Perry and Getzlaf talks to start

[Dr Johnny Fever]

That's the thing, Murph isn't going to pull the trigger unless it's significant assets that he's getting back. The ONLY way this trade works is if one of the pieces is a roster player that can contribute at least some of Perry's production. That might be a tall order but he has to explore those options because I don't believe Perry is going to sign with us. He would have done it by now.

But if Murph simply wants SOMETHING for Perry than I can see him moving his rights at the draft for a couple of picks. But if he has the opportunity to improve this team long-term and can find a decent replacement for him in the top-6 I say go for it.

His rights at the draft are pretty much worthless. The acquiring team cannot offer 8 years and all teams can talk with pending ufas between June 25 and July 1. The draft is June 30.

 

[Exit Dose]

His rights at the draft are pretty much worthless. The acquiring team cannot offer 8 years and all teams can talk with pending ufas between June 25 and July 1. The draft is June 30.

His rights won't fetch anything, but getting an eight season is still possible for a price.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

His rights won't fetch anything, but getting an eight season is still possible for a price.

I believe the ability to offer an 8th year expires at the trade deadline to all but the Ducks.

 

[mmbt]

I say trade him. I don't see the Ducks as a real playoff threat anyway, as Chicago or LA have way better chances of winning in the West than we do and don't forget that in the East we have Pittsburgh or Boston who would both be favourites. I know anything can happen in the playoffs but the Ducks are just too bad in their own D zone to be considered legit contenders. I don't want to make the 2nd round in the playoffs or the 3rd only to lose and then lose Perry for nothing. This sets the franchise back years.

Well if you think you don't have a chance, then why stop at Perry? As someone else said, you might as well dump Koivu, Selanne, Lydman, Beauchemin, etc. too ... after all, if you're gonna sell off Perry for futures there's no point in keeping the older guys around.

What a pathetic attitude. 20-3-4 and you want to give up? You know what really sets a franchise back years? Willingly dumping players like Perry in the midst of a good season. If I'm a guy like Ryan or Fowler in a few years, no way I'm re-signing with the Ducks when I become a free agent if I think it's a team that would rather give up on going after the Cup in the name of "asset management." What kind of loser team is that? And good luck convincing any other free agents that you're committed to winning.

I can't think of any other precedent where a team running near the top of the league just up and decided that they had no chance, and dismantled mid-season because they were afraid of losing a star player to free agency. It'd be one thing if we were a bottom feeder, but we've got the 2nd best record in the entire freaking league, only a few points back of a team that just broke all sorts of records.

I don't care if our team isn't perfect. In a capped league, EVERY team has weaknesses, even the best ones, and almost every Cup winner in recent memory has had some flaws, including some with pretty pedestrian defenses.

 

[TheJoeMan]

His rights at the draft are pretty much worthless. The acquiring team cannot offer 8 years and all teams can talk with pending ufas between June 25 and July 1. The draft is June 30.

Okay so you trade him on June 24th. Who cares about that 8th year? If Perry's main concern is term then he should sign with us right now.

 

[Exit Dose]

I believe the ability to offer an 8th year expires at the trade deadline to all but the Ducks.

It does, but that doesn't mean that other teams can't barter for that 8th year in the summer via sign-and-trade.

 

[Quack Shot]

I say trade him. I don't see the Ducks as a real playoff threat anyway, as Chicago or LA have way better chances of winning in the West than we do and don't forget that in the East we have Pittsburgh or Boston who would both be favourites. I know anything can happen in the playoffs but the Ducks are just too bad in their own D zone to be considered legit contenders. I don't want to make the 2nd round in the playoffs or the 3rd only to lose and then lose Perry for nothing. This sets the franchise back years.

20-3-4 if you make the playoffs anything is possible in hockey. I bet you thought that 2003 team had no chance and should had traded Kariya. If you are in a position to make a lot playoff revenue by keeping a player the owners will keep him as long as they can.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

It does, but that doesn't mean that other teams can't barter for that 8th year in the summer via sign-and-trade.

Hmm, that's an interesting angle I had not thought of. Now that sign and trades can happen in the NHL it will be interesting to see who is the first to go down that road. I know they are common in the NBA but I just wonder if that extra year means enough to a player to want his future team to be giving up good talent to sign him.

With the NHL being more of a team sport than the NBA (one guy impacts an NBA team way more than one NHL guy does) I wonder how common these type of trades will or won't become in the NHL.

