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
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.
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
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.
Asking him to waive doesn't mean he would
Murray in essence took Vegas hostage. Take this deal or we trade the player and you get nothing. Take it or leave it.
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.
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.
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.
Why would they make a deal just so Vegas takes Vatanen? That makes no sense.
Why would they make a deal just so Vegas takes Vatanen? That makes no sense.
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
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).
Why would they make a deal just so Vegas takes Vatanen? That makes no sense.
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.
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
Hahahaha seriously hope this is sarcasm
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.