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

[Lord Flashheart]

Murray gave Fowler, perry and getzlaf 8 years contracts. Let’s stop rewriting history to defend the new guy.

Who's rewriting history? And how? Defending how?

 

[mighty Stanley Duck]

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.

Agree. I dont see anything wrong with Lidholm's contract. There is always a battle between players needs and what club is willing to give.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

I said it before, but if Lindholm really wanted to sign here no matter what, he would have. Maybe he just wanted to try something new.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Murray gave Fowler, perry and getzlaf 8 years contracts. Let’s stop rewriting history to defend the new guy.

That's a little different, two of those guys are going in the rafters and the other was coming off an all-star season and the team was coming off a WCF berth.

It's hard to compare given Murray was never faced with signing a guy in the middle of a truer rebuild, but given Murray knew of all Hampus' demands and his tendency to lock guys up well in advance I think it's a pretty safe assumption he didn't want to give him that deal either.

 

[DavidBL]

I said it before, but if Lindholm really wanted to sign here no matter what, he would have. Maybe he just wanted to try something new.

I really don't think you can make that claim. Just because he wasn't willing to accept what ever term we offered doesn't mean he didn't prefer to stay here. There is way to much that goes into those decisions.

 

[DavidBL]

That's a little different, two of those guys are going in the rafters and the other was coming off an all-star season and the team was coming off a WCF berth.

It's hard to compare given Murray was never faced with signing a guy in the middle of a truer rebuild, but given Murray knew of all Hampus' demands and his tendency to lock guys up well in advance I think it's a pretty safe assumption he didn't want to give him that deal either.

Could argue Gibsons deal was when we knew we were going to rebuild/retool. BM always resigned his top players with the exception being pronger who we could afford to keep(not an issue for us this season).

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Could argue Gibsons deal was when we knew we were going to rebuild/retool. BM always resigned his top players with the exception being pronger who we could afford to keep(not an issue for us this season).

Yeah Gibson's is a tough one to peg, coming off a playoff appearance but with the knowledge tougher times were ahead. But he was also looking like a perennial Vezina candidate in his mid 20s.

Beauch and Silf are the only two core guys he let get close to the deadline without a deal in place and in those instances he signed one and took their chances with the other going into a contention postseason. People forget they actually considered trading Beleskey that year too. It's impossible to know what he would've done down the stretch with the four UFAs but most likely IMO they're still traded.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

What is better: Lundell + Edvinsson ( or Luke Hughes) vs Drysdale + McTavish ?

 

[Paul4587]

What is better: Lundell + Edvinsson ( or Luke Hughes) vs Drysdale + McTavish ?

the former. Lundell is going to be the best of that bunch and Edvinsson is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Tactical Quack]

the former. Lundell is going to be the best of that bunch and Edvinsson is nothing to sneeze at.

Not to mention the later are significantly smaller height and weight wise

 

[Anaheim4ever]

the former. Lundell is going to be the best of that bunch and Edvinsson is nothing to sneeze at.

Yeah and neither of them were or are being rushed. Detroit is letting Edvinsson develop just like with Seider.
Florida waited a year before Lundell debuted despite him greatly improving his stock after being drafted.

Another reason I like Verbeek.
He won't rush prospects like the Ducks did with Fowler, Drysdale, Lundestrom, and maybe Lindholm ? I remember Lindholm debuted because of an injury and he was coming off of a concussion year in AHL and could have had another year to develop in AHL. Seider took 2 years to debut.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

If there was a person in the organization that personified "it's my way or the highway" it's Bob Murray. To pin that behaviour on Verbeek after he just took over (i.e. no track record) is poor form.

Secondly, Murray is on a record hating long terms, for anyone, thus the claim that Murray would have re-signed Lindholm is based purely on wishful thinking stemming from who knows what. Fanboyism?

Murray gave Fowler, perry and getzlaf 8 years contracts. Let’s stop rewriting history to defend the new guy.

That's a little different, two of those guys are going in the rafters and the other was coming off an all-star season and the team was coming off a WCF berth.

It's hard to compare given Murray was never faced with signing a guy in the middle of a truer rebuild, but given Murray knew of all Hampus' demands and his tendency to lock guys up well in advance I think it's a pretty safe assumption he didn't want to give him that deal either.

Why move the goal post when a comment is disproven?

