GDT: Ducks @ Flyers - 10 AM PT, 7 PM CET

[dracom]

not sure if this was posted already, too Getzlaf to look through the other pages, but even Randy didn't expect to survive this long.

 

[Dirk316]

I swear this team went from bad to completely horrific overnight the second Cogs was dealt. I think seeing someone that works his ass off the way he does being dealt broke this teams spirit completely.

Here’s a fun stat: +\- for our dmen that hve averaged 15+ minutes per game since New Year’s Day (I know it’s a horrible stat but it’s pretty telling in this case):

Fowler 14 GP -17
Manson 15 GP -14
Montour 15 GP -9
Lindholm 15GP -6
Del Zotto 6GP -6
Holzer 2GP even

Our D is completely broken mentally. You can see it in their body language every time they are on the ice for a goal against.

What are the stats since Dotchin was demoted?

 

[Ducks DVM]

Depending on where you pick you've got a 50% shot at that happening. Not only that, but several of those teams aren't in a position to wait for the development.

A 50% chance of a top line guy is infinitely better than a 0% chance.

And as tightly packed as the standings are, all top 10 picks have a very good chance of being top 5 picks. Nobody is trading that chance for Manson or Montour when the difference between 1 and 10 is 7 points.

 

[dracom]

What are the stats since Dotchin was demoted?

Fowler is a -9 in 9 games
Lindholm is a -8 in 9 games
Manson is a -8 in 9 games
Montour is a -9 in 9 games

I'm not sure if there's a correlation. I do think we miss his physical presence on the bottom pairing though.

 

[Static]

A 50% chance of a top line guy is infinitely better than a 0% chance.

And as tightly packed as the standings are, all top 10 picks have a very good chance of being top 5 picks. Nobody is trading that chance for Manson or Montour when the difference between 1 and 10 is 7 points.

I disagree with your opinion on it being so definitive.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I disagree with your opinion on it being so definitive.

This isn’t a normal year where there’s a massive points separation between the top 3-5 picks and the rest of the field. The way it stands right now, it’s literally 1 loss to drop from the 10th to the 6th draft lottery position, 2 losses to drop to the #4. I think trading a top 5 pick for those guys is the kind of thing that a GM loses their job over. Agree to disagree though.

 

[McDonald19]

not sure if this was posted already, too Getzlaf to look through the other pages, but even Randy didn't expect to survive this long.

He should resign/retire, since Bob won’t pull the trigger.

 

[Static]

This isn’t a normal year where there’s a massive points separation between the top 3-5 picks and the rest of the field. The way it stands right now, it’s literally 1 loss to drop from the 10th to the 6th draft lottery position, 2 losses to drop to the #4. I think trading a top 5 pick for those guys is the kind of thing that a GM loses their job over. Agree to disagree though.

That goes both ways though. Teams also aren't out of the playoffs, and many of them who are in the bottom 10 aren't trying to lose.

 

[dracom]

That goes both ways though. Teams also aren't out of the playoffs, and many of them who are in the bottom 10 aren't trying to lose.

wouldn't it make sense for those teams to trade other assets to get a top 4 D instead of trading what is probably their best asset in a potential lottery pick? I just don't see a team, who is still trying to compete giving up that kind of asset for a top 4 D when you can get one for much less. Trade other picks, prospects, young roster players who haven't fulfilled their projections or whatever,not a potential top 10 pick.

 

[Static]

wouldn't it make sense for those teams to trade other assets to get a top 4 D instead of trading what is probably their best asset in a potential lottery pick? I just don't see a team, who is still trying to compete giving up that kind of asset for a top 4 D when you can get one for much less. Trade other picks, prospects, young roster players who haven't fulfilled their projections or whatever,not a potential top 10 pick.

A team that is trying to compete is more likely to move futures than players who are contributing.

A team who is trading a top four D isn't looking to compete and wants futures.

Furthermore, even if the team was just closer to wanting to compete than wanting to rebuild, wouldn't they move picks over prospects further along in development? Do you think Edmonton wants to restart that clock with mcdavid here now? Or Colorado with McKinnon? Or Florida with barkov?

 

[dracom]

A team that is trying to compete is more likely to move futures than players who are contributing.

A team who is trading a top four D isn't looking to compete and wants futures.

Furthermore, even if the team was just closer to wanting to compete than wanting to rebuild, wouldn't they move picks over prospects further along in development? Do you think Edmonton wants to restart that clock with mcdavid here now? Or Colorado with McKinnon? Or Florida with barkov?

Sure I agree they would trade futures, but trading the best future asset I don’t see them moving. You’re banking on Manson or montour being good enough to solidify their d core to get them out of the bottom 10 so trading the 1st doesn’t look so bad. I like them but I don’t think that happens. I could see them trading other picks, maybe next years 1st and prospects before a top 10 pick just for a top 4 D.

Colorado is the only one I could see trading their 1st since they have Ottawa’s, but why give up the chance to draft twice in the top 10 just for a top 4 D. I just don’t see it happening.

