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

[Anaheim4ever]

That's been this guy's modus operandi for the last goodness knows how long, and nobody understands any of it. I wouldn't get too worked up over it, it's just literally the ideations of someone who doesn't like Fowler very much for whatever misguided reason.

It has nothing to do with that and all ur doing is adding insults/trolling.

Fowler will be how old when his contract runs out ? He'll be in decline by the time the Ducks are good again.
With potentially Hughes added to Fowler, Lindholm and Fleury they eventually need to move his contract but he has a NTC

They may be able to trade Fowler to Seattle instead if they tell him he'll be exposed to Seattle if he puts them on his NTC.

 

[lwvs84]

How does Fowler's NTC work? Is it 4 teams that he can be traded to or 27 teams he can block (like when Seattle comes in, does it become 5 teams he can be moved to)?

 

[Gliff]

How does Fowler's NTC work? Is it 4 teams that he can be traded to or 27 teams he can block (like when Seattle comes in, does it become 5 teams he can be moved to)?

He chooses 4 teams he can be traded to without waiving.

 

[Dryish]

It has nothing to do with that and all ur doing is adding insults/trolling.

Fowler will be how old when his contract runs out ? He'll be in decline by the time the Ducks are good again.
With potentially Hughes added to Fowler, Lindholm and Fleury they eventually need to move his contract but he has a NTC

They may be able to trade Fowler to Seattle instead if they tell him he'll be exposed to Seattle if he puts them on his NTC.

It's not trolling, really, what you're suggesting is just downright baffling. And the last time we asked you why you want to get rid of Fowler so ardently when we have enough cap space to sign everyone and go big game hunting this off season or the next you never answered anything.

I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up and I bit: there's absolutely no need to trade Fowler right now. If we need cap space down the line, trade him next season or the one after that. He won't decline so much in a year or two that we'd get no return for him. Right now having him is more of a blessing than a curse, and our team would be significantly weaker without him in the lineup. Especially if we don't draft an NHL-ready D, which we most likely will not get to do. Even Power isn't necessarily ready to jump in straight out of the gate. All we'd accomplish is making ourselves worse in the short term for some plausible future gain, which is... downright unnecessary.

 

[DavidBL]

It's not trolling, really, what you're suggesting is just downright baffling. And the last time we asked you why you want to get rid of Fowler so ardently when we have enough cap space to sign everyone and go big game hunting this off season or the next you never answered anything.

I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up and I bit: there's absolutely no need to trade Fowler right now. If we need cap space down the line, trade him next season or the one after that. He won't decline so much in a year or two that we'd get no return for him. Right now having him is more of a blessing than a curse, and our team would be significantly weaker without him in the lineup. Especially if we don't draft an NHL-ready D, which we most likely will not get to do. Even Power isn't necessarily ready to jump in straight out of the gate. All we'd accomplish is making ourselves worse in the short term for some plausible future gain, which is... downright unnecessary.

I think he is suggesting it would be easier to move him now then in a few years. He can be exposed without having to waive which is not true if we want to trade him a few years down the line. We may not need to now but it is easiest time to, assuming Seattle selects him. I disagree with the idea but I can see the logic. I see it as jumping the gun. You do t move players before you know what you have ready to replace them. That's likely why we had Montour over Theo IMO. If sometime in the future Fowler is expendable you look into it then. No reason to do it now.

 

[cheesymc]

Seattle picking Rico would be a long term blessing. We need to protect all of our cheap young players and expose all of our expensive contracts. I’d rather lose Silver if need be than a guy like Max Jones, or Steel. Sure they haven’t established themselves as much as Silver, but they are so cheap and young, and at least have potential to improve rather then regress with age and have an immovable contract.

 

[Hey234]

I think he is suggesting it would be easier to move him now then in a few years. He can be exposed without having to waive which is not true if we want to trade him a few years down the line. We may not need to now but it is easiest time to, assuming Seattle selects him. I disagree with the idea but I can see the logic.

But the logic doesn't add up. Being selected by Seattle is losing a valuable asset for free. Trading Fowler later, even if he isn't as valuable then, will still return something. It's just bad asset management and the Ducks have had enough issues in this area already.

 

[DavidBL]

But the logic doesn't add up. Being selected by Seattle is losing a valuable asset for free. Trading Fowler later, even if he isn't as valuable then, will still return something. It's just bad asset management and the Ducks have had enough issues in this area already.

It adds up if you think you have to add assets to move the player in the future to move the contract.

 

[JonathnTaylorTavares]

I was a valet at a hotel a couple years ago and the Ducks had an event. Rico came back and asked me to get his sunglasses from his car. I brought them to him but he was holding stuff, asked if I could put them on his face for him. Get rid of him

 

[cheesymc]

I was a valet at a hotel a couple years ago and the Ducks had an event. Rico came back and asked me to get his sunglasses from his car. I brought them to him but he was holding stuff, asked if I could put them on his face for him. Get rid of him

No tip?? Rat Bastard…

 

[Hey234]

It adds up if you think you have to add assets to move the player in the future to move the contract.

