Confirmed with Link: Maroon to Edmonton

[Duck Off]

This pretty much says it all. I don't hear everyone complaining about Mark Fistric. The Ducks bought out his contract and it will cost us more than Maroon's retained salary. It is all a part of hockey, or any professional sports team.

The only question is whether trading Maroon now is better than this Summer and that is a debate that can't be won by either side.

John

The ironic thing is that I was one of the few who griped about that Fistric extension years back. I don't like Murray's willingness to just throw away pennies but justify moves because it saves pennies. Example: Murray is fine with retaining on Maroon, buying out Fistric and Oystrik, but he wants to save money so he lets Beauch walk and signs Bieksa for less.

It's why I get fed up with comments like "it's only 500k". 500k is one of the reasons why Bieksa is here and Beauchemin is not.

 

[Vipers31]

The ironic thing is that I was one of the few who griped about that Fistric extension years back. I don't like Murray's willingness to just throw away pennies but justify moves because it saves pennies. Example: Murray is fine with retaining on Maroon, buying out Fistric and Oystrik, but he wants to save money so he lets Beauch walk and signs Bieksa for less.

It's why I get fed up with comments like "it's only 500k". 500k is one of the reasons why Bieksa is here and Beauchemin is not.

The problem with the Bieksa signing wasn't money itself, it's that Murray and the pro scouting staff were obviously wrong about what contributions could be expected from Bieksa/Beauchemin. He most certainly did not at any time believe the downgrade we've been witnessing to be worth the money we saved.

 

[Norduck]

I think the salary retention goes to show how little of a market there was for Maroon. Not particularly pleased, but if this was the best way to shed most of the salary I'd rather pull the trigger now then hope some other team would eat the whole contract later on.

You make an important point. And if BM had to retain 500k/yr on Maroon to get this deal done now, while Maroon is still a regular in the line-up, how bad would the market be for Pat after he gets edged out of the line-up by McGinn, Horcoff, and one of Stewart/Pirri/Santo? This saves some money on him now, and for the next two years.

With the cap uncertainty heading into summer, no one wants to pay 2m in cap/salary to a 4th line guy with no foot speed, no defense, and a bad shot. We like Maroon because he's a good character guy, willing to drop the mitts, and because last season he was great along the boards and behind the net, but he's produced almost nothing for us this season and he's a defensively liability every time he's out there 5-on-5. We can sign a cheap vet as a 4th line grinder for $1m or less in the summer and save a little money, and it will likely be a better player.

 

[Vipers31]

With the cap uncertainty heading into summer, no one wants to pay 2m in cap/salary to a 4th line guy with no food speed, no defense, and a bad shot.

I don't think that's an issue with him.

 

[Duck Off]

The problem with the Bieksa signing wasn't money itself, it's that Murray and the pro scouting staff were obviously wrong about what contributions could be expected from Bieksa/Beauchemin. He most certainly did not at any time believe the downgrade we've been witnessing to be worth the money we saved.

Obviously you and I don't know the exact reasons they went with Bieksa for the same term, slightly less money, and added a 2nd round pick, but there were a lot of people on this board that cited the cost as a reason. That's my issue. People that say it's fine for one thing, and not others.

I don't necessarily agree with the bold either. How could ANYONE who watched Bieksa the last few years think he was even an adequate replacement for Beauchemin and his role? My wife doesn't watch much hockey but when that trade happened, she even said "isn't that the guy that was terrible against you guys, but was really tough?" I just can't fathom how anyone, especially a ****ing GM, could think they were comparable. This is why I'm not convinced myself that it wasn't at least somewhat related to $$$.

 

[Norduck]

I don't think that's an issue with him.

Typing on mobile is always fun

 

[snarktacular]

Well, Maroon's contract was a reality. The only real question is whether making that deal was favourable to keeping him. If he end up signing a guy in free agency for $1M (or just keep Wagner up...), we still end up saving for that spot, while having a guy there that can fill the requirements for a 4th line role better.

Maroon is what he is - a below average complimentary player on a heavy, cycling-oriented scoring line. This season even less than that. Any time you have to retain, the argument can be made that it was a bad contract to hand out in retrospect. Maroon didn't prove to be enough of a complimentary player to be fill such a role on a contending team, and isn't a fit on many teams one step behind that, either.

