Confirmed with Link: Maroon to Edmonton

[snarktacular]

I think it's a typical move of a budget team. It saves them about 350-400k this year, and gives them more cap space for future years to re-sign more important players.

He didn't have a very good year, mainly being a bottom 6 guy. They tried him out for 60 games and he wasn't the same as in last year's playoffs. With Perron working, and getting Pirri, McGinn, and getting Stewart back soon, I think they felt it's more likely those guys can fill the same spot/role, and do it better. If they work, it wouldn't make sense breaking up the lines come playoff time, hoping Maroon becomes the same player as he was during last year's playoffs. So in all, he was rather expendable. More of a luxury, in case the others wouldn't gel. And that's a luxury a budget team can't really afford.

Plus, not the least important, there's the risk of him getting injured, blocking any sort of trade during the off-season. A risk Anaheim can't afford either, I'd guess.

It saves them 350k this year. And 3 million the next 2 years. So let's round that up to 3.5 million saved total.

But if they could have traded him without retention next year they could have saved 4 million.

If he had gotten picked up on waivers they could have saved 4.4 million.

So it depends on if you think he could be traded without retention in the offseason.

*all numbers are probably rounded up/down like crazy.

 

[AngelDuck]

I think it's a typical move of a budget team. It saves them about 350-400k this year, and gives them more cap space for future years to re-sign more important players.

He didn't have a very good year, mainly being a bottom 6 guy. They tried him out for 60 games and he wasn't the same as in last year's playoffs. With Perron working, and getting Pirri, McGinn, and getting Stewart back soon, I think they felt it's more likely those guys can fill the same spot/role, and do it better. If they work, it wouldn't make sense breaking up the lines come playoff time, hoping Maroon becomes the same player as he was during last year's playoffs. So in all, he was rather expendable. More of a luxury, in case the others wouldn't gel. And that's a luxury a budget team can't really afford.

Plus, not the least important, there's the risk of him getting injured, blocking any sort of trade during the off-season. A risk Anaheim can't afford either, I'd guess.

Retaining salary on a player is the ultimate untypical budget team move. I don't think we've ever done it before and we've had many far worse players on far worse contracts than Patrick Maroon. All that stuff about him being expendable is pretty irrelevant to me. He's a guy who could be relied on to play on any line except a shutdown line if someone got injured. Plus, it's not even about this year. It's mostly about the next two years where we've commuted to paying salary to a player not on the team.

 

[Quack Shot]

Retaining salary on a player is the ultimate untypical budget team move. I don't think we've ever done it before and we've had many far worse players on far worse contracts than Patrick Maroon. All that stuff about him being expendable is pretty irrelevant to me. He's a guy who could be relied on to play on any line except a shutdown line if someone got injured. Plus, it's not even about this year. It's mostly about the next two years where we've commuted to paying salary to a player not on the team.

Yeah we aren't "saving" 2/3rds of a contract, but we're spending money on 1/3rd on someone else's contract.

 

[DucksAreCool]

Retaining salary on a player is the ultimate untypical budget team move. I don't think we've ever done it before and we've had many far worse players on far worse contracts than Patrick Maroon. All that stuff about him being expendable is pretty irrelevant to me. He's a guy who could be relied on to play on any line except a shutdown line if someone got injured. Plus, it's not even about this year. It's mostly about the next two years where we've commuted to paying salary to a player not on the team.

Who cares if we haven't done this before and if we have had worse players? These salary cap rules are still fairly new and we haven't been a contender looking to sign a bunch of RFA players ever before. If the situation warrants it now, why should we not do it simply because we never have before?

And why is it so difficult to believe that Maroon holds close to no value to the rest of the league? Regardless of whether posters on here think he could play on almost any team in the NHL, the people who run those teams don't think so. If someone wanted him with no retention then Murray does that deal instantly and personally buys Maroon's plane ticket but it obviously wasn't an option available to him.

 

[Nordic*]

Hate this trade, I think it will cime back to bite us in the ass.

 

[Getzmonster]

It saves them 350k this year. And 3 million the next 2 years. So let's round that up to 3.5 million saved total.

But if they could have traded him without retention next year they could have saved 4 million.

