Bob Murray/Ducks Management Discussion

[Duck Off]

I won't argue that about opening day, but like I said - after about 10 games, that guy was named Perry.

Yeah, but I don't think that necessarily means he's there 10 games in if Palmieri is here. I guess it'd depend on how the team was playing. I think the team, especially that line would have been more successful with Palmieri there than Stewart or Santorelli. If that line was, it's I think Perry stays on 3rd line like he did this year.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Apparently I have to put this in every thread. STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND BAITING COMMENTS. Next one gets infracted.

 

[OCSportsfan]

Thinking Palmieri would score 30 goals here that year may be wishful thinking. However, I don't think it's far fetched at all to say he would have done better than the other options on Getzlaf's wing.

By the way, I love that this has turned into a Palmieri trade argument. One of my favorite discussions. Interesting how polarizing it is.

I will preface by saying Palms was my favorite young player on the Ducks prior to the trade. I thought he was going to be Teemu light. But at the time I understood the rationale and was okay with the trade, here is why.

I think it comes down to this regarding Palms. I thought he was quite good on the left with Getz and Perry, but BB did not. I would have kept him on the team and just committed to playing him there until the chemistry either failed or worked for most of the year, but if the COACH does not buy into that, then he has to play RW. At the time, he was behind Perry at RW, and Silf had just bumped him from Keslers line in the playoffs. So if the COACH feels he is only good at RW, then he is going to be 3rd/4th line. If that is the coaches plan, then you HAVE to move him so he does not take a roster spot of a player more suited for that role. Use his money for a LW player.

IMO his trade is more tied to his use with BB than his pending contract. If he had proven himself to BB (like Rakell) on the top line, he would still be a Duck.

Now you cant use Hagelin, Stewart (terrible move BTW) or anyone else BM picked up to play LW as reasons it was bad. They are independent of themselves. If Hagelin scored 40 goals, it still would not make a difference.

 

[Exit Dose]

Now you cant use Hagelin, Stewart (terrible move BTW) or anyone else BM picked up to play LW as reasons it was bad. They are independent of themselves. If Hagelin scored 40 goals, it still would not make a difference.

That is just false. If Bob Murray had moved Palmieri to make trading for what turned out to be a 40 goal scorer happen, signed at 4 per year, you would only see one particular sort of fan complaining.

 

[OCSportsfan]

That is just false. If Bob Murray had moved Palmieri to make trading for what turned out to be a 40 goal scorer happen, signed at 4 per year, you would only see one particular sort of fan complaining.

He did not move Palmieri to make room for Hagelin, he moved him because he did not have a spot with that coach in the top 6.

 

[2faded]

Apparently I have to put this in every thread. STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND BAITING COMMENTS. Next one gets infracted.

You smell like my hockey bag!

 

[Ducks DVM]

You smell like my hockey bag!

That's one fine hockey bag.

 

[Paul4587]

By the way, I love that this has turned into a Palmieri trade argument. One of my favorite discussions. Interesting how polarizing it is.

I will preface by saying Palms was my favorite young player on the Ducks prior to the trade. I thought he was going to be Teemu light. But at the time I understood the rationale and was okay with the trade, here is why.

I think it comes down to this regarding Palms. I thought he was quite good on the left with Getz and Perry, but BB did not. I would have kept him on the team and just committed to playing him there until the chemistry either failed or worked for most of the year, but if the COACH does not buy into that, then he has to play RW. At the time, he was behind Perry at RW, and Silf had just bumped him from Keslers line in the playoffs. So if the COACH feels he is only good at RW, then he is going to be 3rd/4th line. If that is the coaches plan, then you HAVE to move him so he does not take a roster spot of a player more suited for that role. Use his money for a LW player.

IMO his trade is more tied to his use with BB than his pending contract. If he had proven himself to BB (like Rakell) on the top line, he would still be a Duck.

Now you cant use Hagelin, Stewart (terrible move BTW) or anyone else BM picked up to play LW as reasons it was bad. They are independent of themselves. If Hagelin scored 40 goals, it still would not make a difference.

Steward wasn't picked up as a LW he was picked up as a RW. And he played on Getzlafs line frequently that year. Hagelin and Perron were LWs, not Stewart though.

 

[Exit Dose]

He did not move Palmieri to make room for Hagelin, he moved him because he did not have a spot with that coach in the top 6.

