Confirmed with Link: 2021 Expansion Draft (Haydn Fleury selected from Anaheim)

[nbducksfan19]

Yup. Eerily similar.

Protecting Jones over him is a huge mistake.

I really don’t agree with this logic. For every 1 wild bill with those parallels, there are dozens of failed prospects. Could it happen twice, I guess, but I don’t think those similarities are any indication that it will.

with that said, I see steel and jones having similar value.

 

[Paul4587]

Curious to know your reason for optimism in Steel. He seems to have regressed since his rookie year and Jones has arguably shown some signs of growth since his.

Jones to me is what he is, he has great physical tools but lacks the IQ to ever be much more than a third liner. Steel on the other hand has a really good hockey IQ and if he can put it together has a lot higher upside. He’s still adding size and he’s young enough that he should be able to find another gear in his skating if he works at it. Those two things are what’s holding him back IMO, small gains in those areas would go a long way.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

same. I think we expose Steel over him and Steel us ultimately who I think we’ll lose. He or Mahura. I put “Steel/Jones” since the board seemed somewhat split on who we’d protect of the 2. I agree about Jones though.

I still think the chances of us losing Shat are underrated. He's not THAT expensive.

 

[ADHB]

I tend to think BM makes a deal to select a specific player then it won't matter who we protect.

Doubt it. Murray has been quoted several times that GM’s have learned their lesson. Maybe other teams go that route. But with a roster as crappy as ours, why in the world would he spend anything? Just let them take someone for free.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Doubt it. Murray has been quoted several times that GM’s have learned their lesson. Maybe other teams go that route. But with a roster as crappy as ours, why in the world would he spend anything? Just let them take someone for free.

I don't know if he makes one either but not every deal is like the Theodore one. Crappy or not there's guys on the roster you'd prefer to keep and a mid to late round pick might be worth that peace of mind. I do doubt it happens, though.

 

[Frosted Tips]

Jones to me is what he is, he has great physical tools but lacks the IQ to ever be much more than a third liner. Steel on the other hand has a really good hockey IQ and if he can put it together has a lot higher upside. He’s still adding size and he’s young enough that he should be able to find another gear in his skating if he works at it. Those two things are what’s holding him back IMO, small gains in those areas would go a long way.

Agreed here. Jones probably won't make it as a defensive forward either due the low hockey sense and positional/defensive awareness. He's a nice buzzer who can make occasional nice plays and disrupt opposition but I don't see a lot of room to grow for him. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

I just have Wild Bill nightmares when it comes to Steel.

Curious to know your reason for optimism in Steel. He seems to have regressed since his rookie year and Jones has arguably shown some signs of growth since his.

If Steel moves to the Wing he could tap into his potential more, i think Seattle would coach away the 2way grinder game that Anaheim has forced into Steel.
Maybe the first year in Seattle he plays on the wing until he's stronger physically and then move him back to center.

 

[JabbaJabba]

I tend to think BM makes a deal to select a specific player then it won't matter who we protect.

Oh no, who is he giving away this time?

 

[Kalv]

Curious to know your reason for optimism in Steel. He seems to have regressed since his rookie year and Jones has arguably shown some signs of growth since his.

That's because Jones has pretty much matured physically. Steel has some job to do in that regard, plus his confidence kept driving lower.
I don't keep track of who is who in this regard, but if you (I really don't think about you here @FiveHoleTickler ) curse on Bob on parting with Karlsson and want to now unload Steel, I think there is some more thinking to do.
Albeit I am still pissed at how the Ducks are treating Steel (without sending down), I don't think last year was a stamp on his career yet.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

That's because Jones has pretty much matured physically. Steel has some job to do in that regard, plus his confidence kept driving lower.
I don't keep track of who is who in this regard, but if you (I really don't think about you here @FiveHoleTickler ) curse on Bob on parting with Karlsson and want to now unload Steel, I think there is some more thinking to do.
Albeit I am still pissed at how the Ducks are treating Steel (without sending down), I don't think last year was a stamp on his career yet.

I think it does come down to Steel and Jones to expose and I think the clear answer is Steel. I thought Jones had his best year so far. He seemed to find a role, finally. Also, he's one of only three (!) players on the team that actually scored more than 1 power play goal. There may be room to expand his role on the team in that sense.

I don't think it's time to give up on Steel but I also don't think people should just assume that his offensive futility is definite proof that he lacks confidence. I think it's true that he needs (or needed) more time developing physically but not necessarily learning the game, he's a smart player. He's already a half-decent defensive player. So I don't think it's necessarily harmful that he's been up with the big club for so long.

 

[Kalv]

I think it does come down to Steel and Jones to expose and I think the clear answer is Steel. I thought Jones had his best year so far. He seemed to find a role, finally. Also, he's one of only three (!) players on the team that actually scored more than 1 power play goal. There may be room to expand his role on the team in that sense.

