Speculation: Anaheim Expansion and defensemen

[Zegs2sendhelp]

If Anaheim is trading a D like Vatanen, chances are they are doing it for picks and prospects. (Prospects that don't need to be protected and ELC salary).

I would imagine they are trying to set up the 7-3-1 expansion protection.

On 7 3 1 we have room to protect an incoming forward
Getz perry kesler rakell silfverberg cogliano and then the incoming forward or vermette

 

[Mugzy97]

Only desirable piece is Marner and Nylander though (Matthews and Reilly off limits obviously). Fowler/Vatanen/Montour would be on the table, definitely not Lindholm or Manson.

Marner is definitely off the table too, and Nylander is pretty close to off the table as well unless we're getting a top2 RD.

I think it's inevitable that JVR will be a Duck. I could see Leafs having interest in Vatanen. Not sure what else would be included to make it work.

 

[Ola]

I have a question, or maybe more like an idea I want to put out there to hear what you think about it.

What if Anaheim instead of scrambling to get a roster "compliant" with the expansion draft rules -- by moving good players they can't protect -- started to stock pile these guys? They can only lose max one good young player anyway.

Like what could they get from the teams a bit in trouble with expansion if they dangled like a 1st, two 2nd and two 3rd round picks to get as many good young players as possible? It seems like they could get a handful of good assets at least. Lol could probably make a profit selling some of those assets the day after the draft too.

Something roughly like (assuming they would be made available):
Brodin/Dumba for a 1st
Orlov for a 2nd
Bodker for a 2nd
Zadorov for a 3rd
Namestnikov for a 3rd

 

[Vipers31]

I have a question, or maybe more like an idea I want to put out there to hear what you think about it.

What if Anaheim instead of scrambling to get a roster "compliant" with the expansion draft rules -- by moving good players they can't protect -- started to stock pile these guys? They can only lose max one good young player anyway.

Like what could they get from the teams a bit in trouble with expansion if they dangled like a 1st, two 2nd and two 3rd round picks to get as many good young players as possible? It seems like they could get a handful of good assets at least. Lol could probably make a profit selling some of those assets the day after the draft too.

Something roughly like (assuming they would be made available):
Brodin/Dumba for a 1st
Orlov for a 2nd
Bodker for a 2nd
Zadorov for a 3rd
Namestnikov for a 3rd

It's kind of a fun idea, but I think a team like Minny is closer to seeing the upside with having to deal two quality defenders. The Ducks "just" have to trade Vatanen in a deal that could actually be good hockey-wise. (A Bieksa buyout has basically transcended the expansion draft implications and moved into unconditionally reasonable grounds.)

 

[Trapper]

I have a question, or maybe more like an idea I want to put out there to hear what you think about it.

What if Anaheim instead of scrambling to get a roster "compliant" with the expansion draft rules -- by moving good players they can't protect -- started to stock pile these guys? They can only lose max one good young player anyway.

Like what could they get from the teams a bit in trouble with expansion if they dangled like a 1st, two 2nd and two 3rd round picks to get as many good young players as possible? It seems like they could get a handful of good assets at least. Lol could probably make a profit selling some of those assets the day after the draft too.

Something roughly like (assuming they would be made available):
Brodin/Dumba for a 1st
Orlov for a 2nd
Bodker for a 2nd
Zadorov for a 3rd
Namestnikov for a 3rd

The league would be all over that if players started getting shipped to a specific point and then traded back out again. They would shut that down quick.

 

[topnotch]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but since Bieksa signed a 35+ year contract if he's bought out doesn't his whole cap hit stay on the roster?

The ducks will pay Bieksa 1.333 million less in actual cash but his 4.0 million cap hit remains in full.

I wonder if Bieksa and his agent won't use that leverage to try and get Anaheim to sign him to a 1-2 year extension for waiving his NMC for the expansion draft?

 

[Spazkat]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but since Bieksa signed a 35+ year contract if he's bought out doesn't his whole cap hit stay on the roster?

The ducks will pay Bieksa 1.333 million less in actual cash but his 4.0 million cap hit remains in full.

I wonder if Bieksa and his agent won't use that leverage to try and get Anaheim to sign him to a 1-2 year extension for waiving his NMC for the expansion draft?

Even as a 35+ contract the options are either 1) pay him, protect him, lose one of the more valuable D (and have to suffer through another year of him bleeding goals against) or 2) pay him as part of buyout, play 1 of the ELC D in his place, profit

Option 2 seems much better for everyone involved except maybe Bieksa himself .

I'm not seeing how he might leverage that into another contract. His on ice performance has gone from "still useful on sheltered 3rd pair" to outright liability. You'd be hard pressed to find a game where at least 1 of the goals against isn't directly attributable to him. We all used to complain about Stoner.... now Id beg to have Stoner back if meant Bieksa went to the pressbox instead.

 

[topnotch]

Even as a 35+ contract the options are either 1) pay him, protect him, lose one of the more valuable D (and have to suffer through another year of him bleeding goals against) or 2) pay him as part of buyout, play 1 of the ELC D in his place, profit

Option 2 seems much better for everyone involved except maybe Bieksa himself .