If he had gotten picked up on waivers they could have saved 4.4 million.

So it depends on if you think he could be traded without retention in the offseason.

*all numbers are probably rounded up/down like crazy.

This may be butchering your point somewhat, but his savings is:

Maroon's $$$ (-) replacement player's $$$ (+) 500k.

If he was going to continue to be a 4th liner for us (next season as well), then it's really just a slight savings assuming we're using a replacement player making around a million per. If we can't re-sign some of the current top six LW'ers, then I'm not so sure that Maroon was a bad discount option, or that we'll be saving money overall. Ritchie could be making the same amount with perf. bonuses. Tough to imagine anyone else being cheaper.

 

[snarktacular]

This may be butchering your point somewhat, but his savings is:

Maroon's $$$ (-) replacement player's $$$ (+) 500k.

If he was going to continue to be a 4th liner for us (next season as well), then it's really just a slight savings assuming we're using a replacement player making around a million per. If we can't re-sign some of the current top six LW'ers, then I'm not so sure that Maroon was a bad discount option, or that we'll be saving money overall. Ritchie could be making the same amount with perf. bonuses. Tough to imagine anyone else being cheaper.

Yes it's true that they might not actually be saving quite as much once you also count the replacement. I ignored that because a replacement is needed in both scenarios.

I wouldn't be worried about Ritchie's bonuses though. Performance bonuses won't be achieved if he's on the bottom line taking Maroon's spot.

Who cares if we haven't done this before and if we have had worse players? These salary cap rules are still fairly new and we haven't been a contender looking to sign a bunch of RFA players ever before. If the situation warrants it now, why should we not do it simply because we never have before?

And why is it so difficult to believe that Maroon holds close to no value to the rest of the league? Regardless of whether posters on here think he could play on almost any team in the NHL, the people who run those teams don't think so. If someone wanted him with no retention then Murray does that deal instantly and personally buys Maroon's plane ticket but it obviously wasn't an option available to him.

It's not hard to believe that he holds no value at the deadline. Trade deadline is for moving established players who have expiring contracts. Maroon is none of those things. Losing teams want to lose, and winning teams probably aren't lacking in 4th line guys.

That's why a case could be made to hold him until the offseason, when more teams will be interested. This could mean we could either get more trade return, or maybe not have to retain.

 

[Duck Off]

I just don't buy the argument that Murray couldn't have gotten that exact same return (or better) this offseason. I get the argument I guess, but nothing anyone can say can convince me that Murray was right to trade him at the TDL

Agreed. There really isn't much more to say about the situation though. It is ironic though how many people were content with saving similar $$ with the Beauch to Bieksa move, but are fine with this one..

Who cares if we haven't done this before and if we have had worse players? These salary cap rules are still fairly new and we haven't been a contender looking to sign a bunch of RFA players ever before. If the situation warrants it now, why should we not do it simply because we never have before?

And why is it so difficult to believe that Maroon holds close to no value to the rest of the league? Regardless of whether posters on here think he could play on almost any team in the NHL, the people who run those teams don't think so. If someone wanted him with no retention then Murray does that deal instantly and personally buys Maroon's plane ticket but it obviously wasn't an option available to him.

The situation didn't warrant it now. That's the point. Yes, his roster spot had been filled, but more depth for less than 500k is worth it for a playoff run.

Retaining SHOULD be a last case resort for a budget team. Murray should have waived him if he just had to go now. Why is it difficult to believe? Because 4th liners who can fight, and play decent in the top 6 are generally fairly sought after players. Look at what Thorton has received for contracts over his career since he left us.

What I don't buy is that someone wouldn't have claimed him on waivers, and I strongly believe we could have easily received the same value (horrible value) in the off-season. This was a bad trade by Murray, but a horrible trade when you factor in the timing.

 

[dracom]

Retaining SHOULD be a last case resort for a budget team. Murray should have waived him if he just had to go now. Why is it difficult to believe? Because 4th liners who can fight, and play decent in the top 6 are generally fairly sought after players. Look at what Thorton has received for contracts over his career since he left us.