Now you're just being obtuse. He didn't move Palmieri to make room for Hagelin. He moved Palmieri for one of the main pieces in the trade for Hagelin.

And not having a spot in the top six is still a stupid justification for doing that. He was on a 20 goal scoring pace that year, and making very little. He was among the most cost efficient depth scorers that year.

 

[Duck Off]

I think it comes down to this regarding Palms. I thought he was quite good on the left with Getz and Perry, but BB did not. I would have kept him on the team and just committed to playing him there until the chemistry either failed or worked for most of the year, but if the COACH does not buy into that, then he has to play RW. .

That's because that previous year Bruce was adamant that the twins stay together. Palmieri never looked comfortable on the left side. If the plan going into that next season was to find a LW for them, then I'd agree. It wasn't though. Bruce had them separated all through camp, preseason, and the start of the regular season. It was 10-15 games that he changed it back because we didn't have the wingers to make two scoring lines. Once we traded for Perron, they were separated again. If Palmieri was traded during that previous season, I'd agree with you here. He wasn't. He was traded in the offseason where Bruce clearly wanted Perry and Getzlaf on separate lines.

At the time, he was behind Perry at RW, and Silf had just bumped him from Keslers line in the playoffs. So if the COACH feels he is only good at RW, then he is going to be 3rd/4th line. If that is the coaches plan, then you HAVE to move him so he does not take a roster spot of a player more suited for that role. Use his money for a LW player. .

They had top line RW open in camp, preseason, etc. after he was traded. Stewart started there.

IMO his trade is more tied to his use with BB than his pending contract. If he had proven himself to BB (like Rakell) on the top line, he would still be a Duck..

I don't think people were upset that he was traded. They were upset on when he was traded, and what he was traded for. He was traded when we had the perfect spot for him. If he's traded for or a replacement is brought in that's an upgrade to him; no one is complaining.

Now you cant use Hagelin, Stewart (terrible move BTW) or anyone else BM picked up to play LW as reasons it was bad. They are independent of themselves. If Hagelin scored 40 goals, it still would not make a difference.

Stewart was a RW, and he and Santorelli were frequent players on Getzlaf's RW. Stewart did play LW at times when Bruce couldn't make separating the twins work, but he was primarily a RW.

 

[Duck Off]

He did not move Palmieri to make room for Hagelin, he moved him because he did not have a spot with that coach in the top 6.

There was a place for him on the top line going into that season though. That's where the frustration originated from. If we weren't starting Stewart at 1st line RW, then the Palmieri trade isn't that big of a deal. We literally traded Palmieri when we FINALLY had the best spot for him. before that, you're correct, he didn't have a spot. That's why many (including me) expected Palms to be traded and for us to upgrade that spot for a better fit (left wing). That all changed when Bruce went from "I'm never separating Getzlaf/Perry" to "we need to spread the scoring out".

 

[Nurmagomedov]

Bob is having one hell of an offseason so far.

-Got rid of Despres contract.
-Kept the defense intact through expansion and got rid of Stoner at the significant but manageable cost of Theo.
-Got the best 1B backup possible on a great contract.
-Kept a key player in Eaves on a good contract.
-Locked Cam through his prime on a good contract.
-Did not sign Dan Girardi for 3y/$3M

All while getting us some breathing room under the cap. Brilliant work so far.

 

[Opak]

Bob is having one hell of an offseason so far.

-Got rid of Despres contract.
-Kept the defense intact through expansion and got rid of Stoner at the significant but manageable cost of Theo.
-Got the best 1B backup possible on a great contract.
-Kept a key player in Eaves on a good contract.
-Locked Cam through his prime on a good contract.
-Did not sign Dan Girardi for 3y/$3M

All while getting us some breathing room under the cap. Brilliant work so far.

On the first part, I agree that losing Theodore is a very decent scenario for us. It sucks to lose him, but the again the result could've been so much worse. However, that also puts a little bit of pressure on Bob -- he's most likely facing a Vatanen trade sometime during the course of the next season due to the upcoming 2018 cap hell, and now that he chose to keep Vatanen over Theodore, he REALLY needs to deliver on that trade. If he gets a very bad return on Vatanen, on a deal that probably could've been worked out prior to the expansion, the situation as a whole doesn't look that good for him.

