Speculation: Anaheim Expansion and defensemen

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,092
8,733
Vancouver, WA
Is Anaheim looking to dumb Stoner AND Bieksa?

Would rather not dump Stoner since he's a fine bottom pairing, physical defensemen, he's just paid 1.5 million too much. Would LOVE to dumb Bieksa, but his NMC and contract makes that literally impossible.
 

MichaelJ

Registered User
May 20, 2013
7,874
766
Would rather not dump Stoner since he's a fine bottom pairing, physical defensemen, he's just paid 1.5 million too much. Would LOVE to dumb Bieksa, but his NMC and contract makes that literally impossible.

Fair point I thought it could help with expansion and cap issues. Anaheim has Fowler, Lindholm, Theodore, and Larsson for the left side. I thought NJD could help the Ducks shed cap, open up a spot, and mitigate expansion issues. Bieksa would never waive?
 

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,092
8,733
Vancouver, WA
Fair point I thought it could help with expansion and cap issues. Anaheim has Fowler, Lindholm, Theodore, and Larsson for the left side. I thought NJD could help the Ducks shed cap, open up a spot, and mitigate expansion issues. Bieksa would never waive?

I wouldn't say no to trading Stoner, as long as the price wasn't crazy and we had a plan to add a forward as well, if not, rather just keep him around. We definitely have a lot of quality guys on the left side, which is why I think someone like Theo or Larsson could be traded for a young impact forward. I think Stoner should hang around so we can expose him in the draft though, since we have to expose someone.

Also, no way Bieksa waives his NMC to be traded, he'll hopefully waive it so we aren't forced to protect him though.
 

robbieboy3686

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
2,700
1,806
:laugh:

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.

This post is a big +1. Can't wait for stoner to be back . The man is a very solid 5-6 nhl dman ( stoner )
 

duxfan8

Registered User
Sep 13, 2011
1,667
0
South Bay
What if the Ducks could somehow trade Bieksa to LA for Gaborik? It's a swap of bad contracts and a huge risk for Anaheim, but they could just hope he is selected by Vegas. If Bieksa were to agree to go anywhere, I'd have to think somewhere nearby so his family doesn't have to move or back to Vancouver maybe? I don't know if either of those teams would even consider the thought though.
 

WesMcCauley

Registered User
Apr 24, 2015
8,616
2,600
Rangers and Ducks are the perfect partners.

Yep we are. All depends on Gorton and if he is willing to give up Miller/Hayes etc for a defencemen or if he feels its better to try to sign Shatty, Stone etc in the summer instead. Have a feeling nothing will happen until after the expansion draft since if we trade for a defencemen, Girardi has to be bought out or waive his NMC.
 

MichaelJ

Registered User
May 20, 2013
7,874
766
I wouldn't say no to trading Stoner, as long as the price wasn't crazy and we had a plan to add a forward as well, if not, rather just keep him around. We definitely have a lot of quality guys on the left side, which is whyI think someone like Theo or Larsson could be traded for a young impact forward. I think Stoner should hang around so we can expose him in the draft though, since we have to expose someone.

Also, no way Bieksa waives his NMC to be traded, he'll hopefully waive it so we aren't forced to protect him though.

Would Henrique be young enough and provide enough of an impact? Maybe with some adds on each side for balance but Henrique and Theodore as basis for a deal?
 
Last edited:

TML Dynasty

Registered User
May 2, 2016
1,547
898
Leafs have cap space to take a dump or to retain on someone.....and we desperately need help on D. Just don't wanna part with Matthews/Marner/Nylander

Retained JVR/Komarov/Bozak, prospects who are exempt, draft picks? Id hate to include Kapanan but Im sure we'd have to feel some pain.

It's been beaten to death so don't really expect anything insightful but wanted to add it to this thread.
 

xxreact9

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
1,486
2
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.

No team in the history of the league would trade a top2 RD for Nylander.

In fact, the last time a "top-2" defenseman was traded AT ALL in this entire league is Chris Pronger, and that was quite a long time ago and was forced by a unique set of circumstances in which he HAD to be traded, only because two hall of fame defensemen were rostered on one team and they couldn't afford the cap. Do any teams in the league have 2x top-10 defenders in history of the game, just won a cup, and are cap strangled? No. It won't happen again either.

This set of circumstances is very rare to be repeated, thus you will not see many top pairing defenders in trades. You'll need to give up a LOT more than a offensively oriented rookie winger who won't even hit 60 points this year and he's in a tremendous situation to score points on the leafs right now.

Like people say, Hall for Larsson wasn't an anomaly. That is the premium you pay to acquire a defenseman which are a lot harder to predict/develop in the draft and therefore have much higher value when one of them truly pans out into a top pairing guy.

Hall's value at that time drastically outweighs Nylander's now, so you'd be looking at a low-end top-4 defender as a return, NOT a "young top-2 rhd with huge upside and talent"
 

xxreact9

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
1,486
2
Would Henrique be young enough and provide enough of an impact? Maybe with some adds on each side for balance but Henrique and Theodore as basis for a deal?

Anaheim only needs an expansion exempt forward, they're already maxed out with 7 fwd, 3d, and 1 goalie.

That's the whole purpose of these threads, Lindholm,Fowler, Manson will be protected meaning Vatanen can be lost for "nothing" unless he is traded.

