HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

Leafs d-man shopping list this summer..

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-19-2017, 10:46 AM
  #401
Jeypic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KlattNazty View Post
I think we could move one of them without it being too bad, JVR primarily I think but people under estimate how hard it is to find legit goal scorers and point producing forwards. Lose either one of them this off season and I would not expect any replacement to perform on their level immediately. Losing both would be tough indeed, and I think personally the intention is to let bozak play out his contract and re-evaluate then.

Despite that, it still might be the right move if JVR isnt staying and the value of return is right.
Im not expecting one of our prospects to step in and do what jvr did last year, but I would expect one of them to step in and have a good rookie season. If that fills half the whole he left, the other half would be filled with who he returned us on d.

The development of that NHL ready prospect playing would be the bonus, as would the opportunity to resign a 35 yr old boowmeister (or whoever) for another year or two cheap at the end of his contract if it suited us. Which is a luxury jvr probably couldnt give us.

Jeypic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 10:50 AM
  #402
Leafs1993
Registered User
 
Leafs1993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs1993 View Post
Babcock and Lou we're spotted at the Ducks - Preds game last night. Two great defensive teams that may be looking to solve their expansion draft issues.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Micha...CHeL/209/85279

Edit: Do people consider hockey buzz as an accurate source? I know eklund basically makes stuff up...

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/d...-duck-hunting/

Leafs1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:00 AM
  #403
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,757
vCash: 500
Ducks have BIG and I mean BIG problems with expansion draft and their Defense personnel as to protection issues.

Ducks are ripe for the plucking (with a P ), when it comes to helping the Leafs out.

I'm a HUGE and I mean HUGE Shea Theodore fan, but its likely a pipe dream to get him.

Manson also would be a great addition to an otherwise soft Lefs Dcore at present.

__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature: "Never say Never to a Mike Babcock coached team" ..... Mess (circa 2015) #Play-the-Kids
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:09 AM
  #404
Menzinger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calgary/Toronto
Country: England
Posts: 15,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick74 View Post
I just read an article regarding Chicago's cap problem. And the sum of the article is this;

They need to drop Seabrooks contract to even get some wiggle room. (they are currently 3 mil over) And they can't swap for anything but picks or prospects.

Do we?
We didn't give away Dion for next to nothing To save the Hawks from their terrible contract mistakes.

No thank you.

Menzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:12 AM
  #405
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Ducks have BIG and I mean BIG problems with expansion draft and their Defense personnel as to protection issues.

Ducks are ripe for the plucking (with a P ), when it comes to helping the Leafs out.

I'm a HUGE and I mean HUGE Shea Theodore fan, but its likely a pipe dream to get him.

Manson also would be a great addition to an otherwise soft Lefs Dcore at present.
You're overstating the issue dramatically, trade one Dman (Vatanen) and the Ducks don't lose anyone of consequence to expansion. It's an easy fix.

heusy_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:19 AM
  #406
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
You're overstating the issue dramatically, trade one Dman (Vatanen) and the Ducks don't lose anyone of consequence to expansion. It's an easy fix.
Trade Vatanen and they still have Josh Manson and Simon Despres available.

They also have Theodore, Montour and Larsson waiting to absorb the losses on D, and cheaper future options which then in the right trade possibility you might even be able to acquire Fowler or Lindhom because of all the Depth on D in the Ducks organization.

Any of Ducks dmen are an improvement on what the Leafs currently have.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:23 AM
  #407
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Trade Vatanen and they still have Josh Manson and Simon Despres available.

They have Theodore, Montour and Larsson waiting to absorb the losses on D.

In the right trade possibility you might even be able to acquire Fowler or Lindhom because of all the Depth on D in the Ducks organization.
You seem to be under the impression the Ducks would allow Bieksa to take up a protection slot? Not gonna happen, he either waives his NMC or gets bought out.

Lindholm/Fowler/Manson protected, Vatanen dealt, and the Ducks really don't lose much at all.

Despres spent the year on the IR so I don't even know where he stands with expansion eligibility, but letting someone take the risk of his contract off our hands is no big deal when we're clearly getting along fine without him.

Fowler may be available due to contract reasons, but Lindholm would cost an over the moon, crippling overpayment, he's as untouchable as anyone in the org, not even worth bringing up.

heusy_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:44 AM
  #408
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
You seem to be under the impression the Ducks would allow Bieksa to take up a protection slot? Not gonna happen, he either waives his NMC or gets bought out.