It went from "Murray is on record hating long terms, for anyone, ... claimed re-signed Lindholm is based purely on wishful thinking... Fanboyism?" to "That's a little different..."

Gibby also signed an 8-year contract extension. That's four players Murray signed to an 8-year extension. Were all four of those 8-year contract extensions "wishful thinking stemming from who knows what"?

Rico and Silf signed 5-year extensions knowing the org was going into a re-build. Rico and Gibby signed in the same off-season of 2018 and a year before their contract ended. Silf signed his before the 2019 TDL of his last contract season. That's three players Murray "faced with signing a guy in the middle of a truer rebuild."

Since your premise was disproven, then that means you don't know that, "it's a pretty safe assumption he [Murray] didn't want to give him that deal either."

It's as if you're repeating the same situation as @Lord Flashheart .

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Why move the goal post when a comment is disproven?

It went from "Murray is on record hating long terms, for anyone, ... claimed re-signed Lindholm is based purely on wishful thinking... Fanboyism?" to "That's a little different..."

Gibby also signed an 8-year contract extension. That's four players Murray signed to an 8-year extension. Were all four of those 8-year contract extensions "wishful thinking stemming from who knows what"?

Rico and Silf signed 5-year extensions knowing the org was going into a re-build. Rico and Gibby signed in the same off-season of 2018 and a year before their contract ended. Silf signed his before the 2019 TDL of his last contract season. That's three players Murray "faced with signing a guy in the middle of a truer rebuild."

Since your premise was disproven, then that means you don't know that, "it's a pretty safe assumption he [Murray] didn't want to give him that deal either."

It's as if you're repeating the same situation as @Lord Flashheart .

Nothing was actually disproven.

My claim was rather simple, that Murray is on the record hating long term contracts. That doesn't mean he has never signed anyone to a long-term contracts, max term in this case since we're on topic about Hampus.

You can't disprove a claim that wasn't made, however you can make up your own version of my claim (which I would maybe understand if it was a very complex idea) and then disprove that.

The fact that Murray signed max term contracts under certain set of conditions, does not mean he would do it under different set of conditions, especially after saying he doesn't like those types of contracts. Considering the fact that Hampus said, after signing with Boston, how Boston showed him they appreciate him by signing him to that contract and the fact where Ducks were in the rebuild, it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't have signed him, and it's certainly far more reasonable than to claim that he just would have re-signed him.

 

[DavidBL]

Nothing was actually disproven.

My claim was rather simple, that Murray is on the record hating long term contracts. That doesn't mean he has never signed anyone to a long-term contracts, max term in this case since we're on topic about Hampus.

You can't disprove a claim that wasn't made, however you can make up your own version of my claim (which I would maybe understand if it was a very complex idea) and then disprove that.

The fact that Murray signed max term contracts under certain set of conditions, does not mean he would do it under different set of conditions, especially after saying he doesn't like those types of contracts. Considering the fact that Hampus said, after signing with Boston, how Boston showed him they appreciate him by signing him to that contract and the fact where Ducks were in the rebuild, it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't have signed him, and it's certainly far more reasonable than to claim that he just would have re-signed him.

I don't think he signs all 3 to 8 year deals but I don't think its fair to day he wouldn't have for Lindholm. BM clearly has a history of signing those deals for those who were deemed important. I find it hard to believe Lindholm wasn't considered that. I think it more likely Bm would have signed that deal than trade him unless there were serious medical concerns which we have not heard about one way or the other.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I don't think he signs all 3 to 8 year deals but I don't think its fair to day he wouldn't have for Lindholm. BM clearly has a history of signing those deals for those who were deemed important. I find it hard to believe Lindholm wasn't considered that. I think it more likely Bm would have signed that deal than trade him unless there were serious medical concerns which we have not heard about one way or the other.

I think its probably fair to say that with Lindholm because he didn't. With most major pieces in recent history Murray got them locked up before they got anywhere close to free agency, the lone exception being Silfverberg. I don't think its impossible he would've signed him but I really don't think so.

 

[DavidBL]

I think its probably fair to say that with Lindholm because he didn't. With most major pieces in recent history Murray got them locked up before they got anywhere close to free agency, the lone exception being Silfverberg. I don't think its impossible he would've signed him but I really don't think so.

Weren't Getzlaf and Perry mid-season extensions?

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Weren't Getzlaf and Perry mid-season extensions?