 

[Exit Dose]

Hmm, that's an interesting angle I had not thought of. Now that sign and trades can happen in the NHL it will be interesting to see who is the first to go down that road. I know they are common in the NBA but I just wonder if that extra year means enough to a player to want his future team to be giving up good talent to sign him.

With the NHL being more of a team sport than the NBA (one guy impacts an NBA team way more than one NHL guy does) I wonder how common these type of trades will or won't become in the NHL.

That's the thing. I'm not sure what someone would give up for that. It could just be a mid-round pick or something. It's still something at least, and I'm sure there would be interest even if it just knocks half a million off of the cap hit.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

A good example of a contending team that had NO chance of re-signing all its stars and still not selling at the deadline is Chicago's Cup winning team.

Perry stays, we'll take our shot, and see what comes later. I had no clue the team would even be decent this year, let alone a contender. We have to take this shot. We have to go into ur base n kill all ur doodz.

 

[jbean]

Only way it makes sense to trade Perry is if Anaheim gets a good piece in return. Perhaps teams like Toronto or Montreal would be willing to give up a good player in a sign and trade for Perry. These teams crave big name star players and might over pay to acquire him.

 

[JabbaJabba]

If somehow trading Perry would make the Ducks stronger, then they should do it but it would mean a massive overpayment or something else that just isn't going to happen.

The point of NHL is to win the Cup and the team has a better chance with Perry than picks/prospects and/or some less talented player(s). If Anaheim is still doing great at the trade deadline, keep him. If they go far in playoffs it would only help in resigning Perry.

 

[Selanne138]

It does, but that doesn't mean that other teams can't barter for that 8th year in the summer via sign-and-trade.

This is all dependent on Perry agreeing though. He could always say he wants to price a full 30 team market and it could ruin any plans we had to bank on this.

Even with that said I would still keep him regardless.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Only way it makes sense to trade Perry is if Anaheim gets a good piece in return. Perhaps teams like Toronto or Montreal would be willing to give up a good player in a sign and trade for Perry. These teams crave big name star players and might over pay to acquire him.

If it's a sign and trade, expect multiple, top-quality pieces coming back. Not the top prospect + first we'd expect for a rental. I don't know why Montreal or Toronto would do that. The Habs only need some tweaks and the Leafs are more than one big piece away.

Honestly if we make a big trade with Toronto I'd expect it to be for a goaltender.

 

[Exit Dose]

This is all dependent on Perry agreeing though. He could always say he wants to price a full 30 team market and it could ruin any plans we had to bank on this.

Even with that said I would still keep him regardless.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Perry won't want the security of an eighth season?

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

That's the thing. I'm not sure what someone would give up for that. It could just be a mid-round pick or something. It's still something at least, and I'm sure there would be interest even if it just knocks half a million off of the cap hit.

Hmm, now that you got me thinking, what if...we sign him to 8 years for say $10M per, and then keep $1M of salary and cap hit so that another team will gladly pay a premium in talent to get him? I wonder if that could work in the off season? Not being a cap team, retaining cap would be no big deal. It just depends if it would be worth retaining $1M in salary to potentially get a top 6 talent in return?

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Well if you think you don't have a chance, then why stop at Perry? As someone else said, you might as well dump Koivu, Selanne, Lydman, Beauchemin, etc. too ... after all, if you're gonna sell off Perry for futures there's no point in keeping the older guys around.

What a pathetic attitude. 20-3-4 and you want to give up? You know what really sets a franchise back years? Willingly dumping players like Perry in the midst of a good season. If I'm a guy like Ryan or Fowler in a few years, no way I'm re-signing with the Ducks when I become a free agent if I think it's a team that would rather give up on going after the Cup in the name of "asset management." What kind of loser team is that? And good luck convincing any other free agents that you're committed to winning.

I can't think of any other precedent where a team running near the top of the league just up and decided that they had no chance, and dismantled mid-season because they were afraid of losing a star player to free agency. It'd be one thing if we were a bottom feeder, but we've got the 2nd best record in the entire freaking league, only a few points back of a team that just broke all sorts of records.

I don't care if our team isn't perfect. In a capped league, EVERY team has weaknesses, even the best ones, and almost every Cup winner in recent memory has had some flaws, including some with pretty pedestrian defenses.

Just to add to this, the Ducks are currently, unsustainably 4th overall in defense.

 

[Exit Dose]

Hmm, now that you got me thinking, what if...we sign him to 8 years for say $10M per, and then keep $1M of salary and cap hit so that another team will gladly pay a premium in talent to get him? I wonder if that could work in the off season? Not being a cap team, retaining cap would be no big deal. It just depends if it would be worth retaining $1M in salary to potentially get a top 6 talent in return?