Lindholm/Fowler/Manson protected, Vatanen dealt, and the Ducks really don't lose much at all.

Despres spent the year on the IR so I don't even know where he stands with expansion eligibility, but letting someone take the risk of his contract off our hands is no big deal when we're clearly getting along fine without him.

Fowler may be available due to contract reasons, but Lindholm would cost an over the moon, crippling overpayment, he's as untouchable as anyone in the org, not even worth bringing up.
The 2017 NHL Expansion Draft is an expansion draft that will be conducted by the National Hockey League on June 18–20, 2017 to fill the roster of the upcoming Vegas Golden Knights.

So you need to give away Vatanen cheap, twist arms on Bieska or take a Cap hit (if a buyout window even exists before the expansion draft), and you don't see that as a situation?.

I see this as a situation that is open to being exploited by a team like the Leafs looking for defense help and Ducks needing to make moves due the expansion draft. Ducks have big problems and need to make moves and Leafs have big problems with the Dcore and looking for upgrade so this looks like a perfect storm scenario to facilitate a trade. IMO


Last edited by Mess: 05-19-2017 at 11:54 AM.
Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:48 AM
  #409
fahad203
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
The 2017 NHL Expansion Draft is an expansion draft that will be conducted by the National Hockey League on June 1820, 2017 to fill the roster of the upcoming Vegas Golden Knights.

So you need to give away Vatanen cheap, twist arms on Bieska or take a Cap hit (if a buyout window even exists before the expansion draft), and you don't see that as a situation?.

I see this as a situation that is open to being exploited by a team like the Leafs looking for defense help and Ducks needing to make moves due the expansion draft.
Not neccessarly. Just because they have to get rid of a D doesn't mean it has to be cheap

You forget if teams start to bid on Vantanen, which I suspect they will, all of sudden he'll go for more than the actual market price. Only because he'll be available. It's like trade deadline when GM's overpay because a player is available

fahad203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 11:54 AM
  #410
The Thin White Duke
Registered User
 
The Thin White Duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fahad203 View Post
Not neccessarly. Just because they have to get rid of a D doesn't mean it has to be cheap

You forget if teams start to bid on Vantanen, which I suspect they will, all of sudden he'll go for more than the actual market price. Only because he'll be available. It's like trade deadline when GM's overpay because a player is available
Consider that the price/value of a protection slot will have to be factored into Vatanens value. If we trade a 1st for him, the real price will be a 1st + Carrick because we can no longer protect him.

This is fine in our case because Carrick isn't a dealbreaker by any means, but it cuts down the amount of teams willing to bid on Vatanens if it means losing a player worth a 1st or so to Vegas.

The Thin White Duke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:00 PM
  #411
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fahad203 View Post
Not neccessarly. Just because they have to get rid of a D doesn't mean it has to be cheap

You forget if teams start to bid on Vantanen, which I suspect they will, all of sudden he'll go for more than the actual market price. Only because he'll be available. It's like trade deadline when GM's overpay because a player is available
If a smart GM like Lou knows Anaheim needs to trade Vatanen or lose him for free in expansion then its not a strong position for Murray Ducks GM, to be in. Teams are not going to overpay for a player knowing the other team is a bad bargaining position.

As mentioned above the team acquiring him also has to have expansion room in their 1-3 Dmen to protect Vatanen, and expose someone else.. Most teams wouldn't see him as a better option than what they have in their top 3 presently.

Personally I can't even see Leafs interested in Vatanen all that much and would rather likely prefer to deal for Fowler or Manson. Ducks likely to get a better deal for a more preferred player they would protect.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:04 PM
  #412
showtime8
Registered User
 
showtime8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
Anaheim has zero reason to move it's only physical top 4 Dman, nor any of the exempt D.

Whether you like it/him or not, all common sense points towards Vatanen being the player who's moved.



You couldn't be more wrong, Anaheim has no reason to move Montour. He's expansion exempt and excelling as Lindholm's partner, pencilled in to our top 4 moving forward. Lebrun stated that the Leafs would have to offer Nylander to even get the Ducks to listen.
Montour isn't physical. Maybe you're thinking of Manson?

showtime8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:08 PM
  #413
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
The 2017 NHL Expansion Draft is an expansion draft that will be conducted by the National Hockey League on June 18–20, 2017 to fill the roster of the upcoming Vegas Golden Knights.

