Confirmed with Link: [ANA/WSH] Christian Djoos for Daniel Sprong

[SmokeyDuck]

Djoos has been solid.

 

[bsu]

Could have waived bieska

 

[Static]

Could have waived bieska

Players with NMC can't be waived.

 

[bsu]

Players with NMC can't be waived.

Bought out I meant

 

[Masch78]

I don't comprehend this singular thought with limited scope.

You cite Murray's job is to have a long term plan and vision and(sic) at a macro(sic) [micro] level. It's facetious of you to omit the several factors we found ourselves in today, which your scope is encompassed by two seasons only.

The last defenseman drafted in the top two rounds
2016. 1st round, 27th overall was Jacob Larsson. There was a three year void in drafting defensemen in the top-2 rounds for the next three consecutive drafts. Through the draft is how we accrued the deepest D-corps league. I cannot stress this poignant fact enough.

Patrick Eaves trade
In the 2016-17 season, the Ducks traded for Eaves in Feb of 2017. It was for a conditional 2nd rounder, but can become a first rounder if the team makes it into the WCF and Eaves participates in half of the games of the first two rounds of the playoffs. That conditional 2nd rounder was a pick we acquired from the Leafs from the Andersen trade. Apparently, we lost the first round pick as we reached the WCF with Eaves meeting the trade requirements.

Here's a quote from NHL.com: "The Ducks are hopeful Eaves will boost an offense that ranks 20th in the NHL and 10th in the West at 2.56 goals per game. After leading the NHL in power-play percentage last season (23.1), the Ducks are 14th at 19.5."

In 20 regular games of that season, Eaves scored 11 goals and 3 assists for a scoring rate of 0.7 ppg. In the playoffs, he played in 7 games due to injury, but still managed 2 goals and 2 assists. He had great chemistry on the top line. We re-signed him to a 3-year extension. He has only played a total of 9 games since.

Vegas Expansion
Yeah, this totally was predictable several years before 2017 when Murray was making contracts, ie Bieksa's specifically. We were going to start losing our depth here.
Lindholm, Manson, Fowler, Bieksa, Vatanen, Beauch, Montour, Holzer, Pettersson, and Welinski were still on the roster after the Entry draft. We lost two defensemen at the ED.

Mass injuries at center in 2017-18
Grant = 66 games played
Vermette (age 35) = 64 games played
Wagner = 64 games played
Getzlaf = 56 games played
Kesler = 44 games played (he didn't play his first game of the season until 2 days after Christmas... He would never play at the level he was once known for from here onward.)

Henrique = 57 games played (for us after we traded for him)

Adam Henrique Trade (2017-18)
No Kesler. No Eaves. Big problems! We were 11-10-4 when we pulled the trigger on Rico. We had Monty already playing in the NHL this year (got 27 NHL games the previous season). It was Rico, Blandisi, and a 2018 3rd round pick for Vatanen and a conditional 2019 3rd round pick for re-signing Rico. Lost in this is the fact we re-signed Rico, had prospect Blandisi to use in a trade (which we did), and got a 3rd round pick as well which implies Murray was planning for today and tomorrow.

Defense: Lindholm, Manson, Fowler, Bieksa, Beauch, Montour, Holzer, Pettersson, Welinski

2018 - 19 Season
What we already know: Eaves not available. Perry injured and not available to start the season. Kelser would never be the same. Getzlaf injured and not available to start the season. Beauchemin and Bieksa were done in the NHL, both actually helped boast the Ducks' defense being deep - which is actually not considered.

We were forced to start 2018 first round selection C Isac Lundestrom in the NHL at the beginning of the season. That's how desperate the Ducks were. We have been imbalanced since 2017-18 season as we were lacking, but more so this year.

Defense (before any trades): Lindholm, Manson, Fowler, Montour, Larsson, Pettersson, Welinski, Holzer, and MDZ

Pettersson trade
2017-18: Games played = 22, 1g + 3a = 4pts, +5
2018-19: Games played = 27, 0g + 6a = 6pts, +4

Pettersson was a bottom pairing defensemen and I wouldn't say he's an amazing prospect. I was higher on Larsson than Pettersson, but even then, both are fringe NHL defensemen which is great for a bottom pairing player developing. We needed offense and in a hurry. We started the season without our proposed top line of Eaves-Getz-Perry.

