Confirmed with Link: Ducks sign Manson to One-Way Extension

[The Midnight Burrito]

But can he play defense? He's an offensive dynamo at every level he's been at, but his talent masks he defensive play. I read that about him from his local playing ground.

In terms of potential, Theo actually increased his by improving his defensive play the past couple of years. I think there's a bigger gap considering we don't know about Montour's defensive play.

I think we'll see Montour take a pretty big leap this year. It's been a while since he's had consistent coaching, and he should be much more open to it now that he'll be facing competition he can't simply overwhelm with talent.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

In theory, NMCs are only given to the better/best players on a team. (Yeah, there is the Bieksa type exception.) It would be a farce for the league to allow additional exemptions for those teams in a potential expansion draft as this would allow the better teams to potentially protect more talent. Imagine if we didn't have to protect Getzlaf, Perry and Kesler. Three more players of some value could be kept.

As for having too many NMCs, it's hard to envision that scenario but if it occurred it would only be too many at a given position. In that case the league just forces you to protect one less at another position. Problem solved.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

In theory, NMCs are only given to the better/best players on a team. (Yeah, there is the Bieksa type exception.) It would be a farce for the league to allow additional exemptions for those teams in a potential expansion draft as this would allow the better teams to potentially protect more talent. Imagine if we didn't have to protect Getzlaf, Perry and Kesler. Three more players of some value could be kept.

As for having too many NMCs, it's hard to envision that scenario but if it occurred it would only be too many at a given position. In that case the league just forces you to protect one less at another position. Problem solved.

This is very true.

 

[AngelDuck]

But can he play defense? He's an offensive dynamo at every level he's been at, but his talent masks he defensive play. I read that about him from his local playing ground.

In terms of potential, Theo actually increased his by improving his defensive play the past couple of years. I think there's a bigger gap considering we don't know about Montour's defensive play.

He can play defense, he's just never going to be a shutdown guy. He has to work on his stick positioning (right now he just slashes and trips guys whenever they get a step on him). But those are things that can be refined at the AHL level

 

[Sojourn]

But can he play defense? He's an offensive dynamo at every level he's been at, but his talent masks he defensive play. I read that about him from his local playing ground.

In terms of potential, Theo actually increased his by improving his defensive play the past couple of years. I think there's a bigger gap considering we don't know about Montour's defensive play.

He's going to be a work in progress defensively, much the same way Vatanen has been. The thing is, you can teach defense. At least, you can teach solid NHL level defense. If Montour is willing to work, and he has the talent and intelligence, he'll improve his defensive game. Maybe he won't be a shutdown guy, or even a Fowler or Lindholm defensively, but that isn't necessary for him to be a good player.

When you see guys like Justin Schultz struggle in their own end, their inability to play defense isn't a lack of ability to play defense. It's other flaws, like working hard, or being willing to make the smart plays. Great defense is about intelligence and skill, like you'd see with someone like Niedermayer or Lidstrom. But good defense is about fundamentals and hard work. You need to be willing to work hard, and commit to the defensive side of the game. You need to know when you should just be chipping it off the glass and making the safe play, instead of trying to force a play that you have no business making. That's probably going to be the biggest thing for a player like Montour or Theodore. As good as they are offensively, they won't be able to skate through the entire opposing team at higher levels. They'll need to be willing to make the simple plays; the percentage plays. The boring plays.

Any player who can play at the NHL level can be solid defensively, if they are willing to put in the work. Some just don't want to, or need to, or are unable to play the offensive game they can while being responsible defensively. That last one can be especially true of scoring forwards or offensive defensemen, who need to take those risks to be effective.

 

[Opak]

But it's not like Stoner is this vastly overpaid (he's slightly overpaid) player who got his deal than turned back into a pumpkin. He played exactly how we needed him to play and he was an effective player for us. He'd only need to be moved once Lindholm, Vatanen and Despres get their new contracts. And at that point the less term he has on his deal, the better.

But again this is all predicated on the assumption Manson will be ready to take over for him by the start of the 16-17 season. He definitely has the tools to be as good or better than Stoner but it's just a matter how long it'll take him to reach it. Considering how benefitical it'll be for the team for him to reach that level by next season there should be some pressure to make sure he gets a lot of games in this year. But looking at the roster we'll need to have a lot of injuries for him to check in. Unless Holzer is intended to just be a pressbox-filler (which could very well be the case) Manson is our eighth d-man at best. If we stay healthy he could barely play this year.

Which is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. I was just trying to make a point that moving a guy like Stoner might not be that quick of a process and it should not be left to the last minute. I understand that he's an established bottom-pairing guy and that we shouldn't throw prospects in a trial by fire, but this is looking more and more like a situation that could end up burning us long-term. I also think that we could get a cheap rental guy to fill Stoner's vacant spot if a trade were to happen.

