- May 3, 2016
- 8,856
- 5,103
Am I out of line for getting impatient? Every time I hit refresh and I see nothing has happened I get more and more annoyed.
LeBrun: "Ducks have zero intention of losing Josh Manson"
- Thread starter caley
- Start date
Am I out of line for getting impatient? Every time I hit refresh and I see nothing has happened I get more and more annoyed.
No, you're definitely not alone. It's clear Vegas has several things done, and have probably had them done for a while. I understand (don't agree with) not wanting to steal spotlight from finals, but it's two days later. Let's get this **** rolling.
- May 3, 2016
- 8,856
- 5,103
Exactly!!, it wouldn't be so bad if the finals weren't soo blaaaaaaaa most uninteresting finals ever
lanceuppercut75
Registered User
The way I understand it, two of Vatanen Manson Silfverberg will be exposed.
Ducks are going to pay (Theodore plus?) Vegas to not draft any of the three. Or alternatively, Ducks are going to pay a small price (4th rounder?) to make sure that Vatanen is the one drafted instead of Silfverberg/Manson.
Ducks are going to pay (Theodore plus?) Vegas to not draft any of the three. Or alternatively, Ducks are going to pay a small price (4th rounder?) to make sure that Vatanen is the one drafted instead of Silfverberg/Manson.
lanceuppercut75
Registered User
Is my value off, or are you saying that Anaheim will definitely be keeping all three and paying Vegas off? I feel like the price will be too high to get Vegas to play ball and the Ducks will suck it up and lose Silf/Vatanen to Vegas. BUT, they will be able to pay off Vegas for the right to choose which of the two they lose.
ducks8
Registered User
I'm stunned that anyone doesn't understand Anaheim's ED situation because of how many times it's mentioned in numerous threads, but **** it, I'll spell it out one more time.
They will go 7-3-1.
Protected forwards:
Getzlaf
Kesler
Perry
Rakell
Silfverberg
Cogliano
_______ (This blank goes to either Vermette, Kerdiles, or who we acquire for Vatanen)
Protected defenseman:
Lindholm
Fowler
Bieksa
Protected goalie:
Gibson
Most Duck fans thought we'd work a deal out with Vegas to not select Bieksa and just get him to waive. What's obviously happened is they worked out the deal already so Bob knows who he's losing. Therefore, there wasn't a reason for him to ask Bieksa to waive, and he'll just "expose" Manson, but he knows he won't lose him.
*The one "wild card" is if part of the deal with Vegas is to also not take Vatanen, which gives us two choices: To keep him and have a very stacked D or to just give us more time to move him this offseason (instead of before ED).
WilliamNylander
Papi's home
- Jul 26, 2012
- 12,896
- 2,607
lanceuppercut75
Registered User
I already understood all of that. Nothing in my post contradicts what you are saying... Only difference I see is that you aren't mentioning Vatanen (traded?) and I am.
Here's the thing, the return for passing on Manson better be good or else McPhee will **** off 29 other GM's. The other GM's will see Manson was left exposed and passed on. It's going to not help Vegas make future moves if they know he's doing favors to another GM especially a division one. All those other GM's will call McPhee and say we'd give you more than Anaheim for Manson so take him, the deal has to be close to as good as what the market would pay if he's left exposed.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
Anaheim was going to have to deal with Bieksa (either get him to waive or buy him out) and trade Vatanen prior to expansion, which would have left Vegas pretty slim pickings (Vermette/Kerdiles/Megna).
Now instead the two teams have agreed to a fair price that gives Vegas a better asset than the above, without forcing the Ducks to trade Vatanen prior to expansion.
Vegas winds up with more than they would have, and the Ducks get to deal Vatanen to a broader market after the ED.
Bieksa really doesn't factor in, this news today simply means the Ducks don't need him to waive because they have a deal in place with Vegas to select a certain player.
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 42,997
- 9,190
I sorta understand why they're waiting until the end to make them all official. So they don't get screwed over, for example the Leafs call up Vegas and offer a 4th for Vegas to take Marincin. The Leafs don't have much available anyway, other than Marincin it's 2 of Leivo, Leipsic, Rychel, as well as guys like Fehr and Marchenko. Vegas might take Marincin anyway. So if that deal were in place if Vegas announced it now the Leafs would be free to trade for 2 or 3 guys they don't have to protect because Vegas has already officially agreed to take Marincin. If they waited and the Leafs did that they get Carrick or one of the guys the Leafs trade for.
It makes sense to me that Vegas wants to wait until the expansion draft to make the deals official. While it makes it quite boring for fans to have it all in 1 lump Vegas will want to have their bases covered and not officially agree to a deal too early locking themselves into a player too early when later moves could have seen them get them something better.
So what kind of a sweetener do you think it will take not to take Manson? It would have to be equal to what you would accept in a trade for him as vegas could flip him for that if they selected him....
BigKing
Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
So if part of the deal is to not take Manson AND Vatanen, what do you think the Ducks are having to give up?
TopShelfWaterBottle
Registered
- Mar 16, 2014
- 3,379
- 1,370
Prospect wise ide be fine with anyone other then steel Theodore montour
Picks wise anything other then a first
In the end I'm a random dude with no intelligence as to what bob Murray thinks
c_robio
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2006
- 759
- 55
With Manson having a lot of value, I'm wondering if they'll have to give up one of those prospects. Has to be worth it for vegas
Everyone needs to read heusy's post.
Anaheim isn't paying Vegas to not take one of their players, they are paying Vegas a convenience fee for not having to trade anyone just yet.
Instead or Vegas getting the shaft of taking some middling player, now they get that middling player plus a sweetener. That's it.
Anaheim isn't paying Vegas to not take one of their players, they are paying Vegas a convenience fee for not having to trade anyone just yet.
Instead or Vegas getting the shaft of taking some middling player, now they get that middling player plus a sweetener. That's it.
I really don't understand LV's incentive for making these types of deals. Good will? Unless I'm getting more value than the player they need to expose, I'd tell the team too bad, I'm taking your really good player. And considering the team will likely be able to gain a ton of picks through taking bad contracts, I'd rather have a quality young player than equivalent quantity, meaning the value would have to be really high
I highly doubt any team was taking Bieksa before the draft. Which still leaves the Ducks screwed if they trade one of Manson or Vatanen.
Missed the buy him out part. I suppose that's an option
You mentioned Silfverberg as being possibly exposed. I think that's why we thought you didn't understand their situation, as there's no chance in hell that's going to happen.
It's not a sweetner to take Manson, but as for what I think. 2nd rounder with maybe an average prospect in there.
You must have also missed the part where they didn't ask him to waive because there was no need to. They could have easily gone that route if Vegas hadn't cut a deal with them.
The Mighty Duck Man
R-E-L-A-X
It's pretty simple, really. Take it or leave it only works if the other team doesn't have options. In the cases we know about, those teams all do have options. If you're inflexible, and the other guys find a way out(which would've been likely), you're stuck with nothing at all.
I could see them take that stance with a team like Minnesota, where its unlikely they don't get a quality asset from them, but you have to play ball with the teams with some leverage.
