Speculation: Anaheim Ducks Roster Discussion Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

gilfaizon

Registered User
Mar 28, 2012
2,292
1,449
PEI
Imagine the shape we could have been in going into the offseason knowing that Sam Steel had begun to really break out. I still have faith in him becoming a 2c, but if it happened this season a Henrique trade would have become a little more likely. I know there's a lot of discussion in trading Henrique but that would leave our C depth extremely thin.
 

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
47,803
38,362
Orange County, CA
Imagine the shape we could have been in going into the offseason knowing that Sam Steel had begun to really break out. I still have faith in him becoming a 2c, but if it happened this season a Henrique trade would have become a little more likely. I know there's a lot of discussion in trading Henrique but that would leave our C depth extremely thin.
I don't think Murray has any interest whatsoever in trading Henrique
 

cheesymc

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
3,686
1,487
Irvine
Visit site
Sounds like we are moving on with not only Joel Persson, but also Del Zotto and Irvin, and might offer 30 year old Kodie Curran his first NHL shot. He's got the offensive numbers and could be at least a power play guy for us like a bigger Tim Heed. Anyone watch his play and can provide a scouting report on him? Maybe Murray envisions Curran combining Del Zotto's offense and Irvin's physicality (hopefully???). I'm assuming he probably has some huge flaw since it took him numerous years of dominating other leagues before this opportunity... is he horrible at skating or defending? Definitely would indicate Larsson/Guhle aren't ready even for the bottom pairing and if they need to pass through waivers, they are most likely going to be in the AHL or traded.

Cam Gudbranson
Hampus Manson
Djoos Curran
Hakanpaa

Our 3rd pairing would be offensively focused...
 
  • Like
Reactions: robbieboy3686

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,162
13,178
Sounds like we are moving on with not only Joel Persson, but also Del Zotto and Irvin, and might offer 30 year old Kodie Curran his first NHL shot. He's got the offensive numbers and could be at least a power play guy for us like a bigger Tim Heed. Anyone watch his play and can provide a scouting report on him? Maybe Murray envisions Curran combining Del Zotto's offense and Irvin's physicality (hopefully???). I'm assuming he probably has some huge flaw since it took him numerous years of dominating other leagues before this opportunity... is he horrible at skating or defending? Definitely would indicate Larsson/Guhle aren't ready even for the bottom pairing and if they need to pass through waivers, they are most likely going to be in the AHL or traded.

Cam Gudbranson
Hampus Manson
Djoos Curran
Hakanpaa

Our 3rd pairing would be offensively focused...

Where are you hearing about the interest in Curran from? He’s intriguing and has come along way but he couldn’t even crack the AHL last time he was in NA.

Also if Fowler and Gudbranson are paired together they wouldn’t be the first pairing...
 

ADHB

Registered User
Sponsor
Apr 9, 2012
3,906
4,583
Where are you hearing about the interest in Curran from? He’s intriguing and has come along way but he couldn’t even crack the AHL last time he was in NA.

Also if Fowler and Gudbranson are paired together they wouldn’t be the first pairing...
Found this on twitter:



Also there was another tweet from a verified Swedish hockey writer who talked about how he hasn't received a contract in the KHL yet because there is interest from NHL teams, and that Anaheim was very involved.

As for Larsson, he made huge strides at the end of last season. I would have no issue whatsoever penciling him in for at worst the 7th D, and probably as a full time 3rd pairing guy.
 

Koffein

Registered User
Mar 20, 2009
505
21
Oslo
Where are you hearing about the interest in Curran from? He’s intriguing and has come along way but he couldn’t even crack the AHL last time he was in NA.

