Speculation: How do you feel about the rebuild, and how confident are you in the team's direction?

[snowave]

I'm trying to be optimistic, but honestly I'm disappointed and not very enthusiastic about this team at all right now.

Sure, we have some exciting young talent, but I really don't want to wait another 3-5 yrs to be a realistic contender... which is what it's going to take unless some major moves happen this summer to bring in existing talent (vs potential talent). I'm willing to give PV the benefit of the doubt for now, but this summer will tell a lot.

 

[dracom]

i feel ok with the direction, still waiting on our prospects to actually develop into quality NHLers for this team, instead of getting traded then finding success elsewhere. we got nice prospects but so far only Terry and Zegras have shown to be a top 6 talent in the NHL, Lundestrom borders on that as well though would like to see more offensive production from him. also would like to see at least ONE person earn that #6 spot between all those LHD we got rotating around. it's stupid we have like 3 players playing for that spot and none of them have out right earned it yet.

 

[KyleJRM]

The lack of absolutely top-end talent is a little concerning. Of the 14 Cups won since the Ducks did, 11 were won by teams featuring a top-2 overall pick that they drafted (12 if you include Seguin as a rookie on the Bruins as "featured").


Is MacTavish gonna be that guy for us from No. 3? Is Zegras from 9th? I guess maybe but that feels awfully optmisitc/homeristic.

But there's no rule that says we *have* to follow those blueprints. We can try to forge our own.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

The lack of absolutely top-end talent is a little concerning. Of the 14 Cups won since the Ducks did, 11 were won by teams featuring a top-2 overall pick that they drafted (12 if you include Seguin as a rookie on the Bruins as "featured").


Is MacTavish gonna be that guy for us from No. 3? Is Zegras from 9th? I guess maybe but that feels awfully optmisitc/homeristic.

But there's no rule that says we *have* to follow those blueprints. We can try to forge our own.

It's a little hindsighty to look at it that way. Four teams account for 10 of those 11 cups and the most recently drafted of those players was Hedman in 2009. Not to mention the only way you can even get a top 2 pick is by winning a lottery draw.

You can only play the cards you're dealt. Time will tell if Zegras/McTavish/Drysdale/whoever this year and whoever else are good enough to lead a championship calibre team but everyone's gotta start somewhere.

 

[Magnus the Duck]

Feels like full tank is on right now, only issue is that professional tank teams have a big headstart. Might finish about 7th from the bottom.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Feels like full tank is on right now, only issue is that professional tank teams have a big headstart. Might finish about 7th from the bottom.

I think that's our absolute floor but even that's a tall order. Red Wings have also been slumping and need to pick it up to pass us, Blackhawks would have to get moderately hot to do it and it's more doubtful both of those things happen.

 

[StarDucks]

Not too optimistic. I’m skeptical that Verbeek knows what he’s doing.

 

[MMC]

Not too optimistic. I’m skeptical that Verbeek knows what he’s doing.

Lol, based on what exactly?

 

[pbgoalie]

I didn’t want to answer, because I have no idea

We have some pretty intriguing young prospects, but I really cannot tell what the “personality” will look like.

I think there are some big changes still incoming which will show the path. I just hope we aren’t going to rush into something to be competitive instead of committing to a long term run like we were fortunate to experience before

 

[StarDucks]

Lol, based on what exactly?

Based on how disjoint his actions and comments have been with each other.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Before this season started it was my opinion that the team needed another top 3 pick and then they could start rounding out the team by bringing in more talent through trades/UFA.

As fun as the Ducks winning earlier in the season was, I knew it would set the rebuild back at least one year, and it has. Now the absolutely awful season the Ducks should have had this season, they will now have next season. I hope everyone is prepared to suck. Not this season suck, but really suck.

I think Verbeek knows this is the way though. I think he's made comments about how TBL had Stamkos and Hedman to build around. I think he knows they need a couple of those players. So overall, I am pretty confident in the rebuild as long as they don't get stupid and try to make the playoffs next year.

