LeBrun: "Ducks have zero intention of losing Josh Manson"

[caley]

Click to read more...

 

[MMC]

Good.

 

[nucksauce]

So Mason to LVGK then?

 

[ManofSteel55]

As well they shouldn't. The kids a warrior. Future captain somewhere most likely.

 

[Canada4Gold]

I don't understand what LeBrun is saying here. If they have a deal in place with Vegas securing what player Vegas will select. Then they're completely set, they know who Vegas gets and everyone else stays with them. How do they need to make a separate trade with another team. The initial trade with Vegas whatever it is would protect Manson as well because it will guarantee what player Vegas takes. Unless it only guarantees the protection of Vatanen, in which case a seperate trade would have to be made with Vegas to guarantee the protection of Manson as well, not with some other team.

 

[ManofSteel55]

I don't understand what LeBrun is saying here. If they have a deal in place with Vegas securing what player Vegas will select. Then they're completely set, they know who Vegas gets and everyone else stays with them. How do they need to make a separate trade with another team. The initial trade with Vegas whatever it is would protect Manson as well because it will guarantee what player Vegas takes. Unless it only guarantees the protection of Vatanen, in which case a seperate trade would have to be made with Vegas to guarantee the protection of Manson as well, not with some other team.

I might be missing something here, but it seems that Lebrun is just stating that Manson isn't involved in whatever side deal the Knights have with the Ducks.

Someone else suggested that they might have offered up Shea Theodore (expansion draft exempt I think) and maybe something else to not pick Vatanen or Manson.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I don't understand what LeBrun is saying here. If they have a deal in place with Vegas securing what player Vegas will select. Then they're completely set, they know who Vegas gets and everyone else stays with them. How do they need to make a separate trade with another team. The initial trade with Vegas whatever it is would protect Manson as well because it will guarantee what player Vegas takes. Unless it only guarantees the protection of Vatanen, in which case a seperate trade would have to be made with Vegas to guarantee the protection of Manson as well, not with some other team.

idk it reads confusing but maybe the trade we have with vegas is for them not to take manson, but that still leaves vatanen available... so the other team involved might be a move for vatanen so vegas doesnt take him.


Guess well find out

 

[Canada4Gold]

I might be missing something here, but it seems that Lebrun is just stating that Manson isn't involved in whatever side deal the Knights have with the Ducks.

Someone else suggested that they might have offered up Shea Theodore (expansion draft exempt I think) and maybe something else to not pick Vatanen or Manson.

The tweet in the OP LeBrun is quoting McKenzie's tweet where he says it's not necessary for the Ducks to get Bieksa to waive because they have a deal in place with Vegas. To me that means the Ducks have deal in place with Vegas that either a) guarantees which player will be selected from the Ducks, or b) Guarantees protection of both Vatanen and Manson. Otherwise the Ducks would see 1 of them exposed and they would want to get Bieksa to waive so they could protect them.

If it's a) then the Ducks are set and don't need to make another trade with anyone. If it's b) then the Ducks have Manson protected via that trade with Vegas and don't need to make another trade with anyone regarding Manson or Vatanen. They already get to keep both.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Not understanding the concept of Anaheim losing Manson, Pretty understandable that Bob Murray protects Lindholm, Fowler and Manson. Trades Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive his NMC can't really see a problem here or why there's a possible risk of losing Manson unless Murray thought the Bieksa wouldn't waive which it sounded like he would. Just kind of confused why there would be an issue with possibly losing Manson.

 

[Jonas1235]

Cogliano and the farm.

 

[LTIR]

Not understanding the concept of Anaheim losing Manson, Pretty understandable that Bob Murray protects Lindholm, Fowler and Manson. Trades Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive his NMC can't really see a problem here or why there's a possible risk of losing Manson unless Murray thought the Bieksa wouldn't waive which it sounded like he would. Just kind of confused why there would be an issue with possibly losing Manson.

Why would Bieksa waive his NMC for an expansion team?
ANA probably knows his answer and has decided to make a deal with LV to not pick Manson and take Vatanen instead.

Manson would not be traded away. He will be exposed but LV wont take him. (ie the deal)

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Why would Bieksa waive his NMC for an expansion team?
ANA probably knows his answer and has decided to make a deal with LV to not pick Manson and take Vatanen instead.