On the second part, I don't know whether I'd call Eaves a key player, or whether I'd call that contract "good". I'm not saying it's necessarily "bad", but IMO it's not "good" either.

What we need/needed the most this offseason is a strong 3C, so re-signing Eaves doesn't really help in that regard at all. Sure, depth is always nice, but this time it costs us $3.15 million over three years, which also makes it tougher for us to deal with the 2018 situation. Eaves got paid according to his 32 goal/51 point performance, and IMO it's extremely doubtful that he'll come close to that kind of performance.

I do agree with the rest though -- this has been a much better offseason than, let's say last year, for example. Just get a center (Grant doesn't count), stay away from Marleau and his 3-year deal, and we're good to go.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

On the first part, I agree that losing Theodore is a very decent scenario for us. It sucks to lose him, but the again the result could've been so much worse. However, that also puts a little bit of pressure on Bob -- he's most likely facing a Vatanen trade sometime during the course of the next season due to the upcoming 2018 cap hell, and now that he chose to keep Vatanen over Theodore, he REALLY needs to deliver on that trade. If he gets a very bad return on Vatanen, on a deal that probably could've been worked out prior to the expansion, the situation as a whole doesn't look that good for him.

On the second part, I don't know whether I'd call Eaves a key player, or whether I'd call that contract "good". I'm not saying it's necessarily "bad", but IMO it's not "good" either.

What we need/needed the most this offseason is a strong 3C, so re-signing Eaves doesn't really help in that regard at all. Sure, depth is always nice, but this time it costs us $3.15 million over three years, which also makes it tougher for us to deal with the 2018 situation. Eaves got paid according to his 32 goal/51 point performance, and IMO it's extremely doubtful that he'll come close to that kind of performance.

I do agree with the rest though -- this has been a much better offseason than, let's say last year, for example. Just get a center (Grant doesn't count), stay away from Marleau and his 3-year deal, and we're good to go.

So I went to Cap Friendly to see this projected "cap hell". I don't see it.

2017-18 Cap space: $5.74 mil

That's including all the recent signings of Eaves, Miller, and Holzer. Fowler's extension doesn't happen until 2018-19. It didn't include Derek Grant's whopping $650K, one year deal.

2018-19 Cap space: $18.67 mil

There's a lot money coming off the books then, but two players that might be top priorities are Cogs and Manson (RFA). We can slot in a rookie D in place of Bxa, as Bxa's contract last year was 2017-18 season. Ritchie and Kase are RFA's as well.


The Cap space you really should worry about is 2019-20 season. Silfverberg and Gibson (RFA) contracts are up and they're more than likely to receive a significant raise.

===
As for Eaves, I guess the trial run last year with him didn't sell you that he has great chemistry with the group on the ice. He was scoring better with us than he was with Dallas. So this isn't as big a gamble as say Hagelin. We traded for Hagelin during the summer and signed him to a four year $16 mil contract. That's $4 mil a year.

Let's recap
Hagelin: 43 games, 4 goals + 8 assists = 12 points, 0.279 ppg

Eaves (including playoffs): 27 games, 13 goals + 5 assists = 18 points, 0.667 ppg


It sucks we lost a 3C in Thompson, but he was out most of last year. What we were missing was scoring. We started to score more consistently with Eaves on the roster.

But we're talking about a 3C over an actual scoring top 6 forward? You can mask a 3C (we did last year), but you can't mask a void in scoring.

 

[Spazkat]

There's a lot money coming off the books then, but two players that might be top priorities are Cogs and Manson (RFA). We can slot in a rookie D in place of Bxa, as Bxa's contract last year was 2017-18 season. Ritchie and Kase are RFA's as well.


The Cap space you really should worry about is 2019-20 season. Silfverberg and Gibson (RFA) contracts are up and they're more than likely to receive a significant raise.

===
As for Eaves, I guess the trial run last year with him didn't sell you that he has great chemistry with the group on the ice. He was scoring better with us than he was with Dallas. So this isn't as big a gamble as say Hagelin. We traded for Hagelin during the summer and signed him to a four year $16 mil contract. That's $4 mil a year.

For the first part when Bieksa leaves if we've traded Vats we don't have a rookie to slot in on the right side except Welinski, who by all accounts is nowhere near ready for the NHL.

