Confirmed with Link: Ducks sign Scott Harrington to a PTO

[MMC]

Click to read more...

 

[FiveHoleTickler]

I have to disagree with this mentality. If they are used to get a long term player for the team then they are doing exactly what you want them to do. A first round pick may become an NHL player one day. But for example, Debrincat or Nylander ARE high end NHL players. Now given where we are as a team our first could POTENTIALLY also be a high end NHL player so obviously you're weighing those chances before making a deal. I don't thinknit means those deals should be immediately off the table.

So based on this, all picks should be traded for proven players all the time? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

All I'm saying is right now it doesn't make sense for us to unload early draft picks for players. You can get them through free agency and keep your picks. We're not at the point where it makes sense to trade picks for players because we're not competitive yet.

Building through the draft gives you cost-controlled assets and that's the best way to manage a team in the cap era.

 

[DavidBL]

So based on this, all picks should be traded for proven players all the time? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

All I'm saying is right now it doesn't make sense for us to unload early draft picks for players. You can get them through free agency and keep your picks. We're not at the point where it makes sense to trade picks for players because we're not competitive yet.

Building through the draft gives you cost-controlled assets and that's the best way to manage a team in the cap era.

That is not even remotely what I am saying. What I am saying is that dealing draft picks for right now players shouldn't be off the table just because of where we are. There are tons of factors that go into those considerations. If we are getting a long term asset in return then you are accomplishing the same thing as you would with the draft pick. The question is the quality of that asset. Is the player better than the pick will be? For example, I wouldn't give up a first round pick for a middle 6 forward but for a top 6 player we'd have control of? I'd consider it. Obviously the type of player and other circumstances also affect that decision. I just don't see why we should dismiss moves like it offhand because we're not good yet. Long term NHL player makes us better now and in the future generally while the pick may make us better in the future. Obviously I'm not moving any 1st without some sort of protection until we are safely in playoff contention.

 

[FiveHoleTickler]

That is not even remotely what I am saying. What I am saying is that dealing draft picks for right now players shouldn't be off the table just because of where we are. There are tons of factors that go into those considerations. If we are getting a long term asset in return then you are accomplishing the same thing as you would with the draft pick. The question is the quality of that asset. Is the player better than the pick will be? For example, I wouldn't give up a first round pick for a middle 6 forward but for a top 6 player we'd have control of? I'd consider it. Obviously the type of player and other circumstances also affect that decision. I just don't see why we should dismiss moves like it offhand because we're not good yet. Long term NHL player makes us better now and in the future generally while the pick may make us better in the future. Obviously I'm not moving any 1st without some sort of protection until we are safely in playoff contention.

1. Because there are ways to acquire players without giving up premium assets. See: Free agency.

2. Because it won't move the needle enough to make this team good.

 

[AngelDuck]

Cap space is an asset. He's been active in using that to get free agents.

If you're talking about 1st-3rd round picks, that wouldn't make sense for a team that isn't ready to compete.

I’m not saying it does make sense. However it is certainly beginning to make more sense than it did 2 years ago. This is a team that should be on the upswing the next 2-3 seasons

 

[MMC]

So as not to jump the gun and shoot ourselves in the foot the way teams like Buffalo and Arizona have done in the past, I hope we don't trade any high value futures (notable prospects or 1st and 2nd round picks) until the young core we develop and are continuing to augment in free agency and through minor trades shows itself to be in a playoff spot by a trade deadline. Until then, they are not worth investing in.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

So based on this, all picks should be traded for proven players all the time? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

All I'm saying is right now it doesn't make sense for us to unload early draft picks for players. You can get them through free agency and keep your picks. We're not at the point where it makes sense to trade picks for players because we're not competitive yet.

Building through the draft gives you cost-controlled assets and that's the best way to manage a team in the cap era.

Also building talent depth takes time. We have no known depth today and only one known top-4D in Fowler.

From the Hockey Writers: "Thus, a possible return for the Maple Leafs in a Nylander trade could be the Ducks’ top defensive prospect Pavel Mintyukov and Anaheim’s 2024 first-round pick (Top 3 protected). "

So we lose a potential top-4D that we're waiting on and then lose a top-10 pick next year b/c Nylander will make sure we aren't finishing in the bottom-3, but still not great enough to get out of the bottom-third because we have no blue line. This trade would make the Ducks worse since we're lacking blueline talent.

 

[DavidBL]

1. Because there are ways to acquire players without giving up premium assets. See: Free agency.

2. Because it won't move the needle enough to make this team good.

1. You have to compete with more teams and a lot of times pay more.
2. Neither does the pick. The player does actually move the needle toward being good. You don't just go 0-60. The NHL player gets you closer than the pick does nearly guaranteed unless it's a top 5 pick which I am not suggesting we move at all.
You don't just ignore opportunities to add good players because it may cost a pick.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

1. You have to compete with more teams and a lot of times pay more.
2. Neither does the pick. The player does actually move the needle toward being good. You don't just go 0-60. The NHL player gets you closer than the pick does nearly guaranteed unless it's a top 5 pick which I am not suggesting we move at all.
You don't just ignore opportunities to add good players because it may cost a pick.

On point 2, if you agree that acquiring Nylander doesn't move the needle, then that ends the argument.

Acquiring a top-line forward at the expense of a top-4D prospect and a 2024 top-10 pick doesn't make sense since we're missing a whole lot of defense than offense. We have a solid top-6F and okay top-9, but we only have one top-4D.

Top talents become available year after year either by cap restraints or teams rebuilding. I don't understand the impatience, especially when you agree acquiring Nylander doesn't move the needle.