Confirmed with Link: Ducks sign Michael Del Zotto (1 year, $750K)

[Duck Off]

Someone please remember to ask about that from Stephens the next time he does a mailbag or Q&A thingy. Not sure if he has any insights but I do remember that quote from Murray at the time of the trade and am still baffled by it.

During free agency they had a live chat with Stephens, Cooper, and Dillman. I actually asked that, and Cooper said he didn’t know what Murray was talking about either, and Stephens said he was just as puzzled. His guess was that it was referring to the turnover we’ve seen with older players this offseason. Though that doesn’t make a lot of sense since Montour was young himself.

 

[Mr Rogers]

During free agency they had a live chat with Stephens, Cooper, and Dillman. I actually asked that, and Cooper said he didn’t know what Murray was talking about either, and Stephens said he was just as puzzled. His guess was that it was referring to the turnover we’ve seen with older players this offseason. Though that doesn’t make a lot of sense since Montour was young himself.

I think it was just an emotional quote from Bob. Doubt he actually had thought of an elaborate offseason plan back in February

 

[Sojourn]

Rolling with a soft garbage defense again this idiot never learns. It's sad how Murray is given free reign all the while with horrible results. Carlyle was not the problem

The team had more than one problem.

Carlyle was A problem. Nothing was the problem.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

I think it was just an emotional quote from Bob. Doubt he actually had thought of an elaborate offseason plan back in February

Ya i don’t believe a single word gmbm says he has lied to many times

 

[JabbaJabba]

Yeah, that "This trade will make sense in the future" line is something you can say after every trade and see what happens in the future. If Guhle becomes a star player, Bob can say that it was the plan. If Guhle is traded for another player/picks and in the future someone of that trade tree becomes a good player for the Ducks, Bob can say it was the plan.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

Yeah, that "This trade will make sense in the future" line is something you can say after every trade and see what happens in the future. If Guhle becomes a star player, Bob can say that it was the plan. If Guhle is traded for another player/picks and in the future someone of that trade tree becomes a good player for the Ducks, Bob can say it was the plan.

Tracey is a huge wildcard since he lost his line mates

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Yeah, that "This trade will make sense in the future" line is something you can say after every trade and see what happens in the future. If Guhle becomes a star player, Bob can say that it was the plan. If Guhle is traded for another player/picks and in the future someone of that trade tree becomes a good player for the Ducks, Bob can say it was the plan.

What you denoted about Bob isn't so much the norm for other organizations. Bob wants assets that he can use in the future and stays away from high priced one-year rentals. It's a great game plan that he's adapted to when was re-building on the fly after Burke left the org in cap hell and nothing in our cupboards.

Guhle doesn't have to be a star player to us. He has to give the impression that he's an NHL mainstay first so that his asset value increases. If it increases greatly to where he's a top-4, then we keep him. If it increases to where he's a third pairing with potential for more, like Marcus Pettersson, then we can either choose to continue to develop Guhle or trade him if an offer presents itself that improves the Ducks today and tomorrow. That's exactly what happened with the trading away of Brandon Montour. Anaheim received immediate help today in Guhle and future help in the late first rounder.

Another example of this was the trading away of C Peter Holland. Bob traded Holland and Staubitz for D Blacker, a third rounder in 2014 (can upgrade to second round if Holland plays 25 NHL games in 2013), and a 2014 seventh round pick. Holland did play at least 25 games for the Leafs and the pick was upgraded to a 2nd round selection that became D Marcus Pettersson. In 2018, the Ducks traded Pettersson for F Daniel Sprong. Sprong has raised his asset value in the NHL with the Ducks in 47 games with 14 goals and 5 assists. This season will be interesting to see what transpires with Sprong as this is his last year in his contract. What is lost in all this was the addition of that seventh round pick in 2014. Who was that pick? F Ondrej Kase.

