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

[lindholmie]

Taking less value to Sabatoge rival? That's so dumb. They need all the assets they can get as a new team. They aren't going to be competing for a while. GMBM said that they're building around prospects.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

Well no kidding to the OP. Murray should be out of a job if he moves him for anything less than a massive overpayment. Those types of D are nearly impossible to find. He's a core piece flying under the radar as far as I see it. And with the almost certainty of Vatanen being dealt along with who knows what will happen will Fowler, he's even more important. Anaheim is probably deeper than any team on D, but no team can risk giving up Vatanen, Manson and potentially Fowler in a one year span. Even with blue chip prospects in return.

 

[WesMcCauley]

Taking less value to Sabatoge rival? That's so dumb. They need all the assets they can get as a new team. They aren't going to be competing for a while. GMBM said that they're building around prospects.

Which makes all of this pretty weird unless they have a good deal in place with Anaheim. Sure Anaheim could buyout Bieksa and trade Vatanen for a forward but Anaheim has to give up something pretty good to Vegas for them to have a deal in place if that includes not buying out Bieksa and not trading Vatanen. If the deal is mediocre, it would be better for Vegas to let Anaheim buyout Bieksa and trade Vatanen and take the best prospect or player available from Anaheim in the expansion draft.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

But there is still some motivation for LV to not do that deal.

Let's assume Bieksa is bought out, and Vats is moved for picks, thus leaving nothing valuable exposed from the Ducks. LV may not benefit by getting a good player out of ANA, but they've still managed to weaken a division rival, vs. letting them keep the top end of their defence together.

Plus even if they lose out on an asset from Anaheim by them moving Vats, that trade will still force another team to expose a better, previously protected player of theirs.

I think towards the rest of the Pacific, LV will take less value if it means managing to sabotage the other teams. Remember, LV will benefit by weakening Anaheim and the rest of the Pacific. For example, I see Reinhart being taken before Pouliot from Edmonton. Pouliot's the better NHL player, but that 4mil puts a dent in Edmonton's cap.

I dont think vegas will be too concerned with sabatoging the pacific teams, and be much more concerned with getting the best assets they can get.

If they put anahiem in a posistion where we had to trade vatanen low... that doesnt even really hurt anaheim. While sure we get less value on vatanen but he was gunna be moved anyway as hes not needed with the emergence of montour. That scenario also allows us to keep our prospects and picks so idk that there wad much benefit in it for vegas if anaheim was offering the extra assets.

So how much weaker did anaheim really get in that scenario? I think a lot of fans that dislike anaheim are hoping for a scenario where we get compmetley screwed over but i dont think that will ne the case. We may lose a nice prospect like theodore but that doesnt hurt at all really.

 

[thadd]

This is dumb. We need to start punching reporters in the face again. We knew that Manson wasn't going to be traded and they think they're making news just by saying he isn't going to be traded.

If you know any of these dumb reporters please ship them to North East China and I'll do the rest.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Which makes all of this pretty weird unless they have a good deal in place with Anaheim. Sure Anaheim could buyout Bieksa and trade Vatanen for a forward but Anaheim has to give up something pretty good to Vegas for them to have a deal in place if that includes not buying out Bieksa and not trading Vatanen. If the deal is mediocre, it would be better for Vegas to let Anaheim buyout Bieksa and trade Vatanen and take the best prospect or player available from Anaheim in the expansion draft.

Why would that be better for Vegas? People really think a first year expansion team is more interested in seeing Anaheim suffer than getting the best asset? Vegas is going to be no threat to Anaheim over the next couple seasons, so why would they consider sacrificing any of their future to try and screw the Ducks in the present.

If they were going to end up with a depth piece worth a 4th round pick, and wind up with a 2nd rounder instead, that's miles better for Vegas than trying to make Anaheim sweat.

 

[Extra Texture]

so its just as Ducks fans tried to tell everyone the whole time. He wasnt going anywhere and the lowball offers for him were just a pipe dream.

It's almost like NHL GMs know what they're doing alot better than armchair GMs from HF boards.

What a luxury to be able to get a nice return for Vatanen, and still be sitting pretty for years with Fowler Lindholm and Manson

 

[Number8]

so its just as Ducks fans tried to tell everyone the whole time. He wasnt going anywhere and the lowball offers for him were just a pipe dream.

It's almost like NHL GMs know what they're doing alot better than armchair GMs from HF boards.

What a luxury to be able to get a nice return for Vatanen, and still be sitting pretty for years with Fowler Lindholm and Manson

Except we don't know the value of the deal yet. Should be interesting.