I believe GM Murray realized how lacking our defense is when he witnessed both Manson and Lindholm fall to injury and Fowler playing 1D wasn't a great outcome during the 2019-20 season. It appears to be playing similarly again for 2020-21 season. That's why he drafted D Drysdale over forwards like Holtz, Rossi, Perfetti, Lundell, or Quinn in the 2020 NHL draft.

tl;dr version
2020-21 season should have been the first year to see any of our youth with any significant NHL time if all of our top-4 forwards in Getz, Perry, Kesler, and Eaves remained healthy. GM Murray tried to trade for D Justin Faulk in 2019. GM Murray tried to trade for PLD in 2020. No bites. The only sure thing to acquire talent is to draft and develop it. Outside of F Zegras and D Drysdale (as well as the current NHL crop of Comtois, Lundestrom, Steel, Terry, and Jones), we have a lot of talent coming if no one wants to trade with us. Asst GM Madden might have struck gold with defensemen again with the 2019 duo of Thrun and LaCombe. Next year will be their third year in the NCAA and possibly final year in the NCAA. We're holding the line this year and next year should give the Ducks cap flexibility it hasn't had in forever along with another year's experience for the youth movement.

One thing I didn't take into account of evaluation is HC Eakins. If he cannot create consistent high play, then he might be replaced. GMs get the players, but it's the coaches whose job it is to make the players play. It's only now I say this because we've all witness how good this team can be despite not being talent laden, but then drop an egg or more in other games. In the past two games, the Ducks have created a 3-0 lead only to blow it. That's all coaching. Just like how coach Boudreau would have 3-1 playoff series leads to only blow it in 7-games on home ice.

 

[gilfaizon]

Lets just send Eakins down and call up Dineen

 

[mightyquack]

Don’t know what thread this would exactly fit in to, but the Ducks are now 0-10-4 in games where the other team scores more than once

Who said we don't have consistency?