Under Bob, the Ducks have never had a top-5 selection, which dates back to 2009. (Note: Burke stepped down as GM of the Ducks in Nov of 2008. That means Bob wasn't in charge of the 2008 draft.) While everyone is opining about landing an elite center, people often forget that the Ducks don't have better opportunities to land one without a top-5 pick. We might have gotten lucky this past draft as Zegras fell to 9th overall. I don't think Bob gets enough credit with this style of GM'ing while not having a top-5 selection while winning the pacific division (2013 - 2017) and finished 2nd in the Pacific in 2018. Sometimes things happen out of your control such as injuries and the number of injuries to players such as losing F Patrick Eaves, which cost the Ducks a 2017 first round pick. Yet, despite not having a first round pick in 2017, the Ducks' first pick (a second rounder) was F Max Comtois.

As long as Bob continues to create options for the Ducks, then that's a great thing for the future. Adding draft picks is part of that option. Who knew a throw in 2014 seventh round pick would eventually become a steady NHL contributor all because the Ducks sold Holland's potential to some other organization.

Did the Ducks produce worse as a team after trading Monty away? No. The team actually improved. It's difficult to say the Ducks lost when there's ample proof it didn't hurt the Ducks after Monty was traded. Now, the Ducks have two assets from the Monty trade: D Guhle and F Tracey. That's a win for the time being.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Tracey is a huge wildcard since he lost his line mates

Moosejaw
1. Langan: 63g + 50a = 113 pts
2. Almeida: 33g + 78a= 111 pts
3. Tracey: 36g + 45a= 81 pts

You state this, but do you know how Tracey produced with the Canada's WJC-18? He was tied 5th in scoring.

Canada's WJC-18
1. Krebs: 6g + 4a = 10 pts
2. Newhook: 5g + 5a= 10 pts
3. Cozens: 4g + 5a= 9 pts
4. Rees: 2g + 6a= 8 pts
5-T. Tracey: 4g + 3a= 7 pts
5-T. Zary: 4g + 3a= 7 pts

So what can we derive from these two statistical productions, Moosejaw (WHL) and Canada's WJC-18? With top players, Tracey can produce. Tracey probably didn't play with the top line, so that in itself, should speak volumes. Tracey won't be playing without talent around him at the NHL level in the future as the Ducks currently boasts youthful forwards with loads of potential in Steel, Terry, Comtois, Jones, Lundestrom, and, fellow 2019 first rounder, Zegras. Tracey and Zegras may be a pair in the AHL going into the 2020 season. Who knows?

This coming season with the Moosejaw does present Tracey with a new challenge - how will he handle being the top dog on the team? That growth and/or adversity could pay off handsomely for the Ducks if he's able to produce by his lonesome self. As of right now, Tracey can produce with other talents. Is Tracey only a complementary point producer or can he drive point production? If both, then the Ducks have a much bigger steal in Tracey. (I really gotta stop saying steal b/c the Ducks do this so often in the draft. Kase in the 7th round. Manson in the 6th round. Terry in the 5th round. Vatanen in the 4th round. Gibby in the 2nd round. Hampus 6th overall. LoL Yeah, Hampus was a steal at 6th overall.)

 

[Ducks DVM]

Did the Ducks produce worse as a team after trading Monty away? No. The team actually improved. It's difficult to say the Ducks lost when there's ample proof it didn't hurt the Ducks after Monty was traded. Now, the Ducks have two assets from the Monty trade: D Guhle and F Tracey. That's a win for the time being.

Ehhhh... the Ducks went 3-3 with 12 goals for and 9 against in the brief post-Carlyle Montour window. The team was better period without Carlyle. It’s a gross overstatement to say that the team WAS and WILL BE better without Montour. There’s actually pretty minimal evidence for that. In fact, it’s pretty hard to say that it’s not a loss for the time being, as neither Guhle nor the mystery box have proven anything at the NHL level to this point.

Granted, Montour was allegedly hard to play with in the NHL, but by the same token, he would now be under the same coach that understood how to coach him at the NHL level. Making dogmatic statements that the team is better off is pretty much unsupportable. MAYBE Montour really is uncoachable. MAYBE Guhle will be the offensive weapon (and not the defensive liability) we hope he will. MAYBE the mystery box will be a quality NHL player in 3-5 years. But none of that can be characterized as a “win” at the current time.

I’m not even a huge Montour fan. But you’re only looking at best case scenarios and acting like they’re guarantees IMO.

 

[AngelDuck]

Tracey is a huge wildcard since he lost his line mates

Yeah sure, but no more so than any other late first/early 2nd round pick.