I'm not even saying that he's THAT much overpaid (about a million or so), but the Ducks currently happen to be in a position where they have to start moving players to make space in our budget. Stoner is the "easy" target here, as his $3.25 million could (roughly) buy us both of Despres and Manson long term.

All in all, I think that your points are right and valid. I'd just feel more comfortable if I knew that this situation couldn't backfire on us.

 

[Sojourn]

Cheap rental defensemen are typically that because they play hockey in a way that's very replaceable. As much as people may not like Stoner's paycheck, he's a pretty steady and dependable presence, and Anaheim is a team that likes to roll their D pairings. Moving him now may mean we don't get burnt long-term, but it could absolutely burn us in the short-term, and it could force us to spend valuable assets to acquire a replacement in the meantime.

 

[Duck Off]

At the start of this offseason, I wanted Stoner gone just as much as the next person, but we should not be trying to move Stoner just to get another young kid in the lineup. Unless we have a deal in place for a replacement, Stoner shouldn't be traded, for now anyway.

 

[TheJoeMan]

Which is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. I was just trying to make a point that moving a guy like Stoner might not be that quick of a process and it should not be left to the last minute. I understand that he's an established bottom-pairing guy and that we shouldn't throw prospects in a trial by fire, but this is looking more and more like a situation that could end up burning us long-term. I also think that we could get a cheap rental guy to fill Stoner's vacant spot if a trade were to happen.

I'm not even saying that he's THAT much overpaid (about a million or so), but the Ducks currently happen to be in a position where they have to start moving players to make space in our budget. Stoner is the "easy" target here, as his $3.25 million could (roughly) buy us both of Despres and Manson long term.

All in all, I think that your points are right and valid. I'd just feel more comfortable if I knew that this situation couldn't backfire on us.

Not yet they're not. We don't know what kind of contracts Lindholm, Vatanen and Despres are going to get. We can speculate, sure, but until they have new deals the pressure to move Stoner is low. The distribution of salary among the blueline hasn't really changed for next season. Hell we're probably going to spend less money considering Despres and Bieksa are making less money than Lovejoy and Beauchemin did last year. It's only after those new deals kick in is it necessary to look to shed salary. Everything Sojourn said is absolutely right. Stoner is so much more valuable to us for this upcoming season than is potential cap-space. Plus he'll simply be easier to move in a year. I don't think anyone is chomping at the bit to acquire Stoner with three years left. But at two years his contract will be much easier to swallow especially if the cap gets a bump from expansion money.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

In theory, NMCs are only given to the better/best players on a team. (Yeah, there is the Bieksa type exception.) It would be a farce for the league to allow additional exemptions for those teams in a potential expansion draft as this would allow the better teams to potentially protect more talent. Imagine if we didn't have to protect Getzlaf, Perry and Kesler. Three more players of some value could be kept.

As for having too many NMCs, it's hard to envision that scenario but if it occurred it would only be too many at a given position. In that case the league just forces you to protect one less at another position. Problem solved.

There isn't a scenario where NMC guys will be allowed to be unprotected, yet still can't be selected by Las Vegas or Quebec, I don't think the league would go for that. There is, though, the possibility that guys with NMCs can be selected in the draft. That's what I was getting at.

 

[snarktacular]

I think I read expansion fees aren't in HRR, so it wouldn't affect the cap.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

There isn't a scenario where NMC guys will be allowed to be unprotected, yet still can't be selected by Las Vegas or Quebec, I don't think the league would go for that. There is, though, the possibility that guys with NMCs can be selected in the draft. That's what I was getting at.

Ah, OK. But I can't see how the PA would go for your scenario.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Ah, OK. But I can't see how the PA would go for your scenario.

If the NHL forced the issue, I don't think they'd have the choice. In the CBA it specifically says o movement clauses prevent "involuntary relocation of a player, whether by trade, loan or waiver claim". It doesn't say anything about an expansion draft. It's actually kind of weird, as the CBA does mention expansion drafts, yet not in that article.

As it stands, I think the NHL would actually have to make it a rule that guys with NMCs would have to be protected. It's not just a default assumption.

 

[DavidBL]

I think I read expansion fees aren't in HRR, so it wouldn't affect the cap.

I just read that from an article posted back in September from Grantland. That seems surprising to me. As creating new franchises directly leads to more games of hockey and other sources of HRR. If true it is great for owners but crappy for players. Being subject to a draft that could uplift your family after signing a contract to play somewhere isn't exactly fun. On the flip side it opens about 46 NHL jobs if you add 2 teams. I'm sure some of the FA's out there would appreciate that now.

