DaNaultinus
The Human Fund Donor
- Mar 25, 2013
- 641
- 109
Value of: Rickard Rakell
- Thread starter DaNaultinus
- Start date
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Basically, an even better, even more creative, even cheaper and even younger version of himself. He's exactly what the Ducks need more of.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
He would cost you a lot more than you should give up for him because he's one of the last players the Ducks would consider moving.
VoluntaryDom
Formerly DominicBoltsFan / Ⓐ / ✞
Arthuros
Registered Snoozer
DaNaultinus
The Human Fund Donor
- Mar 25, 2013
- 641
- 109
Pretty much expected. You guys have a real gem. I was hoping something around Pacioretty could work but thats pretty wishful thinking ahah
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 42,999
- 9,191
DaNaultinus
The Human Fund Donor
- Mar 25, 2013
- 641
- 109
Biggs for Rakell + Gibson
To be fair those were picks. Straight up thats horrible but theres no guarantee that Toronto would have picked either one.
bigbabybuda
Registered User
Biggs for Rakell + Gibson
Maybe Gibson wins us 2 more games last year and we don't have Matthews. I prefer to look at it like that to help me sleep!
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 42,999
- 9,191
I can however pretty much guarantee that whoever they picked besides fopr Biggs would have been better
But anyway I'm derailing the tread, I'll stop
91Fedorov
John (Gibson) 3:16
- Dec 30, 2013
- 1,234
- 741
This isn't even close. Even if it was for Voracek (who I agree is a good player), and not a little less than, his salary would damage the rest of our roster. We would pay over 4M more, and that would hurt our push to win with this core. Rakell also has a better PPG currently. Rakell also looks like he has more room to develop and Voracek is the player he is at this point.
We would hurt our cap, get the less productive of the two, get the player with less upside and get the older player (presumably shortening his career with the team). A 5-10 pick isn't worth that even if it is for Voracek. Less than Voracek makes it even worse.
Another poster hit it on the head when they said Rakell is exactly what we need and we couldn't consider getting rid of him.
Redline
Registered User
I hadn't paid close attention to Rackell prior to this season but now that I do I see how good he is.
Like somebody said the Ducks need more players like him so chances are better if looking elsewhere.
Rackell or an equal player are going to cost a pretty penny.
Like somebody said the Ducks need more players like him so chances are better if looking elsewhere.
Rackell or an equal player are going to cost a pretty penny.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Yeah i more or less see Richard Rakell as being the last person that Bob Murray would trade. And i'm pretty sure that he would cost teams players that they don't want to surrender.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,479
- 35,956
I consider him our most skilled forward, and a player that most fan bases probably don't know enough about.... hes still got a lot of potential to grow into, there is so much to like about his game... and just his versatile skill set in general makes him a perfect player for our line up... he can play any style/line you want him on, and can make his own offense, he is solid defensively. After last season I thought his confidence was at an all time high and he would have a breakout season now, he has really found his spot playing on the wing instead of center.
He is just one of those players that is very fun/exciting to watch and his overall skills at all aspects of the game are impressive. I cant see a situation where we sell that given his age, contract, skills and versatility. I hope he is 1 of the pieces to take over the reigns when getz perry and kesler slow down.
He is just one of those players that is very fun/exciting to watch and his overall skills at all aspects of the game are impressive. I cant see a situation where we sell that given his age, contract, skills and versatility. I hope he is 1 of the pieces to take over the reigns when getz perry and kesler slow down.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,479
- 35,956
Yea he kinda flew under the radar his first couple seasons( granted that was partially anaheims fault for how we used him) but hes really come into his own the last season and beginning of this one. I hope more people start to notice him and appreciate him.
eternalbedhead
Let's not rebuild and say we did
KingPuckChoo
Go kinGs Go !
- Jun 24, 2007
- 9,957
- 3,699
rhinoshawarma
Registered User
- Nov 15, 2014
- 2,622
- 314
Awesome player, all around stud but i wouldnt go as far as saying 70+pts, more 25g-30g 30-35a so 60+ player
Arthuros
Registered Snoozer
A consistent 30 goals a season is a bit much for this era of hockey for someone who doesn't have a great shot (not that Rakell's shots are below average, but they aren't the best element of his game). Rakell's goals are more opportunistic than your average goal-scoring forward. I think he's good for a consistent 25, with the occasional 30 here and there.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
A better young forward who is signed long term (doesn't make too much) with us adding something on top of Rakell for us to get that better young forward. That is the value for another team to get Rakell because we need to improve our forward group not weaken it. If another team won't downgrade on forward to get other piece(s) then Rakell stays in Anaheim.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,094
- 9,729
can't put a true value on him because of the contract he is on, and we don't know how this season will progress. but he is playing great right now and if he hit 30 goals obviously he would have a high value
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,479
- 35,956
Most people said he was more of a 20-25 60p guy... relax... and watch him great low key player.... with tons of potential still
Ad
Latest posts
-
NHL Talk Miscellaneous NHL Discussion CIII: 2024 Stanley Cup Playoffs for Thee- Latest: BackToTheBrierePatch
-
-
-