Sam steel was a wild card. Rickard Rakell was a wild card. Emerson Etem was a wild card

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Ehhhh... the Ducks went 3-3 with 12 goals for and 9 against in the brief post-Carlyle Montour window. The team was better period without Carlyle. It’s a gross overstatement to say that the team WAS and WILL BE better without Montour. There’s actually pretty minimal evidence for that. In fact, it’s pretty hard to say that it’s not a loss for the time being, as neither Guhle nor the mystery box have proven anything at the NHL level to this point.

Granted, Montour was allegedly hard to play with in the NHL, but by the same token, he would now be under the same coach that understood how to coach him at the NHL level. Making dogmatic statements that the team is better off is pretty much unsupportable. MAYBE Montour really is uncoachable. MAYBE Guhle will be the offensive weapon (and not the defensive liability) we hope he will. MAYBE the mystery box will be a quality NHL player in 3-5 years. But none of that can be characterized as a “win” at the current time.

I’m not even a huge Montour fan. But you’re only looking at best case scenarios and acting like they’re guarantees IMO.

Bob's record: 14 - 11 - 1
Bob's record w/ Monty: 3 - 3 - 0
Bob's record w/0 Monty: 11 - 8 - 1

I am saying that the Ducks did improve without Monty. Look at the W/L record. That simply is fact. Losing Monty didn't hurt the Ducks. Adding salt to insult was Guhle only played 6 games for the Ducks, getting injured in game 5 with the Ducks. With Guhle in the lineup, the Ducks went 3 - 3. So without Monty and Guhle, the Ducks went 8-5-1. Apparently, the Ducks can live without Monty.

Bob playing 4-D chess
Now, Monty is signed only through 2019-2020, which is this season. The Ducks and Monty avoided arbitration in 2018 by signing him to an AAV of $3.387 mil for two years ($6.775 mil total). Monty will still be a RFA as well as retain arbitration rights, IIRC. Monty will be looking to get paid after his "bridge deal", 2-year contract.

Guhle is slated to make $697,000 in 2019-2020 on his ELC (Entry Level Contract). His bridge deal will be probably be far less than Monty since Guhle hasn't proven much yet. This trade saves the Ducks $2,690,500 going into 2019-202 and probably more going beyond 2020 season.

Bob doesn't even need Guhle to actually be a top-4 blue liner this year, considering how the team improved without him in the lineup as well as Monty. There's no real need to rush Guhle with the signings of Holzier, Hakanpaa, and MDZ along with Larsson proving to be more of an NHL product than Guhle.

Right now, the Ducks possess two assets for the sum of $0.667 mil versus one asset for $3.387 mil. The Ducks did play well without Monty. The Ducks played well without Monty, Guhle, and the late first round pick concluding the NHL season. Going beyond this season, the Ducks fiscally will be in far better shape without Monty. As for player comparisons, I'm not looking at that at all. I'm looking at assets. The Ducks have two assets on the cheap against one expensive asset, to which none of the players played in where the Ducks went 8-5-1.

Bigger context

Salaries for 2019-2020
Monty = $3.387 mil

Guhle = $0.697 mil
MDZ = $0.750 mil
Jani = $0.850 mil
--------------------------
Total = $2.297 mil

That's three defensemen for the price of one. Actually, over a million less than one defenseman.

Added context
We did re-acquire MDZ after we traded him away to the Blues for a sixth rounder in the 2019 NHL draft. The Ducks used it on a 6'3", 200 lbs defenseman named Mathew Hill. I have no idea if Hill will ever pan out. Then again, none of us knew Manson would ever pan out as a sixth rounder either.

It's all about assets.

----

I'm not looking at the best scenarios. I'm looking at what transpired. I'm also trying to explain how Bob thinks, which I become more impressed with as I continue to delve deeper into the Monty trade. And as I concluded in my previous post about the Monty trade: That's a win for the time being. I don't see any guarantees about production into the future. In fact, I denote it looks like a win right now; not forever. And if those players don't pan out, then Bob can continue to trade them for other assets. Maybe, you're too busy looking at the smaller scope of Monty as opposed to the process of assets paying it forward. Also, it doesn't hurt to cut the cap while not degrading your chances to win.