As to the other... I like Eaves and how he did for us last year, but projecting that output going forward is sort of disingenuous. Over a 12 year career he scores at .386 PPG pace which isn't exactly setting the world on fire. And that's assuming he's healthy a full year. Plus he has only been healthy for 210 games over the last 5 seasons.

Optimism is great and I would love nothing more than to see Eaves succeed here, but lets temper our expectations with some realistic projections yeah?

 

[Opak]

So I went to Cap Friendly to see this projected "cap hell". I don't see it.

2017-18 Cap space: $5.74 mil

That's including all the recent signings of Eaves, Miller, and Holzer. Fowler's extension doesn't happen until 2018-19. It didn't include Derek Grant's whopping $650K, one year deal.

2018-19 Cap space: $18.67 mil

There's a lot money coming off the books then, but two players that might be top priorities are Cogs and Manson (RFA). We can slot in a rookie D in place of Bxa, as Bxa's contract last year was 2017-18 season. Ritchie and Kase are RFA's as well.


The Cap space you really should worry about is 2019-20 season. Silfverberg and Gibson (RFA) contracts are up and they're more than likely to receive a significant raise.

===
As for Eaves, I guess the trial run last year with him didn't sell you that he has great chemistry with the group on the ice. He was scoring better with us than he was with Dallas. So this isn't as big a gamble as say Hagelin. We traded for Hagelin during the summer and signed him to a four year $16 mil contract. That's $4 mil a year.

Let's recap
Hagelin: 43 games, 4 goals + 8 assists = 12 points, 0.279 ppg

Eaves (including playoffs): 27 games, 13 goals + 5 assists = 18 points, 0.667 ppg


It sucks we lost a 3C in Thompson, but he was out most of last year. What we were missing was scoring. We started to score more consistently with Eaves on the roster.

But we're talking about a 3C over an actual scoring top 6 forward? You can mask a 3C (we did last year), but you can't mask a void in scoring.

You missed Montour -- he hits RFA as well. So it would be $18.6 million for Cogliano, Manson, Montour, Ritchie, Kase and a Vermette replacement. Plus there's a ton of San Diego extensions coming up, too. Manson can't have a bridge contract, because that would take him to UFA (age), so he has to have a long-term deal. Manson also has full arbitration rights, so that'll make sure that Bob can't pull a Lindholm/Rakell on him.

The same applies partly to Montour as well -- technically he could sign a 1-year bridge, but I don't see that happening. So I believe that has to be a long-term deal as well. Fortunately (for us) Montour isn't eligible for arbitration, so that helps our situation.

IF Cogliano agrees to a team-friendly $3 million (optimistic) and Manson agrees to $5 million long term, it leaves us with $10.6 million cap space to get Montour's long term contract, plus bridge deals for Ritchie and Kase, plus get another center to replace Vermette. It's definitely trickier than you'd think, especially if we have a budget of some sort in place.

And for the second part, the reason why I'm skeptical of Eaves is because I have a hard time seeing him being as effective as he was last year. The guy had a career year at age 33, before that he was a bottom-6 grinder. The point is, he WAS awesome last year, I'm not denying that, but will he be awesome next year too, or will he take a step back performance-wise? Regress closer to his average?

And finally, I'm not saying we lost a 3C in Thompson. I'm saying we need to get a center, because Kesler is out during the start of the season and we need somebody, who can actually play. Getz/Vermette/Wagner/Shaw or Getz/Rakell/Vermette/Wagner doesn't sound all that good to me.

Down the road, we could also use a 3C, who'd be able to take minutes off of Getz/Kesler and provide offense from the bottom-6. We're not going to get much out of guys like Vermette, Wagner and Shaw, both offensively and minute-wise. I'd rather not see Getz/Kesler getting 24 min TOI again, just because we have nobody else that our coach wants to play.

 

[Nurmagomedov]

It's almost as if some of you are suggesting Eaves' contract doesn't take into account the questions about health and regression. As if 3/3 was a normal UFA contract for players who can be reasonably expected to put up 20g/45p. In reality, those players get long term deals at 5.5-6 million per.

On the contract side, Ritchie, Montour and Kase will get nickled and dimed (in a good way) by Bob on their bridges and Manson will get similar deal as Sami.

 

[snarktacular]

He's broken 30 points twice in a 12-year career, played in the AHL 3 years ago (although maybe that was some kind of conditioning stint?), and can be expected to put up 45 points?

