- 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.
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.
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.
So, you don't understand it then.
Ducks probably agreed to expose Silvferberg.
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.
I'm stunned that anyone doesn't understand Anaheim's ED situation, but **** it, I'll spell it out one more time.
They will go 7-3-1.
Protected forwards:
Getzlaf
Kesler
Perry
Rakell
Silfverberg
Cogliano
_______
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.
I'm stunned that anyone doesn't understand Anaheim's ED situation, but **** it, I'll spell it out one more time.
They will go 7-3-1.
Protected forwards:
Getzlaf
Kesler
Perry
Rakell
Silfverberg
Cogliano
_______
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
So if part of the deal is to not take Manson AND Vatanen, what do you think the Ducks are having to give up?
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
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.
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.
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 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
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