Don't get me wrong, I was shocked to see Monty go. Yet, Bob's been doing his job of keeping the Ducks afloat since he took over in Nov of 2008. Your angst at me is actually towards Bob b/c Bob made the trade and I'm explaining why he did it. But I'll respect your opinion that Bob doesn't know what he's doing.

 

[Duck Off]

Bob's record: 14 - 11 - 1
Bob's record w/ Monty: 3 - 3 - 0
Bob's record w/0 Monty: 11 - 8 - 1

I am saying that the Ducks did improve without Monty. Look at the W/L record. That simply is fact. Losing Monty didn't hurt the Ducks. Adding salt to insult was Guhle only played 6 games for the Ducks, getting injured in game 5 with the Ducks. With Guhle in the lineup, the Ducks went 3 - 3. So without Monty and Guhle, the Ducks went 8-5-1. Apparently, the Ducks can live without Monty.

.​

That is an absurd judgement based on that small of a sample size. So if you remove Montour's name there, and replace it with Lindholm, then you're insinuating we're better without Hampus? That statement ignores the fact that the sample size is way too small. That also ignores that other players can play better at certain times. ​

Bob playing 4-D chess
Now, Monty is signed only through 2019-2020, which is this season. The Ducks and Monty avoided arbitration in 2018 by signing him to an AAV of $3.387 mil for two years ($6.775 mil total). Monty will still be a RFA as well as retain arbitration rights, IIRC. Monty will be looking to get paid after his "bridge deal", 2-year contract.

Guhle is slated to make $697,000 in 2019-2020 on his ELC (Entry Level Contract). His bridge deal will be probably be far less than Monty since Guhle hasn't proven much yet. This trade saves the Ducks $2,690,500 going into 2019-202 and probably more going beyond 2020 season.

.​

Montour only gets a big increase if he earns it. If he played the way he did his last year with us, then he's not getting much, if any, of a raise. Trading players too early is how you wind up with another Palmieri trade. If he earns the right to "get paid", then that's a good problem to have. Either pay him, or trade him then when his value is higher.

The extra cap space doesn't mean much unless you do something with it. Right now, we haven't. If something happens with the savings, then I'd agree with that argument (yes, I know there's more time for something to happen). ​

Bob doesn't even need Guhle to actually be a top-4 blue liner this year, considering how the team improved without him in the lineup as well as Monty. There's no real need to rush Guhle with the signings of Holzier, Hakanpaa, and MDZ along with Larsson proving to be more of an NHL product than Guhle.

.​

That logic just makes zero sense. You're insinuating that all success can hinge on one player. True or False: There's a glaring hole in the defense? I'd say true, like most of the media is saying. ​

Right now, the Ducks possess two assets for the sum of $0.667 mil versus one asset for $3.387 mil. The Ducks did play well without Monty. The Ducks played well without Monty, Guhle, and the late first round pick concluding the NHL season. Going beyond this season, the Ducks fiscally will be in far better shape without Monty. As for player comparisons, I'm not looking at that at all. I'm looking at assets. The Ducks have two assets on the cheap against one expensive asset, to which none of the players played in where the Ducks went 8-5-1.

.​

Again, way too small of sample size to make that call. That's like saying the team is better without Getzlaf or Lindholm if we win 4/6 games without them. Were we really better, or did the team just step up in their absence? You're insinuating it's always the former with the logic you're using. The cap space argument is void in this argument IMO because we have plenty of it, and we've done nothing with the additional savings (yet anyway).​

Bigger context

Salaries for 2019-2020
Monty = $3.387 mil

Guhle = $0.697 mil
MDZ = $0.750 mil
Jani = $0.850 mil
--------------------------
Total = $2.297 mil

That's three defensemen for the price of one. Actually, over a million less than one defenseman.

​

And none of those three have proven as valuable as Montour, despite what our record was. ​

Added context
We did re-acquire MDZ after we traded him away to the Blues for a sixth rounder in the 2019 NHL draft. The Ducks used it on a 6'3", 200 lbs defenseman named Mathew Hill. I have no idea if Hill will ever pan out. Then again, none of us knew Manson would ever pan out as a sixth rounder either.

