Terry Yake
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2013
- 26,904
- 15,405
no, theodore isn't a top 5 NHL d-man
but he's sure as hell better than anything this team is putting out there to play D on a nightly basis. keeping manson over him was just....lol
well they traded theodore to vegas to make sure they didn't take manson and would take stoner. so they pretty much parted ways with theodore to ensure manson remained a duckI don't see how you can fault Murray for exposing Theodore. The team was coming off a WCF appearance and there was no thought process that they would move out the D that they did. They had Vatanen and Montour who were more proven offensively than Theo and they'd risk losing Silf if they protected four D.
They also exposed Manson. So they didn't protect him.
well they traded theodore to vegas to make sure they didn't take manson and would take stoner. so they pretty much parted ways with theodore to ensure manson remained a duck
In these playoffs Theo has been on ice for 10 GA and 20 GF which gives him the second best rating on the team and t-6th in whole playoffs. You don't have to play defense if you are pushing the pace in the offensive zone instead.
Yes, he is not the first choice to protect a one goal lead but I think his defensive ''problems'' are well overblown.
yeah, and they have yet to get an upgrade on guys like vatanen and montourAh. Didn't realize this. Thanks!
The bigger issue is Murray trading every defenseman like hot cakes in the system though right?
Getting rid of Maroon was another of Murray's wonderful trade deadline "gems"I'd be fine with Dallas winning and Cogs getting a cup ring. Tampa Bay not so much, one is good enough for Maroon.
You could argue that we traded Theo for Rico a 1st Gule and dumping. Stoner.
So here is the logic. Even if we bought out Bieksa we were still going to have to make a deal to protect either Vatanen or Manson, who ever you don't protect. We also KNOW that the trade market was a stranglehold and no one was dealing. Especially for players who would be protection worth. So I don't think the trade Vats before the draft. I also included Montour as I'm guessing that the deal with vegas had to include either Monty or Theo. We know that the Ducks discussed the Rico trade before the draft. So if we follow the logic that we were likely to trade our RS offensive D then it made sense to keep the guy most likely to replace him. I think the biggest failure is what ever caused Montour to stop progressing. If Montour is here still putting up 50 pts no one is talking about TheoI don’t get that logic. You’re including assets from the Montour trade in his return?
I still think the best course of action was to buyout Bieksa and trade Vatanen pre ED. Talks with NJ on the Vatanen were rumored to go back to the offseason, even if it meant paying a bit more to get him pre expansion draft it would have been worth it.
So here is the logic. Even if we bought out Bieksa we were still going to have to make a deal to protect either Vatanen or Manson, who ever you don't protect. We also KNOW that the trade market was a stranglehold and no one was dealing. Especially for players who would be protection worth. So I don't think the trade Vats before the draft. I also included Montour as I'm guessing that the deal with vegas had to include either Monty or Theo. We know that the Ducks discussed the Rico trade before the draft. So if we follow the logic that we were likely to trade our RS offensive D then it made sense to keep the guy most likely to replace him. I think the biggest failure is what ever caused Montour to stop progressing. If Montour is here still putting up 50 pts no one is talking about Theo
I include both because even if bieksa waived we would have had to make a deal with Vegas as we still had 4 D we wanted to protect. Vegas was going to get a top 4 D or a D prospect from us no matter what we didOk so using that logic the return for losing Theodore is either Henrique OR Guhle and a 1st, not both returns.
Well. I don’t think many (if any) thought we should risk losing Manson to keep Shea back thenno, theodore isn't a top 5 NHL d-man
but he's sure as hell better than anything this team is putting out there to play D on a nightly basis. keeping manson over him was just....lol
Well. I don’t think many (if any) thought we should risk losing Manson to keep Shea back then
there were a lot that wanted to see move(s) made to be able to keep what was a top prospect like Shea as well as Manson though
Not sure if replying to me or previous posterAt that moment in time, if Murray lost Manson, he realistically should’ve been fired. You can have issues with how BM handled things, like I think we all do in the whole keep Bieksa BS, but keeping Manson at that time was the right decision. It’s very easy to play Monday morning qb.
Not sure if replying to me or previous poster
But I was trying to say basically the same regarding keeping Manson
Kinda thought. ThanksIt was the previous poster. I was trying to elaborate, to a certain extent, about your post that I quoted.
In these playoffs Theo has been on ice for 10 GA and 20 GF which gives him the second best rating on the team and t-6th in whole playoffs. You don't have to play defense if you are pushing the pace in the offensive zone instead.
Yes, he is not the first choice to protect a one goal lead but I think his defensive ''problems'' are well overblown.
That's ESHow many of the GF were on the power play?
As good as he is, there is a reason that he is currently getting 73% O-Zone starts in the playoffs.That's ES
But last night in a crucial game Theo performed with the team worst -3