I suppose. But when will that be? He has 5 years left on his contract. He has had back-to-back solid seasons and, if the team improves, then that should help him maintain his strong top 4 play.

It just seems strange to lose an asset for free under the premise his contract eventually could be bad. Should the Ducks have traded Getzlaf with 5 years left on his contract because he might not be 8+ mil player in the last year or two? I'm not against trading Fowler for the right offer and with a replacement ready. But the notion that it's a good idea to lose a consistent top 4 defensemen for free because it might be a little too expensive 4-5 years later doesn't add up

 

[Quackattack]

Yeah... no one is trading for Fowler in flat cap era. NHL is all about contracts now, and his is bad value. Even if exposed, I doubt he gets picked up. If he does, that cap space is great!

 

[Trojans86]

I wouldnt mind a decent pick for fowler. Like mid round first. He is a solid nhler but not a star. A lot of teams should be interested. His contract has a lot more value now than in a few years and our window isnt open yet. Id rather get some good assets now and hope they have matured a bit by the time our window is open rather than being stuck with a no value fowler contract in 3 years.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Yeah... no one is trading for Fowler in flat cap era. NHL is all about contracts now, and his is bad value. Even if exposed, I doubt he gets picked up. If he does, that cap space is great!

Detroit has the need (he would instantly be their best D until Seider develops), the cap space and Fowler happens to be local. They gained an extra later first somehow in that Vrana/Mantha deal and could use it on an upgrade.

 

[Gliff]

Yeah... no one is trading for Fowler in flat cap era. NHL is all about contracts now, and his is bad value. Even if exposed, I doubt he gets picked up. If he does, that cap space is great!

The Ducks need Fowler more then they need cap space.

Cap space isn’t he one thing the Ducks will have tons of in the next couple years.

 

[Quackattack]

The Ducks need Fowler more then they need cap space.

Cap space isn’t he one thing the Ducks will have tons of in the next couple years.

What do we need Fowler for? To finish third last instead of last?

 

[dracom]

What do we need Fowler for? To finish third last instead of last?

By your logic why do we need literally anyone on the team

 

[Duck Off]

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?

 

[Quackattack]

By your logic why do we need literally anyone on the team

That is probably a good question to ask as we continue the rebuild. Evaluate each person in a window of 2-3 years from now, with contract value as the biggest point of emphasis and maximizing potential.

 

[Paul4587]

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?

That’s what makes the most sense to me. I could see Murray wanting to protect Silfverberg though.

 

[DavidBL]

I suppose. But when will that be? He has 5 years left on his contract. He has had back-to-back solid seasons and, if the team improves, then that should help him maintain his strong top 4 play.

It just seems strange to lose an asset for free under the premise his contract eventually could be bad. Should the Ducks have traded Getzlaf with 5 years left on his contract because he might not be 8+ mil player in the last year or two? I'm not against trading Fowler for the right offer and with a replacement ready. But the notion that it's a good idea to lose a consistent top 4 defensemen for free because it might be a little too expensive 4-5 years later doesn't add up

Totally agree. I just see how some might be scared given the situations Edm Cgy Van and Buf are currently in with the trouble they're having moving contracts.

 

[Gliff]

What do we need Fowler for? To finish third last instead of last?

Shit, lets just ice a bunch of fans then. f*** it.

I'm all for trading guys that dont fit the Ducks timeline to get assets to assist with the rebuild. Fowler may be the last person to fit that category. He is basically impossible to move due to him contract and NTC which means his return will be basically nothing.

You can't just trade everyone and expect to have a successful rebuild.

 

[Quackattack]

Shit, lets just ice a bunch of fans then. f*** it.

I'm all for trading guys that dont fit the Ducks timeline to get assets to assist with the rebuild. Fowler may be the last person to fit that category. He is basically impossible to move due to him contract and NTC which means his return will be basically nothing.

You can't just trade everyone and expect to have a successful rebuild.

LOL! That was funny! I know you’re joking about icing a bunch of fans, but that would probably help our power play!

 

[duckpuck]

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?

This looks reasonable to me. And in my opinion, you protect Steel simply because he's a center who is good at faceoffs and has more offensive upside. Jones is a decent piece, but I don't see him as having a big role 2-3 years from now.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Shit, lets just ice a bunch of fans then. f*** it.

I'm all for trading guys that dont fit the Ducks timeline to get assets to assist with the rebuild. Fowler may be the last person to fit that category. He is basically impossible to move due to him contract and NTC which means his return will be basically nothing.

You can't just trade everyone and expect to have a successful rebuild.

Ya idk why we gave him a 4 team NTC.... not the best move by bm