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

[Regal]

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.

Asking him to waive doesn't mean he would

 

[Static]

Murray in essence took Vegas hostage. Take this deal or we trade the player and you get nothing. Take it or leave it.

 

[Regal]

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.

Potential options. The team would still be under the gun to get something done and if they don't you reap the rewards. It's worth waiting and taking the risk if the sweetener isn't good enough. Though perhaps Murray may have had a deal in place in case Vegas balked.

Minnesota is definitely in the toughest bind and would be the best bet to not make a deal with though, I agree.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Potential options. The team would still be under the gun to get something done and if they don't you reap the rewards. It's worth waiting and taking the risk if the sweetener isn't good enough

And the longer you wait, the more time another team has to make a deal. Teams routinely get burnt when they think they can outwait another GM. It has a pretty high reward but it's also a very bad risk to take. Hes playing the odds and he's smart to do so.

 

[The Duck Knight]

And the longer you wait, the more time another team has to make a deal. Teams routinely get burnt when they think they can outwait another GM. It has a pretty high reward but it's also a very bad risk to take. Hes playing the odds and he's smart to do so.

It depends what McPhee would be risking. I've seen Ducks fans say Vegas should be happy with a 3rd + Kerdiles/Megna. At that price point or less I'd much rather McPhee calls Murray's bluff. I think something along the lines of Pettersson/Nattinen + 2nd would be a pretty fair compromise on both sides.

 

[Exit Dose]

Asking him to waive doesn't mean he would

Then he would have been bought out and any desire to play for a contender likely gone for good.

 

[Exit Dose]

Murray in essence took Vegas hostage. Take this deal or we trade the player and you get nothing. Take it or leave it.

Exactly, since while it's inconvenient to trade one or two of the defenseman, Anaheim had the depth to do that. Vegas would see none of the spoils of that. My money is on Welinski being the main piece dealt, since he's a desirable prospect that they can't take(puck moving, physical RHD, near-NHL), but it's debatable whether we'd be able to find a spot for him if Manson, Bieksa, and Montour are all still here.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

It depends what McPhee would be risking. I've seen Ducks fans say Vegas should be happy with a 3rd + Kerdiles/Megna. At that price point or less I'd much rather McPhee calls Murray's bluff. I think something along the lines of Pettersson/Nattinen + 2nd would be a pretty fair compromise on both sides.

Probably depends more on the odds, and they weren't really good for Vegas. After a week of hearing how hot of a commodity Vatanen is for the last week or so, he probably didn't like his chances. On the other hand, you're right, taking next to nothing doesn't really do anything for them, which is why I'm guessing it's a more conventional deal, like Pettersson to take Stoner. Everyone gets what they want.

 

[McRobbiezyg]

It'd be really entertaining if the ducks and vegas had a "deal" but vegas bails, leaving manson unprotected and vegas snaps him up. being a division rival and all, would be absolutely awesome

 

[duxfever]

It'd be really entertaining if the ducks and vegas had a "deal" but vegas bails, leaving manson unprotected and vegas snaps him up. being a division rival and all, would be absolutely awesome

I'm sure this will happen and if it does, Murray will be fired immediately.

 

[McRobbiezyg]

I'm sure this will happen and if it does, Murray will be fired immediately.

as he should haha

 

[seanlinden]

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....

I don't think you can really look at it that way.

Once a deal is in place, GMs generally don't reneg. For all we know, the deal could be filed.

Let's say, for example, the deal is that Vegas takes Vatanen.

Vegas knows that if they didn't make the deal, Anaheim would have traded Vatanen, done something with Bieksa, and left Vegas with basically nothing to pick from. As a result of making this deal, Vegas gets Vatanen, a much better player than they would have been able to get otherwise.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I don't think you can really look at it that way.

Once a deal is in place, GMs generally don't reneg. For all we know, the deal could be filed.

Let's say, for example, the deal is that Vegas takes Vatanen.

Vegas knows that if they didn't make the deal, Anaheim would have traded Vatanen, done something with Bieksa, and left Vegas with basically nothing to pick from. As a result of making this deal, Vegas gets Vatanen, a much better player than they would have been able to get otherwise.

Why would they make a deal just so Vegas takes Vatanen? That makes no sense.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

We should trade them Max Jones so that they take Manson instead of...umm..Bieksa...wait, where was I going with this?

 

[liquiduck]

Why would they make a deal just so Vegas takes Vatanen? That makes no sense.

