Speculation: 2020-21 Management/Coach/Owner Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

SmokeyDuck

Registered User
Jul 27, 2010
3,224
901
Anaheim, CA
Lets start with getting rid of BM. I really don't want him choosing another coach. If that means riding with Eakins another year so be it. Despite our record we did play a fair few good games. Not to mention all the 1 goal games and OT losses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duck Off

GermanRocket7

Played silly not to draft Fantilli
Sponsor
Nov 7, 2008
1,172
1,204
Who are you guys eyeing as our future GM and HC? I know a lot of people want Madden, but my ideal pick would be Chris McFarland from Colorado. Coach is a bit tougher, no big name coach will likely come here because we aren't near competing, so I'd try developing our own culture, maybe someone like Lane Lambert?

Cynically speaking, I kind of feel as though a bag of pucks would be an upgrade in both positions.

With that being said, I still think that we need to choose our new GM even more wisely than our next head coach. We need to have a proactive GM with a clear vision of how he wants the franchise to operate instead of a reactionary GM like Bob was and, unfortunately, still is. I'd love to have someone like Yzerman, who pretty much turned around a sinking ship in Tampa Bay (granted, he did have a major piece of their current success in Stamkos before he took over) and seems to be heading in the right direction with Detroit as well, all the while focusing on offering high-tempo offensive hockey. Someone who might fit this bill is Rikard Gronborg. Guy has done absolutely everything he can outside of the NHL -much like Jukka Jalonen for Finland- and should have become an NHL GM or Head Coach long ago. I'd be fine with any of these two, though I'd prefer to have them around as coaches much more.

I'd probably try and go this route:

GM: Derek Clancey (currently unemployed, former long-time staff with the Penguins)
HC: Rikard Gronborg (ZSC Lions Zürich)

That would mean cleaning the house effectively and introducing a new philosophyfor our franchise. Clancey is resourceful and competent enough to work closely with an offensive-minded head coach like Gronborg and provide him with a roster the latter can use effecively. Getting a new medical department would really make the rebuild of the franchise come full circle and most likely would mean a lot less man-games lost per season as well, as our current department is, obviously, horrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smirnov2Chistov
Oct 18, 2011
44,064
9,673
Who are you guys eyeing as our future GM and HC? I know a lot of people want Madden, but my ideal pick would be Chris McFarland from Colorado. Coach is a bit tougher, no big name coach will likely come here because we aren't near competing, so I'd try developing our own culture, maybe someone like Lane Lambert?
I'd like someone from the Carolina program. They know how to develop talent and work under a budget
 

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
17,093
12,044
southern cal


Thought this was cool.


This graphic makes a case for GM Murray to be retained. There was a steep dropoff in 2008 when Burkie ditched us and left us cap strapped with an empty cupboard system. Under Burke, we had 43 playoff games and a cup. Murray added 86 more playoff games. With so many people citing that GM Murray doesn't know what he's doing or have a clear vision, this graphic dispels all of that.

When we gave Eaves a three-year extension in 2017 off-season, we were expecting Eaves, Kesler, Perry, and Getz to be carrying the team for at least the next three seasons. Nick Ritchie would look good in a sheltered role like he does now in Beantown and Kase doesn't have to be carrying the whole offense. Instead, Eaves and Kesler's talent stopped in 2017-18 season. Perry fell off in 2018-19, prompting a buyout. This exposed Ritchie to be a passenger than driver as well as our prospect forward pool being pushed to the forefront a couples of years too early. The re-building on the fly works if there is talent there to hold up the re-building. Losing three out of your top-4 top talents makes re-building on the fly nigh impossible.

Today, our cupboard has been restocked in a hurry. Our defense looks good going into the future, which might include Fleury. Our goalie situation also looks very talented with Stolarz, Dostal, and OEE. Offensively, most of our top prospects are already in the NHL and they need more experience. We have RW Perreault, C Groulx, and LW Tracey as higher end prospects. Then factor in a top-4 pick this coming draft.

It sucks losing Kesler, Eaves, and Perry all about the same time. Yet, so many people are expecting an instantaneous rise to the playoffs when we don't possess talents like a Kesler, Eaves, and Perry on hand. We snuck into the 2018 playoffs with a gimpy Perry and Getz alone. Going into 2021-22, we have youths burgeoning in Zegras and Comtois along with added talented depth on the blue line with Fleury and Drysdale. Dostal is already here in the AHL. Then factor in cap space and the possibility of using Kesler's LTIR. GM Murray is trying to add talent to a team that often has had low first round picks due to being a playoff team for six consecutive seasons. Being capped strapped for a long while, GM Murray was finally able to gain cap space this off-season by design and should give him the opportunity to land a top-6 forward free agent or two.

