Confirmed with Link: Despres re-signs (18.5m/5y - 3.7m AAV)

[TheJoeMan]

3.7 is not a lot of money for a defenseman. Currently 85 defenseman in the league make more than that including two guys on this team. Ignoring this team's cap situation, once Lindholm and Vatanen get new contracts that'll make four. 3.7 is a great price for a big, mobile d-man who can log 20 minutes a night and score upwards of 30 points. If he continues to play exactly as he has since he's been here this contract is more than justified. Considering he still might have room to grow this could wnd up being a huge steal.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

3.7 is not a lot of money for a defenseman. Currently 85 defenseman in the league make more than that including two guys on this team. Ignoring this team's cap situation, once Lindholm and Vatanen get new contracts that'll make four. 3.7 is a great price for a big, mobile d-man who can log 20 minutes a night and score upwards of 30 points. If he continues to play exactly as he has since he's been here this contract is more than justified. Considering he still might have room to grow this could wnd up being a huge steal.

You'd have to.

 

[Night Shift]

Penguins haven't been the same since the trade. We are 7-12-3 since Despres left. (one of those wins were against your Ducks at Honda). The Penguins are up for sale and the sale can't come soon enough. We are in need of a committed owner to clean house and put a competent front office together.

 

[vikingGoalie]

when you consider us penguins are paying roughly the same amount for rob scuderi. that's about all you need to know.


just thinking about that made me throw up in my mouth a little...

 

[Ando]

Isn't Sbisa getting like 3.6 per season now or something?

 

[eternalbedhead]

If he plays at the level he was last season, then I do think this contract is fair value, not really an overpayment. The problem is our cap situation. Not sure why the hell we're signing Despres before Lindholm and this isn't going to help cap flexibility any. The good news is, the term isn't bad like the Kesler deal, but we might have to dump someone good this offseason. I do like his physicality on a blue-line that doesn't have that feature in abundance but I also think this is a little too much to give out for a budget team about to have issues with all their young players coming off ELCs or 2-ways.

 

[Kalv]

If he plays at the level he was last season, then I do think this contract is fair value, not really an overpayment. The problem is our cap situation. Not sure why the hell we're signing Despres before Lindholm and this isn't going to help cap flexibility any. The good news is, the term isn't bad like the Kesler deal, but we might have to dump someone good this offseason. I do like his physicality on a blue-line that doesn't have that feature in abundance but I also think this is a little too much to give out for a budget team about to have issues with all their young players coming off ELCs or 2-ways.

The reason why we signed Gibson and Despres before Lindholm is because they wanted to stay here and both sides agreed on the contract terms. Lindholm is still the top priority (although i think Andersen should be too). Murray has let us know that we will start with those who want to be here. Then go from there. For someone it might be too late at the end of the year

 

[Duck Off]

If he plays at the level he was last season, then I do think this contract is fair value, not really an overpayment. The problem is our cap situation. Not sure why the hell we're signing Despres before Lindholm and this isn't going to help cap flexibility any. The good news is, the term isn't bad like the Kesler deal, but we might have to dump someone good this offseason. I do like his physicality on a blue-line that doesn't have that feature in abundance but I also think this is a little too much to give out for a budget team about to have issues with all their young players coming off ELCs or 2-ways.

Simple, because Despres is a valuable member of this team, and Murray sees him continuing this path as a top 4 defenseman.

Gibson is the one you should be worried about hindering the team. We don't even know if he's the starter yet, and Murray gave him a substantial raises already. If Andersen plays well this year, we could be looking at over 7 million combined in our goalies next year.

 

[darkwingduck]

Simple, because Despres is a valuable member of this team, and Murray sees him continuing this path as a top 4 defenseman.

Gibson is the one you should be worried about hindering the team. We don't even know if he's the starter yet, and Murray gave him a substantial raises already. If Andersen plays well this year, we could be looking at over 7 million combined in our goalies next year.

I may be wrong but I believe Gibson's first year is the lowest of the three years at around 1+ million. With the expansion draft fast approaching and us being forced to get rid of one our goalies anyways, I honestly think that BM is trying to make everyone's 2016-2017 numbers low. Silfverberg's is front ended it so he costs way more this year than next as an another example. I think with one of our goalies gone and hopefully stoner gone we should be fine for the rest.