So you need to give away Vatanen cheap, twist arms on Bieska or take a Cap hit (if a buyout window even exists before the expansion draft), and you don't see that as a situation?.

I see this as a situation that is open to being exploited by a team like the Leafs looking for defense help and Ducks needing to make moves due the expansion draft. Ducks have big problems and need to make moves and Leafs have big problems with the Dcore and looking for upgrade so this looks like a perfect storm scenario to facilitate a trade. IMO
The buyout window will be open before expansion, barring some change that has yet to be announced.

There's no reason to assume the Ducks will have to take a big value hit on trading Vatanen. He's a top 4 RHD and 1st unit PP guy on a reasonable deal with term. Always going to be a market there, the Ducks will have their choice of the best of a few offers, certainly a lot better than losing a good player for free as other teams will have to.

Common sense points towards Bieksa waiving his NMC for expansion. He demanded the clause because he wanted to ensure he stays in Anaheim, playing for a contender and not having to move his family. Waive the NMC, odds of leaving Anaheim are slim to none, as Vegas has no use for him. Refuse to waive, he's 100% surely leaving Anaheim on a buyout and taking the chance that no contender offers him a deal. Should be a no brainer decision for him, but doesn't make a big difference to the Ducks either way. Buying him out and taking the cap hit for the year, replacing him on the roster with an ELC guy is no big deal.

Move Vatanen for a good, young asset or two, replace him internally with Montour who is similar with a higher ceiling, let Bieksa decide whether he wants to stick around for one more year and we only lose Kerdiles or Vermette to Vegas. Does that really sound so terrible compared to the teams who are going to have no choice but lose a good player for nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by showtime8 View Post
Montour isn't physical. Maybe you're thinking of Manson?
I was talking about Manson, the post I quoted was asking about both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post

Personally I can't even see Leafs interested in Vatanen all that much and would rather likely prefer to deal for Fowler or Manson. Ducks likely to get a better deal for a more preferred player they would protect.
The Ducks are in their contending window and the three they'd be protecting are vital to current success. Vatanen can be immediately replaced from within, Lindholm/Fowler/Manson cannot. All signs point to moving Vatanen.


Last edited by heusy_79: 05-19-2017 at 12:13 PM.
heusy_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:18 PM
  #414
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
The buyout window will be open before expansion, barring some change that has yet to be announced.

There's no reason to assume the Ducks will have to take a big value hit on trading Vatanen. He's a top 4 RHD and 1st unit PP guy on a reasonable deal with term. Always going to be a market there, the Ducks will have their choice of the best of a few offers, certainly a lot better than losing a good player for free as other teams will have to.

Common sense points towards Bieksa waiving his NMC for expansion. He demanded the clause because he wanted to ensure he stays in Anaheim, playing for a contender and not having to move his family. Waive the NMC, odds of leaving Anaheim are slim to none, as Vegas has no use for him. Refuse to waive, he's 100% surely leaving Anaheim on a buyout and taking the chance that no contender offers him a deal. Should be a no brainer decision for him, but doesn't make a big difference to the Ducks either way. Buying him out and taking the cap hit for the year, replacing him on the roster with an ELC guy is no big deal.

Move Vatanen for a good, young asset or two, replace him internally with Montour who is similar with a higher ceiling, let Bieksa decide whether he wants to stick around for one more year and we only lose Kerdiles or Vermette to Vegas. Does that really sound so terrible compared to the teams who are going to have no choice but lose a good player for nothing?
Keep Vatanen, Leafs are not likely to be interested in him. We don't need another small 5-10 Dman, as he would be replacing 5-10 Carrick.

JVR for Fowler works for me. $4.25mil & 30 goal winger with 1 year left for $4 mil Dman with 1 year left, before both hit UFA status.

Ducks protect Vatanen instead.

Sign Here __________________.

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:21 PM
  #415
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Keep Vatanen, Leafs are not likely to be interested in him. We don't need another small 5-10 Dman, as he would be replacing 5-10 Carrick.

JVR for Flowler works for me. $4.25mil winger with 1 year left for $4 mil Dman with 1 year left, before both hit UFA status.

Ducks protect Vatanen instead.

