Future of Anaheim

[Nordic*]

Going by the thread on the main forums, I looked into our players 25 or younger, including prospects (assumed potential) and put together a team, to look at our future.

Of course free agents etc. will change the team, but just looking at our own assets as of now, it doesn't look good at all, among forwards at least. No reserves, just the main roster on game day.

Ritchie-Rakell-Silfverberg

Kerdiles-Nattinen-Noesen

Roy-Terry-Sorensen

Sideroff-Gates-Sgarbossa


Lindholm-Fowler

Theodore-Montour

Vatanen-Larsson


Gibson
Metcalf​

Am I missing someone?

Click to read more...

 

[andyolly]

Wow, that forward lineup really is bad... But I'm not as worried. It's important to remember the real result will look barely like this. At least two of those defenseman won't be around, and the forwards will be maybe 1/3 of those guys at most.

 

[Goose of Reason]

Also, forwards have a much quicker path to the NHL than D. If Gibson can stay healthy and we have that d-core we'll be set for a while. I'm not worried unless all of Getzlaf/Perry/Kesler completely fall off a cliff. They say it's best to build from the net out and that's how our future is headed.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Need more legit top 6 forward prospects we are really lacking in that. Can't complain at all about our defenseman prospects. We could use some strength in goal from prospects but that tends to be harder to do for teams.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Going by the thread on the main forums, I looked into our players 25 or younger, including prospects (assumed potential) and put together a team, to look at our future.

Of course free agents etc. will change the team, but just looking at our own assets as of now, it doesn't look good at all, among forwards at least. No reserves, just the main roster on game day.

Ritchie-Rakell-Silfverberg

Kerdiles-Nattinen-Noesen

Roy-Terry-Sorensen

Sideroff-Gates-Sgarbossa


Lindholm-Fowler

Theodore-Montour

Vatanen-Larsson


Gibson
Metcalf​

Am I missing someone?

Despres and Manson are missing.

We have the strongest overall group of U25 Dmen in the league, and a potential top flight goalie. I can only worry about the forward thing so much when such a strong foundation is already in place.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Also Marcus Pettersson as prospect defenseman

 

[Nordic*]

We really REALLY need to strenghten our forward prospects. We have the D prospects, don't understand why we don't actively look for trades in this area.

Of course a lot of new players will have arrived in 5-6 years, but building from prospects, or at least young players below the age of 22-23, is vital in today's NHL, where the cap exists.

I can only find one or two other teams whose prospects among forwards are as bad as ours. This needs to be rectified asap.

First peace. Trade one of Vatanen, Montour or Larsson. Heck, even Theodore if he brings back a good enough piece.

We can't play more than 6 defencemen at a time anway, and with the cap, we can't have 6 great defencemen either, since they will demand salaries we can't afford.

All of the defencemen mentioned above will get at the very least 5-6 mill each, in 3-4 years. No team can handle 30+ million just on defence.

 

[Nordic*]

Despres and Manson are missing.

Which of the 6 D I listed in the lineup, would they beat out, assuming they reach their realistic potential?

 

[Elvs]

The team will never look anything like that so it's not nearly as bad as you think.

Does anyone know where to find that thread about our prospects from the early 2000's when people made lineups just like in the OP? Of course none of them came close to how the real lineup would eventually look.

Some of our current veteran forwards will be around longer than at least half of those forward prospects. I agree we have a weak forwards pool though. But when you're a contender the prospect pool is gonna take a hit somewhere. The window to win is now and we might as well go all in until Getzlaf, Perry and Kesler have nothing left in their tanks.

 

[Elvs]

Which of the 6 D I listed in the lineup, would they beat out, assuming they reach their realistic potential?

Anyone of them. Not because they are better but because they are different. If the D pairings in your lineup actually came true, then it would be the softest defense ever assembled. Need a couple of defensive/physical defensemen, such as Despres and Manson.

 

[Kalv]

Regarding forwards we really need to focus on getting potential top-6 talents. Bottom 6 guys can be had relatively easy

 

[Nordic*]

Anyone of them. Not because they are better but because they are different. If the D pairings in your lineup actually came true, then it would be the softest defense ever assembled. Need a couple of defensive/physical defensemen, such as Despres and Manson.

Being small in stature doesn't mean that you are soft.

Lindholm and Fowler are the best defencemen we have, defensively.




Bottom line. We are (very well) set defensively, but lack top end prospects among forwards. Heck, we lack forward prospects period.

 

[Paul4587]

Anyone of them. Not because they are better but because they are different. If the D pairings in your lineup actually came true, then it would be the softest defense ever assembled. Need a couple of defensive/physical defensemen, such as Despres and Manson.

Chistov - Smirnoff - Lupul!

1/3 of our 1st round picks from 2000-2002 panned out. How bad is that?

 

[Paul4587]

Which of the 6 D I listed in the lineup, would they beat out, assuming they reach their realistic potential?

I would put them both ahead of Montour personally. They are much more likely to be NHLers going forward than he is.

Unless by realistic potential you mean their ceiling. Which is completely different.