It's all about assets.

----

​

Hopefully he pans out and is another Manson. Or he could win up like 90+%% of 6th round picks and be NHL irrelevant. ​

I'm not looking at the best scenarios. I'm looking at what transpired. I'm also trying to explain how Bob thinks, which I become more impressed with as I continue to delve deeper into the Monty trade. And as I concluded in my previous post about the Monty trade: That's a win for the time being. I don't see any guarantees about production into the future. In fact, I denote it looks like a win right now; not forever. And if those players don't pan out, then Bob can continue to trade them for other assets. Maybe, you're too busy looking at the smaller scope of Monty as opposed to the process of assets paying it forward. Also, it doesn't hurt to cut the cap while not degrading your chances to win.

​

You might not be looking at best case scenarios, but you seem to be ignoring a lot of variables, and basing way too much off a small sample size. You're talking about Montour as if he couldn't take another step here. Just maybe, he potentially hits another gear with Eakins, who got a ton out of him at the AHL level? If he doesn't progress anymore, it's a win for us, value/asset wise. However, IMO, we sold low on him (for what it's worth Cooper and Stephens agree). Yes, Bob can flip them for other assets, but that doesn't mean he didn't trade Montour at the wrong time.​

Don't get me wrong, I was shocked to see Monty go. Yet, Bob's been doing his job of keeping the Ducks afloat since he took over in Nov of 2008. Your angst at me is actually towards Bob b/c Bob made the trade and I'm explaining why he did it. But I'll respect your opinion that Bob doesn't know what he's doing.

I don't think anyone would argue that he hasn't done a very good job since taking over. Just seems odd that he can fire a coach because "a lot of success doesn't mean anything if you don't win a cup", but at the same time, "very good" is good enough for him. Yes, you can't compare GMs to coaches as "apples to apples", but seems weird that one is held to a higher standard. Never mind the holes he left in our "cup contending" teams. To your credit, i think you are spot on with Murray's views of the Montour trade. I just completely disagree with the logic. He took a gamble and traded Montour for a less than stellar return. If Montour doesn't progress, then it was a smart move (though i do think he could have got more if he traded him this offseason). However, we still have a glaring hole in our defense, and our coach is now the guy who got Montour to play his best. That means something.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

Yeah sure, but no more so than any other late first/early 2nd round pick.

Sam steel was a wild card. Rickard Rakell was a wild card. Emerson Etem was a wild card

I was talking about in regards to the return on the trade

 

[Deuce22]

The jury is out on trading Montour. I agree completely with DuckOff that six games is an absurdly low sample size to made a judgement on. We'll see how good Montour becomes and how Guhle develops. Those who jump way too quickly to defend or rip Murray's moves need to wait until things play out. My hesitation to see Montour dealt was because I would have liked to see what he looked like under a coach other than Carlyle.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

The jury is out on trading Montour. I agree completely with DuckOff that six games is an absurdly low sample size to made a judgement on. We'll see how good Montour becomes and how Guhle develops. Those who jump way too quickly to defend or rip Murray's moves need to wait until things play out. My hesitation to see Montour dealt was because I would have liked to see what he looked like under a coach other than Carlyle.

If Murray knew he wouldn’t be able to sign montour why didn’t he trade montour for offensive help instead of petterson? Could’ve returned a better player and still have a top four D on an elc in Petterson

 

[duckpuck]

Ehhhh... the Ducks went 3-3 with 12 goals for and 9 against in the brief post-Carlyle Montour window. The team was better period without Carlyle. It’s a gross overstatement to say that the team WAS and WILL BE better without Montour. There’s actually pretty minimal evidence for that. In fact, it’s pretty hard to say that it’s not a loss for the time being, as neither Guhle nor the mystery box have proven anything at the NHL level to this point.

Granted, Montour was allegedly hard to play with in the NHL, but by the same token, he would now be under the same coach that understood how to coach him at the NHL level. Making dogmatic statements that the team is better off is pretty much unsupportable. MAYBE Montour really is uncoachable. MAYBE Guhle will be the offensive weapon (and not the defensive liability) we hope he will. MAYBE the mystery box will be a quality NHL player in 3-5 years. But none of that can be characterized as a “win” at the current time.