Murray's got a long game going and it's something that the owners already know about. The Samueli's are all about the long game. They've created and are still creating a youth hockey atmosphere in southern cal. They've also brought the AHL out west, something that I didn't think would happen. These non-playoff seasons has garnered C Zegras, D Drysdale, RW Perreault, and another high draft pick. Seeing Zegras and Drysdale already in the NHL says the org is heading in the positive direction. Anaheim's past two seasons was about pushing the youth movement, but it also had a decimated blue line for both seasons. 29 one-goal games, which represents over half of the games played this seasons, identifies the Ducks are inching closer to the playoffs once again. With talent developing and with the cap space to acquire talent, the Ducks are getting closer to being playoff bound again.

This is the pattern that I see. I see the pattern, the direction of the org. GM Murray is trying to acquire more talent while being cap strapped. Let's see what happens this off-season with cap space. We probably won't know when it will happen until hit happens because Murray likes to keep everything quiet.
 

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,481
2,548
This graphic makes a case for GM Murray to be retained. There was a steep dropoff in 2008 when Burkie ditched us and left us cap strapped with an empty cupboard system. Under Burke, we had 43 playoff games and a cup. Murray added 86 more playoff games. With so many people citing that GM Murray doesn't know what he's doing or have a clear vision, this graphic dispels all of that.

When we gave Eaves a three-year extension in 2017 off-season, we were expecting Eaves, Kesler, Perry, and Getz to be carrying the team for at least the next three seasons. Nick Ritchie would look good in a sheltered role like he does now in Beantown and Kase doesn't have to be carrying the whole offense. Instead, Eaves and Kesler's talent stopped in 2017-18 season. Perry fell off in 2018-19, prompting a buyout. This exposed Ritchie to be a passenger than driver as well as our prospect forward pool being pushed to the forefront a couples of years too early. The re-building on the fly works if there is talent there to hold up the re-building. Losing three out of your top-4 top talents makes re-building on the fly nigh impossible.

Today, our cupboard has been restocked in a hurry. Our defense looks good going into the future, which might include Fleury. Our goalie situation also looks very talented with Stolarz, Dostal, and OEE. Offensively, most of our top prospects are already in the NHL and they need more experience. We have RW Perreault, C Groulx, and LW Tracey as higher end prospects. Then factor in a top-4 pick this coming draft.

It sucks losing Kesler, Eaves, and Perry all about the same time. Yet, so many people are expecting an instantaneous rise to the playoffs when we don't possess talents like a Kesler, Eaves, and Perry on hand. We snuck into the 2018 playoffs with a gimpy Perry and Getz alone. Going into 2021-22, we have youths burgeoning in Zegras and Comtois along with added talented depth on the blue line with Fleury and Drysdale. Dostal is already here in the AHL. Then factor in cap space and the possibility of using Kesler's LTIR. GM Murray is trying to add talent to a team that often has had low first round picks due to being a playoff team for six consecutive seasons. Being capped strapped for a long while, GM Murray was finally able to gain cap space this off-season by design and should give him the opportunity to land a top-6 forward free agent or two.

Murray's got a long game going and it's something that the owners already know about. The Samueli's are all about the long game. They've created and are still creating a youth hockey atmosphere in southern cal. They've also brought the AHL out west, something that I didn't think would happen. These non-playoff seasons has garnered C Zegras, D Drysdale, RW Perreault, and another high draft pick. Seeing Zegras and Drysdale already in the NHL says the org is heading in the positive direction. Anaheim's past two seasons was about pushing the youth movement, but it also had a decimated blue line for both seasons. 29 one-goal games, which represents over half of the games played this seasons, identifies the Ducks are inching closer to the playoffs once again. With talent developing and with the cap space to acquire talent, the Ducks are getting closer to being playoff bound again.

This is the pattern that I see. I see the pattern, the direction of the org. GM Murray is trying to acquire more talent while being cap strapped. Let's see what happens this off-season with cap space. We probably won't know when it will happen until hit happens because Murray likes to keep everything quiet.

As usual, a lot of word salad combined with suspect logic.

The fact that Murray was able to sustain a good core for a lot of playoff appearances, without winning a cup: (i) arguably shows he's good but not good enough (debatable); and (ii) clearly has no bearing on whether he's good at tearing down and rebuilding a roster. His stubborn refusal to accept a rebuild and inability/unwillingness to trade guys at peak value (Rakell/Manson), combined with some really bad contracts that were clearly bad at the time they were signed (Henrique and Silf) is ample evidence that he's not good at (ii).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elvs

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,187
32,951
SoCal
As usual, a lot of word salad combined with suspect logic.

