Proposal: ANA Mega Rebuild: MTL/TOR/COL/CHI/NYR/PIT/WPG

Status
Not open for further replies.

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
This is more like the Ducks going full re - something else.

You are sorely mistaken if you think this series of moves puts the Ducks in a better position. A rebuilding team should be looking to add pieces like Gibson, not trade them for a bunch of crap.

There is a really bad misconception around here that a team needs to go complete full tank in order to get better. Trading all your best players for a bunch of non elite prospects and late 1sts has a very low chance of making a team better at any point. Anaheim doesn't need to get any worse in order to get better, and they are not hurting for young depth whatsoever. They need more high end core pieces, so trading off the few that they have for all this stuff is completely ass backwards.

Rebuilding teams generally don't build around players who will be outside of their primes by the time they are relevant again, no.

Dislike it all you want but full on tanking is an excellent strategy and knowing the difference between that and teams who are just terribly ran is an important distinction as well.

I do agree that Ana is a pretty bad team either way and will get a high draft pick regardless.

You seem to be the one who is confused on how rebuilding works though, not me
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
So you think your proposal is bad idea that MB would agree to?

I think it works because its something MB would do, and I also think that MB is very bad at his job. What you extrapolate from that onwards is up to you
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
This will go down as the worst post with 7 trades ever made on this forum. :laugh:

Outside of the Georgiev deal everything else is horrendously bad. Anaheim literally blows it up and the best futures piece they get back is Heinola? :laugh:

I think you severely underestimate how bad some of the things posted on here are lol.

Also I would almost say its hard enough to ever see 1-2 good trades on here let alone 7 from a single team lmao. I would also add that what we see in reality is often far far worse than the standards people on here think are realistic
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Rebuild implies getting better. And as I mentioned - any team using Max freaking Domi as a 1C is destined for a perma tank

It also implies that you trade off established things for better things - I didnt see any argument about my player valuation

Key word here you missed is getting better eventually. You clearly are confused with "win now"
 

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
22,981
15,342
Worst Case, Ontario
Rebuilding teams generally don't build around players who will be outside of their primes by the time they are relevant again, no.

Dislike it all you want but full on tanking is an excellent strategy and knowing the difference between that and teams who are just terribly ran is an important distinction as well.

I do agree that Ana is a pretty bad team either way and will get a high draft pick regardless.

You seem to be the one who is confused on how rebuilding works though, not me

Rebuilding teams who don't keep any semblance of a veteran core always struggle to truly compete. Banking on a bunch of unproven teenagers has not proven to be a winning formula. Collecting a bunch of B prospects does not equal prosperity, never has. Sorry but you are of this broken HF mindset that hoarding non elite futures is the way to rebuild and I really don't see any example of that being the case.

The Ducks don't need to be bad passed Gibson and Lindholm's prime if they don't go full tank mode and completely strip themselves of all established talent. In honestly the full tank mode is quite ill advised for a tight budget team in a very saturated sports market. They can't sell off any reasons to come watch the team, resign themselves to being terrible for five plus years and hope to win a lottery some day. They need to get this thing turned around sooner than that, a complete blow up will put this team closer to being run out of town than to winning a Cup.

Even if I did agree with your premise, you literally have not offered one piece who a team should be banking on as a true cornerstone. I'd much rather start a rebuild with the few building blocks we have a place than with a fistful of magic beans .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Spazkat

The Duck Knight

Henry, you're our only hope!
Feb 6, 2012
8,060
4,520
702
Rebuilding teams generally don't build around players who will be outside of their primes by the time they are relevant again, no.

Dislike it all you want but full on tanking is an excellent strategy and knowing the difference between that and teams who are just terribly ran is an important distinction as well.

I do agree that Ana is a pretty bad team either way and will get a high draft pick regardless.

You seem to be the one who is confused on how rebuilding works though, not me

I don't have any issue with your general premise, but if the Ducks were going to blow it up (they're not) and move all of their best pieces they'd want quality over quantity. This is the opposite. I don't know any way to justify a team moving Gibson/Lindholm/Fowler/Rakell/etc. without getting a single blue chip asset back.
 