If they try to build a playoff team too soon they will end up an average playoff team but never really a cup contender. What they do this offseason will be very telling which direction they choose.

People keep using Tampa Bay as a template, but not realize that they also had older talents there already and relied on those older talents. Yzerman became their GM in 2010. Stamkos was drafted 1st overall in 2008. Hedman was drafted 2nd overall in 2009.

== Receipt ==

Lightning
2010-11
Rank	Player	Age	Pos	Pts
1​	St. Louis	35​	RW	99​
2​	Stamkos	20​	C	91​
3​	Lecavalier	30​	C	54​
4​	Purcell	25​	RW	51​
5​	Gagne	30​	LW	40​
6​	Malone	31​	LW	38​
7​	Moore	30​	C	32​
8​	Downie	23​	RW	32​
9​	Clark	34​	D	31​
10​	Bergenheim	26​	LW	29​
11​	Hedman	20​	D	26​
12​	Thompson	26​	C	25​
13​	Kubina	33​	D	23​

There are seven players age 30+ in their top-13 scorers. There are nine players age 26+ in their top-13 scorers. This is the first year Yzerman took over. This was Stamkos' 3rd season in the NHL and Hedman's 2nd season in the NHL. The Bolts went to the Conference Finals this year.

The last time the Bolts were in the playoffs was in 2006-07. Their top two scorers were Lecavalier (26 yrs old) with 108 pts and St. Louis (31 yrs old) with 102 pts.

Lightning
2012-13
Rank	Player	Age	Pos	Pts
1​	St. Louis	37​	RW	99​
2​	Stamkos	22​	C	91​
3​	Purcell	27​	RW	54​
4​	Lecavalier	32​	C	51​
5​	Conacher	23​	LW	40​
6​	Carle	28​	D	38​
7​	Pouliot	26​	LW	32​
8​	Hedman	22​	D	32​
9​	Kilorn	23​	C	31​
10​	Salo	38​	D	29​
11​	Pyatt	25​	C	26​
12​	Thompson	28​	C	25​
13​	Brewer	33​	D	23​

Two seasons later, there are 4 players 30+ years old in their top-13 scorers. There are 8 players age 26+ in their top-13 scorers.

I just posted the first 3 seasons of Yzerman in charge of the Bolts and their top-13 scorers. Yzerman relied on his older group to help insulate his youths as well as waiting on his other youths to develop.

People gotta stop using TB as the template for Verbeek b/c it's the opposite of what transpired there.

 

[StarDucks]

People keep using Tampa Bay as a template, but not realize that they also had older talents there already and relied on those older talents. Yzerman became their GM in 2010. Stamkos was drafted 1st overall in 2008. Hedman was drafted 2nd overall in 2009.

== Receipt ==

Lightning
2010-11
Rank	Player	Age	Pos	Pts
1​	St. Louis	35​	RW	99​
2​	Stamkos	20​	C	91​
3​	Lecavalier	30​	C	54​
4​	Purcell	25​	RW	51​
5​	Gagne	30​	LW	40​
6​	Malone	31​	LW	38​
7​	Moore	30​	C	32​
8​	Downie	23​	RW	32​
9​	Clark	34​	D	31​
10​	Bergenheim	26​	LW	29​
11​	Hedman	20​	D	26​
12​	Thompson	26​	C	25​
13​	Kubina	33​	D	23​

There are seven players age 30+ in their top-13 scorers. There are nine players age 26+ in their top-13 scorers. This is the first year Yzerman took over. This was Stamkos' 3rd season in the NHL and Hedman's 2nd season in the NHL. The Bolts went to the Conference Finals this year.

The last time the Bolts were in the playoffs was in 2006-07. Their top two scorers were Lecavalier (26 yrs old) with 108 pts and St. Louis (31 yrs old) with 102 pts.