Sign Here __________________.
JVR isn't a fit for the Ducks at all, especially not at the expense of a vital defenseman. I'd rather you guys sign a document agreeing to cease all JVR to Anaheim posts.

heusy_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:26 PM
  #416
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
JVR isn't a fit for the Ducks at all, especially not at the expense of a vital defenseman. I'd rather you guys sign a document agreeing to cease all JVR to Anaheim posts.
doesn't Anaheim have just three top-end forwards and a glut of defensemen? It seems that "JVR to Anaheim for a defenseman" discussion is as reasonable as any.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:29 PM
  #417
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
JVR isn't a fit for the Ducks at all, especially not at the expense of a vital defenseman. I'd rather you guys sign a document agreeing to cease all JVR to Anaheim posts.
Anaheim tied for 17th in goals for last year tells me they need JVR more then you're letting on as offense was a problem for the Ducks at times.

Fowler's name has been listed as available in trade rumours from the start of last season.

Quote:
Ducks’ Cam Fowler found motivation in trade rumours

The trade rumours have been so loud and so frequent over the last six months, Cam Fowler is a little surprised he’s still a member of the Anaheim Ducks.

“It was a weird summer for me that way. My name was floating around basically all summer. I was pretty much prepared for something to happen at the draft. Just talking to people, where we were at the salary cap, the guys we needed to sign. I understood that,” the 25-year-old defenceman said Monday night in Toronto.

For months, general manager Bob Murray’s back was slammed against the wall. He needed to lock up younger, emerging D-men Sami Vatanen and Hampus Lindholm as well as 23-year-old forward Rickard Rakell. All three were restricted free agents, and the Rakell and Lindholm negotiations were prickly enough to eat into the season.

Were it not for Simon Despres going on long-term injured reserve in October, Lindholm and Fowler might not both be here.

The vultures look at Anaheim’s cap constraints, its wealth of talented blueliners. They see Fowler’s lack of trade protection and his reasonable $4 million cap hit, and they hover.

Link: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/c...fs-bob-murray/

Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:31 PM
  #418
ryno23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Ducks have BIG and I mean BIG problems with expansion draft and their Defense personnel as to protection issues.

Ducks are ripe for the plucking (with a P ), when it comes to helping the Leafs out.

I'm a HUGE and I mean HUGE Shea Theodore fan, but its likely a pipe dream to get him.

Manson also would be a great addition to an otherwise soft Lefs Dcore at present.
I think there is such an over hype about the expansion draft it is ridiculous. Each team will only lose 1 player just a single player

So if the Ducks leave Silfverberg, Manson both unprotected they will only lose 1 player. So why go out and deal another player then end up losing both.

Same for Minny they will lose only 1 D in the expansion draft. So why would they deal a D then lose another to Vegas now you are down 2 guys instead of just one.

Don't get caught up in media trying to hype this expansion draft saying there will be tons of movement. I just don't see it.

If anything teams will be making deals with Vegas left, right and center to keep players they want to get Vegas to take certain players off their teams.

ryno23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:32 PM
  #419
Barilko14
Registered User
 
Barilko14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Renfrew, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
doesn't Anaheim have just three top-end forwards and a glut of defensemen? It seems that "JVR to Anaheim for a defenseman" discussion is as reasonable as any.
Anaheim won't be able to afford JVR's next contract, so doubtful they want a "rental" in return for Vatanen.

Barilko14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:36 PM
  #420
Barilko14
Registered User
 
Barilko14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Renfrew, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Anaheim tied for 17th in goals for last year tells me they need JVR more then you're letting on as offense was a problem for the Ducks at times.

Fowler's name has been listed as available in trade rumours from the start of last season.
Then Carlyle came in and used him as their No. 1 dman, playing almost 2.5min/game more than Lindholm, so that changes things a little bit, right?

Barilko14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:38 PM
  #421
Barilko14
Registered User
 
Barilko14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Renfrew, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
I think there is such an over hype about the expansion draft it is ridiculous. Each team will only lose 1 player just a single player

So if the Ducks leave Silfverberg, Manson both unprotected they will only lose 1 player. So why go out and deal another player then end up losing both.

Same for Minny they will lose only 1 D in the expansion draft. So why would they deal a D then lose another to Vegas now you are down 2 guys instead of just one.

Don't get caught up in media trying to hype this expansion draft saying there will be tons of movement. I just don't see it.