I don't think it's time to give up on Steel but I also don't think people should just assume that his offensive futility is definite proof that he lacks confidence. I think it's true that he needs (or needed) more time developing physically but not necessarily learning the game, he's a smart player. He's already a half-decent defensive player. So I don't think it's necessarily harmful that he's been up with the big club for so long.

Agreed, except for the last part.
But it seems the team management as well thinks like you wrote, and perhaps it is the best way and well, they have way more experience than me.

But seeing how sending a player down has worked with some other players we've had, I still don't get this.

 

[Opak]

So what’s the consensus? That we’ll protect 8?

Rakell
Terry
Lundy
Jones/Steel

Fowler
Lindholm
Fleury
Manson G

Gibson

probably lose whichever we don’t protect of Steel/Jones?

Coming from the roster thread, finally catching up on all the discussion here.

My $0.02 is this -- if you go with the 8-1 protection scheme with 2 rental defensemen, you better make sure that both of those rentals get extended later on, or end up traded for really good value that makes up for losing a forward for nothing. If you fail to get any long term assets from the rental guys AND lose a forward for nothing, it's cause for a GM firing.

I mean, if you trade 1 defenseman, you can protect basically all the notable forwards by going 7-3-1. In fact, IMO we'd even have up to two spots open for potential new aquisitions up front:

Rakell, Terry, Steel, Lundy, Jones, X1, X2
Two of Lindholm/Manson/Fleury + Fowler (who is virtually untradeable due to strict NTC)
Gibson

IMO it'd be such a waste of an opportunity to go 8-1. And at the end of the day, if you value a guy like Steel/Jones so little that you're willing to give them away to Seattle for nothing, why not package one of them with one of the defensemen to bring in an upgrade or two?

Looking at the news that Philly may be completely open for business, how about Manson+ for Konecny, for example?

 

[Duck Off]

Coming from the roster thread, finally catching up on all the discussion here.

My $0.02 is this -- if you go with the 8-1 protection scheme with 2 rental defensemen, you better make sure that both of those rentals get extended later on, or end up traded for really good value that makes up for losing a forward for nothing. If you fail to get any long term assets from the rental guys AND lose a forward for nothing, it's cause for a GM firing.

I mean, if you trade 1 defenseman, you can protect basically all the notable forwards by going 7-3-1. In fact, IMO we'd even have up to two spots open for potential new aquisitions up front:

Rakell, Terry, Steel, Lundy, Jones, X1, X2
Two of Lindholm/Manson/Fleury + Fowler (who is virtually untradeable due to strict NTC)
Gibson

IMO it'd be such a waste of an opportunity to go 8-1. And at the end of the day, if you value a guy like Steel/Jones so little that you're giving them away to Seattle for nothing, why not package one of them with one of the defensemen to bring in an upgrade or two?

Looking at the news that Philly may be completely open for business, how about Manson+ for Konecny, for example?

the reason it’s not as simple as “trade them” before the ED is because the other teams are in the same boat. Now, if someone has an available spot, sure, but chances are that you’re not going to get great value for whoever you’re trading before ED due to lack of options. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s nearly that simple either.

 

[bumperkisser]

Steel/Jones don't really have value to me. Id expose em for sure

 

[bsu]

I could careless losing Steel or Jones compared to what we have and other teams have given up in the past.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Coming from the roster thread, finally catching up on all the discussion here.

My $0.02 is this -- if you go with the 8-1 protection scheme with 2 rental defensemen, you better make sure that both of those rentals get extended later on, or end up traded for really good value that makes up for losing a forward for nothing. If you fail to get any long term assets from the rental guys AND lose a forward for nothing, it's cause for a GM firing.

I mean, if you trade 1 defenseman, you can protect basically all the notable forwards by going 7-3-1. In fact, IMO we'd even have up to two spots open for potential new aquisitions up front:

Rakell, Terry, Steel, Lundy, Jones, X1, X2
Two of Lindholm/Manson/Fleury + Fowler (who is virtually untradeable due to strict NTC)
Gibson

IMO it'd be such a waste of an opportunity to go 8-1. And at the end of the day, if you value a guy like Steel/Jones so little that you're willing to give them away to Seattle for nothing, why not package one of them with one of the defensemen to bring in an upgrade or two?

Looking at the news that Philly may be completely open for business, how about Manson+ for Konecny, for example?

Couldn't disagree more. In your scenario we lose two of our best defensemen (and we do have good defenseman) to protect our 7th best forward, on a team with only about 5 decent forwards. D is our deepest position, I wouldn't gut that just to hang on to Steel's fading star. And yes I recognize he could still be a good NHLer.