I’m not even a huge Montour fan. But you’re only looking at best case scenarios and acting like they’re guarantees IMO.

I am a pretty big fan of Montour. But this trade makes sense to me given that: (i) Guhle is a pretty good prospect and it seems (rightly or not) the ducks see a lot of/top 4 potential in him; (ii) the ducks got a first round pick; (iii) the ducks salary structure and cap position doesn't allow them to sign Montour as an RFA in 2020-21; and (iv) if they did keep/extend/sign Montour, the ducks would probably have to expose him in expansion.

People seem to forget about the first round pick which, at the time of the trade, was projected to be around 20. It took a pretty unlikely/extreme set of things to happen for it to drop. But even with the drop, Murray got a FIRST ROUND PICK. Very few of those were traded.

Finally, Montour was traded, at least in part, because he went to arbitration. That seems like a real no-no for BM and objectively it pointed to the strong likelihood the ducks would have a real tough time signing him as an RFA in 2020-21.

The jury is out on trading Montour. I agree completely with DuckOff that six games is an absurdly low sample size to made a judgement on. We'll see how good Montour becomes and how Guhle develops. Those who jump way too quickly to defend or rip Murray's moves need to wait until things play out. My hesitation to see Montour dealt was because I would have liked to see what he looked like under a coach other than Carlyle.

As I mentioned above, even if he was retained and played better, the ducks were going to lose Montour due to cap constraints and/or expansion. In that respect, Murray traded Montour when his value was highest - had he waited, the value would go down either: (a) because Montour played really well and was going to need a big money new deal; 0r (b) he continued to play just ok.

If Murray knew he wouldn’t be able to sign montour why didn’t he trade montour for offensive help instead of petterson? Could’ve returned a better player and still have a top four D on an elc in Petterson

Because he wanted a first round pick and a top prospect. Montour was traded to a team that had 3 of them - not a coincidence.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

If Murray knew he wouldn’t be able to sign montour why didn’t he trade montour for offensive help instead of petterson? Could’ve returned a better player and still have a top four D on an elc in Petterson

It seems as though BM valued Montour over Pettersson until he got a look at the locker room and decided Montour needed to go.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I am saying that the Ducks did improve without Monty. Look at the W/L record. That simply is fact. Losing Monty didn't hurt the Ducks. Adding salt to insult was Guhle only played 6 games for the Ducks, getting injured in game 5 with the Ducks. With Guhle in the lineup, the Ducks went 3 - 3. So without Monty and Guhle, the Ducks went 8-5-1. Apparently, the Ducks can live without Monty.

You’re saying it, but you’re confusing correlation with causation. The tram improved from having no system to having A system. You have no evidence that there wouldn’t have been an even greater improvement with Montour still on the team. I can’t say that they would have, but you can’t say they were definitely not going to. Your point regarding Guhle actually just proves that he was NOT an improvement over Montour.

Fowler got healthier. Terry, Steel, and Jones were with the team more. There are quite a few moving parts other than Montour. It’s shallow analysis to be making the dogmatic statements you’re making.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I am a pretty big fan of Montour. But this trade makes sense to me given that: (i) Guhle is a pretty good prospect and it seems (rightly or not) the ducks see a lot of/top 4 potential in him; (ii) the ducks got a first round pick; (iii) the ducks salary structure and cap position doesn't allow them to sign Montour as an RFA in 2020-21; and (iv) if they did keep/extend/sign Montour, the ducks would probably have to expose him in expansion.

People seem to forget about the first round pick which, at the time of the trade, was projected to be around 20. It took a pretty unlikely/extreme set of things to happen for it to drop. But even with the drop, Murray got a FIRST ROUND PICK. Very few of those were traded.

Finally, Montour was traded, at least in part, because he went to arbitration. That seems like a real no-no for BM and objectively it pointed to the strong likelihood the ducks would have a real tough time signing him as an RFA in 2020-21.

I’m not saying the trade wasn’t a good trade, or that the return wasn’t good. I’m saying that right now, today, with the massive amount of flux in the team, it is grossly premature to say that the Ducks ARE a better team without him, both today AND going forward.