So they can see how he handles the pressure of Vegas for 3 years before "baking" him into a long term cake.... OH wait.

 

[seanlinden]

Why would they make a deal just so Vegas takes Vatanen? That makes no sense.

So that they don't lose Manson and/or have to have a fight with Bieksa (who presumably, they don't want to lose either).

 

[WTFMAN99]

It'd be really entertaining if the ducks and vegas had a "deal" but vegas bails, leaving manson unprotected and vegas snaps him up. being a division rival and all, would be absolutely awesome

I think these are written is as expansion draft considerations...and if you go back on this thing, doesn't exactly make you a lot of friends when it comes to trade talks down the line, believe it or not you'll need these other 30 GMs later on to make deals and they may collude to screw you later.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

So that they don't lose Manson and/or have to have a fight with Bieksa (who presumably, they don't want to lose either).

I'm sure they want to keep Bieksa and respect him very much, but he's older than everyone by a decade, clearly below the main 4 on the depth chart, and has one year left. They weren't going to prioritize keeping him over the others and they're not going to waste a major asset just to avoid hurting his feelings.

 

[me2]

Why would they make a deal just so Vegas takes Vatanen? That makes no sense.

To get something back for Vatanen. They don't have to give up Vatanen for nothing. You need to factor in the ED pick value that vegas is giviing up, in the ducks case it could be as much as a 1st. If you value Vatanen as a 1st+2nd you might do the trade as Vatanen for 2nd + (ED pick). The ducks will probably deal futures/prospects though, imho it's a great opportunity to extract a good prospect and the ducks get their roster left alone, far smarter for the the Ducks than dealing away a bunch of good players just so Vegas can't get them.

 

[seanlinden]

I'm sure they want to keep Bieksa and respect him very much, but he's older than everyone by a decade, clearly below the main 4 on the depth chart, and has one year left. They weren't going to prioritize keeping him over the others and they're not going to waste a major asset just to avoid hurting his feelings.

It's not a matter of "wasting" a major asset....

The Ducks, like every team, are going to lose somebody. There is "value" in the utilization of the expansion pick.

One approach, would see them lose Vatanen (to trade), alienate a player they respect very much who has absolutely no interest in playing for Vegas, and still lose a high quality forward like Cogliano, Vermette or Kerdiles.

The other approach, simply lose Vatanen. Maybe Vegas gives them sommething in return for doing so.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

It's not a matter of "wasting" a major asset....

The Ducks, like every team, are going to lose somebody. There is "value" in the utilization of the expansion pick.

One approach, would see them lose Vatanen (to trade), alienate a player they respect very much who has absolutely no interest in playing for Vegas, and still lose a high quality forward like Cogliano, Vermette or Kerdiles.

The other approach, simply lose Vatanen. Maybe Vegas gives them sommething in return for doing so.

Thats just it, Vermette and Kerdiles aren't high quality forwards. They probably want to upgrade on Vermette and Kerdiles is a bubble guy. I'm more than fine losing either of them, and I don't even know if it'd come down to that. There are definitely teams who don't really have a way out, the Ducks really weren't one of them. It wouldn't have been a hard choice if this deal wasn't made.

Now, maybe Vegas would pony up for Vatanen and that is the deal, I just don't see it. I can't see them giving up some of the scarce assets they have to get a guy who might bolt before they're ready to truly compete. But who knows, maybe they really like him.

 

[Davey Duck]

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

Because those players wouldn't be available without the agreement. Vegas doesn't want to play ball? Congrats on drafting Kerdiles/Vermette/Megma once Ducks take care of Bieksa and Vatanen. Vegas plays ball? Maybe they get something like Theodore/Jones/Pick + Kerdiles/Vermette/Megma.

 

[robbieboy3686]

Hahahaha seriously hope this is sarcasm

well to his defense , Kevin Weekes said the same thing today on nhl network... " silf will be in vegas !"

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Exactly, since while it's inconvenient to trade one or two of the defenseman, Anaheim had the depth to do that. Vegas would see none of the spoils of that. My money is on Welinski being the main piece dealt, since he's a desirable prospect that they can't take(puck moving, physical RHD, near-NHL), but it's debatable whether we'd be able to find a spot for him if Manson, Bieksa, and Montour are all still here.

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.

 

[Exit Dose]

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.

Anaheim would have had to trade a defenseman regardless of the ED. Either they were going to extend Fowler and move Vatanen, or they were going to keep Vatanen and move Fowler.