Also if Fowler and Gudbranson are paired together they wouldn’t be the first pairing...
To be fair, Curran is not close to the same player as back then. He came out of nowhere was an absolute force during his year in Norway, his skill level compared to the rest of the league was just ridiculous. From what I've heard from good sources around that team he might not have been the most devoted to fitness which might have been what held him back in his early career.
Was doubtful he'd have much success in Sweden but he mentioned in an interview Rögle pushed him pretty hard to get better off ice habits and after a rough start he just keep getting better.
The guy just loves to score and even while I'm not convinced he is good enough for the NHL it's a low risk signing. I'd say the best case scenario here would be a 3rd pairing PP specialist. If he's not able to keep up against NHL competition, he would be a great asset in SD
 
  • Like
Reactions: robbieboy3686

gilfaizon

Registered User
Mar 28, 2012
2,292
1,449
PEI
To be fair, Curran is not close to the same player as back then. He came out of nowhere was an absolute force during his year in Norway, his skill level compared to the rest of the league was just ridiculous. From what I've heard from good sources around that team he might not have been the most devoted to fitness which might have been what held him back in his early career.
Was doubtful he'd have much success in Sweden but he mentioned in an interview Rögle pushed him pretty hard to get better off ice habits and after a rough start he just keep getting better.
The guy just loves to score and even while I'm not convinced he is good enough for the NHL it's a low risk signing. I'd say the best case scenario here would be a 3rd pairing PP specialist. If he's not able to keep up against NHL competition, he would be a great asset in SD

These are the little moves good GMs make when faced with a cap crunch combined with a glaring weakness in the organization (PP). I'd love to see BM get creative with the roster, I felt it began at the trade deadline.
 

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,481
2,548
These are the little moves good GMs make when faced with a cap crunch combined with a glaring weakness in the organization (PP). I'd love to see BM get creative with the roster, I felt it began at the trade deadline.

Anaheim doesn't have a cap crunch. Far from it.

The ducks are $2.8M under the cap and would have the option to put Kesler on IR going forward, freeing up another $6.875M. Perry's buyout goes up by $4M, but that is basically offset but having Eaves and Irwin peel off. They can also buyout Backes if need be.
 
Last edited:

gilfaizon

Registered User
Mar 28, 2012
2,292
1,449
PEI
Anaheim doesn't have a cap crunch. Far from it.

The ducks are $2.8M under the cap and would have the option to put Kesler on IR going forward, freeing up another $6.875M. Perry's buyout goes up by $4M, but that is basically offset but having Eaves and Irwin peel off. They can also buyout Backes if need be.

The Ducks aren't the Leafs. None of the those options are going to happen for a bottom 5 team. It hardly happened when they were a top 5 team.
 

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,481
2,548
The Ducks aren't the Leafs. None of the those options are going to happen for a bottom 5 team. It hardly happened when they were a top 5 team.

Even if what you say is true - that the ducks won't spend $$ beyond the cap - doesn't mean that the ducks have a cap crunch. Those are two different things. And contrary to you're assertion, in recent years when the Ducks were a top 5 team, they did spend to the cap.

Beyond that - if as you claim the ducks are focused on saving $$, then buying out Backes will in fact save real dollars (not just cap space). So that is a real possibility (though I think its unlikely because they want Backes around the younger players).

I happen to think you're wrong in terms of spending $$ - Kesler's contract is insured and the ducks have available cash. But that doesn't mean they should spend it "just because." If they can use the cap space to accumulate assets (e.g., tacking Backes for a pick) or acquire a good young player at a discount (e.g., a Tampa cap dump), then they should do that. Otherwise, the window is really 2021-22 or maybe even 2022-23.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robbieboy3686

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
17,093
12,043
southern cal
These are the little moves good GMs make when faced with a cap crunch combined with a glaring weakness in the organization (PP). I'd love to see BM get creative with the roster, I felt it began at the trade deadline.

Bob is a tinkerer. A tinkerer makes little moves because he's content with the foundation, but is tweaking things to get better. The big move Bob made was forcing the youth movement early by gifting spots. That failed miserably and all these little moves are to correct that. Bob still wants the youth movement, but now he has thresholds for them to compete with.

Curran and Hakanpaa is Bob is thinking outside the box. Both are hungry to succeed in the NHL, which is a better mentality than a prospect gifted a spot. He isn't expecting either to take the league by storm, but he does want a good bottom NHL pairing. We have our top-5 on the blue line established with Lindholm-Manson, Fowler-Gudz, and Djoos. Hakanpaa and Curran can vie for the 6th/7th spot. There's also prospects Larsson and Guhle nibble for NHL action - more Larsson than Guhle. We also got RHD Axel going to the AHL this coming season. So if Larsson and Guhle still aren't ready, then at least we do have some players that can stay up top. Hakanpaa is there for grit. Curran is there for scoring. The Ducks have a curse with defensemen getting injured.