I'm really high on Larsson. I think he could be the 2nd or 3rd best guy on that blueline behind Lindholm and maybe Fowler.

 

[Elvs]

Being small in stature doesn't mean that you are soft.

Lindholm and Fowler are the best defencemen we have, defensively.

I don't consider them small, just quite soft Vatanen is small but would be the grittiest defenseman on that defence.

I agree that Lindholm is our best d-man defensively and Fowler is our best d-man with the puck in the defensive zone. However, I consider both of them 2 way-defenseman. My point wasn't that Despres and Manson are better defensively, the point I was trying to make is that teams typically consist of players with different styles playing different roles.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Chistov - Smirnoff - Lupul!

1/3 of our 1st round picks from 2000-2002 panned out. How bad is that?

2 out of 3 1st rounders busting is bad, 2 out of 3 top 12 picks, one of whom was 5th overall, is absolutely crushing. Not hard to see why the team seems afraid of Russians, even if it was 15+ years ago.

And yep, Chistov was drafted 15 years ago. Feel old, people.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Despres and Manson are missing.

We have the strongest overall group of U25 Dmen in the league, and a potential top flight goalie. I can only worry about the forward thing so much when such a strong foundation is already in place.

Also Marcus Pettersson as prospect defenseman

Which of the 6 D I listed in the lineup, would they beat out, assuming they reach their realistic potential?

The Ducks really like PMD with DD pairings. It makes roles so much easier. Lindholm and Fowler are great defensively, but we need more sand paper with Manson and Despres. I can see Montour being the odd man out.

While we may look weak right now, our first line and second line center positions are taken for some time. We can have our prospects slowly develop without rushed expectations. Look at Rakell - he's been bounced around as a center and winger. Now, he's looking good at center! Natty is turning heads. Noesen could a younger version of Cogs. Cogs reminds me of Marchant. I like having players like that on the team.

With roster line presented in the original post and with Manson, Despres, and Pettersson included, then the team doesn't look all that bad. With that team, we can expect to shut teams down defensively 5 v 5, be good on the PK with d-pairings of Lindholm-Manson, Fowler-Despres, and Vats mixed in as well as be awesome on the PP with Lindholm-Fowler and Vats-Theo. In net, is Gibson.

 

[Theridion]

The only thing concerning, is that there are no forwards that are poised to carry this team.

We have an abundance of impact defensemen. Some of which will have long, effective NHL carriers on the top 2 pairings.

And we have plenty of chances for those forwards to fill out bottom six roles.

However, offensive juggernauts and top line guys... not so much.

However I wouldn't worry too much. Looking at other projected kids, a majority of those sexy, offensive youngsters that teams are so high on won't even be top liners in their career. They will fall short and be out of the NHL or settle into depth roles.

However our defense core looks really... really stable and many of them nearly surefire to be effective roster players.

 

[xxreact9]

Take any team in the NHL 6 years down the road and wipe away all their players, the odds of it looking good are astronomically low.

 

[camshaft]

The only thing concerning, is that there are no forwards that are poised to carry this team.

We have an abundance of impact defensemen. Some of which will have long, effective NHL carriers on the top 2 pairings.

And we have plenty of chances for those forwards to fill out bottom six roles.

However, offensive juggernauts and top line guys... not so much.

However I wouldn't worry too much. Looking at other projected kids, a majority of those sexy, offensive youngsters that teams are so high on won't even be top liners in their career. They will fall short and be out of the NHL or settle into depth roles.

However our defense core looks really... really stable and many of them nearly surefire to be effective roster players.

As the cliche goes "Do what you are good at". The Ducks excel in drafting offensive d-men, and developing them into 2 way d-men. The trick is to trade the surplus on defense into star forwards that can put puck into the net. In other words, draft low, develop prospect, and sell high by trading them for star offensive forward.

 

[Exit Dose]

Take any team in the NHL 6 years down the road and wipe away all their players, the odds of it looking good are astronomically low.

Exactly. No one should be freaking out about this.

 

[Sojourn]

Take any team in the NHL 6 years down the road and wipe away all their players, the odds of it looking good are astronomically low.

Especially a team that has been competitive, and hasn't been picking in the top 10 year after year.

 

[AngelDuck]

The key moving forward will be if Murray can parlay the depth on defense + 1 of Andersen/Gibson for good young forwards

 

[Lord Flashheart]

<Jim Mora mode>

Future?!​

</Jim Mora mode>

 

[91Fedorov]

Going by the thread on the main forums, I looked into our players 25 or younger, including prospects (assumed potential) and put together a team, to look at our future.

Of course free agents etc. will change the team, but just looking at our own assets as of now, it doesn't look good at all, among forwards at least. No reserves, just the main roster on game day.

Ritchie-Rakell-Silfverberg

Kerdiles-Nattinen-Noesen

Roy-Terry-Sorensen

Sideroff-Gates-Sgarbossa


Lindholm-Fowler

Theodore-Montour

Vatanen-Larsson


Gibson
Metcalf​

Am I missing someone?

Do this exercise for the Kings. You'll feel much better right away.