 

[Nurmagomedov]

He's broken 30 points twice in a 12-year career, played in the AHL 3 years ago (although maybe that was some kind of conditioning stint?), and can be expected to put up 45 points?

Did he get 5.5-6 million long term?

 

[Crosbysux]

He's broken 30 points twice in a 12-year career, played in the AHL 3 years ago (although maybe that was some kind of conditioning stint?), and can be expected to put up 45 points?

He had 11 goals in 20 games with us and played well in playoffs. He signed for just over 3 mil, if he hits 15 goals the next 3 years then the contract would be justified. Injury has hampered him or he could have put up 20+ several times. It's not about point total with him, it's all about goals. It's a low risk contract, only drawback was the 3rd year, but even that isn't to bad. It's not like he's 38.

 

[Spazkat]

It's almost as if some of you are suggesting Eaves' contract doesn't take into account the questions about health and regression. As if 3/3 was a normal UFA contract for players who can be reasonably expected to put up 20g/45p. In reality, those players get long term deals at 5.5-6 million per.

On the contract side, Ritchie, Montour and Kase will get nickled and dimed (in a good way) by Bob on their bridges and Manson will get similar deal as Sami.

No, (smart) teams do not give 5-6 year contracts to 34 year olds ever, and in general everyone points and laughs at the team that hands out a big contract after 1 good year that appears to be an outlier from all previous years.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

And finally, I'm not saying we lost a 3C in Thompson. I'm saying we need to get a center, because Kesler is out during the start of the season and we need somebody, who can actually play. Getz/Vermette/Wagner/Shaw or Getz/Rakell/Vermette/Wagner doesn't sound all that good to me.

Down the road, we could also use a 3C, who'd be able to take minutes off of Getz/Kesler and provide offense from the bottom-6. We're not going to get much out of guys like Vermette, Wagner and Shaw, both offensively and minute-wise. I'd rather not see Getz/Kesler getting 24 min TOI again, just because we have nobody else that our coach wants to play.

Cramarossa and Noesen were young prospects who have played center. We needlessly let them go to the waiver wire to other teams instead of trying to retain them to slowly develop.

So we'll have to wait and see what else transpires. Unfortunately, this plays into RC's game plan of playing on three lines. LoL

 

[Hockey Duckie]

You missed Montour -- he hits RFA as well. So it would be $18.6 million for Cogliano, Manson, Montour, Ritchie, Kase and a Vermette replacement. Plus there's a ton of San Diego extensions coming up, too. Manson can't have a bridge contract, because that would take him to UFA (age), so he has to have a long-term deal. Manson also has full arbitration rights, so that'll make sure that Bob can't pull a Lindholm/Rakell on him.

The same applies partly to Montour as well -- technically he could sign a 1-year bridge, but I don't see that happening. So I believe that has to be a long-term deal as well. Fortunately (for us) Montour isn't eligible for arbitration, so that helps our situation.

IF Cogliano agrees to a team-friendly $3 million (optimistic) and Manson agrees to $5 million long term, it leaves us with $10.6 million cap space to get Montour's long term contract, plus bridge deals for Ritchie and Kase, plus get another center to replace Vermette. It's definitely trickier than you'd think, especially if we have a budget of some sort in place.

Whoa. I did forget about Montour. But what is this $5 mil for Manson that you're talking about, Willis??? Manson will be making more than Vatanen?! Are you mental about that?! The max Manson would probably make might be $3.75 a year. He isn't on Fowler level to be awarded a $4 mil contract per year.

I'm not seeing a huge payday for Ritchie or Kase.

We're gonna have to rely on some young prospects on the cheap or veterans playing on the cheap.

Is our AHL salary part of the NHL salary? I don't think it's part of the budget.

We have some center prospects that can join the team in 2018 on ELC.

There's $18 mil for 2018-19 season and no bonafide stars that will demand a high AAV. In 2019-20, there will only be $10 mil more to play with for Gibson and Silfverberg. So it's imperative that Bob does some creative contracts for 2018-19 to prepare for 2019-20.

 

[KelVarnsen]

Don't get why Bob had to give out theses one way deals.

Head scratching.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Don't get why Bob had to give out theses one way deals.

Head scratching.

Look at the salaries getting thrown to UFA's.