I happen to think you're wrong in terms of spending $$ - Kesler's contract is insured and the ducks have available cash. But that doesn't mean they should spend it "just because." If they can use the cap space to accumulate assets (e.g., tacking Backes for a pick) or acquire a good young player at a discount (e.g., a Tampa cap dump), then they should do that. Otherwise, the window is really 2021-22 or maybe even 2022-23.

The tinkering showed vast improvement as our top-4 blueliners got hit at the same time. The team skated faster as a unit and backchecked often. That's a good foundation to have going forward when we do get our top-4 healthy and playing again. We can win with defense, top goal tending, and a meager offense. While not ideal, we've done it before. The biggest dark horse the Ducks have for offense is soup du jour Zesty Zegras. The addition of Heinen gave us Silf lite on another line. What could add to our team would be the ability to re-acquire C Grant again. I'm down for the return of our 1C. heh
 

gilfaizon

Registered User
Mar 28, 2012
2,292
1,449
PEI
Even if what you say is true - that the ducks won't spend $$ beyond the cap - doesn't mean that the ducks have a cap crunch. Those are two different things. And contrary to you're assertion, in recent years when the Ducks were a top 5 team, they did spend to the cap.

Beyond that - if as you claim the ducks are focused on saving $$, then buying out Backes will in fact save real dollars (not just cap space). So that is a real possibility (though I think its unlikely because they want Backes around the younger players).

I happen to think you're wrong in terms of spending $$ - Kesler's contract is insured and the ducks have available cash. But that doesn't mean they should spend it "just because." If they can use the cap space to accumulate assets (e.g., tacking Backes for a pick) or acquire a good young player at a discount (e.g., a Tampa cap dump), then they should do that. Otherwise, the window is really 2021-22 or maybe even 2022-23.

Having around 4 million in cap space to spend, with an instant need for a backup goalie, seems pretty tight for me. As I said, addressing a weakness in the PP with an overseas project at 900k seems to me that BM is getting creative, as he won't have the space or the budget to go after a Barrie/Shattenkirk/Vatanen.

Paying a player to not play is not a common thing for the organization to do. Buying out Perry was obviously the outlier, with a few smaller buyouts in 2015 and prior. You still have to fill the Backes spot with an NHL level salary, so once again the savings diminish.

We've already seen Bob weaponize his cap space, while still operating under what I assume was his "budget". The Ducks had very low spending for most of last year, due to the low Perry buyout and rostering a large amount of rookies. The Backes addition once again put them tight, whether you think a buyout should happen or not.
 

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
17,093
12,043
southern cal
Having around 4 million in cap space to spend, with an instant need for a backup goalie, seems pretty tight for me. As I said, addressing a weakness in the PP with an overseas project at 900k seems to me that BM is getting creative, as he won't have the space or the budget to go after a Barrie/Shattenkirk/Vatanen.

Paying a player to not play is not a common thing for the organization to do. Buying out Perry was obviously the outlier, with a few smaller buyouts in 2015 and prior. You still have to fill the Backes spot with an NHL level salary, so once again the savings diminish.

We've already seen Bob weaponize his cap space, while still operating under what I assume was his "budget". The Ducks had very low spending for most of last year, due to the low Perry buyout and rostering a large amount of rookies. The Backes addition once again put them tight, whether you think a buyout should happen or not.

Instant need for a backup goalie? Stolarz is signed for this season. Miller will probably cost $1.125 mil.

Low spending? Did you forget we tried to go after D Faulk and his $6.5 mil contract? We walked away due to term, not money. We traded for Gudz and his $4 mil per year contract. If you look at capfriendly, we spent up to $78.692 mil with $2.807 mil available for 2019 season.

Anyhow, your first sentence says we have only $4 mil to play with today, but then imply that we had a lot of money to play with last year with your "budget" quotation makes me wonder why you're playing both sides simultaneously. Did you know you're showing that?

