Confirmed with Link: Ducks sign Andrej Sustr (1y/1.3m)

[clownshoes]

well, schenn/sustr 3rd pairing is insta goals for the home teams they play. god help us if they ice the puck.

 

[Masch78]

can the samueli's please sell the team to someone who sets higher expectations than simply making the playoffs every season?

these signings are ridiculous

What signings did you have in mind? Karlsson? Well, the Ducks will not pay a single player 12-15m in cash in a frontloaded ~11m cap hit contract. The Ducks can not afford that contract. There are a lot of core players up for an extension. Kase and Monty this year, Gibson, Henrique, Silfv next year.

You want the Samuelis spend more, well, somehow the Ducks should balance even. Right now they are close but spend 10m more means 10m more loss. And even if they are billionaires why should they lose money every year with a hockey team?

 

[LightningStrikes]

Brace yourselves, this one is gonna sting. We all had high hopes for Sustr to improve, to use his huge frame and size, to step up offensively and defensively but in 5 years with him on the team all we got was the softest giant in the game, always shying away from physical contact, always going for (and failing at) the poke check, terrible outlet passes or clears leading to turnovers, a terribly weak shot, low confidence, low hockey IQ.

Hopefully a change in scenery and playing in a new system will help him but for the time being better brace yourselves for the worst.

Sorry.

 

[JoVel]

I swear Bob has a "gritty" RHD fetish.

Then signing Sustr makes even less sense than it already does. The number one rule concerning him is not to get hyped about his size.

 

[AndreRoy]

Somebody on the Lightning forum once described Sustr as a giraffe on skates, trying to find a raisin with a light pole. That about sums it up right there.

 

[Kalv]

Bolts fans coming in here (and thanks to them for doing that) just doesn`t understand we had a gaping hole of a big veteran defensemen who makes bad or slow decisions. It needed to be filled as Bieksas contract was up

 

[Hockey Duckie]

You're operating under the flawed belief that the scales aren't already heavily tilted in favor of Schenn/Sustr regardless of what they actually bring on the ice both for RC's love of safe and steady vets and the money they're being paid. Burying them in the AHL does us no good because they still have to be paid and that still comes out of the owner imposed budget BM has. It would have made far more sense to only sign Schenn and then bring in a PTO dman (Franson/Enstrom?) that would actually have to earn a spot over the kids with his play rather than the contractual hierarchy that saw Bieksa (and others) play so many games to this team's detriment when there couldn't have possibly been worse options.

Allow me to break this down. So you want an even worse defensemen to sign just so you can "gift" an NHL position? How asinine is this thought? Apparently others like it this asinine thought.

Pettersson was promoted to the NHL ice and stayed there. He beat out fellow prospects Larsson and Welinski to the NHL level. Pettersson is 21 yrs old and Welinski is 24 yrs old. Then in the playoffs, Carlyle re-inserted Bieksa for a game. He just wasn't a better option than Welinski. So it was Pettersson and Welinski there after in the playoffs.

He’s a right shot. Only one of Schenn and Šustr will be in the lineup at once.

Too many people talking, but not enough people thinking. With Holzier already being waived, we have Schenn or Sustr as our 7th defensemen. They probably won't be on at the same time, but rather work with one of the prospects. There isn't a point in sitting prospects on NHL ice.

Now, if both prospects land the starting position at NHL ice, then great! Schenn or Sustr are veterans who don't need ice time to develop - which is also why they're signed for one year. I want the better product on the ice. If our prospects shine, then they stay. If they don't, then at least we have talent that prevented them from being iced prematurely.

Again, these one-year veteran defense signings are bridge deals for our prospects to develop or safety nets. The long term plan is the fill our blue line with our draft prospects because it's apparent we cannot afford at top-4 defense. This isn't a fancy thing to do as it's watching grass grow, but if you prep things up correctly, then your grass will grow more vibrant and evenly. We're a cap strapped team. So drafting is where we're going to get most of our talent. But I don't want to "gift" NHL position just because we failed to put competition on the ice against the prospects.

 

[Elvs]

Seriously, did people expect we would start the season with 3 rookie defensemen on the roster? Did any team ever do this? Obviously we were not gonna have one rookie sitting in the pressbox as the #7, and we weren't gonna have a 3rd pairing consisting of two rookies either. Do the math and you'll realize there's only spot left to fight for. And that's where we are now.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Too many people talking, but not enough people thinking. With Holzier already being waived, we have Schenn or Sustr as our 7th defensemen. They probably won't be on at the same time, but rather work with one of the prospects. There isn't a point in sitting prospects on NHL ice.

Now, if both prospects land the starting position at NHL ice, then great! Schenn or Sustr are veterans who don't need ice time to develop - which is also why they're signed for one year. I want the better product on the ice. If our prospects shine, then they stay. If they don't, then at least we have talent that prevented them from being iced prematurely.

