Value of: Rickard Rakell

TFHockey

The CEO of 7-8-0
May 16, 2014
7,061
4,456
Edmonton
but he literally has no value to us. We have Larsson, Curran, Djoos, Guhle, Mahura, and Hakanpaa all as bottom pairing defensemen going into next season. So Russell only takes up a roster spot, blocking a younger defensemen from getting ice time, and adding cap to a team already with only $470k cap space. he may hold some value to other teams, but he holds no to negative value to us. not sure how this is some crazy concept.

If he holds no value to your team, cool. However there are way too many posters who have painted him as having a Lucic level contract which is nonsense. His being in the proposal does not make the 14 OA worthless. That's just dumb.
 

lwvs84

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
4,050
2,759
Los Angeles, CA
What a silly statement. The 14th OA remains a great pick regardless, and Russell is:

1. A legit NHL defensemen,
2. Has a cap hit of $4 Million and only $1.5 Million is real dollars and
3. Has only one year left on his contract.

Hardly a terrible burden you play him up to be.

It's not about inability to take on his salary, it's that he has negative value to the Ducks (33 year old 3rd pair LHD blocking younger guys or taking up $4 mil in cap space and $1.5 mil in cap space to be a #7 d-man). Some Montreal fans have offered the 16th pick (slightly worse/similar range of player available at 14) and a young RHD (organizational need and positive value). To the Ducks, the young RHD over the old. unneeded LHD is worth the 2 spot difference. If the Ducks make a trade for the 16th+young RHD, they could use that $4 mil cap space to take on another cap dump and a positive value asset (likely another pick).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trojans86

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,530
21,072
top 15 draft pick with a B quality prospect that fills a need (offensive minded RHD or goal scoring winger) as the minimum for me.

I can't argue that. It's basically what we paid for Kapanen.

tenor.gif


Rutherfoooord!
 
  • Like
Reactions: duxfan1101

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,162
13,178
Most of the offers in this thread are absolute garbage, especially after what Kapanen just went for.
 

NewDef

Registered User
Nov 2, 2015
645
1,027
And where does Norlinder fit in? We would have Struble, Norlinder and Romanov on the left side.
Norlinder has potential for 2nd or third. Romanov a solid stud 4th. Harris 3-4? Strubble on 3rd pair. There are no issues here, just potential trade value when the roster fills out. We just keep what works best and trade the rest.

Gosh i wish Juulsen had'nt got those 2 pucks in the face, future would've ben Juulsen 3rd-4th on the right.

They won't all develop as expected but its our future so the odds are better if we keep high value recruits.

I just hate it when teams sell the farm and end up with suspect B grades in the AHL and no future. At the moment, i'd rather keep what we have and be patient. The future is in the farm right now. Pereniality is built, not spent. ;)
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,179
27,934
Montreal
Still on board with either a deal around Domi or 16th+ Juulsen/Fleury.

And where does Norlinder fit in? We would have Struble, Norlinder and Romanov on the left side.

Norlinder, Romanov and Harris can all play both sides. Also something about not counting your chickens before they're hatched. Trading Struble now could bite you in the ass if he booms (of course he could also bust so it would be well done). He was trending well at the end of the year, so I would like to see more. We have 2-4 years before having to make this decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewDef

Gliff

Tank Commander
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2011
15,775
10,050
Tennessee
Still on board with either a deal around Domi or 16th+ Juulsen/Fleury.



Norlinder, Romanov and Harris can all play both sides. Also something about not counting your chickens before they're hatched. Trading Struble now could bite you in the ass if he booms (of course he could also bust so it would be well done). He was trending well at the end of the year, so I would like to see more. We have 2-4 years before having to make this decision.

So feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Juulsen/Fleury both seem like bottom pairing guys maybe with top 4 potential. If that is the case then that isn't who the Ducks should be going for IMO. They have enough defensemen in their early 20s that look to have that exact outlook.

Domi is interesting because he fills a need, but his contract is a question mark.
I think I would rather commit to a full rebuild and get the picks. Getting Domi just keeps the Ducks mediocre.
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,179
27,934
Montreal
So feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Juulsen/Fleury both seem like bottom pairing guys maybe with top 4 potential. If that is the case then that isn't who the Ducks should be going for IMO. They have enough defensemen in their early 20s that look to have that exact outlook.

Domi is interesting because he fills a need, but his contract is a question mark.
I think I would rather commit to a full rebuild and get the picks. Getting Domi just keeps the Ducks mediocre.

I was under the impression young RD was an area of interest? I'm fine with 16th+2nd if you prefer.
 

Zegs2sendhelp

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2012
39,061
33,518
So feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Juulsen/Fleury both seem like bottom pairing guys maybe with top 4 potential. If that is the case then that isn't who the Ducks should be going for IMO. They have enough defensemen in their early 20s that look to have that exact outlook.