The Pettersson trade occurred before the Montour trade. As you can see Pettersson was simply a still developing bottom pair defenseman. We can't be whining about a bottom pairing defenseman being traded at that particular time in hopes to get scoring today with F Sprong.

Montour trade (TDL)
2018-19: Games played = 62, 5 g + 20 a = 25 pts, -16

Monty for prospect D Guhle and 1st round pick (Tracey). There are many factors here for Monty and he didn't move the needle for GM Murray. Apparently, Monty didn't move the needle for a better Sabres team in 2019-20. But you can cry all you want about losing defensive depth and omit Monty isn't moving the needle for his new team to a playoff spot.

2019-20 Teams

• Anaheim: 67 games and 62 points (out of a playoff spot)
• Buffalo: 67 games and 66 points (out of a playoff spot)

Recalling our forward drafting (top 2 rounds) since 2009 (when we drafted Vatanen in the fourth round)
2009: C Holland (1st, 15 overall), RW Palmieri (1st, 26th)
2010: RW Etem (1st, 29th), RW Smith-Pelly (2nd, 42nd)
2011: RW Rakell (1st, 30th), C Wild Bill (2nd, 53rd)
2012: C Kerdiles (2nd, 36th)
2013: RW Sorensen (2nd, 45th)
2014: LW Ritchie (1st, 10th)
2015: C Nattinen (2nd, 59th)
2016: LW Jones (1st, 24th), C Steel (1st, 30th)
2017: = no first round pick (Eaves trade) =LW Comtois (2nd, 50th), C Morand (2nd, 60th)
2018: C Lundestrom (1st, 23rd), C Groulx (2nd, 54th)
2019: C Zegras (1st, 9th), LW Tracey (1st, 29th)

Palmieri was panning out, but GM Murray couldn't afford him in the future at that time. Rakell has regressed. Ritchie was looking like a 2nd line winger that inconsistent in offensive production, but a slow get off skating. That's all that's panned out here in Anaheim with respect to forward draftees in the top two rounds. (Wild Bill needed two franchises to wake him up. That was all on Wild Bill than the franchises.)

I know I've made fun of our scouting group that we don't know how to draft forwards. I had high hopes going into this season with Steel, Terry, and Comtois. Jones is just a faster Cogs, which is still useful.

Drafted defense that have panned out for the Ducks
2009: Vatanen (4th round, 106th)
2010: Fowler (1st, 12th)
2011: Manson (6th, 160th)
2012: Lindholm (1st, 6th)
2013: Theodore (1st, 26th)
2014: Pettersson (2nd, 38th), Montour (2nd, 55th)

2016: No defensive drafted in first two rounds
2017: No defensive drafted in first two rounds
2018: No defensive drafted in first two rounds

I'm skeptical about putting Pettersson on that list because we really didn't know much about Pettersson at the NHL level before we traded him. I left out 2011 D Welinski from that list because he didn't do enough at the NHL level despite being an AHL all-star for us in 2017-18. Heck, 2015 first rounder Larsson looked like a better defenseman than Pettersson last year, which Larsson lodged 49 NHL games.

Conclusion
It's a very superficial stance to state we lost our depth in two seasons, but be disingenuous to omit the importance of drafting defensemen in the top two rounds as well as not having our forwards pan out similarly to our drafted defense. You don't include a macro view (large scope) and you're selective in your micro view (short scope). Montour isn't helping us today when he isn't helping a better team to the playoffs. Vatanen hasn't moved the needle for the Devils and was recently traded.

Our main problem is we don't have a proper scoring offense nor a forward corps that plays a 200 ft game to help out the defense this year. After the TDL, we've won games without a top-3 defense and a top-4 defense. A lot of that credit goes to the forward corps and our new additions along with Sherwood. Heinen, Milano, and Aggo provided more speed, backchecking, as well as playing a whole 200ft game. D Irwin has been surprising and an upgrade over Holzer. D Djoos is just freaking calm all the time with the puck.

When GM Murray took over the team in 2018-19, he got the whole team working together to end with a positive note (and this is without Kase on the bench!). With the team struggling under RC and Eakins, Murray assessed the problem is its veteran leadership core that's not raising their games to shelter the youth. Gibby has struggled this year and has looked normal than his usual super stellar self. The Ducks have a set top-4 defense today, but they're injured... often... and, now, altogether. We have Larsson and Guhle developing, but those injuries forcing those two to play higher than they should be does expose our depth. Guhle looked good at the start of the season, but got injured. Since then, he hasn't been the same player. Yet any team would struggle if they got hit with these many injuries to their defensive unit.