What I don't buy is that someone wouldn't have claimed him on waivers, and I strongly believe we could have easily received the same value (horrible value) in the off-season. This was a bad trade by Murray, but a horrible trade when you factor in the timing.

I don't understand this. Even if we are retaining salary, we still saving money, aren't we?

You're also not taking the human element into account in all of this. Waiving a guy like Maroon is kind of a **** you move, in my eyes at least. Murray is a people person, and cares about his players, so just waiving a guy who has worked so hard to get to where he is now, is kind of a ****ed up move. Trading him sent him somewhere that he was needed and we got some assets in return while saving money for our RFAs.

Ultimately, this trade means nothing for this team besides saving cap space.

 

[Quack Shot]

I don't understand this. Even if we are retaining salary, we still saving money, aren't we?

You're also not taking the human element into account in all of this. Waiving a guy like Maroon is kind of a **** you move, in my eyes at least. Murray is a people person, and cares about his players, so just waiving a guy who has worked so hard to get to where he is now, is kind of a ****ed up move. Trading him sent him somewhere that he was needed and we got some assets in return while saving money for our RFAs.

Ultimately, this trade means nothing for this team besides saving cap space.

You're not saving money. You're spending money on a player that is doing nothing for you.

 

[mytduxfan*]

You're not saving money. You're spending money on a player that is doing nothing for you.

Nope, you are saving money.

 

[Quack Shot]

Nope, you are saving money.

No, you aren't. You could be getting something for your money, but instead you're paying someone not to play for you.

 

[KatellaKid]

You're not saving money. You're spending money on a player that is doing nothing for you.

We are spending 500k to save 1.5mm on a player that is doing nothing for us.

That seems better than spending 2mm on a player that is doing nothing for us

 

[Duck Off]

I don't understand this. Even if we are retaining salary, we still saving money, aren't we?

You're also not taking the human element into account in all of this. Waiving a guy like Maroon is kind of a **** you move, in my eyes at least. Murray is a people person, and cares about his players, so just waiving a guy who has worked so hard to get to where he is now, is kind of a ****ed up move. Trading him sent him somewhere that he was needed and we got some assets in return while saving money for our RFAs.

Ultimately, this trade means nothing for this team besides saving cap space.

It depends how you define it. If you're saving 3 million, but you could have saved 4 million. Is that gaining or losing money? I think there's an argument for both. However, I call it losing money because we're paying 1 million dollars to a player playing against us in the same division.

I am taking the human element into account. I just think many of you here are reaching and trying to find some type of justification on the deal.

For starters, I don't think Maroon should have been moved right now, period. Yes, McGinn fills his role, but right now, Maroon would/should still be playing over Ritchie. When the team is healthy, yes he may not dress most games, but I don't think he hates that position on a cup contender like most here do. Santorelli isn't going to dress most nights now, and I don't hear anyone saying we should have traded him.

I also don't see how trading Maroon to Edmonton is much better than waiving him to see if anyone wants him for free (again, my preference is to not trade him at the deadline). If someone claims him, then he is needed by that team so that argument in bold means nothing. Again, I don't see how trading a player from a cup contender to the worse team in the league at the deadline is doing anyone a favor. I definitely don't think it's much more of a favor than waiving him.

A 4th round pick is not worth retaining salary for a team on a budget. Again, let me reiterate how many people here said that we have Bieksa instead of Beauchemin for budget reasons. That number is pretty much equal to our retention on Maroon. Gernatt is clearly a contract, not an asset so don't bring his name up.

No, you're wrong, it doesn't mean nothing. It means we are out 500k for our budget the next two years, and that we have a 4th round pick for it. People can be their own judges in deciding if it's worth it or not. For me, no it's a moronic move when you consider the budget decisions we've made in the past. It's a complete asinine move to move him now and retain salary in doing so.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

It depends how you define it. If you're saving 3 million, but you could have saved 4 million. Is that gaining or losing money? I think there's an argument for both. However, I call it losing money because we're paying 1 million dollars to a player playing against us in the same division.

I am taking the human element into account. I just think many of you here are reaching and trying to find some type of justification on the deal.