I doubt that we'd write a check for 8 million to get something extra, plus the salary of the player. The cap hit wouldn't be an issue, but that salary adds up. I suppose if it was an ELC that might be easier to swallow. Is there a way to just take on the cap hit?

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I doubt that we'd write a check for 8 million to get something extra, plus the salary of the player. The cap hit wouldn't be an issue, but that salary adds up. I suppose if it was an ELC that might be easier to swallow. Is there a way to just take on the cap hit?

I think you have to take the same % of both cap hit and salary. Keep in mind we would only be paying it out over 8 years. Kind of like over paying somebody $1M each year. That's not too uncommon. Teams already take back bad contracts if it makes a deal work out for them. At best it would be a long shot for the Ducks to do this, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.

 

[snarktacular]

That's the thing, Murph isn't going to pull the trigger unless it's significant assets that he's getting back. The ONLY way this trade works is if one of the pieces is a roster player that can contribute at least some of Perry's production. That might be a tall order but he has to explore those options because I don't believe Perry is going to sign with us. He would have done it by now.

But if Murph simply wants SOMETHING for Perry than I can see him moving his rights at the draft for a couple of picks. But if he has the opportunity to improve this team long-term and can find a decent replacement for him in the top-6 I say go for it.

In that hypothetical where you do get a significant piece, then it might not be so bad. But the piece WILL be a downgrade. So you will still be hurting the team's playoff chances. Because Perry is an upcoming UFA, any team acquiring him will also be a playoff contender looking to load up, so they will not want to give up a whole lot of "now performance."

The piece coming back will either be a short term piece (likely another upcoming UFA) made expendable because of Perry (if you want the best now performance) or a not-so-good-right-now young piece which Anaheim will hope will grow (if you want to maximize long-term value).

Hmm, that's an interesting angle I had not thought of. Now that sign and trades can happen in the NHL it will be interesting to see who is the first to go down that road. I know they are common in the NBA but I just wonder if that extra year means enough to a player to want his future team to be giving up good talent to sign him.

With the NHL being more of a team sport than the NBA (one guy impacts an NBA team way more than one NHL guy does) I wonder how common these type of trades will or won't become in the NHL.

I don't think players care too much about the future team giving up assets. Too much "maybe in the future" and "not my problem." It really hasn't seemed to affect NBA players, although I guess you could argue they are more "me" players than NHL players.

Hmm, now that you got me thinking, what if...we sign him to 8 years for say $10M per, and then keep $1M of salary and cap hit so that another team will gladly pay a premium in talent to get him? I wonder if that could work in the off season? Not being a cap team, retaining cap would be no big deal. It just depends if it would be worth retaining $1M in salary to potentially get a top 6 talent in return?

Interesting idea. NHL GMs seem like stodgy types though. I'm not sure I see them getting creative like that.

 

[TheJoeMan]

In that hypothetical where you do get a significant piece, then it might not be so bad. But the piece WILL be a downgrade. So you will still be hurting the team's playoff chances. Because Perry is an upcoming UFA, any team acquiring him will also be a playoff contender looking to load up, so they will not want to give up a whole lot of "now performance."

But what about our playoff chances for years to come? That's the point I'm trying to make. How important is this one run compare to multiple potential runs? And we don't know we'll be hurting our chances. What if the player we get fits in great and we're just as good? What if we keep Perry and we lose in the first round? What if Perry gets hurt? What if the assets we get turn out to be the missing pieces that make us a dynasty?

Clearly I've pointed out that this whole situation is fraught with uncertainty. But what kills me is the apparent certainty of demise if we trade Perry. We might be fine, we might improve, we might fall apart. The only thing I know for sure is when Perry walks July 5th we will be a less talented team unless we recoup some of his value right now. I hope we win the Stanley Cup this year but I also hope we're a perennial playoff team. Is this season's chances worth moving Perry? Who knows? Do we want to send the message that success this season is critical at all costs or that we've also got our eye on the future?

Having said all that I don't think Perry is going anywhere. When push comes to shove it's probably going to be better having Perry than not.

 

[mmbt]

But what about our playoff chances for years to come? That's the point I'm trying to make. How important is this one run compare to multiple potential runs?

The future is always hard to predict. Even if you got 4 legit blue-chip prospects in return, who's to say they'll turn out to be anything of note? You might get 4 stars ... or you might get Kilger, Chistov, Holmqvist, and Macmillan. Trading Perry will not assure you of any kind of future ... but it is highly likely to destroy the most promising present that we've had outside of 2007.