What's odd is that more forwards we have acquired outside of the draft have produced, when healthy, for us. Kelser, Eaves, and Rico are the headliners for that identification. Grant, Rowney, and Deslauriers have produced, but they're our fourth line. Nowadays, we got Milano, Heinen, and Aggo.

• Milano: Games = 5, 2g + 2a = 4pts
• Heinen: Games = 5, 2g + 1a = 3pts
• Aggozzino: Games = 5, 1g + 0a = 1pt

It's a team game. You're just unwilling to view the macro scope with the several micro problems throughout that span. It's easier to say we lost defensive depth and GM Murray couldn't figure out it, while not adding context of those other players impact to their respective new teams nor our own problems. We have a top-3 in defense and good fillers on the bottom pairing to start this season. The gamble were prospects Guhle or Larsson filling in as regulars to start this season at the NHL level. But the fact Murray was trying to address our forward situation via the draft at the expense of not drafting defense isn't brought up because maybe it's just too much thought for you and others.

We're more excited about Zegras than any prospect forward we have today in the NHL or AHL. I'd venture to say we're more excited for Zegras over both Kase and Ritchie. We're already complaining about moving on from Rakell too. LoL But nayyyyyyyyyy, it's just easier to have a simplified thought that our GM knows nothing and he didn't bother to address the defense. Who cares that we have no offense and he's been trying to upgrade it after his top acquisitions have fallen to injury and Perry's play fell off the face of the planet.

Your stance about our defense and two years lacks nuance. Nuance requires depth thinking. All I can do is share this nuance, but if you choose to ignore it, then that's your choice. It seems you're adamant on minimizing your thoughts as you did in attacking an "A and B" premise as if it were an "A or B" premise. You got a narrative and you need actual AND complete facts to interfere with your thoughts. ha!

LOL How long did this take you?

 

[bsu]

LOL How long did this take you?

tldr

 

[MMC]

Could have waived bieska

I really don’t understand why people keep saying this. Even if we did, one of Manson or Vatanen would still be exposed.

 

[bsu]

I really don’t understand why people keep saying this. Even if we did, one of Manson or Vatanen would still be exposed.

Vatanen.

 

[MMC]

Vatanen.

So coming off of a conference finals appearance, you’d expose one of our top 4 D, instead of giving up a prospect that was a healthy scratch in the playoffs and showed no signs of being ready to step into the top 4? I don’t think any GM would do that.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

So coming off of a conference finals appearance, you’d expose one of our top 4 D, instead of giving up a prospect that was a healthy scratch in the playoffs and showed no signs of being ready to step into the top 4? I don’t think any GM would do that.

I think the original idea was to trade vatanen to a team that could protect him.

 

[Gliff]

So coming off of a conference finals appearance, you’d expose one of our top 4 D, instead of giving up a prospect that was a healthy scratch in the playoffs and showed no signs of being ready to step into the top 4? I don’t think any GM would do that.

I think there were other routes we could have taken.
I for one wanted to see Bieksa waive his NMC or be bought out and then Vatanen traded for a forward.

At the time I would have WAY preferred what Bob ended up doing over losing Vatanen for nothing.

 

[Paul4587]

I think the original idea was to trade vatanen to a team that could protect him.

Yeah exactly. When we dealt for Henrique Murray even said it was a trade they were discussing for a while with NJ. If he was proactive and Vatanen wasn't part of the plans then something surely could have been done earlier.

 

[ADHB]

LOL How long did this take you?

No one reads those long ass posts.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

So coming off of a conference finals appearance, you’d expose one of our top 4 D, instead of giving up a prospect that was a healthy scratch in the playoffs and showed no signs of being ready to step into the top 4? I don’t think any GM would do that.

Well in hindsight he's absolutely right. But that's just hindsight and you're right too, that context matters a lot. People are probably right to be frustrated that Murray wasn't more aggressive when the window was open, closing it himself following a final four finish is pretty ludicrous.


Trading Vatanen is also something that maybe could've happened but there are a few things to remember. One is that he was hurt and that affects things. Two is that George McPhee made every team he had a deal with promise not to make another one that impacted the expansion draft, so that alone would take some teams out of it. Three is that GMs are never ones to help out other GMs in squeeze situations like this. So you might be able to trade him for something at least, which again in hindsight would've been the right move, but it might've also been really low. Would Henrique been on the table? Probably not but that's just my guess.