 

[Paul4587]

Isn't Sbisa getting like 3.6 per season now or something?

Yes. Sbisa was unrestricted though. I would use Sbisa as an example why bridge contracts should be used on guys who the jury is still out on - the majority of posters on hfboards thought he was a future top pairing defenseman after the 2011-12 season.

 

[eternalbedhead]

The reason why we signed Gibson and Despres before Lindholm is because they wanted to stay here and both sides agreed on the contract terms. Lindholm is still the top priority (although i think Andersen should be too). Murray has let us know that we will start with those who want to be here. Then go from there. For someone it might be too late at the end of the year

I can understand that viewpoint but I don't agree with it. If Lindholm is priority one but he's not sure about staying here then we should make sure he knows we want him back. It's just a good gesture. Besides, I'd much rather have Lindholm signed long term than Despres. I like Despres, don't get me wrong, but IMO Lindholm is more important to the long-term success of the D-core and ultimately the team.

Simple, because Despres is a valuable member of this team, and Murray sees him continuing this path as a top 4 defenseman.

Gibson is the one you should be worried about hindering the team. We don't even know if he's the starter yet, and Murray gave him a substantial raises already. If Andersen plays well this year, we could be looking at over 7 million combined in our goalies next year.

You twisted my words a bit. I did not say we shouldn't have signed him, I just said this is a little much to be giving out in our current state of cap distress. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I'd have liked this to be closer to 3M. 3.25 maybe.


Gibson I'm a little worried about, but it could work out great. First off, it's a movable contract. Gibson is only 22 right now. 2.3 is about market value, maybe a little more, for a backup which is what I'd peg Gibson as right now. He's still young and is not signed to some ridiculous DiPietro contract. If he's just not cutting it we'll be able to trade that contract should it come time to cross that bridge. It is a bit of a gamble, but it could really give us some cap flexibility if we can go with 2.3 cap hit Gibson + 2.5-ish Khudobin (if we sign him) as our NHL duo than 2.3 Gibson and 5+ Andersen. I do suspect we'll have a bit of a hiccup next year, so maybe we can have the opportunity to give Gibby some more ice time. Khudobin, who's a solid goalie in his own right, can platoon with him so Gibson is not being relied upon.

 

[Duck Off]

I can understand that viewpoint but I don't agree with it. If Lindholm is priority one but he's not sure about staying here then we should make sure he knows we want him back. It's just a good gesture. Besides, I'd much rather have Lindholm signed long term than Despres. I like Despres, don't get me wrong, but IMO Lindholm is more important to the long-term success of the D-core and ultimately the team..

How do you "make sure he knows we want him back"? The Ducks have apparently been discussing a contract with him for a while. If Murray waits around, others are going to increase their value. Despres is a perfect example. If he played like he did last season for half the year, I guarantee his price is higher than what it was signed for. This is why I said it was pretty foolish to sign Gibson and Kesler to deals so early, especially Gibson. Even doing great in the minors wouldn't inflate his value much. I say Kesler too because it's not like he's going to keep scoring more and more and get over what he received.

You twisted my words a bit. I did not say we shouldn't have signed him, I just said this is a little much to be giving out in our current state of cap distress. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I'd have liked this to be closer to 3M. 3.25 maybe.

Gibson I'm a little worried about, but it could work out great. First off, it's a movable contract. Gibson is only 22 right now. 2.3 is about market value, maybe a little more, for a backup which is what I'd peg Gibson as right now. He's still young and is not signed to some ridiculous DiPietro contract. If he's just not cutting it we'll be able to trade that contract should it come time to cross that bridge. It is a bit of a gamble, but it could really give us some cap flexibility if we can go with 2.3 cap hit Gibson + 2.5-ish Khudobin (if we sign him) as our NHL duo than 2.3 Gibson and 5+ Andersen. I do suspect we'll have a bit of a hiccup next year, so maybe we can have the opportunity to give Gibby some more ice time. Khudobin, who's a solid goalie in his own right, can platoon with him so Gibson is not being relied upon.

The Ducks probably could have got him for that but paid a little extra for the term, which is fine IMO. I agree that there needs to be a priority list if you will, but one guy can't hold up the rest. I personally think there should be groups though. I would have had Gibson and Andersen in the last group because too much is unknown right now.