If anything teams will be making deals with Vegas left, right and center to keep players they want to get Vegas to take certain players off their teams.
Re: bolded - that only works so many times. There is no way Vegas takes their 2 or 3rd option for every team for the price of a 3rd Rd pick. They have to draft some decent players that other teams don't want to lose.

Barilko14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:40 PM
  #422
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
doesn't Anaheim have just three top-end forwards and a glut of defensemen? It seems that "JVR to Anaheim for a defenseman" discussion is as reasonable as any.
Rakell is our top line LW, he plays with Getzlaf and was one of the league leaders in goals per game, locked into a great contract.

Cogliano plays with Kesler and Silfverberg on our matchup line. The three of them fit together like a glove and JVR's game is not suited for the tough matchups and situations this line is deployed in.

Our third line LW is Ritchie, a good young player who is progressing well and does not need to be bumped out of the top 9.

On the right side we have Silfverberg and Perry locked in. For that one open top 9 spot on the wing we have Kase who is really impressing, or the cap space to sign another top 6/9 player such as Eaves or other.

If there's a need in the top 9 it's for a third line center who provides more offense than Vermette, but even that could be a stop gap with Steel in the wings. JVR doesn't fit into any of that.

Not only that, we're not in a position to offer him a big UFA deal next summer due to other impending signings. He would be a 1 year rental.

Sure Ducks need scoring, JVR can score, but everything else says he's not a fit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Anaheim tied for 17th in goals for last year tells me they need JVR more then you're letting on as offense was a problem for the Ducks at times.

Fowler's name has been listed as available in trade rumours from the start of last season.
If Fowler gets moved, it's because the Ducks don't think they can afford to sign him, at which point a move for a UFA winger like JVR makes absolutely zero sense. We're opening up a big hole on our blueline to get a LW we don't need and can't sign? Great

heusy_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 12:58 PM
  #423
Trapper
Pain is Coming
 
Trapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Anaheim tied for 17th in goals for last year tells me they need JVR more then you're letting on as offense was a problem for the Ducks at times.

Fowler's name has been listed as available in trade rumours from the start of last season.
JVR is a better fit for Nashville IMO.
Lavi is very familiar with him.
Nashville will be using the 8-1 protection no doubt.
Forwards that will be protected are Johanson,Forsberg,Neal and Arvidsson.
After that it's all D.

Trapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 01:01 PM
  #424
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
Rakell is our top line LW, he plays with Getzlaf and was one of the league leaders in goals per game, locked into a great contract.

Cogliano plays with Kesler and Silfverberg on our matchup line. The three of them fit together like a glove and JVR's game is not suited for the tough matchups and situations this line is deployed in.

Our third line LW is Ritchie, a good young player who is progressing well and does not need to be bumped out of the top 9.

On the right side we have Silfverberg and Perry locked in. For that one open top 9 spot on the wing we have Kase who is really impressing, or the cap space to sign another top 6/9 player such as Eaves or other.

If there's a need in the top 9 it's for a third line center who provides more offense than Vermette, but even that could be a stop gap with Steel in the wings. JVR doesn't fit into any of that.

Not only that, we're not in a position to offer him a big UFA deal next summer due to other impending signings. He would be a 1 year rental.

Sure Ducks need scoring, JVR can score, but everything else says he's not a fit.




If Fowler gets moved, it's because the Ducks don't think they can afford to sign him, at which point a move for a UFA winger like JVR makes absolutely zero sense. We're opening up a big hole on our blueline to get a LW we don't need and can't sign? Great
Maybe adding JVR gives you a 2nd line with some real offensive bite, and the Kesler line becomes the 3rd. I'm pretty sure he can play the right side too, so you add JVR to the roster, than either he or Rakell forms the basis of a 2nd scoring line. Add that center you were referring to, and a glue guy (like perhaps Ritchie) and it could work.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2017, 01:09 PM
  #425
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Maybe adding JVR gives you a 2nd line with some real offensive bite, and the Kesler line becomes the 3rd. I'm pretty sure he can play the right side too, so you add JVR to the roster, than either he or Rakell forms the basis of a 2nd scoring line. Add that center you were referring to, and a glue guy (like perhaps Ritchie) and it could work.
Rather stick to trading good young cost controlled players for other good young cost controlled players. Really don't see our GM forking over what you'd want for a one year rental of JVR when he's publicly spoken out against those types of moves multiple times.

heusy_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.