Lightning
2012-13
Rank	Player	Age	Pos	Pts
1​	St. Louis	37​	RW	99​
2​	Stamkos	22​	C	91​
3​	Purcell	27​	RW	54​
4​	Lecavalier	32​	C	51​
5​	Conacher	23​	LW	40​
6​	Carle	28​	D	38​
7​	Pouliot	26​	LW	32​
8​	Hedman	22​	D	32​
9​	Kilorn	23​	C	31​
10​	Salo	38​	D	29​
11​	Pyatt	25​	C	26​
12​	Thompson	28​	C	25​
13​	Brewer	33​	D	23​

Two seasons later, there are 4 players 30+ years old in their top-13 scorers. There are 8 players age 26+ in their top-13 scorers.

I just posted the first 3 seasons of Yzerman in charge of the Bolts and their top-13 scorers. Yzerman relied on his older group to help insulate his youths as well as waiting on his other youths to develop.

People gotta stop using TB as the template for Verbeek b/c it's the opposite of what transpired there.

Best template for comparison so far to what Verbeek has done is Edmonton, Toronto, Arizona, and of course Buffalo. Edmonton had to suck for a decade before they lucked into McDavid and Dria. And tbh they STILL aren’t that good. Even all these years later. Toronto was a bit more fortunate but still spent a long long time sucking.

We all know how Buffalo and Arizona have turned out this far.

 

[bsu]

I think we should have re-signed Hampus 8x6.25 (said he was willing to give us a discount if we matched term) and kept Des (hoped to re-sign him in offseason) I would have traded Manson and Rakell. Traded Gibson in the offseason to get younger and tank 1 season. The following season McTavish should be ready and Zegras will be a superstar.

 

[TheGoodShepard1]

Verbeek did the easy part, the part that any of us on HFBoards could have done. Now comes the actual work. I fully expect us to suck next year as well, so my answer is to come talk to me at this time next year so I can get a better gauge on it.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

I think we should have re-signed Hampus 8x6.25 (said he was willing to give us a discount if we matched term) and kept Des (hoped to re-sign him in offseason) I would have traded Manson and Rakell. Traded Gibson in the offseason to get younger and tank 1 season. The following season McTavish should be ready and Zegras will be a superstar.

Hard not to agree at that price. And looking at the contract, he can be moved during the last three years if his cap hit becomes a problem. It's going to be interesting to see how Verbeek plans to use the cap space.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Hard not to agree at that price. And looking at the contract, he can be moved during the last three years if his cap hit becomes a problem. It's going to be interesting to see how Verbeek plans to use the cap space.

I think thats a lot easier said than done. If his cap hits a problem for you it's likely a problem for anyone else and you're likely dealing with trade protection to boot. It's this exact scenario that presumably had Verbeek nervous about term. In the summer of 2027 Zegras is gonna be the same age as Nathan MacKinnon is now, not exactly the time you want a potential cap anchor for three more years.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I think thats a lot easier said than done. If his cap hits a problem for you it's likely a problem for anyone else and you're likely dealing with trade protection to boot. It's this exact scenario that presumably had Verbeek nervous about term. In the summer of 2027 Zegras is gonna be the same age as Nathan MacKinnon is now, not exactly the time you want a potential cap anchor for three more years.

If Lindholm was retained for an 8-year term, then the only player under contract in year 5 of Lindholm's contract is Gibby at $6.4 mil. After year 6, it would only be Lindholm's contract at $6.5 mil. Right now, Zegras is all offense and I don't think he's gonna bust out like a Steven Stamkos. Even if Zegras commands a lot of dough, Lindholm's contract wouldn't be a detriment in years 6, 7, or 8 when you project the cap will be higher.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

I think thats a lot easier said than done. If his cap hits a problem for you it's likely a problem for anyone else and you're likely dealing with trade protection to boot. It's this exact scenario that presumably had Verbeek nervous about term. In the summer of 2027 Zegras is gonna be the same age as Nathan MacKinnon is now, not exactly the time you want a potential cap anchor for three more years.