 

[Static]

Sure I agree they would trade futures, but trading the best future asset I don’t see them moving. You’re banking on Manson or montour being good enough to solidify their d core to get them out of the bottom 10 so trading the 1st doesn’t look so bad. I like them but I don’t think that happens. I could see them trading other picks, maybe next years 1st and prospects before a top 10 pick just for a top 4 D.

Colorado is the only one I could see trading their 1st since they have Ottawa’s, but why give up the chance to draft twice in the top 10 just for a top 4 D. I just don’t see it happening.

Because they want to win now and they know what manson is!

I swear, I know this is hockey's future but I'd wager a lot of people would rather have great prospects than great players.

 

[Ducks DVM]

That goes both ways though. Teams also aren't out of the playoffs, and many of them who are in the bottom 10 aren't trying to lose.

I didn’t say that they were. But the GM’s will be assessing the value of those picks realistically. Montour/Manson only helps if they move the D on those teams to move the D they already have to more appropriate positions. That won’t happen in Edmonton (and I’m sure that Edmonton has less than no desire to repeat the Hall trade of a top line guy for a mid-pairing D), Chicago would far rather have a cost controlled star player, Florida pretty clearly wants cheap over good based on the expansion draft, Colorado needs all the help they can get in getting both legitimate top line D AND forwards past that top line, and their goaltending is also a farce - Manson/Montour don’t fix them.

This isn’t a case of great prospects over great players. This is a case of great prospects over good players.

 

[Vinegar Strokes]

But are they?

Allegedly. Like how Dane Cook was a comedian.

 

[dracom]

Because they want to win now and they know what manson is!

I swear, I know this is hockey's future but I'd wager a lot of people would rather have great prospects than great players.

And people on here grossly over exaggerates their own players. Manson is good, but he’s not going to fix Colorado’s issues and help them win a cup, not with the lack of offensive depth and goal tending.

Top 10 picks are valuable to GMs, it’s why they don’t get moved often. They provide something very useful for any team (rebuilding or contending), cheap impact players with years of team control.

 

[Static]

This isn’t a case of great prospects over great players. This is a case of great prospects over good players.

And this is coming from the fan base that readily ridicules Murray for not going all in.

I think because of how badly this season has gone that everyone around here underrates our players, because this sentiment wouldn't have been prevalent even six months ago.

 

[Ducks DVM]

And this is coming from the fan base that readily ridicules Murray for not going all in.

I think because of how badly this season has gone that everyone around here underrates our players, because this sentiment wouldn't have been prevalent even six months ago.

No, I’ve never considered either of them top pairing guys. I think Montour is a 4 because he’s far too erratic who Might top out as a 2 if he’s developed properly and Manson is a 3 who can top out as a 2. I’d consider both a disappointment as a top 5-10 pick.

 

[Static]

No, I’ve never considered either of them top pairing guys. I think Montour is a 4 because he’s far too erratic who Might top out as a 2 if he’s developed properly and Manson is a 3 who can top out as a 2. I’d consider both a disappointment as a top 5-10 pick.

So, would you trade Manson for the 10th pick this year?

 

[HanSolo]

And this is coming from the fan base that readily ridicules Murray for not going all in.

I think because of how badly this season has gone that everyone around here underrates our players, because this sentiment wouldn't have been prevalent even six months ago.

I can't speak for everyone else but I don't ridicule him for not going all in. The contract situation really doesn't allow it. I ridicule him for making barrel scraping moves like Chimera and Kelly and trys to sell fans on them being some impact moves.

 

[Arthuros]

So this is nth-dimensional chess, right?

 

[Ducks DVM]

So, would you trade Manson for the 10th pick this year?

Assuming this isn’t a true tear down and rebuild, no, because there’s nothing like him in the system and the salary to replace him would be more than he makes. I also wouldn’t trade the 10th overall for a player like him.

If it’s a true tear down and rebuild? Absolutely. I would NEVER trade the 10th overall for a player like him unless it was a historically weak draft, however, and even then, it’d be unlikely.

 

[AustrianDuck]

Did Carlyle take a timeout after the 3:0? I don't want to watch it again.

 

[bumperkisser]

Did Carlyle take a timeout after the 3:0? I don't want to watch it again.

Nope

 

[bsu]

Why would he take a timeout.... He doesn't even know what to say

 

[Trojans86]

I fundamentally disagree that teams want a 3/4 D for a top 10 pick. You want a top line/top pairing D at that level. And while Manson and Montour have both played with Lindholm, I don’t see either as legitimate #2’s.

Manson is clearly a #2 if you ask me. When he plays with Lindholm they have been one of the best pairings in the league. People say Lindholm is an average 1d at best and now I'm hearing Manson is a 3/4. How would am average 1d and a 3/4d create one of the best pairings in the league? Montour is a 3/4 but with huge upside. If I were the Ducks and say we had the 8th overall I'd easily trade it for either Manson or Montour if I thought the team was a contender or close to it. There are a ton of busts at ~8oa.