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
22,981
15,342
Worst Case, Ontario
Key word here you missed is getting better eventually. You clearly are confused with "win now"

Do you honestly think trading our elite goalie, who is signed long term through his prime, for that pile of stuff, will ever actually actually make a team better at any point?

Five years down the road, and we're lucky if we get a couple solid contributors out of the deal. Keeping an established elite talent has an exponentially better chance of helping us compete in the future than those pieces. That's what I'm talking about with the misconception over how to build a team - we need to add like 3 more Gibson level talents to be competitive. Starting by trading him for a pile of stuff is completely backwards. You are suggesting the asset management version of chucking a bunch of low percentage shots.
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
I don't have any issue with your general premise, but if the Ducks were going to blow it up (they're not) and move all of their best pieces they'd want quality over quantity. This is the opposite. I don't know any way to justify a team moving Gibson/Lindholm/Fowler/Rakell/etc. without getting a single blue chip asset back.

I think its very important to point out that this was intentionally very dumb/silly/fun.

However I would be VERY interested and entertained if you have the time to have you give it a shot and see where we differ. Its honestly kinda enjoyable being like "trade every player in their prime" and not be incredibly boring by making them all of them one sided. Win some trades, lose some trades, be silly.
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Do you honestly think trading our elite goalie, who is signed long term through his prime, for that pile of stuff, will ever actually actually make a team better at any point?

Five years down the road, and we're lucky if we get a couple solid contributors out of the deal. Keeping an established elite talent has an exponentially better chance of helping us compete in the future than those pieces. That's what I'm talking about with the misconception over how to build a team - we need to add like 3 more Gibson level talents to be competitive. Starting by trading him for a pile of stuff is completely backwards. You are suggesting the asset management version of chucking a bunch of low percentage shots.

Do you see the humor in treating this post seriously.

Like don't get me wrong, this post is intentionally dumb, but I didn't expect to get people commenting who actually went below that bar lmao.

However to give you an accurate response. I would say I don't expect the Ducks to be able to build a contender before many of their current pieces are past their prime, and thus should clearly trade them for pieces that line up with that. Who and for what is debatable
 

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
186,842
20,299
Chicagoland
Trade 3:
Chi: Debrincat, Beaudin, Maatta
Ana: Lindholm, Deslauriers, Gudbranson

Chi gets a true top pairing Dman they desperately need using a position they have an excess of, as well as swapping a dmen to clear some cap the year after next..

Deslauriers blows and Gudbranson is absolutely meh bottom pairing defender

Not giving up Debrincat + Beaudin + Maatta for 2 yrs of Lindholm (Who will be UFA at end of 2 years)

Also Lindholm has had some issues staying healthy in recent years

Also I have always found Lindholm to be a bit overrated
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pertti

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
22,981
15,342
Worst Case, Ontario
Do you see the humor in treating this post seriously.

Like don't get me wrong, this post is intentionally dumb, but I didn't expect to get people commenting who actually went below that bar lmao.

However to give you an accurate response. I would say I don't expect the Ducks to be able to build a contender before many of their current pieces are past their prime, and thus should clearly trade them for pieces that line up with that. Who and for what is debatable

Personally have always thought silly fantasy threads should go in the fantasy section and prefer to come here for an mature discussion about what teams may actually do in reality but to each their own. If you were going for any sense of realism you are miles off on most of these. But it seems like you just wanted to play NHL 20 for an audience so mission accomplished I guess.
 

SEALBound

Fancy Gina Carano
Sponsor
Jun 13, 2010
40,104
18,215
If you think Gru is a downgrade on Murray I would like to remind you its not 2017 anymore. But you seem to think Getz is also in 2022 so I would stay away from the time machine

Dude...no. Insulting the fan base isnt helping your cause.
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Personally have always thought silly fantasy threads should go in the fantasy section and prefer to come here for an mature discussion about what teams may actually do in reality but to each their own. If you were going for any sense of realism you are miles off on most of these. But it seems like you just wanted to play NHL 20 for an audience so mission accomplished I guess.