 

[eternalbedhead]

How do you "make sure he knows we want him back"? The Ducks have apparently been discussing a contract with him for a while. If Murray waits around, others are going to increase their value. Despres is a perfect example. If he played like he did last season for half the year, I guarantee his price is higher than what it was signed for. This is why I said it was pretty foolish to sign Gibson and Kesler to deals so early, especially Gibson. Even doing great in the minors wouldn't inflate his value much. I say Kesler too because it's not like he's going to keep scoring more and more and get over what he received.

I'm more of an orderly guy. If we have 5 players named by their rank in skill, I'd sign 1, then 2, then 3, etc. Not whoever's ready to sign first. It's just my personality and that's my main reason I'm not sure about Despres being the first D-man we lock up long-term. For Kesler, yes I do agree, that's too much money and term for a 31-year old guy. Gibson is unproven but I'd say he could be a legitimate backup if he capped out right now, and 2.3 is pretty fair value for that.

The Ducks probably could have got him for that but paid a little extra for the term, which is fine IMO. I agree that there needs to be a priority list if you will, but one guy can't hold up the rest. I personally think there should be groups though. I would have had Gibson and Andersen in the last group because too much is unknown right now.


I apologize for jinxing the situation but I'm afraid we might see a Daigle-Yashin-esque situation (at least as far as standing with one prospect goalie over an established one, I'm not really talking about cap) if Gibson busts. We have the established goalie in Andersen (Yashin) that is a good, but not elite goalie in his own right and then we have the prospective superstar who's not quite ready to be a full-time NHLer but has a higher potential than Andersen in Gibson. (Daigle) If potential was exact, every player that *could* be a Gretzky would be Gretzky, I'd stick with Gibson but the thing is he's getting buried on the depth chart and he's old enough that he should be getting his feet wet more in the NHL. However, if you trade him away early then he could go to another team and thrive and you just missed out on an elite goalie. I really don't know. The contract is a bit of a risk but it could turn out. For our offseason, I do think it's important to get one of our goalies signed before the season. Andersen would have been the safest bet but also would be most expensive. Gibson is a wild-card but could end up being a steal if he becomes what he's supposed to be. Khudobin, should he end up in our long-term plans, is older, is an average starting goalie at best, but should be fairly cheap if we want to be able to sign the rest of our players.

Comments in bold.

 

[Sojourn]

The problem with negotiating in order is that it hampers your ability. Some negotiations are going to take longer, and there is no reason not to negotiate with multiple players at the same time.

 

[Vipers31]

I'm more of an orderly guy. If we have 5 players named by their rank in skill, I'd sign 1, then 2, then 3, etc. Not whoever's ready to sign first. It's just my personality and that's my main reason I'm not sure about Despres being the first D-man we lock up long-term.

It's not a personality thing, it's a bit of a naivety thing. Player 1's agent ends up being a bit harder to come to terms with, and so what? You end up letting 2, 3, etc walk because you never get 1 done? You can't do that. You need a plan in place beforehand, and a relatively clear idea of which price you deem good, tolerable and inacceptable for each player individually and as a group. If you know that, you're not going to hold yourself hostage over one negotiation, that you are simply not in full control of.

If potential was exact, every player that *could* be a Gretzky would be Gretzky, I'd stick with Gibson but the thing is he's getting buried on the depth chart and he's old enough that he should be getting his feet wet more in the NHL.

There's no issue with Gibson, though. He has gotten his feet wet. And he has put up solid numbers in the process. It's a purely developmental decision to have him play as many minutes of hockey as possible right now. Whether it's the right one, I don't know. I personally have always been advocating 30-ish NHL games and a full year of NHL practise over 60 AHL games and a full year of AHL practise, but we'll never know if that's better or worse. At the very least, it made sense from an organisational POV, given that we needed more depth, and we wouldn't be able to get the same quality of depth without Gibson down in SD.

However, if you trade him away early then he could go to another team and thrive and you just missed out on an elite goalie. I really don't know. The contract is a bit of a risk but it could turn out. For our offseason, I do think it's important to get one of our goalies signed before the season. Andersen would have been the safest bet but also would be most expensive. Gibson is a wild-card but could end up being a steal if he becomes what he's supposed to be.