Again, these one-year veteran defense signings are bridge deals for our prospects to develop or safety nets. The long term plan is the fill our blue line with our draft prospects because it's apparent we cannot afford at top-4 defense. This isn't a fancy thing to do as it's watching grass grow, but if you prep things up correctly, then your grass will grow more vibrant and evenly. We're a cap strapped team. So drafting is where we're going to get most of our talent. But I don't want to "gift" NHL position just because we failed to put competition on the ice against the prospects.

Your theory is fine and I doubt many would have a problem with it. Where it starts falling apart is when you have a coach who continues to play a "vet" who makes as many if not more mistakes than a highly pedigreed rookie. The best of rookies will make mistakes when they are new to the NHL. What benefits the team more? Letting an over the hill "vet" hurt you or letting a rookie with promise make mistakes he will learn from? Does anybody really think these kind of signings are the key to a successful season and playoffs?

The idea that any rookie will beat out a freshly signed vet in the course of a 4 week camp where serious NHL hockey doesn't start until the last game/week of preseason is a fallacy. Especially on a team that has a history of believing in old veteran leadership to fill those slots.

 

[AndreRoy]

Your theory is fine and I doubt many would have a problem with it. Where it starts falling apart is when you have a coach who continues to play a "vet" who makes as many if not more mistakes than a highly pedigreed rookie. The best of rookies will make mistakes when they are new to the NHL. What benefits the team more? Letting an over the hill "vet" hurt you or letting a rookie with promise make mistakes he will learn from?

For what it’s worth Lightning fans feel your pain on this. Our coach does the same thing.

 

[Paul4587]

For what it’s worth Lightning fans feel your pain on this. Our coach does the same thing.

Is that why he paired Girardi and Hedman together as frequently as he did? I couldn’t believe it when I saw those guys on the ice together.

 

[AndreRoy]

Is that why he paired Girardi and Hedman together as frequently as he did? I couldn’t believe it when I saw those guys on the ice together.

We’ve had a hard time finding a good partner for Hedman that doesn’t drag him down. Stralman has great chemistry with him but we wanted to split the two so that Stralman could carry the second pairing and nobody else has really worked out. Sustr was a disaster with Hedman; Dotchin worked well with him his rookie season but last season he actually managed to be worse than Sustr. Next season we’re probably going to reunite the Swedes and run Hedman-Stralman and McDonagh-Sergachev but we didn’t move Serg to the right until late in the year and apparently they didn’t want to give him top four ice time (though the way Girardi played in the playoffs they should have given it a try.)

 

[Pennaduck]

What signings did you have in mind? Karlsson? Well, the Ducks will not pay a single player 12-15m in cash in a frontloaded ~11m cap hit contract. The Ducks can not afford that contract. There are a lot of core players up for an extension. Kase and Monty this year, Gibson, Henrique, Silfv next year.

You want the Samuelis spend more, well, somehow the Ducks should balance even. Right now they are close but spend 10m more means 10m more loss. And even if they are billionaires why should they lose money every year with a hockey team?

I've explained this before...A pro sports team is an investment for an owner and they real payoff from owning a smaller market team comes when they sell it for a value that has appreciated. The Samuelis can lose 10m a year and still make a truck load of money off of selling the Ducks when the time is right for them to do so. They bought the team in 2005 for 70 million. In 2010 the team was estimated as worth 188 million with 85 million in revenue and a total operating income of -5.2m. Assuming those losses were around the same over those first five years, they would have lost about 25 million total from operating at a loss, while the franchise raised in value over 110 million during that same span. Meaning they could have sold the franchise right then and there at over twice what they paid for it and nearly twice the entire amount they had invested by that point in time. Yet that argument assumes their yearly operating cost was in the negatives (meaning they were losing about 5 million each season like they did in 2010). In reality, the team broke even in 2006, turned a profit of 7 million in 2007, 1 million in 2008, and 5 million in 2009. 2010 was the first losing year for the Samuelis in terms of operating cost.

#19 Anaheim Ducks - Forbes.com


Fast forward to Nov 2017 when the latest numbers came out. Ducks franchise is now worth an estimated 460 million. That's an increase of 390 million dollars since 2005. The Ducks have operated at a total loss of 37 million dollars in the eight seasons since they were last profitable (2009).

Anaheim Ducks on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List


So in total, the Ducks have increased in value 390 million dollars over what the Samuelis paid for it in 2005, and the Samuelis have lost about 24 million in those 13 years (all of it coming since 2009). I can't prove it one way or another but I do not believe that figure factors in the 10 million or so bonus paid out to owners as part of the Vegas expansion, so their total losses may be closer to 14 million over those years.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that they want to turn a profit each year, but in the grand scheme of things owning the Ducks will ultimately be a very lucrative investment for them once they cash in on selling the team. In fact, NHL team values have been skyrocketing recently...