The fact that Murray was able to sustain a good core for a lot of playoff appearances, without winning a cup: (i) arguably shows he's good but not good enough (debatable); and (ii) clearly has no bearing on whether he's good at tearing down and rebuilding a roster. His stubborn refusal to accept a rebuild and inability/unwillingness to trade guys at peak value (Rakell/Manson), combined with some really bad contracts that were clearly bad at the time they were signed (Henrique and Silf) is ample evidence that he's not good at (ii).
He rebuilt the team once though. He went through two distinct cores that were championship caliber. That shows pretty clearly that he *can* do it successfully.

And as a general rule, we need to make it to the other side of this rebuild before we can decide if it has been successful or not.
 
Oct 18, 2011
44,064
9,673
He rebuilt the team once though. He went through two distinct cores that were championship caliber. That shows pretty clearly that he *can* do it successfully.

And as a general rule, we need to make it to the other side of this rebuild before we can decide if it has been successful or not.
we made 1 WCF with him as GM, over the course of 12+ years, to me that is not successful and most teams GM would not keep his job this long
 

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,481
2,548
He rebuilt the team once though. He went through two distinct cores that were championship caliber. That shows pretty clearly that he *can* do it successfully.

And as a general rule, we need to make it to the other side of this rebuild before we can decide if it has been successful or not.

I think we have drastically different definitions of rebuild.

What period of time are you referring to as a Bob Murray rebuild? Because during his entire tenure, which started in November 2008, he had the Getzlaf/Perry core (in their prime) with solid goaltending and in my view, the ducks never came close to a rebuild until the current one (which was late to start and is not going so great).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elvs

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,481
2,548
Two WCF, top five in the league in playoff games. That isn't successful? Jesus.

You are moving the goalposts. The claim, as I made it, is that although BM arguably did a good job with a mature roster, that clearly has no bearing on whether he's good at tearing down and rebuilding a roster.

So to answer your question, two WCF, top five in the league in playoff games isn't evidence of success in rebuilding a roster. It just isn't.

Not to mention with two different cores and ownership limits the more successful franchises do not have.

I'm not sure what ownership limits you're referring to. Is that $$? The last 5 years before this, the ducks have spent to the cap. The issue isn't how much they've spent (cap), but how they've spent it (bad contracts to henrique, silf, stoner, Bieksa, etc.). That's on Murray.

And, in any event, even if there were ownership limits, that has no bearing on a rebuild unless you're somehow claiming that the Samueli's - the lease involved owner's in the league - somehow meddled in Murray's rebuild. Not only is there no evidence of that, but there's lots of evidence to the contrary, most notably, things Murray has done (e.g., claiming the ducks would compete for the playoffs and signing Shattenkirk).
 
Jul 29, 2003
31,639
5,336
Saskatoon
Visit site
I think we have drastically different definitions of rebuild.

What period of time are you referring to as a Bob Murray rebuild? Because during his entire tenure, which started in November 2008, he had the Getzlaf/Perry core (in their prime) with solid goaltending and in my view, the ducks never came close to a rebuild until the current one (which was late to start and is not going so great).

You're definitely gonna have a different definition of rebuild than some, including myself, if yours apparently is burning everything to the ground and starting fresh. I mean, just look at the game sheet from his first game as GM and then look at one in 2015, it's not exactly minor tinkering going on.

They used the word retool a lot at the time but there's really only two constants during that time. He inherited two cornerstones so it's certainly easier than some but I don't see how you can't call it a rebuild.
 

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,481
2,548
You're definitely gonna have a different definition of rebuild than some, including myself, if yours apparently is burning everything to the ground and starting fresh. I mean, just look at the game sheet from his first game as GM and then look at one in 2015, it's not exactly minor tinkering going on.

They used the word retool a lot at the time but there's really only two constants during that time. He inherited two cornerstones so it's certainly easier than some but I don't see how you can't call it a rebuild.

If your definition of rebuild is to compare the rosters from 2008 to 2015 and then note they are very different, then, by your definition, literally every team has rebuilt. Because comparing rosters 7 years apart is just an absurd metric. Patently absurd. Murray did a nice job keeping the roster competitive over that period - I don't dispute that. But, again, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying he has never truly done a rebuild. Not even when he was GM in Chicago.

If you want to see Exhibit A to the definition of rebuild, look at LA (or even Colorado and Toronto before that). Rebuilding means keeping a few core players (not "burning everything to the ground" which I never suggested) and trading other players who are valuable but not in the right window. Since 2017, the Kings got very nice returns for Martinez, Muzzin, and Toffoli. They also traded and acquired futures for Ben Bishop, Cammallari, Gaborik, Tanner Pearson (and then flipped Hagelin who they got for Pearson), Clifford, Campbell, Nate Thompson and Forbert.