Domi is interesting because he fills a need, but his contract is a question mark.
I think I would rather commit to a full rebuild and get the picks. Getting Domi just keeps the Ducks mediocre.
I think rhd in Juulsen or fleury are okay pieces, guess it depends on what pick the 2nd rounder is.
 

Gliff

Tank Commander
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2011
15,775
10,050
Tennessee
I was under the impression young RD was an area of interest? I'm fine with 16th+2nd if you prefer.

Legit top 4 RHD are a need.
RHD prospects with upside are a need.
I don't see them as either of those.

1st+2nd is fine, but I just think the Ducks should be aiming higher, especially if they retain on Rakell which they should.

Look at what Coleman got.
Look at what Kapanen got.

Rakell is better then both and if Anaheim retains he is cheaper then both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhatTheDuck

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
5,857
3,829
Orange, CA
I really don't understand why we're discussing futures for Rakell. Nothing BM has said has suggested that he will make moves like that. If anything his comments suggest he wants to add, not subtract, Domi has been one of the few offers that makes some sense but will also cost the Ducks more money now and Domi comes with more questions than Rakell.
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,919
East Coast
I really don't understand why we're discussing futures for Rakell. Nothing BM has said has suggested that he will make moves like that. If anything his comments suggest he wants to add, not subtract, Domi has been one of the few offers that makes some sense but will also cost the Ducks more money now and Domi comes with more questions than Rakell.

Ducks trying to add and not on retool/reset where they focus on futures for a season or two would be a mistake. You'd be stuck in mid pack range at best.

Habs won't trade Domi for Rakell straight up. Rakell is 2 years older and Domi is RFA controlled for 2 years. We would have to do something like this...

- Domi
- Blues 2nd (57th)
for
- Rakell
- Bruins 1st (27th)
 

Spazkat

Registered User
Feb 19, 2015
4,361
2,277
If he holds no value to your team, cool. However there are way too many posters who have painted him as having a Lucic level contract which is nonsense. His being in the proposal does not make the 14 OA worthless. That's just dumb.

This is complete hyperbole. No one said or implied his addition makes the 14OA worthless. They said it makes it less attractive.

It's 4M in salary for a a player they have no spot in the roster for... its not rocket science to figure out that a similar pick with a player they do need (or a least have a spot for) would be a more desirable option
 

TFHockey

The CEO of 7-8-0
May 16, 2014
7,061
4,456
Edmonton
This is complete hyperbole. No one said or implied his addition makes the 14OA worthless. They said it makes it less attractive.

It's 4M in salary for a a player they have no spot in the roster for... its not rocket science to figure out that a similar pick with a player they do need (or a least have a spot for) would be a more desirable option

You can't attach Russel to that pick and expect it to still hold any type of value. That's not a good deal for the Ducks. You would need another good piece added for the inclusion of Russel.

Literally what was stated in this thread.
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,919
East Coast
Would it be fair to say there's still more top 4 hope for Brook than the other RHD prospects mentioned?

The younger one yes. Brook started off his first pro season slow but gained momentum as the season went along. Good talent that skates well and is a strong boy. Just good all around type game.

Juulsen is the defensive one and it appears he is past his injuries. He's the most NHL ready and was playing top 4D before he got hurt. He made Reilly look good in that season when Weber was recovering from knee surgery (18/19 I believe). Juulsen, Fleury, Kulak, Mete are going to be in a dog fight for that last RD spot.

Fleury is very physical and another strong boy that skates well. Needs to learn how to be consistent and a full season in the NHL to gain confidence.

All 3 are close but depends on what type of player you want the most.
 

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,481
2,548
Many Habs fans would do this...

- 16th OA
- Fleury or Blues 2nd
for
- Rakell

I could see a deal like this on draft day with Brook instead of Fleury (as proposed elsewhere). It would depend on a player the ducks really like being available at 16.

One other factor as to why the ducks don't trade for Brook or Fleury now. If the ducks end up drafting Drysdale at 6, then they might not be looking to add another RHD.

Ducks trying to add and not on retool/reset where they focus on futures for a season or two would be a mistake. You'd be stuck in mid pack range at best.

Habs won't trade Domi for Rakell straight up. Rakell is 2 years older and Domi is RFA controlled for 2 years. We would have to do something like this...

- Domi
- Blues 2nd (57th)
for
- Rakell
- Bruins 1st (27th)

Domi is going to cost more than Rakell on his new contract - not sure if that matters. And, obviously, Rakell is willing to play wing.
 

Zegs2sendhelp

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2012
39,061
33,518
I could see a deal like this on draft day with Brook instead of Fleury (as proposed elsewhere). It would depend on a player the ducks really like being available at 16.

One other factor as to why the ducks don't trade for Brook or Fleury now. If the ducks end up drafting Drysdale at 6, then they might not be looking to add another RHD.



Domi is going to cost more than Rakell on his new contract - not sure if that matters. And, obviously, Rakell is willing to play wing.
At the same time I think ott has Forward pieces to sub in for those rhd , to make a decent trade... or just draft picks
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->