Again I ask ... if you're so committed to multiple playoff runs down the road, why keep Koivu, Selanne, etc.? They ain't gonna be around for that. Maximize value, right? Hey, maybe Getzlaf and a team of scrubs will make a miracle run and win the Cup anyway! But at least we'll have the "future" too!

And in 2 years we can look to dump Ryan to further secure this mythical future where we apparently will have a loaded team that can contend year after year, that won't have any free agents to worry about losing. Apparently in Hfboards logic, the best way to build a Cup contender is to dismantle a current contender for pieces that may eventually turn into a contender ... or not. That's like saying I'll build a Ferrari out of a random bin of mystery parts that I can get in exchange ... for my Ferrari. Huh?

The only true certainty is that this is the Ducks team that's the most promising we've had outside of 2007. While they may very well fizzle, so might any "futures" you could realistically get for Perry. Put it this way ... would you trade our entire roster for Edmonton's right now because some people think they have a bright future? Because I bet the Oilers would.

 

[snarktacular]

But what about our playoff chances for years to come? That's the point I'm trying to make. How important is this one run compare to multiple potential runs? And we don't know we'll be hurting our chances. What if the player we get fits in great and we're just as good? What if we keep Perry and we lose in the first round? What if Perry gets hurt? What if the assets we get turn out to be the missing pieces that make us a dynasty?

Clearly I've pointed out that this whole situation is fraught with uncertainty. But what kills me is the apparent certainty of demise if we trade Perry. We might be fine, we might improve, we might fall apart. The only thing I know for sure is when Perry walks July 5th we will be a less talented team unless we recoup some of his value right now. I hope we win the Stanley Cup this year but I also hope we're a perennial playoff team. Is this season's chances worth moving Perry? Who knows? Do we want to send the message that success this season is critical at all costs or that we've also got our eye on the future?

Having said all that I don't think Perry is going anywhere. When push comes to shove it's probably going to be better having Perry than not.

I can say with near certainty that the team will be worse this year without Perry. The team has great chemistry with him. You take him out, you risk disrupting that. As you point out, there is a slight chance that new guy will have great chemistry... but it's only a chance and it has to be weighed against the certain drop of losing Perry. The best you could hope for is the team will be as good this year, and the odds are against it.

As to one year vs multiple years. Yes IMO it is worth trading one year for multiple years. Multiple years is uncertain. Just look at the past 5 years of the Getz/Perry contracts. We thought we would be contenders for multiple years. That hasn't worked out quite as expected. This year has the chemistry, this year has the record. We have a lot of old pieces who will be getting worse due to age and because future seasons involve full 7-8 month schedules. And even if we retain Perry, the salary increase of both him and Getzlaf will hurt the overall depth in the future. So I absolutely am willing to give up Perry's trade return for this run.

That said I don't think the team should go all out. I don't want all the youth traded to load up for this year. I just oppose selling Perry and conceding this run. That way you keep the foundation for future runs, whether Perry stays or leaves.

One other point about the "Perry left and we got nothing" scenario (this isn't to you specifically but everyone who thinks that). Even if the team doesn't win it all, it does reflect positively on the team. So yes you "lose Perry for nothing" but you also gain in the possibility of signing an UFA replacement. If UFAs see that the team went for it, and it has a good showing... well that makes the team more attractive. And like mmbt mentions, selling Perry out and hurting the team's 2013 playoff chances might reflect badly and further hurt chances of signing/retaining players. So the loss to "future playoff chances" might not be as much as some might think.

You point out that your actual expectations are different from all of these hypotheticals. I also think similarly. I think Perry is kept (and re-signed) and Ryan is gone at the draft or offseason.

 

[Exit Dose]

I don't think a late 1st and whatever equivalent of Angelo Esposito or Patrice Cormier we get will make us a dynasty.

 

[PhoenyX]

Here is a little tidbit from Elliotte Friedman's weekly "30 Thoughts" Column (if you don't read this each week, you should as it is excellent).

"Here's where it sounds like things stand on Corey Perry: I think the Ducks tested the market for him. But teams were not willing to give fair value for the 2011 Hart Trophy winner unless they knew Perry would commit to them beyond this season. I think that increased Anaheim's resolve to keep him. I am putting myself out there a bit, but it wouldn't come as a shock if he ends up staying."

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opi...gms-feel-trade-deadline-too-inflationary.html