HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Anaheim and Expansion - Why the Ducks are in great shape ‎(pt2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-19-2017, 09:38 AM
  #501
ColdSteel2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,461
vCash: 50
I'm guessing Bieksa is licking his chops at the idea of getting into the Ducks top 4 after the dust settles.

ColdSteel2 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 09:42 AM
  #502
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,334
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSteel2 View Post
I'm guessing Bieksa is licking his chops at the idea of getting into the Ducks top 4 after the dust settles.
Yeah he really seems like the type who'd be be more interested in playing time than winning a Cup while he still has the chance. Especially after he demanded a NMC to make sure he remains with a contender.

heusy_79 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 09:43 AM
  #503
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
If they didn't agree with the Ducks on a deal beforehand, the Ducks would have bought out Bieska and traded Vatanen.
I think the Ducks must have a deal as evidenced by Manson being left unprotected but....

Bieksa has earned the right to not waive his NTC. He is also injured which means that a buyout was not possible.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 09:44 AM
  #504
ColdSteel2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,461
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
Yeah he really seems like the type who'd be be more interested in playing time than winning a Cup while he still has the chance. Especially after he demanded a NMC to make sure he remains with a contender.
He's probably thinking he'll help lead the Ducks to a Cup playing big minutes. I'm sure he believes in himself more than the fans do.

ColdSteel2 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 09:45 AM
  #505
dracom
Registered User
 
dracom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich View Post
I think the Ducks must have a deal as evidenced by Manson being left unprotected but....

Bieksa has earned the right to not waive his NTC. He is also injured which means that a buyout was not possible.
I know it's not a big deal, but it's a NMC not a NTC.

Also, if we could buy out Despres, we could buyout Bieksa.

dracom is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 09:45 AM
  #506
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,334
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich View Post
I think the Ducks must have a deal as evidenced by Manson being left unprotected but....

Bieksa has earned the right to not waive his NTC. He is also injured which means that a buyout was not possible.
People keep saying he's ineligible for a buyout yet no one has shown me a credible source saying as much. He was cleared to play at the end of the season.

heusy_79 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 09:48 AM
  #507
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 27,128
vCash: 500
The Ducks might have engineered things so that they don't get hammered in the expansion draft, but the reasoning put forward in the OP for this thread (in part 1) is pretty much shredded.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 09:54 AM
  #508
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,334
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
The Ducks might have engineered things so that they don't get hammered in the expansion draft, but the reasoning put forward in the OP for this thread (in part 1) is pretty much shredded.
How do you figure exactly? I pointed out the avenues that Anaheim could have used to leave Vegas with nothing. Instead the two sides have reached an agreement that doesn't force Anaheim to do that. The entire premise was that the Ducks didn't have to lose a core player for free like people were suggesting and it appears as though that is not happening.

heusy_79 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:08 AM
  #509
ColdSteel2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,461
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
How do you figure exactly? I pointed out the avenues that Anaheim could have used to leave Vegas with nothing. Instead the two sides have reached an agreement that doesn't force Anaheim to do that. The entire premise was that the Ducks didn't have to lose a core player for free like people were suggesting and it appears as though that is not happening.
If Anaheim could have engineered things in such a way where Vegas would get nothing, why would they choose this route instead?

ColdSteel2 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:09 AM
  #510
ScarTroy
Registered User
 
ScarTroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Corona, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,025
vCash: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
How do you figure exactly? I pointed out the avenues that Anaheim could have used to leave Vegas with nothing. Instead the two sides have reached an agreement that doesn't force Anaheim to do that. The entire premise was that the Ducks didn't have to lose a core player for free like people were suggesting and it appears as though that is not happening.
I appreciate you continue to try to explain this to people who just don't get it. I would not have the patience to do so.

ScarTroy is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:16 AM
  #511
lwvs84
Registered User
 
lwvs84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 632
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to lwvs84
I think the most simple scenario is the Ducks were offered two prices for Vatanen, one pre-ED and one post. To keep it simple, say the first deal was a 1st for Vatanen and the second was a 1st+2nd+3rd (for taking up a protection slot). Ducks go to Vegas and tell them there's a deal for Vatanen so they have a choice, the Ducks can buy out or have Bieksa waive his NMC, protect Manson, and trade Vatanen leaving Vegas with the unprotected players or the Ducks will give them a 2nd round pick to take the player they would anyways if they don't select Vatanen/Manson (lets say Kerdiles). Now Vegas gets Kerdiles+2nd instead of just the Kerdiles, Ducks get a 1st+3rd instead of just a 1st, and none of the Bieksa stuff needs to happen. Vegas agrees to this deal a week or two before Bieksa has to waive so the Ducks can just protect him, Fowler, and Lindholm instead of asking him to waive.

lwvs84 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:18 AM
  #512
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
Because if BM has any brain at all, he has already had a discussion with McPhee and that is the agreed upon trade.

If there is no trade in place, then you would have seen them trade Vatanen and ask Bieksa to waive. Since none of those things happened, logic says they didn't need to jump thru all the hoops. They instead, came to an agreement with McPhee on a deal that benefits Vegas long term.

People forget that if the Ducks had traded Vatanen, asked or bought out Bieksa, then Vegas is left picking Vermette, or a whole bunch of lesser guys. Instead, Murray goes to McPhee and says instead of doing this and weakening the Ducks AND VEGAS, agree on a lesser trade.

The only team who wins if the a Ducks had jumped thru the hoops....would be the 3rd team. This way Vegas gets a better player than Vermette and Co. I fully expect they get Larssin....maybe Theo. But Larsson and maybe a pick is realistic.

So a Vegas gets good prospects/picks, the Ducks keep the team in tact, and team #3 does not get Vatanen/Manson.