The only move Anaheim wants to make is Vatanen for a ELC forward.
 

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,092
8,733
Vancouver, WA
Anaheim only needs an expansion exempt forward, they're already maxed out with 7 fwd, 3d, and 1 goalie.

That's the whole purpose of these threads, Lindholm,Fowler, Manson will be protected meaning Vatanen can be lost for "nothing" unless he is traded.

The only move Anaheim wants to make is Vatanen for a ELC forward.

That's just not true at all. We have 6 forwards worth protecting. Getz,Perry,Kes,Silf,Cogs,Rakell. Vermette is expendable and there's no point in needing to protect him if we get a better forward back. We do not only want ELC expansion exempt forwards, especially since that kind of forward most likely won't be making an impact in the NHL for us.
 

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,092
8,733
Vancouver, WA
Would Henrique be young enough and provide enough of an impact? Maybe with some adds on each side for balance but Henrique and Theodore as basis for a deal?

He's a center right? I don't believe we really need another center with Getz and Kes. Would rather make a move for a natural RW to either replace Perry on the top line (then move Perry to the 3rd line) or one to replace Kase.
 

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,498
15,065
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.

Why wouldn't they just deal him to LV then?

At the end of the day it's not like Vegas is going to be any good any time soon. Plus their picks are probably going to be pretty decent.

I just don't see a point to dealing Vatanen for picks/prospects unless you are getting a real nice prospect. If it's picks just deal with GMGM before the expansion draft.
 

Extra Texture

A new career
Mar 21, 2008
8,789
3,566
in a new town
The Ducks are blessed to have had three gifted, mobile young D men in Fowler, Lindholm and Vatanen the last few years. The fact that they can move Vatanen in his prime and add pieces (or depth) to an already competitive team is scary.
 

MichaelJ

Registered User
May 20, 2013
7,874
766
He's a center right? I don't believe we really need another center with Getz and Kes. Would rather make a move for a natural RW to either replace Perry on the top line (then move Perry to the 3rd line) or one to replace Kase.

RW? Henrique wouldn't work for that. He is a center but seems to play just as well at LW. He's more a versatile forward who can play LW and C. If the Devils had better C depth he'd be at LW. More of a scorer than a true playmaker.
 

anezthes

Registered User
Mar 20, 2014
4,324
2,299
Would Henrique be young enough and provide enough of an impact? Maybe with some adds on each side for balance but Henrique and Theodore as basis for a deal?

Nope. Zacha is the only interesting piece if we're trading Theo/Larsson. I also disagree with the notion that they'd be available.
 

Crosbysux

Registered User
Dec 29, 2013
1,278
3
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.

I agree, Fowler is only traded if he won't resign or his asking price is too high. Murray has to make the decision by the expansion draft though. Yes, he's giving up on a year worth of negotiation, but we can't lose both Vats and Fowler. If Murray has any doubts about Fowler resigning, it will be him that is dealt. I definitely prefer Fowler to be the piece we keep, but I have a feeling he'll be the one traded at the end of the season. On the flip side, if Murray thinks he can resign Fowler, Vats could be gone by the deadline.
 

robbieboy3686

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
2,700
1,806
I agree, Fowler is only traded if he won't resign or his asking price is too high. Murray has to make the decision by the expansion draft though. Yes, he's giving up on a year worth of negotiation, but we can't lose both Vats and Fowler. If Murray has any doubts about Fowler resigning, it will be him that is dealt. I definitely prefer Fowler to be the piece we keep, but I have a feeling he'll be the one traded at the end of the season. On the flip side, if Murray thinks he can resign Fowler, Vats could be gone by the deadline.
Fowler sure seems like a guy who loves his team and will take a " home town discount " i've always been highly critical of both vats and fowler for being weak in their own end, but Cam has picked his game up, both sides of the ice. I hope I'm right about him taking a "home town discount " on the other hand , it always seemed off to me that raks and lindholm " we have no interest in giving them bridge deals " yet vats was given a bridge deal very quickly . When that happened , I always thought that Vats would become very expandable. Now , with the emergence of Fowler, it seems inevitable. I really hope this trade deadline , we actually get that already top young impact top 6 forward as well as possibly a solid 3rd line wing as well. We finally have a clutch gamer goalie to take us back to the promise land( andersen would not have and will never be that guy. But Gibson sure seems to have that calm clutch factor that all top pro athletes seem to have in the nhl and other sports as well)
 

TopShelfWaterBottle

Registered
Mar 16, 2014
3,363
1,354
Fowler sure seems like a guy who loves his team and will take a " home town discount " i've always been highly critical of both vats and fowler for being weak in their own end, but Cam has picked his game up, both sides of the ice. I hope I'm right about him taking a "home town discount " on the other hand , it always seemed off to me that raks and lindholm " we have no interest in giving them bridge deals " yet vats was given a bridge deal very quickly . When that happened , I always thought that Vats would become very expandable. Now , with the emergence of Fowler, it seems inevitable. I really hope this trade deadline , we actually get that already top young impact top 6 forward as well as possibly a solid 3rd line wing as well. We finally have a clutch gamer goalie to take us back to the promise land( andersen would not have and will never be that guy. But Gibson sure seems to have that calm clutch factor that all top pro athletes seem to have in the nhl and other sports as well)

Be ready for more dumpster diving
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->