Well, Gibson is signed for the foreseeable future, dating back to his extension a month-ish back. His contract is not stopping us from extending Andersen, as well. I agree with you on the latter being a safer bet, which is why he's going to be more expensive.

 

[Duck Off]

Comments in bold.

If you made Lindholm the #1 priority and refused to sign anyone until he signed, you could potentially lose several players if it takes too long to sign your first option. I guarantee Lindholm was priority to sign this offseason, but Bob can't help that they're nowhere close on negotiations. Even if you don't lose players, you could potentially hurt yourself in negotiations if the players continue to increase their value.

What you have to do IMO is make a few priorities. Silfverberg, Lindholm, and Despres would have been my targets to get done quickly. Why Despres? Because I think the longer we would have waited on him, the more his price would have gone up. You could make the same argument for Vatanen here as well, but I believe (and think Bob does too) that Sami is going to be gone for sure. He's going to price himself out of town because he's one of those guys who's stats will make him more valuable than he actually is.

I would have waited on Kesler. Not because he isn't important, but because I don't see him increasing his value, and I don't see many contenders capable of giving him what we'd be able too.

I don't necessarily mind the timing of Gibson's deal. I just think it's expensive for the position he and we(Ducks) are in. I wouldn't have given him that much. Definitely not this early anyway. Manson is a great example. He doesn't have the potential, but according to McKenzie, he was one of the most sought after defenseman around the draft. I firmly believe Bob knew this kid may be frustrated being in the minors again (if he didn't make the team), so he signed him to an extension early. However, he gave him a small deal, because quite frankly, that's all he's earned. Gibson hasn't earned that deal IMO.

 

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

This deal is going to look like a steal within 2 years. Good job Ducks and grats to Simon.

 

[DucksAreCool]

If you made Lindholm the #1 priority and refused to sign anyone until he signed, you could potentially lose several players if it takes too long to sign your first option. I guarantee Lindholm was priority to sign this offseason, but Bob can't help that they're nowhere close on negotiations. Even if you don't lose players, you could potentially hurt yourself in negotiations if the players continue to increase their value.

What you have to do IMO is make a few priorities. Silfverberg, Lindholm, and Despres would have been my targets to get done quickly. Why Despres? Because I think the longer we would have waited on him, the more his price would have gone up. You could make the same argument for Vatanen here as well, but I believe (and think Bob does too) that Sami is going to be gone for sure. He's going to price himself out of town because he's one of those guys who's stats will make him more valuable than he actually is.

I would have waited on Kesler. Not because he isn't important, but because I don't see him increasing his value, and I don't see many contenders capable of giving him what we'd be able too.

I don't necessarily mind the timing of Gibson's deal. I just think it's expensive for the position he and we(Ducks) are in. I wouldn't have given him that much. Definitely not this early anyway. Manson is a great example. He doesn't have the potential, but according to McKenzie, he was one of the most sought after defenseman around the draft. I firmly believe Bob knew this kid may be frustrated being in the minors again (if he didn't make the team), so he signed him to an extension early. However, he gave him a small deal, because quite frankly, that's all he's earned. Gibson hasn't earned that deal IMO.

Getting caught up and dealing only in what you feel people have "earned" can get GM's in trouble too.

It's the nature of NHL deals, you pay old guys for what they did in the past knowing by the last years of the contract they won't justify that much and you pay young guys hoping they meet or exceed expectations and over play their contract for a few years.

 

[Gardiner Expressway]

Why do they refuse to give him PP time? Is he just not there yet or is PP prowess not in the cards for him at all?

 

[Duck Off]

Why do they refuse to give him PP time? Is he just not there yet or is PP prowess not in the cards for him at all?

Because we have Fowler, Lindholm, and Vatanen on the team. Bieksa is also better on the PP as well. Just not the best use of Despres.

 

[Exit Dose]

Why do they refuse to give him PP time? Is he just not there yet or is PP prowess not in the cards for him at all?

It's better for Despres that he's not subjected to our power play.

 

[Paul4587]

Why do they refuse to give him PP time? Is he just not there yet or is PP prowess not in the cards for him at all?

Just to mess with your fantasy team. Nothing to do with the fact he doesn't have a quick windup, good one timer or particularly good vision.