During that period, they also managed to have a few losing seasons which resulted in very strong drafts, led by Byfield, Turcotte, Kaliyev, Bjornfot, Vilardi, etc. According to most experts, they have one of the top 3 prospect pools in the league. During that time, they also burned off most of the term on a few bad untradeable contracts (Quick, Carter, Brown) and are now poised to really do well for the next few years, with a strong improving team and some cap space.

Compare that to what Murray has done the past few years. He's lived in a complete state of denial, leaving the team in mediocrity. He's held on to depreciating assets (Rakell and Manson) and given out bad contracts to veterans who are now have negative value (Silf/Henrique). Again, I'm not saying trade everyone or burn it down. I am saying Murray's assessment of his team's needs has been awful and he's been too stubborn (by his own admission) to rip off the band aid and make the hard decisions.

There is an interesting decision coming with Manson, both in terms of expansion protection and resigning him potentially. Let's see what he does - it will be very telling.
 
Jul 29, 2003
31,639
5,336
Saskatoon
Visit site
If your definition of rebuild is to compare the rosters from 2008 to 2015 and then note they are very different, then, by your definition, literally every team has rebuilt. Because comparing rosters 7 years apart is just an absurd metric. Patently absurd. Murray did a nice job keeping the roster competitive over that period - I don't dispute that. But, again, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying he has never truly done a rebuild. Not even when he was GM in Chicago.

If you want to see Exhibit A to the definition of rebuild, look at LA (or even Colorado and Toronto before that). Rebuilding means keeping a few core players (not "burning everything to the ground" which I never suggested) and trading other players who are valuable but not in the right window. Since 2017, the Kings got very nice returns for Martinez, Muzzin, and Toffoli. They also traded and acquired futures for Ben Bishop, Cammallari, Gaborik, Tanner Pearson (and then flipped Hagelin who they got for Pearson), Clifford, Campbell, Nate Thompson and Forbert.

During that period, they also managed to have a few losing seasons which resulted in very strong drafts, led by Byfield, Turcotte, Kaliyev, Bjornfot, Vilardi, etc. According to most experts, they have one of the top 3 prospect pools in the league. During that time, they also burned off most of the term on a few bad untradeable contracts (Quick, Carter, Brown) and are now poised to really do well for the next few years, with a strong improving team and some cap space.

Compare that to what Murray has done the past few years. He's lived in a complete state of denial, leaving the team in mediocrity. He's held on to depreciating assets (Rakell and Manson) and given out bad contracts to veterans who are now have negative value (Silf/Henrique). Again, I'm not saying trade everyone or burn it down. I am saying Murray's assessment of his team's needs has been awful and he's been too stubborn (by his own admission) to rip off the band aid and make the hard decisions.

There is an interesting decision coming with Manson, both in terms of expansion protection and resigning him potentially. Let's see what he does - it will be very telling.

I just did that to show how radically different the roster was from when he took over to when they really ascended. Like I said, it's not minor tweaks, they're completely different, to the point where it's basically just two constants.

Your definition is kind of absurd lol. You haven't really given a reason for why that wasnt a rebuild other than they weren't uncompetitive during that stretch. So what? There's 90% turnover, that's literally what rebuilding is.
 
Aug 11, 2011
28,139
21,592
Am Yisrael Chai
Your definition is kind of absurd lol. You haven't really given a reason for why that wasnt a rebuild other than they weren't uncompetitive during that stretch. So what? There's 90% turnover, that's literally what rebuilding is.
This actually just points out what a fantastic job rebuilding it was. People really seem to want to suffer during a rebuild, like it's the suffering that earns a good team. There's no law that says that, I think people are just bad at understanding how to build teams. The team that BM rebuilt could easily have won multiple Cups, that's as successful as it gets.
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,187
32,951
SoCal
You are moving the goalposts. The claim, as I made it, is that although BM arguably did a good job with a mature roster, that clearly has no bearing on whether he's good at tearing down and rebuilding a roster.

So to answer your question, two WCF, top five in the league in playoff games isn't evidence of success in rebuilding a roster. It just isn't.



I'm not sure what ownership limits you're referring to. Is that $$? The last 5 years before this, the ducks have spent to the cap. The issue isn't how much they've spent (cap), but how they've spent it (bad contracts to henrique, silf, stoner, Bieksa, etc.). That's on Murray.

And, in any event, even if there were ownership limits, that has no bearing on a rebuild unless you're somehow claiming that the Samueli's - the lease involved owner's in the league - somehow meddled in Murray's rebuild. Not only is there no evidence of that, but there's lots of evidence to the contrary, most notably, things Murray has done (e.g., claiming the ducks would compete for the playoffs and signing Shattenkirk).
I'll be honest, I don't have the energy to really properly respond to this. The first quote wasn't to you though, it was to another member if you scroll up.

Our definitions of rebuilding and success differ greatly so I think that's a good endpoint for me, respectfully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gliff
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->