SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

CHAR

Member Since
Jun. 15, 2022
Favourite Team
Anaheim Ducks
Forum Posts
1058
Posts per Day
1.5
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 10:47 a.m.
Thread: Rumour has it
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jonh514</b></div><div>If there is a step back one year, it's not ideal, but it does not mean this is not shrewd from a cap management perspective.</div></div>

Shrewd and cap management are two words that don't often exist together in the NHL. I'm fascinated by how Florida will navigate this problem of theirs but I really don't see any dire problems beyond letting Montour walk away. How is that guy only making 3.5M on his current contract? One of the biggest value contracts in the entire league.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jonh514</b></div><div>Also, I suggest a 3 year "prove it deal" but if Lundell's camp wants a 6 year deal at 5-6M per season, the Habs can do it and the Panthers cannot. </div></div>

Lundell is an RFA without arbitration rights. His leverage to get what he wants is limited to holding out and that's a move that hurts him as much as the Panthers. Just ask Zegras about that.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 10:28 a.m.
Thread: Rumour has it
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jonh514</b></div><div>In a league without cap, absolutely. In the reality the Panthers are faced with, they will have to make some decisions. Beck is considered by most to be a "can't miss" 3C prospect. I don't think this deal is crazy...
</div></div>

An outsiders perspective from me is that your trade doesn't improve Florida's cap situation in any way. The two defensemen you are sending them would replace OEL and Kulikov so that shaves a whole 1M off the cap. Beck isn't playing in the NHL next season so for cap purposes Florida is balancing what they would pay Lundell vs what they'd pay some other guy to be their 3C. You want to pay Lundell 3.5M... I can't see any 3C that a true contender wants on their roster making less than that. A lot would make more, upwards of 5M.

If you want to help Florida with their cap help them deal with Knight and/or Bob. 16M on goal tending is nuts.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 8 at 5:33 p.m.
Thread: Now that the lottery is settled
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>squashmaple</b></div><div>That's the one I struggled with most, as I'm also an Anaheim fan. But they do need a top-4 RHD, and this allows them to keep a youngster in San Diego another year. Boqvist's issue is health, not skill. Another big con for this trade's viability is that he's small, so not really a PV sort of player.</div></div>

You're going to have a real hard time convincing me that spending 1M on Gus Lindstrom isn't better than 2.6M on Boqvist. Lindstrom is better in his own end and that's what matters for this one roster spot.

The other thing I'd say is if the Ducks did end up with Boqvist, it's a trade they'd do in October when all the other better options didn't pan out for a real top-4 guy. Come back to us when training camp rolls around and we can have another look at it.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 5 at 8:27 p.m.
Thread: pure delusion to ease the pain
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DeclanLovesHockey</b></div><div> Only thing I will say is Gibson isn't going to be a part of the contending window either and Terry can be replaced. </div></div>

Any way you slice it the Ducks need a 1B starter to take 40-45 games next season. That might as well be Gibson because frankly the other options are all pretty terrible. Gibson signed a player favoring 8 year contract. Does it suck that he's had such a terrible team in front of him the last few years? Sure, but he signed that contact so him playing it out is what it is. The Ducks will only trade him if the trade makes the team better, they aren't going to do Gibson a solid if it means taking a loss.

Sure Terry can be replaced. But it's far easier to keep what you have. In Verbeek's short time as GM he's been a real stickler about short term contracts. A lot of the guys he traded like Lindholm and Rakell were because the sides couldn't agree on term. It means a lot in my eyes that Verbeek gave Terry a seven year deal. He's given no one else that much term.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 5 at 8:07 p.m.
Thread: pure delusion to ease the pain
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DeclanLovesHockey</b></div><div>What do you think the price for Terry would be?</div></div>

Pieces that fill in holes on the roster, which is intentionally vague. The Ducks are flush with high draft picks and top end prospects so you're going to have to give something other than that to pry a 30 goal / 60 point player off their roster.

Let's look at your trade. Ducks don't need the Russian goal tender because they just signed Buteyets to his ELC. Reaves is a pure cap dump for the Leafs and completely redundant with Ross Johnston. Kampf is no better than Isac Lundestrom. The Ducks don't want any of those pieces.


<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DeclanLovesHockey</b></div><div>Or, say the Ducks are interested in Marner, what do you think would be a reasonable price?</div></div>

Given Marner's full no move it's pointless to speculate. But I'd bet money the return won't make Leaf's nation happy in any way other than it gives you guys some cap space to work with.

Marner is a terrible fit for Anaheim right now. He'd be like the Leafs adding Tavares six years ago... the rest of the roster wasn't ready and by the time that caught up age was getting to JT. He's not the player he used to be and the contract now sucks balls. The only difference would be that the Leafs signed Tavares for free as a UFA. You want the Ducks to part with assets to trade for Marner.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 2 at 4:36 p.m.
Thread: Dreaming but semi-realistic
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jded</b></div><div>Hey hey Char! Help me understand why Skinner would cost a 9OA to move at $7M. He has 92 - 99 -191 in 233 games over the past 3 seasons

For context, none of us are upset about Terry’s $7M, and he has 80 - 102 - 182 in 221</div></div>

Cause that's what the tool says that much cap relief is worth...

https://puckpedia.com/CapRelief

Like I said, that is putting the contract into a vacuum and ignoring the player completely. Go the other direction.... if you were to trade a pick(s) only for Skinner the player ignoring contract what value would you put on him? I honestly don't know what value I'd give him but I don't think I'd trade a 24th overall draft pick for him. I don't know, maybe he is worth that much.

Where he breaks down a bit for me is if he is a 50-60 point player or an 80 point player? He's scored 50-ish points in a season a lot more often than he has 80. You should be able to get a 50 point player in free agency without giving up any value. Is he really all that much better @7M than Vatrano was last season @3.6M? Would you trade a 24th OA pick for Vatrano? I wouldn't.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 2 at 2:13 p.m.
Thread: Verbuild
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Mr_neutral</b></div><div>I signed 2 RHD cause the ducks just have so much cap and really need help with shutdown guys on the back-end.
As for duclair, I know verbeek said he wants to improve bottom 6 scoring. Frankie is just not a 3rd line guy, he thrived in the top 6 I dont see him being shuffled down the lineup.
</div></div>

Spending 6-8M on a top 6 RW uses the cap too. As for Vatrano's fit on the 3rd line I'll disagree. He thrived on the power play and from playing with good players like McTavish. There isn't any reason to think he won't continue to get PP time even with the additions of Gauthier and some other RW. The team lost Henrique and Silverberg and both guys were on a PP unit.

As to who he plays with, the Ducks will be deep enough up front to have a solid 3rd line of real quality players.


<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Mr_neutral</b></div><div>Ducks need to get Dostal the net for 70-80 percent of the year. </div></div>

You can count the goalies that play 65 games in a season on one hand in today's NHL. 40-50 is a much more typical work load now. Gibson and Dostal doing exactly what they did this season in splitting the starts is just fine. Again, the Ducks have no cap issues so booting Gibson off the roster just because is kind of silly. You are essentially paying Ned 4M AAV which is only trimming 2.4M off of what they'd pay Gibson in a couple of years where the cap hit doesn't matter. Trimming cap is always nice of course but intentionally down grading your goal tending position is asking for trouble.