Do we need a PP specialist? Yes, we do need a PP specialist, but that's looking at it in a vacuum. We have a set top-5 for our blue line with Lindholm, Fowler, Manson, Gudz, and Djoos. We're looking at filling the #6/#7 NHL spot. Curran could be a good small win for offense, but we don't know much about defense. Remember, Shattenkirk went cheap last year to TB and we offered Shattenkirk a two-year contract worth over $4 mil. Shattenkirk bet on himself on a cheaper contract because it was a one-year contract. But back then, we only had a top-3 with Lindholm, Fowler, and Manson to where Shattenkirk would be in our top-4.

In 2017, we made the playoffs. Our PP rank, with respect to goals, was 28th out of 31 teams as we managed only 38 goals. The PP efficiency was 17.8%, ranking 23rd.

I would love an significant get, but unless we make a significant trade we're not in a position to be heavy buyers. We're in an odd transitional stage. I'm open to upgrading, but you gotta have a large scope in doing this while not presenting contradicting ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duckpuck

gilfaizon

Registered User
Mar 28, 2012
2,292
1,449
PEI
Instant need for a backup goalie? Stolarz is signed for this season. Miller will probably cost $1.125 mil.

Low spending? Did you forget we tried to go after D Faulk and his $6.5 mil contract? We walked away due to term, not money. We traded for Gudz and his $4 mil per year contract. If you look at capfriendly, we spent up to $78.692 mil with $2.807 mil available for 2019 season.

Anyhow, your first sentence says we have only $4 mil to play with today, but then imply that we had a lot of money to play with last year with your "budget" quotation makes me wonder why you're playing both sides simultaneously. Did you know you're showing that?

Do we need a PP specialist? Yes, we do need a PP specialist, but that's looking at it in a vacuum. We have a set top-5 for our blue line with Lindholm, Fowler, Manson, Gudz, and Djoos. We're looking at filling the #6/#7 NHL spot. Curran could be a good small win for offense, but we don't know much about defense. Remember, Shattenkirk went cheap last year to TB and we offered Shattenkirk a two-year contract worth over $4 mil. Shattenkirk bet on himself on a cheaper contract because it was a one-year contract. But back then, we only had a top-3 with Lindholm, Fowler, and Manson to where Shattenkirk would be in our top-4.

In 2017, we made the playoffs. Our PP rank, with respect to goals, was 28th out of 31 teams as we managed only 38 goals. The PP efficiency was 17.8%, ranking 23rd.

I would love an significant get, but unless we make a significant trade we're not in a position to be heavy buyers. We're in an odd transitional stage. I'm open to upgrading, but you gotta have a large scope in doing this while not presenting contradicting ideas.

The Ducks did have a large sum of money/cap space to play with last season. They then added Gudbranson and Backes, I’m confused at what you’re trying to argue. They are in a far more difficult situation financially than they were going into last season. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that.

I’ve also said nothing about upgrading, other than saying that I liked seeing BM get creative, where I indiciated the Curran signing to be a good example of that. In a time where it’s tough to know if we trust BM, I applaud that low risk signing.
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,187
32,951
SoCal
The Ducks did have a large sum of money/cap space to play with last season. They then added Gudbranson and Backes, I’m confused at what you’re trying to argue. They are in a far more difficult situation financially than they were going into last season. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that.

I’ve also said nothing about upgrading, other than saying that I liked seeing BM get creative, where I indiciated the Curran signing to be a good example of that. In a time where it’s tough to know if we trust BM, I applaud that low risk signing.
They aren't really though. Backes in particular can be bought out for one million, saving 3.5 million, and they aren't actually paying Kesler's salary. Cash wise they are fine, and if they want to test the upper limits of the cap they can put kesler on LTIR, freeing up almost seven million.

I doubt they will be aggressive but they have a lot of leeway if they want to add money.
 

gilfaizon

Registered User
Mar 28, 2012
2,292
1,449
PEI
They aren't really though. Backes in particular can be bought out for one million, saving 3.5 million, and they aren't actually paying Kesler's salary. Cash wise they are fine, and if they want to test the upper limits of the cap they can put kesler on LTIR, freeing up almost seven million.

I doubt they will be aggressive but they have a lot of leeway if they want to add money.

Totally agree, but like you said, doubtful a bottom 5 team would be this aggressive. My entire point was that I liked BMs signing of Curran, who has a small possibility of filling a large role for the team. The discussions we stir up in a pandemic :laugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->