Sure, I understand the reasoning behind the trade, I've defended Verbeek's pov here myself. But 6.25 is a whole lot less than 8 million, and somehow teams always find ways to get rid of difficult contracts and/or cap troubles. You might have to attach a good asset to it, but it seems like there are always takers. And that's not taking into account that Lindholm might age better than expected.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

If Lindholm was retained for an 8-year term, then the only player under contract in year 5 of Lindholm's contract is Gibby at $6.4 mil. After year 6, it would only be Lindholm's contract at $6.5 mil. Right now, Zegras is all offense and I don't think he's gonna bust out like a Steven Stamkos. Even if Zegras commands a lot of dough, Lindholm's contract wouldn't be a detriment in years 6, 7, or 8 when you project the cap will be higher.

If he falls off its absolutely going to be a detriment. They're gonna sign other guys lol, cap space is gonna be eaten up quick.

Being able to work around it doesn't mean it isn't a detriment. Colorado is making it work with EJ, we made it work with Marchant in 07, doesn't mean it's a good idea to invite it.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Sure, I understand the reasoning behind the trade, I've defended Verbeek's pov here myself. But 6.25 is a whole lot less than 8 million, and somehow teams always find ways to get rid of difficult contracts and/or cap troubles. You might have to attach a good asset to it, but it seems like there are always takers. And that's not taking into account that Lindholm might age better than expected.

When there's term, in this hypothetical three years, there often aren't. Its basically one team willing to do it right now and even that's a little different. And Hampus' trade protection could easily kill that idea.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

When there's term, in this hypothetical three years, there often aren't. Its basically one team willing to do it right now and even that's a little different. And Hampus' trade protection could easily kill that idea.

He might forget to submit his list on time.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

If he falls off its absolutely going to be a detriment. They're gonna sign other guys lol, cap space is gonna be eaten up quick.

Being able to work around it doesn't mean it isn't a detriment. Colorado is making it work with EJ, we made it work with Marchant in 07, doesn't mean it's a good idea to invite it.

Let me get this straight. You're basing this off of "if he falls off" and "they're gonna sign other guys". Could be that he doesn't fall off and they're gonna sign other guys.

But you go and contradict yourself in the next paragraph? I am befuddled with your CYA second paragraph response.

My response was isolated to Lindholm's $6.5 mil contract wouldn't be a detriment b/c there are no other contracts signed for his years 6, 7, and 8. (Source: CapFriendly) Conflate that with a probably increase in cap space in year 6, 7, and/or 8, then his cap hit wouldn't seem as drastic.

I know the ship has sailed b/c I wanted to retain both Lindholm and Manson until the next crop of young defensemen come along better than the ones we have and/or sign another middle tier D to play bottom pairing. This way, we are more experienced on the backend while letting our duckling forwards continue to grow. I would only want Lindholm here if he also had Manson b/c it'll be difficult to land a top-4 D in FA (bidding wars) or we'd have to trade some pretty assets for one. But this way, Verbeek would be adding veteran D for a year or two while Thrun and LaCombe finish developing at the AHL level.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Let me get this straight. You're basing this off of "if he falls off" and "they're gonna sign other guys". Could be that he doesn't fall off and they're gonna sign other guys.

But you go and contradict yourself in the next paragraph? I am befuddled with your CYA second paragraph response.

My response was isolated to Lindholm's $6.5 mil contract wouldn't be a detriment b/c there are no other contracts signed for his years 6, 7, and 8. (Source: CapFriendly) Conflate that with a probably increase in cap space in year 6, 7, and/or 8, then his cap hit wouldn't seem as drastic.

I know the ship has sailed b/c I wanted to retain both Lindholm and Manson until the next crop of young defensemen come along better than the ones we have and/or sign another middle tier D to play bottom pairing. This way, we are more experienced on the backend while letting our duckling forwards continue to grow. I would only want Lindholm here if he also had Manson b/c it'll be difficult to land a top-4 D in FA (bidding wars) or we'd have to trade some pretty assets for one. But this way, Verbeek would be adding veteran D for a year or two while Thrun and LaCombe finish developing at the AHL level.