I just don't think there were too many good options. Sure, we could not have gotten McGinn/Pirri, and maybe Maroon would have score a few goals in postseason again, and that would have resulted in him fetching a 3rd rounder with no retention in the offseason. I'd rather take the upgrade now and better our chances of winning, than trying to pinch a penny out of Maroon's value at the expense of an upgrade, though. Such priorities are what is usually used against Murray.

Yes it's probably a good idea to move Maroon's contract before next year. This isn't an either or thing for this year. For this season, Maroon's salary isn't really hurting anything. We should have budget/cap space for his 500k he's due.

So then why not wait until draft or July 1st, when it's easier to move guys with term? If he's worth this little now, and we have to take retention... then I don't see the point in doing it now.

 

[Exit Dose]

Yes it's probably a good idea to move Maroon's contract before next year. This isn't an either or thing for this year. For this season, Maroon's salary isn't really hurting anything. We should have budget/cap space for his 500k he's due.

So then why not wait until draft or July 1st, when it's easier to move guys with term? If he's worth this little now, and we have to take retention... then I don't see the point in doing it now.

Because you would still be paying him over the remainder of the season.

 

[missinthejets]

What happened to Gernat? His numbers until 2 seasons ago looked great. Bob is working on our San Diego roster for next season.

got passed by too many prospects. Contrary to popular belief the Oilers actually have a lot of defensive prospects, just not a lot of really stand out elite ones. Gernat stalled and got passed by a bunch of guys.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Because you would still be paying him over the remainder of the season.

Yeah, I tried pointing that out somewhere else. What we save by not paying him the rest of this year almost pasys for one of the two retention years. Being the cheap ******** we are, that could also have factored into the decision.

 

[Getzmonster]

So it's a solid financial move to shed Maroon's meager salary for the remainder of this season, but a savvy one to keep Stoner's fat chunk of change "just in case we need him for the playoffs"?

I just don't see that this makes sense for purely financial reasons. I think this was another case of Murray having a player in his doghouse (like Maroon showing up out of shape in October), and deciding he was going to move him no matter what. There were enough other justifications on the surface to make it reasonable, but it doesn't add up entirely without something else going on.

This was similar to Penner being moved at the deadline (though there were other circumstances at play), maybe even Murray's reason for moving Palms prematurely (for his poor playoff performance) and claiming it was a financial move.

Maroon being shipped out is no big deal, it's the timing of it, and flawed reasoning. I'm surprised that so many aren't concerned that it could be an issue considering most people's opinion of Ritchie right now.

 

[Exit Dose]

So it's a solid financial move to shed Maroon's meager salary for the remainder of this season, but a savvy one to keep Stoner's fat chunk of change "just in case we need him for the playoffs"?

I just don't see that this makes sense for purely financial reasons. I think this was another case of Murray having a player in his doghouse (like Maroon showing up out of shape in October), and deciding he was going to move him no matter what. There were enough other justifications on the surface to make it reasonable, but it doesn't add up entirely without something else going on.

This was similar to Penner being moved at the deadline (though there were other circumstances at play), maybe even Murray's reason for moving Palms prematurely (for his poor playoff performance) and claiming it was a financial move.

Maroon being shipped out is no big deal, it's the timing of it, and flawed reasoning. I'm surprised that so many aren't concerned that it could be an issue considering most people's opinion of Ritchie right now.

Remember, this was one of the least active TDLs in the history of the league. It's easy to say that we should have traded Stoner, but it doesn't look like there was much of a market to work with. Maybe I missed comments from Murray that said he wanted to keep Stoner around.

We just added McGinn and Pirri, so I'm at a loss to make sense of what Ritchie has to do with this. Ritchie is only in right now to cover for players that are out.

 

[Getzmonster]

Remember, this was one of the least active TDLs in the history of the league. It's easy to say that we should have traded Stoner, but it doesn't look like there was much of a market to work with. Maybe I missed comments from Murray that said he wanted to keep Stoner around.

We just added McGinn and Pirri, so I'm at a loss to make sense of what Ritchie has to do with this. Ritchie is only in right now to cover for players that are out.