 

[dracom]

people need to realize that guys like Steel and Jones are dime a dozen players with little trade value. losing them to Seattle for nothing isn't the end of the world. Our roster won't be that damaged by it. And we can't just package them to some other team for better players because teams already have their own Steel and Jones.

Just go 8 skaters, protect
Rakell, Terry, Lundestrom, Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, Fluery, and the 8th guys doesn't matter.

We'll only lose guy, if we lose Rico that sucks but we get rid of a contract we don't necessarily want. If we lose Self, we lose a guy who has been a great player for us who has struggled with injuries but again it's getting rid of a rough contract for a guy we don't know how he'll be after his injury. If we lose Shattenkirk, same thing, our D will be fine. Lose Steel or Jones and we lost a guy we can replace pretty easily.

seems like a pretty easy decision to go 8-1 to me.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Steel/Jones don't really have value to me. Id expose em for sure

We have a Steel replacement in Groulx in our system. Assuming we protect Rico, then we have Zegras, Rico, and Lundestrom as our top-9 centers.

We have a Jones replacement in Volkov. Jones had 11 pts (7g + 4a) in 46 games. Volkov put up 8 pts (4g + 4a) in only 18 games with the Ducks. Sneaky move by GM Murray.

I still think that Stolarz carries far more value than those two as Stolarz is signed for $0.95 mil for the next two seasons where it looked liked he outplayed Gibby at the conclusion of the season. Stolarz has been buried on the depth chart with Gibby and Miller in front of him, and rightly so. Stolarz can actually steal games, but I don't think Steel and Jones can do that on their own today. Plus, Steel and Jones are RFA's that will probably pay them more than Stolarz current salary.

Heck, I dunno how Shatty got 15 points this year, but he did. Shatty might look more appealing as a veteran offensive defenseman to the Kraken if they're wanting to be competitive this year (tongue-in-check at GM Murray... heh).

 

[Opak]

Couldn't disagree more. In your scenario we lose two of our best defensemen (and we do have good defenseman) to protect our 7th best forward, on a team with only about 5 decent forwards. D is our deepest position, I wouldn't gut that just to hang on to Steel's fading star. And yes I recognize he could still be a good NHLer.

We would be losing only one of Lindholm, Manson or Fleury prior to ED. I don't know where you got the bolded impression from.

Protecting Steel/Jones is one thing, but the potential of adding more guys up front via trade is another. There are many teams around the league that have forwards that they can't protect, why not capitalize on the fact that we have extra protection spots up front?

the reason it’s not as simple as “trade them” before the ED is because the other teams are in the same boat. Now, if someone has an available spot, sure, but chances are that you’re not going to get great value for whoever you’re trading before ED due to lack of options. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s nearly that simple either.

I get that it may be difficult to make a move, but you always have to look for ways to make the most of your opportunities.

New Jersey, for example, would have a protection spot open for a defenseman (Severson, Butcher, X). Seattle won't select Subban (too expensive, last year of contract) or Siegenthaler (replacement level), the rest of their D are UFAs.

 

[DavidBL]

Imo Steel vs Jones you protect Steel. He plays the more important position. He actually out produced Jones and he has more upside. Jones definitely found a role this year but its a bottom 6 winger. Steel is a bottom 6 center with upside to be more.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

We would be losing only one of Lindholm, Manson or Fleury prior to ED. I don't know where you got the bolded impression from.

Protecting Steel/Jones is one thing, but the potential of adding more guys up front via trade is another. There are many teams around the league that have forwards that they can't protect, why not capitalize on the fact that we have extra protection spots up front?

And what happens at the ED?

 

[Opak]

And what happens at the ED?

If we trade one of the 4 defenders before ED, we're left with 3, all of who we can protect in a 7-3-1 scheme. Seattle doesn't get a defenseman that we really care about.

 

[AngelDuck]

You aren't going to be able to trade one of our "big 4" defenders prior to the expansion draft for a fair return. If Murray wanted to go that route, he should have moved Manson at the trade deadline.

It's too late for that

 

[Opak]

You aren't going to be able to trade one of our "big 4" defenders prior to the expansion draft for a fair return. If Murray wanted to go that route, he should have moved Manson at the trade deadline.

It's too late for that

Believe or not, there are (at least) teams like Ottawa and NJ, who have a protection spot open for a defenseman. Not sure about Detroit, but their defense doesn't look that great either. There could be a decent market out there for a good defenseman, even in a pre-expansion environment.

Look, all I'm advocating is to explore the options. The way we have our team set up right now, we could be one of the few teams to actually GAIN from the expansion.

 

[anezthes]

Karlsson used to be my favourite (forward) prospect. Steel eventually took that spot, but I don't see the same upside. If he is drafted by Seattle, I hope he kills it. While I don't care for Vegas, I'm happy for Karlsson and Theodore. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