I'm not seeing how he might leverage that into another contract. His on ice performance has gone from "still useful on sheltered 3rd pair" to outright liability. You'd be hard pressed to find a game where at least 1 of the goals against isn't directly attributable to him. We all used to complain about Stoner.... now Id beg to have Stoner back if meant Bieksa went to the pressbox instead.

I haven't been following Bieksa's play but just looking at his TOI he's getting nearly 19 minutes - #4 behind Fowler, Vantanen, and Lindholm, and slightly more than Manson.

Bieksa's leverage is that a buyout costs the Ducks 2.666 million in real cash and doesn't provide any cap relief. So if Montour replaces Bieksa the Ducks gain 400k in real dollars but lose 925k in cap dollars - plus lose an NHL defensemen in Bieksa.

Bieksa may be willing to waive his NMC for the purposes of the expansion draft, but say his agent approaches the Anaheim GM with the condition of signing Bieksa for the 2018-19 season for 2 million? Will the Ducks buyout Bieksa and take the extra cap hit or sign him for another year and get him to waive the NMC?

 

[Vipers31]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but since Bieksa signed a 35+ year contract if he's bought out doesn't his whole cap hit stay on the roster?

The ducks will pay Bieksa 1.333 million less in actual cash but his 4.0 million cap hit remains in full.

I wonder if Bieksa and his agent won't use that leverage to try and get Anaheim to sign him to a 1-2 year extension for waiving his NMC for the expansion draft?

They might try, but it's not much leverage. The Ducks are generally not a team spending to the cap - this season marks a bit of a exception -, so a "dead" cap hit isn't particularly painful, and usually easily outweighed by less actual money paid. Especially considering that they have guys on ELCs that can step in to replace him (and then some).

I haven't been following Bieksa's play but just looking at his TOI he's getting nearly 19 minutes - #4 behind Fowler, Vantanen, and Lindholm, and slightly more than Manson.

Yup, that's Carlyle, for now. I don't think Murray is quite on that level when evaluating his talent, though.

Bieksa may be willing to waive his NMC for the purposes of the expansion draft, but say his agent approaches the Anaheim GM with the condition of signing Bieksa for the 2018-19 season for 2 million? Will the Ducks buyout Bieksa and take the extra cap hit or sign him for another year and get him to waive the NMC?

I don't see that as an intriguing option. I see Bieksa being bought out as a preferrable option to him waiving his NMC for the draft, at this point. And two additional years - during which he'd still be making more than the in-house replacements - more of that aren't really an intriguing vision, whatsoever.

 

[PhoenyX]

I haven't been following Bieksa's play but just looking at his TOI he's getting nearly 19 minutes - #4 behind Fowler, Vantanen, and Lindholm, and slightly more than Manson.

Bieksa's leverage is that a buyout costs the Ducks 2.666 million in real cash and doesn't provide any cap relief. So if Montour replaces Bieksa the Ducks gain 400k in real dollars but lose 925k in cap dollars - plus lose an NHL defensemen in Bieksa.

Bieksa may be willing to waive his NMC for the purposes of the expansion draft, but say his agent approaches the Anaheim GM with the condition of signing Bieksa for the 2018-19 season for 2 million? Will the Ducks buyout Bieksa and take the extra cap hit or sign him for another year and get him to waive the NMC?

Bieksa is NOT an NHL defenceman, trust me. He is quite possibly the worst d-man in all of hockey. Bottom 5 at the absolute best. And to make matters worst, our idiot coach gives him an absurd amount of ice time. He should be in the press box, but if we have to play him, he should get 15 minutes a game tops and be sheltered as much as possible. He's the definition of a liability.

 

[topnotch]

They might try, but it's not much leverage. The Ducks are generally not a team spending to the cap - this season marks a bit of a exception -, so a "dead" cap hit isn't particularly painful, and usually easily outweighed by less actual money paid. Especially considering that they have guys on ELCs that can step in to replace him (and then some).

Okay. If the Ducks aren't worried about the cap, then Bieksa's leverage is greatly diminished.

I saw 69.4 million committed next year but that includes Vantanen's 4.9 and the Ducks have most of their roster signed.

 

[THall4]

Vatanen is such an intriguing piece for the Oilers. But does he ever hit the net? everytime I see hit vs the Oilers and lets a clapper go..its always wide...even when hes trying to hit the net.

 

[Mister Ed]

Nyquist (4.75M) for Vatanen (4.875M).

Even saves you some cap. Nyquist can play LW or RW.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Vatanen is such an intriguing piece for the Oilers. But does he ever hit the net? everytime I see hit vs the Oilers and lets a clapper go..its always wide...even when hes trying to hit the net.

I think the bigger issue is the price you figure well be battling them for the next few seasons for the division don't exactly want to improve them... we already gave them maroon for nothing and hes done great over there... so it would be tough to find the right fit coming back to Anaheim.

