SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

bstbullies

Member Since
May 4, 2017
Favourite Team
Philadelphia Flyers
Forum Posts
23
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Expansion DraftMay 29, 2017 at 6:59 a.m.
Thread: James Falk-Vegas Roster Predictions
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OlegP</b></div><div>

Think about it. Okay trade Silfverberg for a 2nd rounder. Trade Manson for a 2nd rounder. That makes it so you don't lose either for nothing or you simply let one go. I think two 2nd rounders isn't worth it compared to keeping one of Silf or Manson. This is such a video game scenario to think Gms will simply accommodate Anaheim that is a bad corner right now. Nobody gonna give them a handout.

I don't see how one of Manson, Silf, Rakell don't leave for Vegas</div></div>

How is that a video game scenario? Have Bieksa waive or buyout. Trade one of Vat,Lin,Fowler,Manson. Two very likely moves gives ANA return for trading one of their top 4 D. If Ana makes those two moves Silf gets protected along with their 3 choice Dmen. Vegas is then left selecting a Despres,Stoner,Megna type player. 99% sure Bieksa won't be on the protect list. Trading one of their D will be much harder to do. If they don't trade one of those 4, Vegas will take Manson.
Forum: Expansion DraftMay 24, 2017 at 4:30 a.m.
Thread: James Falk-Vegas Roster Predictions
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JamesFalk</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>bstbullies</b></div><div>I believe ANA will either get Bieka to waive his nmc or buy him out. They will then try to trade one of Vant,Lind,Fowler, or Manson. That way they don't lose something for nothing. This also gives them a way to protect Silf and gain an assest as opposed to losing an assest. They are very high on Silf and Mason from what I've seen. <strong>It makes to much sense for them to trade a Dman, than lose a dman outright.</strong></div></div>

It's quite possible that a few teams may try to get players to waive their NMC's, but as I outlined in the opening post I've tried not to overcomplicate matters with that factor &amp; simply concentrate on what may be available. Anaheim is one of of many teams facing tough decisions &amp; also the most talked about likely for nothing more than being alphabetically first &amp; people immediately realizing the complications facing them. I don't mind addressing that here though.

Regardless of 7-3-1 or 4-4-1, the Ducks face losing a quality player. 7-3-1 doesn't really help as it opens the door for Vatanen, Fowler, Depres, Stoner &amp; Manson to all be exposed. Sure it allows Rackell &amp; Silferberg to be protected, but then who is the final forward protected? Cogliano? Vermette? Surely every defensemen previously listed has far more value.

So we're back to 4-4-1 with either Rackell or Silverberg exposed &amp; also with Fowler or Manson. Still looking lousy for the Ducks.

This brings us to your point. Getting Bieksa to waive his NMC allows all of Rackell, Silvferberg &amp; Manson to be protected. Sounds great, as Vegas likely doesn't choose him anyways &amp; rather choose Depres from the Ducks under this scenario. Should Bieksa say no, he could always get bought out. The Ducks have no shortage of defensmen with Manson, Theordore &amp; Montour all vying for more ice time.

I doubt they trade, as a buy out is a better option &amp; any trades prior to the draft have to factor in the expansion plans of other teams, many of which are facing the same tough decision the Ducks are in. Certain teams just can't add another forward, others have no room for defensemen. Some have no room either way.

I'll concede that of all the talk around the NHL of getting NMC's waived (the Jets &amp; Toby Enstrom has gotten a lot of talk on the Winnipeg boards) it seems as the Anaheim decision is one that makes the most sense. No fear that he'd be selected, &amp; even if he was they'd be doing Anaheim a favour. Ducks need to shed salary &amp; need to create more playing time for their defensive prospects. Further they are very deep defensively, unlike the Jets, &amp; have substantial options available to them on the back end.

What do you think the likelihood of Anaheim asking to waive NMC? How about a buyout? Do you agree a trade is the least likely for the reasons I outlined?</div></div>

A buyout/waive of Bieksa doesn't solve all of ANA problems, it's just the first step. If ANA goes 4-4-1 then they will lose one of Silf or Rak. I just don't see them letting that happen. They will either get Bieksa to waive or buy him out period. They just don't have the luxury of protecting him. Then go 7-3-1 and protect 3 of Vat,Lind,Fowl,Manson. Whichever of those three they don't protect will leave in a trade, gaining an asset, most likely a high pick. After that, the only D having to be exposed is Des and Stoner. I think the Ducks would happily give away one of those two for no return, gaining cap and roster space. By just making two moves (Bieksa waiveNMC/buyout + trading one of Vat,Lind,Fowl,Manson) they are able to keep their forwards and D they are high on. They do lose a solid D man to trade but they will get return for their loss. Losing one of Stoner or Despres actually helps their long term outlook. I'd be shocked if it goes down any other way. I'm 99% certain they go 7-3-1. If they do go 4-4-1 they will be paying out the nose to vegas in a deal not to take Silf. If thats the case they can protect Vat,Lind,Fowl,Mason but have to give up assests to vegas to leave Silf. Why would they lose assests to protect all their players when they could gain an asset for losing one of their D that they have the talent to replace?
Forum: Expansion DraftMay 12, 2017 at 4:56 a.m.
Thread: James Falk-Vegas Roster Predictions
So a few of my guesses after looking at your roster,
Murray/Fleury won't end up in Vegas. The Pens will find some way to get return for losing one of them.
I think FLA will protect Demers and expose Pysyk/Petro
LA will find a way to protect Mcnabb and do their best to have LGK take Brown/Gab
COL will protect Andrighetto
ARI will expose Doan and protect Pulk
LGK doesn't select DSP because he has zero value
TB might expose Killorn because they dont want to lose Namestnikov
LGK won't go Yak (even with the russian ties) Yak is out of the league next yr
NYR protects Hayes leaving players like Grab,Lin,Fast,Raanta, might swing a trade to LGK to shed salary and protect said players
ANA protects Silf by buying out or getting Bieksa to waive, also trading a Dman, ANA is very high on Silf

I'm guessing LGK will be very active in stocking their youth and taking bad contracts for future. They will also be selecting some players for the sole reason of trading them immediately. These are all guesses but aren't we all just guessing?
Forum: NHLMay 4, 2017 at 10:05 a.m.