What's to be confused about? The "they're gonna sign other guys" comment was just poking holes in the logic that we have no commitments for that year so making any is fine. Zegras will hopefully be on a big money deal by then, Drysdale will hopefully be on a big money deal by then, Terry needs a new contract and hopefully there's a lot more talent that is gonna need to be paid. The fall off thing is me being generous. To say the odds are against him is a massive understatement and him being worth that deal at 33 is a bad bet.

And I didn't contradict myself at all. Just because something can potentially be worked around doesn't mean it's something you should pursue. With the help of some major ELC production and a weird economic structure the Ducks were able to win with their fourth line center making slightly less than their PPG first line center. It also played a role in that first line center being traded the next year and the window being more or less blown up. Colorado can manage EJ making first pair money to be their 6th defenseman for a number of reasons, namely their top-5 player in the league making slightly more than him, but if they fail again you might be able to pinpoint that kind of inefficiency as a big reason why they couldn't make their team any better. It's a fallacy to think that just because something can be managed(and in the NHL virtually any move can be managed) means it isn't a bad idea.

 

[2faded]

People keep using Tampa Bay as a template, but not realize that they also had older talents there already and relied on those older talents. Yzerman became their GM in 2010. Stamkos was drafted 1st overall in 2008. Hedman was drafted 2nd overall in 2009.

== Receipt ==

Lightning
2010-11
Rank	Player	Age	Pos	Pts
1​	St. Louis	35​	RW	99​
2​	Stamkos	20​	C	91​
3​	Lecavalier	30​	C	54​
4​	Purcell	25​	RW	51​
5​	Gagne	30​	LW	40​
6​	Malone	31​	LW	38​
7​	Moore	30​	C	32​
8​	Downie	23​	RW	32​
9​	Clark	34​	D	31​
10​	Bergenheim	26​	LW	29​
11​	Hedman	20​	D	26​
12​	Thompson	26​	C	25​
13​	Kubina	33​	D	23​

There are seven players age 30+ in their top-13 scorers. There are nine players age 26+ in their top-13 scorers. This is the first year Yzerman took over. This was Stamkos' 3rd season in the NHL and Hedman's 2nd season in the NHL. The Bolts went to the Conference Finals this year.

The last time the Bolts were in the playoffs was in 2006-07. Their top two scorers were Lecavalier (26 yrs old) with 108 pts and St. Louis (31 yrs old) with 102 pts.

Lightning
2012-13
Rank	Player	Age	Pos	Pts
1​	St. Louis	37​	RW	99​
2​	Stamkos	22​	C	91​
3​	Purcell	27​	RW	54​
4​	Lecavalier	32​	C	51​
5​	Conacher	23​	LW	40​
6​	Carle	28​	D	38​
7​	Pouliot	26​	LW	32​
8​	Hedman	22​	D	32​
9​	Kilorn	23​	C	31​
10​	Salo	38​	D	29​
11​	Pyatt	25​	C	26​
12​	Thompson	28​	C	25​
13​	Brewer	33​	D	23​

Two seasons later, there are 4 players 30+ years old in their top-13 scorers. There are 8 players age 26+ in their top-13 scorers.

I just posted the first 3 seasons of Yzerman in charge of the Bolts and their top-13 scorers. Yzerman relied on his older group to help insulate his youths as well as waiting on his other youths to develop.

People gotta stop using TB as the template for Verbeek b/c it's the opposite of what transpired there.

I never said they should use TB as a template. Stamkos/Hedman were brought up because I said I THINK Verbeek made some comments about having those players. You posted all that about something I didn't say.

I also have no idea what your point is. If your point is that they put veterans around Stamkos/Hedman and that's why they won then that doesn't really apply to us because we don't have Stamkos/Hedman. Unless you think that Zegras/Drysdale are our Stamkos/Hedman. If so, I think you're way off. But even if that is your point, you finish it off saying people need to stop using that as a template. So, don't add veterans around Zegras/Drysdale?

 

[KyleJRM]

If we're not looking to compete for like four years or whatever, we should sell high on Terry now.

(I don't think we should because I don't think we should be writing off three more seasons, but if we were)