This entire website is silly fantasy lmao, who you think you foolin? If you think internet message boards are where people go for 'mature discussion' boy are you in for a trip. There is maybe 5-10 good posts on this place in an entire year lol.
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Dude...no. Insulting the fan base isnt helping your cause.

Posters on here insult themselves by what they post. I just respond to each comment in kind. If you post valid and thought provoking conversation then I respond. If you are hella dumb I make fun of you for it. As it should be.

Also I don't have a 'cause', this is a meme thread.
 

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
22,981
15,342
Worst Case, Ontario
This entire website is silly fantasy lmao, who you think you foolin? If you think internet message boards are where people go for 'mature discussion' boy are you in for a trip. There is maybe 5-10 good posts on this place in an entire year lol.

I wouldn't still be here after all these years if there wasn't quality conversation to be had. Absolutely are many informed, intelligent hockey fans to discuss the game with here. Unfortunately a lot the quality gets buried by this silly attention seeking crap. I'll never understand what the heck anyone would ever hope to get out of trying to make a "meme thread" but I can guarantee there are better ways to spend your time
 

SRHRangers

Registered User
Aug 18, 2020
4,367
5,334
I think there could be a deal with NYR as well, they certainly have the pieces. DeAngelo sucks though so don't bother adding him. Kravtsov+Beauch would probably work pretty well if you wanted to leave out Chi and expand upon Geo.

I really like Debrincat for this concept though and already moving for Domi and having Zegras makes other center prospects less enticing as guys with proven offensive upside. One of the issues is that you get a lot of depth and potential but the true high end players are harder to come by

I give Kravtsov, Georgie, and a B prospect or a 3rd rounder for Lindholm if you are insistent on Georgie in the deal.

If not set on Georgie, I would give Kravtsov/Car 1st for Lindholm.

I'm usually for being set for this off-season, but I would really like the fit for the Rangers with Lindholm.
 

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
22,981
15,342
Worst Case, Ontario
I give Kravtsov, Georgie, and a B prospect or a 3rd rounder for Lindholm if you are insistent on Georgie in the deal.

If not set on Georgie, I would give Kravtsov/Car 1st for Lindholm.

I'm usually for being set for this off-season, but I would really like the fit for the Rangers with Lindholm.

Anaheim hasn't drafted/signed/employed a young Russian player for too long for it to be any coincidence. I definitely wouldn't bank on them trading their best Dman for a Russian prospect.
 

Drew311

Makes The Pass
Oct 29, 2010
11,902
2,381
With that projected roster the only good part for the Ducks is they’ll have the best chance to draft Wright in 2022.
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
I wouldn't still be here after all these years if there wasn't quality conversation to be had. Absolutely are many informed, intelligent hockey fans to discuss the game with here. Unfortunately a lot the quality gets buried by this silly attention seeking crap. I'll never understand what the heck anyone would ever hope to get out of trying to make a "meme thread" but I can guarantee there are better ways to spend your time

Every smart post ever is "seems good" and disappears. Every dump article is here for months. Its just how these things work, no reason to fight that.

Also there are people worth talking to on here but its more of a rarity than not.

If you don't understand fun, its because you aren't fun, which so far checks out
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Anaheim hasn't drafted/signed/employed a young Russian player for too long for it to be any coincidence. I definitely wouldn't bank on them trading their best Dman for a Russian prospect.

Your retort is a conspiracy theory that Ana is racist?
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
I give Kravtsov, Georgie, and a B prospect or a 3rd rounder for Lindholm if you are insistent on Georgie in the deal.

If not set on Georgie, I would give Kravtsov/Car 1st for Lindholm.

I'm usually for being set for this off-season, but I would really like the fit for the Rangers with Lindholm.

I think that pairing has been talked about a few times. That proposal could make sense if they choose to move Gibson but that is honestly very unlikely to happen so probably not realistic, but not bad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->