For starters, I don't think Maroon should have been moved right now, period. Yes, McGinn fills his role, but right now, Maroon would/should still be playing over Ritchie. When the team is healthy, yes he may not dress most games, but I don't think he hates that position on a cup contender like most here do. Santorelli isn't going to dress most nights now, and I don't hear anyone saying we should have traded him.

I also don't see how trading Maroon to Edmonton is much better than waiving him to see if anyone wants him for free (again, my preference is to not trade him at the deadline). If someone claims him, then he is needed by that team so that argument in bold means nothing. Again, I don't see how trading a player from a cup contender to the worse team in the league at the deadline is doing anyone a favor. I definitely don't think it's much more of a favor than waiving him.

A 4th round pick is not worth retaining salary for a team on a budget. Again, let me reiterate how many people here said that we have Bieksa instead of Beauchemin for budget reasons. That number is pretty much equal to our retention on Maroon. Gernatt is clearly a contract, not an asset so don't bring his name up.

No, you're wrong, it doesn't mean nothing. It means we are out 500k for our budget the next two years, and that we have a 4th round pick for it. People can be their own judges in deciding if it's worth it or not. For me, no it's a moronic move when you consider the budget decisions we've made in the past. It's a complete asinine move to move him now and retain salary in doing so.

I agree with some stuff except the part where you say its not the right time. It was the trade deadline and we have players coming back soon enough and we are in no jeopardy as it stands of missing the playoffs

 

[Ducks DVM]

I agree with some stuff except the part where you say its not the right time. It was the trade deadline and we have players coming back soon enough and we are in no jeopardy as it stands of missing the playoffs

The point is - who would have been the more effective player yesterday - Maroon or Ritchie? There's zero guarantee that Pirri ever gets healthy, that he fits with the team, that Stewart will be game-fit within a reasonable span of time and/or not return to early season floater form, or that we won't have more injuries.

Depth is good. The timing was unnecessary. The return was so poor that we could have done something similar in the offseason.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

The point is - who would have been the more effective player yesterday - Maroon or Ritchie? There's zero guarantee that Pirri ever gets healthy, that he fits with the team, that Stewart will be game-fit within a reasonable span of time and/or not return to early season floater form, or that we won't have more injuries.

Depth is good. The timing was unnecessary. The return was so poor that we could have done something similar in the offseason.

That's really the whole debate here. I've kind of gone back and forth myself. Yes, I would have liked Maroon for depth. But looking at last year's free agents and how many proven guys only got offered PTOs, added to the fact that this year the cap may not go up or if so, only a small amount and one can see where maybe Maroon isn't so dumpable in the off season. I think that's a valid, potential risk.

It's a worthwhile debate but I don't think there is a clear cut definitive answer.

 

[70sSanO]

Whether good or bad for the Ducks, when Patrick Maroon garners this much discussion, we are in deep trouble heading into the playoffs.

This thread will keep being bumped back up every time he scores or we lose.

When I look back on where this team was, it is simply amazing how they have played their way back into the playoffs.

I would love to see this team win the cup, but I honestly think they need a lot of things to go their way to get there. Patrick Maroon is probably not the player that cup success hinges upon.

I say root for the Ducks and let it go. This isn't 2007-2008 where we totally broke up a winning team. This trade is not remotely close to Andy Mac for Dead Weight.

John

 

[Crosbysux]

Pirri is already skating with team, so pretty sure there's no long term issues.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Pirri is already skating with team, so pretty sure there's no long term issues.

Stephens's response to you was that Pirri was NOT skating with the team. Has that changed?

 

[Duck Off]

I agree with some stuff except the part where you say its not the right time. It was the trade deadline and we have players coming back soon enough and we are in no jeopardy as it stands of missing the playoffs

I just don't agree with "well we're going to have too many players when everyone is healthy". That isn't necessarily wrong, but that doesn't mean you ship off a useful player for a crap return. If this is truly what people think, than Murray should have traded Santorelli as well.

Look at the Washington game. That was an unreal game between two contenders. Our weakest link in that game was clearly Ritchie. If Maroon is here, he's easily in that lineup. Am I saying we would have won if it was Maroon instead? No, that's impossible to know. However, do I think Maroon would have improved our lineup last night? Yes. That game was what I expect our games would look like against Chicago, LA, and Washington. I consider those three and us the top 4 teams. All are pretty even. We need every position playing to their best ability to win a series against all 3.