Yeah but they were done 9 years ago and that was during the lockout year where I would imagine the team wanted to wait for a resolution given what extensions would've looked like pre-lockout. They'd likely both be on the books for years yet if Murray didn't wait.

 

[DavidBL]

Yeah but they were done 9 years ago and that was during the lockout year where I would imagine the team wanted to wait for a resolution given what extensions would've looked like pre-lockout. They'd likely both be on the books for years yet if Murray didn't wait.

Thats right. Still not sure that just because he wasn't signed meant he wouldn't. We'll never know one way or the other likely.

 

[Fighter]

We should have started our rebuild way before, but whatever. We're in the mud, so let's hope for the best. We do have some valuable assets to build around so the situation is not completely bleak at least.

 

[Arthuros]

Verbeek could do a lot to make me confident about our direction over the summer, but this is the (not entirely unexpected) painful plummet down the standings with no super clear indication of next steps just yet.

We are hoping that some holes get shored up over the summer, but who knows. Chychrun really seems like the only interesting potential pickup that is a decent age, which doesn't bode well for a team that's just hit the plunger on the T&T and blew everything up on the backend. Could be a tough 2 seasons coming.

 

[bsu]

Verbeek literally is a brand new GM. He could be a genius he could have no idea what he's doing once actually in the role. We will see soon enough but lets just saying being an assistant is a lot different than being in charge and having the final say. I hope he does us well.

 

[Elvs]

I think what we'll see this offseason is:

1) Acquire players and coaches that fits the hard working identity/culture Verbeek (based on his quotes) wants to build.

2) Sign a couple of free agents on 1 or 2 year contracts, who can be traded for picks at the at the next couple of trade deadlines, should we still not be a playoff team.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

I really don't think you can make that claim. Just because he wasn't willing to accept what ever term we offered doesn't mean he didn't prefer to stay here. There is way to much that goes into those decisions.

You and I think differently then. If he loved it here so much, and built up his roots here like many assumed he did, then he should have signed no problem.

I'm not insinuating that if Verbeek gave him a two-year deal he should have signed it - four years is a long time.

I think what we'll see this offseason is:

1) Acquire players and coaches that fits the hard working identity/culture Verbeek (based on his quotes) wants to build.

2) Sign a couple of free agents on 1 or 2 year contracts, who can be traded for picks at the at the next couple of trade deadlines, should we still not be a playoff team.

Probably the best bet Elvs.

Once the team started to teeter off before the deadline, and especially the fire-sale during the deadline, I knew we weren't going to make the playoffs. What irritates me though is the Simon and ZAR move for Rakell. There was nobody else on Pittsburgh we couldv'e had? Those players are below average at best, especially ZAR

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

You and I think differently then. If he loved it here so much, and built up his roots here like many assumed he did, then he should have signed no problem.

I'm not insinuating that if Verbeek gave him a two-year deal he should have signed it - four years is a long time.



Probably the best bet Elvs.

Once the team started to teeter off before the deadline, and especially the fire-sale during the deadline, I knew we weren't going to make the playoffs. What irritates me though is the Simon and ZAR move for Rakell. There was nobody else on Pittsburgh we couldv'e had? Those players are below average at best, especially ZAR

If they weren't giving up Kapanen and/or we didn't really want him then probably not. If not for the cap it's possible neither are Ducks, they more or less both had to be in the deal to make the money work.

 

[DavidBL]

You and I think differently then. If he loved it here so much, and built up his roots here like many assumed he did, then he should have signed no problem.

I'm not insinuating that if Verbeek gave him a two-year deal he should have signed it - four years is a long time.



Probably the best bet Elvs.

Once the team started to teeter off before the deadline, and especially the fire-sale during the deadline, I knew we weren't going to make the playoffs. What irritates me though is the Simon and ZAR move for Rakell. There was nobody else on Pittsburgh we couldv'e had? Those players are below average at best, especially ZAR

I mean, are you willing to risk 10 plus mill because you like an area? I love OC but you can find nice places to live nearly anywhere. Even if we gave Lindy 9x4 he'd be risking 16 mill of his current contract on the hopes that he can get that on the next deal not to mention the potential of having to move again. Is it likely hes worth a 4x4 at 32. Probably but it's still a risk. Also what if he wants to start a family and has kids? Does he move them every 4 years? If the Ducks are willing to resign him after 4 years why not just give him 8 now. You're asking the player to front the entirety of the risk here.