WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
The following analysis of the Ducks expansion situation is intended to expel some of the myths and misunderstandings regarding their standing for the upcoming ED, and explain why the Ducks are actually in much better shape than a lot teams.
There have been a lot of misinformed posts and blogs on the subject who seem to think the Ducks will be forced to lose a vital player for free, which is far from the case and here's why.
The first misunderstanding seems to be that people think there's actually a chance in hell that the Ducks would allow Kevin Bieksa to take up one of the protection slots due to his NMC. The Ducks will be able to use one of two avenues to ensure that doesn't happen.
Bieksa demanded the clause because he wants to stay in Anaheim to play out his contract for a contender, and does not want to move his family. The second that the Ducks threaten to buy out the final year of his deal, the NMC basically loses all leverage. Bieksa's odds of remaining in Anaheim are very strong if he waives his NMC, as Vegas has no use for him. If he doesn't waive, he's 100% leaving Anaheim on a buyout. It should be pretty clear that waiving the NMC is what's best for both the player and team.
Either way, the Ducks can be prepared to have Bieksa's cap hit on the books whether they need to buy him out or not, but you can be absolutely certain he's not going to be taking up a protection slot over a better and younger player.
The other key mistake I see being made is the idea that the Ducks would protect 8 skaters and leave a key forward exposed. When you look at the Ducks depth chart, it's very clear to see that they can afford to part with a defenseman more than a vital forward. A guy like Jakub Silfverberg is not going anywhere.
Unlike many teams who are going to be forced to lose a good player no matter what, the Ducks can protect their entire core by making one trade. Dealing one Dman at season's end leaves the Ducks liable to lose nothing more than a depth piece.
Sami Vatanen makes the most sense to trade away. He's a legit top 4 RHD who will draw strong interest and a good return. It just so happens that his skillset/role is the easiest for the Ducks to replace internally.
I see Manson's name posted a lot, but there's absolutely no reason to think he'd ever be available. He has no peer in the Ducks system in terms of playing style, fits perfectly with both our top two D and he's very affordable. In contrast, Vatanen makes $4M more and has an NHL ready replacement ready to go in Montour. Pretty clear who would be expendable.
All common sense points to a Vatanen trade a season's end. That means the Ducks can protect - Gibson, Lindholm, Fowler, Manson, Getzlaf, Kesler, Silfverberg, Rakell, Perry, Cogliano + one more forward (either from a Vatanen trade or one of Kerdiles/Vermette). Left exposed would be, well nothing much at all - Vermette, Kerdiles, Megna, Boll, Bieksa.
So to the folks who think the Ducks are in such tough shape, I ask you this....What's so terrible about trading Vatanen for the best return possible, and losing a depth piece such as Kerdiles, Vermette or Megna to Vegas? There are teams in a lot worse situations than that.
Craig Button recently echoed these thoughts (as have most Ducks fans all season)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/who-was-babcock-scouting-at-the-game-in-nashville~1126785
Being able to sit back and take offers on a valuable top 4 RHD and then protect your entire core doesn't sound like a very dire situation to me at all.
There have been a lot of misinformed posts and blogs on the subject who seem to think the Ducks will be forced to lose a vital player for free, which is far from the case and here's why.
The first misunderstanding seems to be that people think there's actually a chance in hell that the Ducks would allow Kevin Bieksa to take up one of the protection slots due to his NMC. The Ducks will be able to use one of two avenues to ensure that doesn't happen.
Bieksa demanded the clause because he wants to stay in Anaheim to play out his contract for a contender, and does not want to move his family. The second that the Ducks threaten to buy out the final year of his deal, the NMC basically loses all leverage. Bieksa's odds of remaining in Anaheim are very strong if he waives his NMC, as Vegas has no use for him. If he doesn't waive, he's 100% leaving Anaheim on a buyout. It should be pretty clear that waiving the NMC is what's best for both the player and team.
Either way, the Ducks can be prepared to have Bieksa's cap hit on the books whether they need to buy him out or not, but you can be absolutely certain he's not going to be taking up a protection slot over a better and younger player.
The other key mistake I see being made is the idea that the Ducks would protect 8 skaters and leave a key forward exposed. When you look at the Ducks depth chart, it's very clear to see that they can afford to part with a defenseman more than a vital forward. A guy like Jakub Silfverberg is not going anywhere.
Unlike many teams who are going to be forced to lose a good player no matter what, the Ducks can protect their entire core by making one trade. Dealing one Dman at season's end leaves the Ducks liable to lose nothing more than a depth piece.
Sami Vatanen makes the most sense to trade away. He's a legit top 4 RHD who will draw strong interest and a good return. It just so happens that his skillset/role is the easiest for the Ducks to replace internally.
I see Manson's name posted a lot, but there's absolutely no reason to think he'd ever be available. He has no peer in the Ducks system in terms of playing style, fits perfectly with both our top two D and he's very affordable. In contrast, Vatanen makes $4M more and has an NHL ready replacement ready to go in Montour. Pretty clear who would be expendable.
All common sense points to a Vatanen trade a season's end. That means the Ducks can protect - Gibson, Lindholm, Fowler, Manson, Getzlaf, Kesler, Silfverberg, Rakell, Perry, Cogliano + one more forward (either from a Vatanen trade or one of Kerdiles/Vermette). Left exposed would be, well nothing much at all - Vermette, Kerdiles, Megna, Boll, Bieksa.
So to the folks who think the Ducks are in such tough shape, I ask you this....What's so terrible about trading Vatanen for the best return possible, and losing a depth piece such as Kerdiles, Vermette or Megna to Vegas? There are teams in a lot worse situations than that.
Craig Button recently echoed these thoughts (as have most Ducks fans all season)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/who-was-babcock-scouting-at-the-game-in-nashville~1126785
Being able to sit back and take offers on a valuable top 4 RHD and then protect your entire core doesn't sound like a very dire situation to me at all.