I wouldn't be upset if we traded Maroon for a solid return. We didn't. We traded him for a negative value return IMO.

Everyone here (including myself) liked the Pirri deal. Not because of the player, but because of the value. What some aren't acknowledging is that Pirri may not play many games for us. It's quite clear to me that his spot in the lineup will be Getzlaf's RW or healthy scratch. In order to get in the lineup most nights, he's going to have to be a clear upgrade to Stewart. If he doesn't, he's a healthy scratch. You know what? I'm fine with that. Why? Because too much depth is NEVER a bad thing for a playoff run, and I fully believe the players know that. Plus we added depth for a 6th round pick. Even if doesn't play 5 games for us, that's a win for Murray IMO.

The point is - who would have been the more effective player yesterday - Maroon or Ritchie? There's zero guarantee that Pirri ever gets healthy, that he fits with the team, that Stewart will be game-fit within a reasonable span of time and/or not return to early season floater form, or that we won't have more injuries.

Depth is good. The timing was unnecessary. The return was so poor that we could have done something similar in the offseason.

Perfect summarization.

 

[Duck Off]

Whether good or bad for the Ducks, when Patrick Maroon garners this much discussion, we are in deep trouble heading into the playoffs.

This thread will keep being bumped back up every time he scores or we lose.

When I look back on where this team was, it is simply amazing how they have played their way back into the playoffs.

I would love to see this team win the cup, but I honestly think they need a lot of things to go their way to get there. Patrick Maroon is probably not the player that cup success hinges upon.

I say root for the Ducks and let it go. This isn't 2007-2008 where we totally broke up a winning team. This trade is not remotely close to Andy Mac for Dead Weight.

John

Maroon's success really doesn't bother me. I think his success here would be limited, and he was going to be moved in the off-season regardless. I just hate Murray's decision to trade him for such a **** return right before a cup run. Asinine really.

 

[bumperkisser]

I just don't agree with "well we're going to have too many players when everyone is healthy". That isn't necessarily wrong, but that doesn't mean you ship off a useful player for a crap return. If this is truly what people think, than Murray should have traded Santorelli as well.

Look at the Washington game. That was an unreal game between two contenders. Our weakest link in that game was clearly Ritchie. If Maroon is here, he's easily in that lineup. Am I saying we would have won if it was Maroon instead? No, that's impossible to know. However, do I think Maroon would have improved our lineup last night? Yes. That game was what I expect our games would look like against Chicago, LA, and Washington. I consider those three and us the top 4 teams. All are pretty even. We need every position playing to their best ability to win a series against all 3.

I wouldn't be upset if we traded Maroon for a solid return. We didn't. We traded him for a negative value return IMO.

Everyone here (including myself) liked the Pirri deal. Not because of the player, but because of the value. What some aren't acknowledging is that Pirri may not play many games for us. It's quite clear to me that his spot in the lineup will be Getzlaf's RW or healthy scratch. In order to get in the lineup most nights, he's going to have to be a clear upgrade to Stewart. If he doesn't, he's a healthy scratch. You know what? I'm fine with that. Why? Because too much depth is NEVER a bad thing for a playoff run, and I fully believe the players know that. Plus we added depth for a 6th round pick. Even if doesn't play 5 games for us, that's a win for Murray IMO.



Perfect summarization.

Why is Pirri Getzlaf rw or bust? When Stewart comes back he could fill that role.
Santo is most likely gonna be scratched imo and Pirri can take that spot.

 

[Duck Off]

Why is Pirri Getzlaf rw or bust? When Stewart comes back he could fill that role.
Santo is most likely gonna be scratched imo and Pirri can take that spot.

Where else do you see Pirri in the lineup? All reports indicate that he's a very poor bottom 6 player.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Why is Pirri Getzlaf rw or bust? When Stewart comes back he could fill that role.
Santo is most likely gonna be scratched imo and Pirri can take that spot.

Because that 4th line spot will be taken by Horcoff IMO. Everyone forgets we are about to get him back this week.