Not Murray's comment, that was the sentiment I was seeing from some fans.

I admit that Pirri is a bit of a mystery to me. I don't know exactly how he fits in, if he'll fit in (once he overcomes this injury), or where he'll slot on the depth chart. If he cracks the lineup and can handle LW on one of our scoring lines, then he'll be in the mix with Perron and McGinn. So my issue with Maroon being moved is just a bunch of noise.

But Pirri aside, I'm looking at the next option after Perron and McGinn, and I only see Ritchie realistically if McGinn doesn't fit with Rakell/Perry, or any other combo where we need a LW for a scoring line.

Basically, rather than bring in a bonafide upgrade to wing, Murray added more guys that have potential, but will be in the rotation (which I am fine with). By going that route, I wonder why Maroon would be taken out of that rotation as he is one of the only guys that has proven he can have success with just about any line, scoring or otherwise. It's cutting it a bit thin imo.

It seems that in every thread there is that one guy, I think I'm that one guy. Time to let it go I think.

 

[Duck Off]

Because you would still be paying him over the remainder of the season.

So shedding the 500k for the rest of this year is worth paying 1 million for a player who will no longer be here? Surely we aren't that dumb/cheap.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

So shedding the 500k for the rest of this year is worth paying 1 million for a player who will no longer be here? Surely we aren't that dumb/cheap.

This team is not dumb, but it is absolutely that cheap.

 

[tomd]

This is a case where the GM's know much more about the value of a player than the fans do. Maroon just doesn't have that much value and it is clear that the speed of the game has passed him by. Especially when you consider how much slower he'll get over the next two years.

Same with Pirri...fans were offering ridiculous returns for him and he ended up going for a 6th with the Ducks making the only offer.

 

[darkwingduck]

The reason they probably sold now is that it is the closest to the 2015 playoffs. Maroon was great on the 1st line but he's not the same player as he was then. Had we kept him and he played on the 4th line or healthy scratched in this years playoffs, we may not get a 4th for him or be able to trade him at all.

 

[Duck Off]

This team is not dumb, but it is absolutely that cheap.

If they're so cheap to where they need to shed 500k now, but have to pay 1 million over the next 2 years for a player playing against them, that's not just cheap, but dumb as well.

If this is true though, it's even more reason to put Maroon on waivers before retaining salary.

This is a case where the GM's know much more about the value of a player than the fans do. Maroon just doesn't have that much value and it is clear that the speed of the game has passed him by. Especially when you consider how much slower he'll get over the next two years.

Same with Pirri...fans were offering ridiculous returns for him and he ended up going for a 6th with the Ducks making the only offer.

No one is saying GM's don't know more than fans. However, let's not act like the GM's are always right. Murray thought Bieksa could fill a top 3 role. I sure as hell didn't. Do you think that was a smart decision by Murray? Personally I would say I was right over him in that scenario, but that doesn't mean I think I know more than he does.

Your statement about how he could get worse over 2 years isn't necessarily wrong, but I still don't think we couldn't get at least the same offer at the draft. I definitely think we could get future considerations for him, which IMO, would have been better than retaining salary.

 

[pesko]

GMs usually try to do the right thing for players, because, well, it's the right thing to do and they want to keep a good repuatation. Burying someone in the pressbox for a third of a season just because you want to hold on to every card isn't the right thing to do.

This thing is getting blown way out of proportion. At the current stage, Maroon was a fourth line plug for us, who wasn't really working anywhere in the lineup. He will not make or break this season for us. It's time to let go.

 

[Duck Off]

GMs usually try to do the right thing for players, because, well, it's the right thing to do and they want to keep a good repuatation. Burying someone in the pressbox for a third of a season just because you want to hold on to every card isn't the right thing to do.

This thing is getting blown way out of proportion. At the current stage, Maroon was a fourth line plug for us, who wasn't really working anywhere in the lineup. He will not make or break this season for us. It's time to let go.

You think that Maroon would hate being in rotation for a team with cup aspirations more than being shipped to the worst team in the league? Not to mention from going to beautiful weather to Edmonton, which is also farther away from his home? I'd say it's at least debatable.

Maroon was also not a "plug". He was a very good 4th line player. Don't exaggerate.