But back to the signing, I have to like just about everything about it.
Manson is still on his ELC this season so he can play in SD and be a call up.
Next year being a 1 way deal just means he takes Holzers job for about 75k more. Not a big deal in the scheme of the salary cap. I doubt you see any of our top 6 moved to make room for Manson.

It is interesting the way BM has positioned his Defensive contracts. If you look at them, Stoners deal expires the same year as Fowlers. Essentially BM created the cap/cash cushion he would need for Fowler there. The same could be said for Bieksa and Manson. Interestingly you could add Theodore into that mix as well. By giving those deals he has money put away for the extensions of some key defensive prospects.

As for the extensions of the young guys next summer, there should be enough cap space available for them. Weather or not we spend to the cap will likely determine if we lose one of them. But there is room for them currently. Now if Andersen commands something like Holtby then that would throw a wrench into the Ducks plans I think.

And for expansion, I think there is a clause that players under a certain number of games played or years in the NHL are ineligible for the draft. I could be wrong about that but it could save some of our younger players from having to be protected. This is also why I don't think BM offered the NTC to Beleskey this summer as well. The risk of the expansion draft as it should happen in the middle of his new deal.

 

[snarktacular]

Well expansion fees into the cap could be disruptive because it's a one-time thing. Then one season would have a really high cap compared to the very next year. So they would clearly need to adjust it somehow.

They could also make some kind of case that expansion fee is more about paying for costs of adding new teams. More staff, scheduling, travel, etc. I don't know how they could claim it's 500 million more, but still.

So it's not surprising that it isn't factored in just as one year's revenue. It is a little surprising none of it is counted, though.

 

[Opak]

I just read that from an article posted back in September from Grantland. That seems surprising to me. As creating new franchises directly leads to more games of hockey and other sources of HRR. If true it is great for owners but crappy for players. Being subject to a draft that could uplift your family after signing a contract to play somewhere isn't exactly fun. On the flip side it opens about 46 NHL jobs if you add 2 teams. I'm sure some of the FA's out there would appreciate that now.

But back to the signing, I have to like just about everything about it.
Manson is still on his ELC this season so he can play in SD and be a call up.
Next year being a 1 way deal just means he takes Holzers job for about 75k more. Not a big deal in the scheme of the salary cap. I doubt you see any of our top 6 moved to make room for Manson.

It is interesting the way BM has positioned his Defensive contracts. If you look at them, Stoners deal expires the same year as Fowlers. Essentially BM created the cap/cash cushion he would need for Fowler there. The same could be said for Bieksa and Manson. Interestingly you could add Theodore into that mix as well. By giving those deals he has money put away for the extensions of some key defensive prospects.

As for the extensions of the young guys next summer, there should be enough cap space available for them. Weather or not we spend to the cap will likely determine if we lose one of them. But there is room for them currently. Now if Andersen commands something like Holtby then that would throw a wrench into the Ducks plans I think.

And for expansion, I think there is a clause that players under a certain number of games played or years in the NHL are ineligible for the draft. I could be wrong about that but it could save some of our younger players from having to be protected. This is also why I don't think BM offered the NTC to Beleskey this summer as well. The risk of the expansion draft as it should happen in the middle of his new deal.

I have a hard time seeing that happen. Unless Freddy suddenly pulls a Bobrovsky and surprises everybody by winning the Vezina, I see him getting Hiller/Halak type money ($4 million AAV range). And that's assuming that everything goes well for him next season. $6+ million for Freddy is waay too much for him at this point.

 

[DavidBL]

I have a hard time seeing that happen. Unless Freddy suddenly pulls a Bobrovsky and surprises everybody by winning the Vezina, I see him getting Hiller/Halak type money ($4 million AAV range). And that's assuming that everything goes well for him next season. $6+ million for Freddy is waay too much for him at this point.

I tend to agree. But if he puts together a 40 win season and has just above avg numbers I could see him demanding a large sum.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I tend to agree. But if he puts together a 40 win season and has just above avg numbers I could see him demanding a large sum.

If he's healthy and doesn't end up splitting the net much with Khudobin he'll easily get 40 wins. I expect the team to rack up 50-plus again, so he's his only obstacle.

He's not going to win the Vezina regardless.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

Andersen will never be good enough to win a Vezina....I don't think he will ever even be top 5. I could see Andersen being a Crawford type goalie. Gibson has that potential though.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Andersen will never be good enough to win a Vezina....I don't think he will ever even be top 5. I could see Andersen being a Crawford type goalie. Gibson has that potential though.

I will gladly take 2 cups over a personal award.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

I will gladly take 2 cups over a personal award.

Me too