 

[Masch78]

No one reads those long ass posts.

Yup.

 

[Hey234]

In a vacuum, this trade has been solid for the Ducks. Even without the injuries on defense, Djoos would still be playing solid minutes because his play has been good and consistently getting better. He moves the puck well and should have more PP time.

It's tougher to evaluate as a whole because you have to take into account what created the need for Djoos and that was bad asset management. IMO, this is what Murray's time with the Ducks will be remembered for: good drafting, bad free agent signings, trading... a mixed bag, and bad asset management.

 

[duckpuck]

Yeah exactly. When we dealt for Henrique Murray even said it was a trade they were discussing for a while with NJ. If he was proactive and Vatanen wasn't part of the plans then something surely could have been done earlier.

There's another permutation. By not getting Bieksa to waive (or buying him out), BM negotiated with Vegas from a position of weakness - Vegas knew the ducks had two too many d-men. And because Bieksa has to be protected, the two unprotected guys are going to be from Montour, Manson and Vats. Trading one is hard - two almost impossible.

The reality is that the ducks had soured on Theodore (who was exposed in his own end in the playoffs) - that is the reason they decided to make the trade. BM saw it as an opportunity to get rid of Stoner's contract. And based on things that were said at the time, it seems pretty clear Murray and Vegas had the deal done many months ahead of time (which is part of the reason Bieksa was never asked to waive).

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

According to Bieksa, Bob did approach him to waive. Bieksa claims he then asked for a 1 year extension in order to waive. Bob said he would get back to KB. When he got back he told KB he had it all worked out and didn't need him to waive.

That's the story KB tells in one of his recent podcasts. IIRC, there were rumors he had asked for a 2 year extension.

 

[Arthuros]

So at what point are we going to actually just open up a new thread about management and just have that instead of this rampant discussion going across all of our trade threads.

Because at this point, this thread's only somewhat tangentially on topic.

 

[Paul4587]

So at what point are we going to actually just open up a new thread about management and just have that instead of this rampant discussion going across all of our trade threads.

Because at this point, this thread's only somewhat tangentially on topic.

I don't know but there are multiple threads discussing the same thing. You would think the trade thread could just be merged in with the player discussion ones and that most of the talk would be kept in the roster thread but that's too much to ask apparently.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

No one reads those long ass posts.

Yup.

And this is why fans remain willfully ignorant. Hot takes? Fer sure. Facts? Nah, ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[Deuce22]

And this is why fans remain willfully ignorant. Hot takes? Fer sure. Facts? Nah, ain't nobody got time for that.

Facts can come in posts of any length. For what it's worth, I don't see many "willfully ignorant" posters on this board.

 

[gilfaizon]

Lindholm-Manson
Fowler-Gudbranson
Djoos-MDZ/Larsson

I'd be fine with this next year. MDZ has played much better of late, and I like Djoos a lot as well. If BM does make a run at a PPQB in free agency, Djoos may not have a spot on the roster.

 

[Static]

Lindholm-Manson
Fowler-Gudbranson
Djoos-MDZ/Larsson

I'd be fine with this next year. MDZ has played much better of late, and I like Djoos a lot as well. If BM does make a run at a PPQB in free agency, Djoos may not have a spot on the roster.

I like djoos more than Larsson, even with larsson's recent improvement

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Lindholm-Manson
Fowler-Gudbranson
Djoos-MDZ/Larsson

I'd be fine with this next year. MDZ has played much better of late, and I like Djoos a lot as well. If BM does make a run at a PPQB in free agency, Djoos may not have a spot on the roster.

Why are we trying to get rid of Djoos when he's our best defenseman after our top-4, who also is very good as a passing PPQB? I have no problem with Djoos stepping into a 2nd pairing or top pairing role at all, which is what we've been witnessing as of late. I do have cringe when I see Larsson and Guhle being pushed up from a bottom pairing role. Both of those prospects panic a lot, unlike Djoos. He's just freaking calm in all areas of the ice and doesn't ice the puck over half the time when trouble is brewing.

If we do go after a shooting PPQB, then why do we need to retain MDZ? MDZ is 29 years old and Djoos is four years younger.

Now, it's possible this is the honeymoon stage for all our new additions and Djoos is worse than MDZ. Right now Djoos has more upside than MDZ just by the sheer fact he's four years younger and entering his prime playing age.