 

[pesko]

You think that Maroon would hate being in rotation for a team with cup aspirations more than being shipped to the worst team in the league? Not to mention from going to beautiful weather to Edmonton, which is also farther away from his home? I'd say it's at least debatable.

It was pretty obvious that Maroon was running out of opportunities for us, I don't know what kind of rotation you would've seen him being in with the additions of McGinn, Pirri and Garbutt and Stewart and Horcoff returning.

Maroon was also not a "plug". He was a very good 4th line player. Don't exaggerate.

He has been pretty bad this season and we have a lot of depth that can replace him. The point is that based on some of the reactions it would appear that he's a key piece in our cup run.

 

[Tecumseh]

Who gives a **** how these players do elsewhere? They did well here. You answered the concern about losing Maroon's potential performance by pointing to other players we also traded, as if we had done well without them.

Maroon is replaceable just like all the other players I listed. Let's not pretend like he was anything unique.

 

[dracom]

If they're so cheap to where they need to shed 500k now, but have to pay 1 million over the next 2 years for a player playing against them, that's not just cheap, but dumb as well.

If this is true though, it's even more reason to put Maroon on waivers before retaining salary.



No one is saying GM's don't know more than fans. However, let's not act like the GM's are always right. Murray thought Bieksa could fill a top 3 role. I sure as hell didn't. Do you think that was a smart decision by Murray? Personally I would say I was right over him in that scenario, but that doesn't mean I think I know more than he does.

Your statement about how he could get worse over 2 years isn't necessarily wrong, but I still don't think we couldn't get at least the same offer at the draft. I definitely think we could get future considerations for him, which IMO, would have been better than retaining salary.

I think your over exaggerating the retaining a bit. It's 500,000 against the cap for two years. That's not going to break the bank or hurt us for the next two years. Retaining sucks, and trading a player we all liked sucks, but I'm going trust Murray on this one because we aren't getting hurt from the trade all that much.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Maroon is replaceable just like all the other players I listed. Let's not pretend like he was anything unique.

There are 2 irreplaceable players on the Ducks roster, maybe three. Not being irreplaceable is not in itself a reason to make a trade (or defend one). It's just post hoc justification without a point. It would be pandemonium if every player with a replaceable skill set were just randomly traded.

There are plenty of good reasons not to trade Maroon, two of which are his past chemistry with the twins and his past playoff success (neither of which is replaced by the new players, btw). Murray obviously figured the risk was worth it for whatever reason, and I think it's a pretty small risk myself that this trade will hurt us, but pointing out that other nonessential players were also traded once upon a time is dumb enough to be a ****ing non sequitur. If you're going to call me out on my sarcasm, you might want to put some thought into yours.

 

[OCSportsfan]

Not Murray's comment, that was the sentiment I was seeing from some fans.

I admit that Pirri is a bit of a mystery to me. I don't know exactly how he fits in, if he'll fit in (once he overcomes this injury), or where he'll slot on the depth chart. If he cracks the lineup and can handle LW on one of our scoring lines, then he'll be in the mix with Perron and McGinn. So my issue with Maroon being moved is just a bunch of noise.

But Pirri aside, I'm looking at the next option after Perron and McGinn, and I only see Ritchie realistically if McGinn doesn't fit with Rakell/Perry, or any other combo where we need a LW for a scoring line.

Basically, rather than bring in a bonafide upgrade to wing, Murray added more guys that have potential, but will be in the rotation (which I am fine with). By going that route, I wonder why Maroon would be taken out of that rotation as he is one of the only guys that has proven he can have success with just about any line, scoring or otherwise. It's cutting it a bit thin imo.

I agree, I would have rather chosen Stewart to go, but there was no value in an UFA with a broken jaw. To the bolded, the top two lines - Getz/Perron and Rakell/Perry are set i believe. My opinion is they will try Pirri with Getz/Perron and McGinn with Rakell/Perry to start. After those two, Stewart / Garbut / Santo for Getz line and Horcoff to center Rakell/Perry then last resort probably Ritchie.

Maroon would be in the mix for either line, but I doubt there was a big market for Stewart/Horcoff/Santo since they are UFA, so he was the one to go.