We have had a great powerplay/pk last 2 years and hes part of both those units... hes been slightly off this year

 

[Der Jaeger]

Agree with the OP. Two options I see:

- trade Vatanen now and protect 7-3-1.
- trade Vatanen after the expansion draft for a player to fill a need going forward, potentially a need made by whoever they lose in the expansion draft.

 

[mouser]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but since Bieksa signed a 35+ year contract if he's bought out doesn't his whole cap hit stay on the roster?

The ducks will pay Bieksa 1.333 million less in actual cash but his 4.0 million cap hit remains in full.

I wonder if Bieksa and his agent won't use that leverage to try and get Anaheim to sign him to a 1-2 year extension for waiving his NMC for the expansion draft?

That's correct. Age 35+ contracts use the buyout formula for determining how much and when the player is paid. However they use the Age 35+ rule for how the cap hit is calculated. So a theoretical Bieksa buyout this summer would be:

2017-18:
- Salary $1.33m
- Cap Hit $4.0m

2018-19:
- Salary $1.33m
- Cap Hit $0

 

[Ola]

It's kind of a fun idea, but I think a team like Minny is closer to seeing the upside with having to deal two quality defenders. The Ducks "just" have to trade Vatanen in a deal that could actually be good hockey-wise. (A Bieksa buyout has basically transcended the expansion draft implications and moved into unconditionally reasonable grounds.)

Yeah, could make some sense.

Like expect some trades for sure, most teams have 1 or at the most 2 tough decisions. If you are a buyer before the draft -- some bargains could definitely be made. Teams won't keep the "tough decision" if they can get decent value for it. But the problem is of course that very few have room to be buyers, that raised the idea for me. If you are loosing a good player anyway -- why not take on 3-4 more? Some very interesting players will be available, players that would be very hard to come by just a day after the draft.

 

[Ola]

The league would be all over that if players started getting shipped to a specific point and then traded back out again. They would shut that down quick.

Hm, a few things. The league has been very liberal with moves that gives you a competitive edge under the CBA. This is not cheating the cap in any way, nor is it really cheating any provision in the CBA. I wouldn't completely rule out that the l ague would object to a complete storage deal, like take our player for 96 hours for a 2nd rounder.

But that is not what I am proposing. I am just saying that a team that is set to lose a good player might as well pick up 3-5 more good young players for picks by sellers before the draft.

 

[Exit Dose]

vatanen + welinski
For
Miller and klien

Is pretty perfect like the poster above said you may have to take someone like shaw as a lil cap dump, but as a starting point that seems good.

We still have montour theodore larsson mahura and petterson as potential nhl dmen, and we draft d really well so losing welinski isnt a big time loss.

We wouldn't be moving two RDs in the same trade. That won't happen. They need a fallback position if Montour fails.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I think Fowler will be traded before the expansion draft

 

[Sojourn]

I think Fowler will be traded before the expansion draft

That only makes sense if Murray feels he can't be re-signed. He's been their best defenseman by a pretty big margin this season.

Edit: And, at this point, I think Murray would need to be pretty damn sure that he wouldn't be able to re-sign him, because subtracting Fowler from the blue line leaves a rather large hole. He'd be giving up an entire off-season and season that could be spent negotiating with him to figure out a way to make it work.

 

[ginner classic]

Agree with the OP. Two options I see:

- trade Vatanen now and protect 7-3-1.
- trade Vatanen after the expansion draft for a player to fill a need going forward, potentially a need made by whoever they lose in the expansion draft.

Pretty sure it's going to be number 2. They can trade a pick for a rental forward this year. I'm not so sure Montour is ready to step into that spot.

 

[Smitty426]

I have a question, or maybe more like an idea I want to put out there to hear what you think about it.

What if Anaheim instead of scrambling to get a roster "compliant" with the expansion draft rules -- by moving good players they can't protect -- started to stock pile these guys? They can only lose max one good young player anyway.

Like what could they get from the teams a bit in trouble with expansion if they dangled like a 1st, two 2nd and two 3rd round picks to get as many good young players as possible? It seems like they could get a handful of good assets at least. Lol could probably make a profit selling some of those assets the day after the draft too.

Something roughly like (assuming they would be made available):
Brodin/Dumba for a 1st
Orlov for a 2nd
Bodker for a 2nd
Zadorov for a 3rd
Namestnikov for a 3rd

Interesting thought!
Buying because of panic/lose (buying low for lack of a better word ) LV can only pick off 1
Selling off after ED and gaining more (selling high)
With only 1 casualty

 

[Ducks in a row]

I think Parenteau to Anaheim could make sense and I'd take Stoner as a cap dump, heck throw in Boll too
To NJ: Stoner, Boll, Wagner, and a 1st
To Ana: Parenteau, Quincey, and Fiddler (all are on expiring deals)

We are not trading a 1st round pick only 1 time in our franchise history we didn't draft in round 1 so it should take a lot for use to trade a 1st and this doesn't come close to getting us to trade a 1st round pick.

 

[MichaelJ]

Is Anaheim looking to dumb Stoner AND Bieksa?