The NHL's Most Valuable Teams

... and will likely increase even further with the next expansion (which some believe will come at a 600 or even 700 million dollar fee). So while I am sympathetic to a degree and would like to see the Samueli's rake it in each year (because that would mean some combination of a growing market and deep playoff runs), the easiest answer to your question (in bold above) is simply because they are still set to make a ton of money on this ride even if they do fall short a few million each season. If I were filthy rich, I would gladly shell out an average of 1 million dollars per year over 13 or 14 years to increase the value of an investment from 70 million to 460 million, but hey that's just me.

p.s. since I've been down this road before on here I will just add that yes I am aware they have also invested lots of money in other hockey projects throughout SoCal and yes I am aware that money tied up in investments is not that same as cash in hand and yes I am aware that business people undoubtedly prefer to have profitable businesses even if they are filthy rich already. If I owned an In-N-Out that lost 2,000 a year over ten years but all the while the value of In-N-Out franchises was increasing exponentially, and I then turned around and sold it for 100,000 more than I paid for it, the customers should have a right to wonder why I charged them extra for ketchup packets that whole time.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Seriously, did people expect we would start the season with 3 rookie defensemen on the roster? Did any team ever do this? Obviously we were not gonna have one rookie sitting in the pressbox as the #7, and we weren't gonna have a 3rd pairing consisting of two rookies either. Do the math and you'll realize there's only spot left to fight for. And that's where we are now.

The solution to not starting 3 rookie D isn't bringing in bad players

 

[Masch78]

@Pennaduck if they want to sell it. Otherwise it does not matter what it is worth. As long as they want to keep it and they said it several times, a yearly loss is a loss.

And to be honest, if you want to see NHL hockey in Anaheim, you better hope for owners like the Samuelis. A pure investment would likely see a relocation to optimise profitability.

 

[The Duck Knight]

@Pennaduck if they want to sell it. Otherwise it does not matter what it is worth. As long as they want to keep it and they said it several times, a yearly loss is a loss.

And to be honest, if you want to see NHL hockey in Anaheim, you better hope for owners like the Samuelis. A pure investment would likely see a relocation to optimise profitability.

The league wouldn't allow a sale to someone looking to relocate the team. Just look at how hard they fought to keep the Coyotes in Arizona and to make sure they found a buyer that was committed to the Canes in Raleigh.

The Samuelis absolutely should shoulder some of the blame in this team not adding to it's trophy case over the past decade. Being a cap team while we were close could have made all the difference.

 

[Elvs]

The solution to not starting 3 rookie D isn't bringing in bad players

They are better than the kids until proven otherwise. If BM brought in good players for the 3rd pairing you would only sit here and complain about him signing players who the kids can't beat for a roster spot.

 

[AngelDuck]

They are better than the kids until proven otherwise. If BM brought in good players for the 3rd pairing you would only sit here and complain about him signing players who the kids can't beat for a roster spot.

That last sentence is nonsense

 

[KaseMeOutside]

They are better than the kids until proven otherwise. If BM brought in good players for the 3rd pairing you would only sit here and complain about him signing players who the kids can't beat for a roster spot.

This is a poor justification. My point is bring in playable players. Not unplayable ones. You know Schenn will be Randy's guy and overplay the f*** outta him

 

[Elvs]

That last sentence is nonsense

This board is in love with prospects. It was the same thing with Etem and Smith-Pelly, people wanted to hand out top six wing positions to them instead of them earning those spots. This type of concern wasn't around when Getzlaf and Perry started on the 4th line, and were demoted to Portland. If kids are good enough they will force the hands of the couch and climb the ladder.

 

[Elvs]

This is a poor justification. My point is bring in playable players. Not unplayable ones. You know Schenn will be Randy's guy and overplay the **** outta him

You don't play 708 games in the NHL like Schenn has if you're not 'playable'. People who want to see the kids get a chance should actually love the signings of Schenn and Sustr. If you wanted Ian Cole for our 3rd pairing that's a contract that would never end up in the pressbox, much like Bieksa's.

In the Ducks situation, with Kesler's and Perry's horrible contracts up front, why on earth would anyone want to sign good expensive players on the UFA market for the 3rd pairing? Or trade assets? Especially since we have kids knocking on the door.

 

[Masch78]

Because they want to complain about Bob, the Samuels and I don't know who else. Half of the board would switch half of the roster every season.

 

[Nurmagomedov]

I can't imagine Pettersson isn't better than this guy in every single way. Meh, another million down the neverending drain of garbage veteran dmen.

 

[Beretta 390]

I'm not sure they'll be as more expensive as you think, Kossila, Roy and Welinski all had high qualifying offers. Also, some of these signings probably are a bit of an indictment on them and believing that they don't really have a lot of room to grow. Late bloomers do happen but more often than not what you see is what you get at 25.

No they didn't. All three offers the same - 10% raise on NHL salary, same AHL salary for 18/19. That's about as low as you can get on a QO.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

No they didn't. All three offers the same - 10% raise on NHL salary, same AHL salary for 18/19. That's about as low as you can get on a QO.

All three have qualifying offers in the $875k range, which is really not about as low as you can go. I also suspect all three might have higher NHL salaries than that but who knows.