Manson would not be traded away. He will be exposed but LV wont take him. (ie the deal)

It would be a formality because Vegas would have no reason on earth to take him.

 

[jcbeze]

Why would Bieksa waive his NMC for an expansion team?
ANA probably knows his answer and has decided to make a deal with LV to not pick Manson and take Vatanen instead.

Manson would not be traded away. He will be exposed but LV wont take him. (ie the deal)

Vegas isn't getting Vats as it's expansion pick...lol

 

[oooooooooohCanada]

Not understanding the concept of Anaheim losing Manson, Pretty understandable that Bob Murray protects Lindholm, Fowler and Manson. Trades Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive his NMC can't really see a problem here or why there's a possible risk of losing Manson unless Murray thought the Bieksa wouldn't waive which it sounded like he would. Just kind of confused why there would be an issue with possibly losing Manson.

The deadline to ask players to waive their NMCs for expansion passed and Bieksa was not asked. He must be protected.

Anaheim has made a side deal with Vegas already.

 

[JaegerDice]

Damnit.

I want him on the Blackhawks. Somehow.

 

[Duck Off]

I don't understand what LeBrun is saying here. If they have a deal in place with Vegas securing what player Vegas will select. Then they're completely set, they know who Vegas gets and everyone else stays with them. How do they need to make a separate trade with another team. The initial trade with Vegas whatever it is would protect Manson as well because it will guarantee what player Vegas takes. Unless it only guarantees the protection of Vatanen, in which case a seperate trade would have to be made with Vegas to guarantee the protection of Manson as well, not with some other team.

I think his comment is because Freidman said Bieksa isn't waiving. I'm sure he got one thousand questions right away about Anaheim not being able to protect Manson and that maybe he was available.

Not understanding the concept of Anaheim losing Manson, Pretty understandable that Bob Murray protects Lindholm, Fowler and Manson. Trades Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive his NMC can't really see a problem here or why there's a possible risk of losing Manson unless Murray thought the Bieksa wouldn't waive which it sounded like he would. Just kind of confused why there would be an issue with possibly losing Manson.

Apparently we didn't ask Bieksa to waive because Murray already had something worked out with McPhee. If there's already a trade worked out, then it doesn't matter if Bieksa is exposed or Manson.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Why would Bieksa waive his NMC for an expansion team?
ANA probably knows his answer and has decided to make a deal with LV to not pick Manson and take Vatanen instead.

Manson would not be traded away. He will be exposed but LV wont take him. (ie the deal)

Yeah no way is Murray exposing Vatanen, When it's already been said that quite a few teams have interest in him. Murray will get something for him then lose him for nothing guarantee that.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Yeah no way is Murray exposing Vatanen, When it's already been said that quite a few teams have interest in him. Murray will get something for him then lose him for nothing guarantee that.

Looks like he might be exposed, in the sense that they have to put out their list but it's already agreed who Vegas is or isn't taking.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

I think his comment is because Freidman said Bieksa isn't waiving. I'm sure he got one thousand questions right away about Anaheim not being able to protect Manson and that maybe he was available.



Apparently we didn't ask Bieksa to waive because Murray already had something worked out with McPhee. If there's already a trade worked out, then it doesn't matter if Bieksa is exposed or Manson.

Well yeah if there was a deal already made for McPhee to take another player of Anaheim choosing then i could see why Bieksa wasn't asked to waive his NMC that would make sense.

 

[fahad203]

This should be no surprise to anyone. He played really well, comes very cheap and still has room for growth

Why would they trade a play like him? he kinda reminds me of Jason Smith

 

[wraparound]

What GMBM is really saying is Manson to TOR for JVR

 

[Cancuks]

Ducks probably agreed to expose Silvferberg.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Ducks probably agreed to expose Silvferberg.

I can GUARANTEE you are wrong on this one. We can't afford to lose any scoring forwards (except Perry). We'd let Vegas have Vatanen for free before losing Silf/Rakell.

 

[HanSolo]

Ducks probably agreed to expose Silvferberg.

Yeah uhhhh no

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Ducks probably agreed to expose Silvferberg.

Lol no