And if Murray didn't do this and instead just loses one of Vats/Manson, then his is just a dumb ****er. I just can't see it.
This guy gets it.

I think it's pretty telling that something has been done for a while when the team didn't even bother asking Bieksa to waive. If Bieksa refused to waive, than I'd be a nervous wreck right now. However, him not even being asked to waive, and Vatanen still here makes me feel at ease that something has already been done.

Personally I will be disappointed if we trade Theodore or Larsson as part of the "convenience fee", but considering both players are buried on the depth chart; it wouldn't be too big of a blow.

Duck Off is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:21 AM
  #513
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,334
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSteel2 View Post
If Anaheim could have engineered things in such a way where Vegas would get nothing, why would they choose this route instead?
I believe Murray has paid a reasonable price now because he believes (or knows) it will get him a more ideal trade for Vatanen later.

Basically the big difference in perception here is that people see Manson and Vatanen on the list and think OMG Anaheim will have to pay a huge price to get Vegas to pass on them, but in reality I don't believe those two names ever end up unprotected if there's no deal in place. Vegas will likely get an asset or two much more valuable than the nothing they could have ended up with, but I'm confident that if McPhee demanded a massive premium he would have just been forcing Murray to make the moves to leave Vegas with squat.

If you're McPhee and Murray tells you that Bieksa is prepared to waive or that he'll buy him out if he doesn't, and that he has a deal in hand for Vatanen that he's ready to take, but would prefer to deal him later....Do you

A) Demand a huge premium and force the Ducks to make those moves and leave you a choice of depth pieces worth no more than a mid round pick.

Or

B) Come to a mutually beneficial agreement that gets you some more attractive B assets in exchange for not forcing the Ducks hand?

heusy_79 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:22 AM
  #514
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwvs84 View Post
I think the most simple scenario is the Ducks were offered two prices for Vatanen, one pre-ED and one post. To keep it simple, say the first deal was a 1st for Vatanen and the second was a 1st+2nd+3rd (for taking up a protection slot). Ducks go to Vegas and tell them there's a deal for Vatanen so they have a choice, the Ducks can buy out or have Bieksa waive his NMC, protect Manson, and trade Vatanen leaving Vegas with the unprotected players or the Ducks will give them a 2nd round pick to take the player they would anyways if they don't select Vatanen/Manson (lets say Kerdiles). Now Vegas gets Kerdiles+2nd instead of just the Kerdiles, Ducks get a 1st+3rd instead of just a 1st, and none of the Bieksa stuff needs to happen. Vegas agrees to this deal a week or two before Bieksa has to waive so the Ducks can just protect him, Fowler, and Lindholm instead of asking him to waive.
I honestly don't think Vatanen has much to do with the deal, at all.

I think it was Murray saying "look, I'm obviously not going to lose Manson or Vatanen for nothing. I've got offers for both right now. I'd rather not rush this though. We can work something out, or you can have your pick of Vermette or Kerdiles" clearly the two only decent options.

Edit: Murray and GMGM have been talking for over a month now according to Murray.

Honestly, it appears that Murray set himself up pretty by simply addressing this early. I'm not going to get too excited just yet, as I'm a bit worried we'll lose Theodore or Larsson (IMO that's overpayment), but I'm not worried at all about losing Manson or Vatanen.

Duck Off is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:24 AM
  #515
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
How do you figure exactly? I pointed out the avenues that Anaheim could have used to leave Vegas with nothing. Instead the two sides have reached an agreement that doesn't force Anaheim to do that. The entire premise was that the Ducks didn't have to lose a core player for free like people were suggesting and it appears as though that is not happening.
Yeah but the premise is stretched very, very thin. Just a couple of things accepted as matter of fact that arent so clear:

1) The buy out of Beiksa is not some given thing. First it would cost cap penalties to Anahiem (already near the cap), second Murray obviously really values him alot so I doubt would want to buy him out

2) Yes they could trade Vat/Manson and then protect the other after buying out Beiksa (which is not a gimmy). But given the situation of many teaqms around the league already struggling to protect all their good D, the number of teams able to make a deal for another D is shrunk significantly. You are likely looking at 10 teams that could plausibly make a deal. When there is a small market, players are traded at a discount. Ducks want to contend now, so potentially the only assets offered up were futures

So if Murray was try to leave Vegas with nothing, the cost of doing that is:
-Bieksas cap penalty for buy out (if he would have even done it at all)
-The discount from trading a D in this environment

Those costs have to be compared to the costs of dealing assets to Vegas to not take either Vat or Manson. Which ever one is more cost effective, you go with that one. And both have big costs. just one has slightly lower costs. Although from an Oilers POV its tough to chose what to want because both are in same division. Vegas can bend the Ducks over and negatively affect an Oilers direct competition. Or the Ducks can come out ahead and McPhee could fail at taking advantage of the Ducks, resulting in a weaker team. So Oilers get to play a worse off team plenty in the upcoming years

Aceboogie is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:30 AM
  #516
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,334
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Yeah but the premise is stretched very, very thin. Just a couple of things accepted as matter of fact that arent so clear:

1) The buy out of Beiksa is not some given thing. First it would cost cap penalties to Anahiem (already near the cap), second Murray obviously really values him alot so I doubt would want to buy him out

2) Yes they could trade Vat/Manson and then protect the other after buying out Beiksa (which is not a gimmy). But given the situation of many teaqms around the league already struggling to protect all their good D, the number of teams able to make a deal for another D is shrunk significantly. You are likely looking at 10 teams that could plausibly make a deal. When there is a small market, players are traded at a discount. Ducks want to contend now, so potentially the only assets offered up were futures

So if Murray was try to leave Vegas with nothing, the cost of doing that is:
-Bieksas cap penalty for buy out (if he would have even done it at all)
-The discount from trading a D in this enviroment

Those costs have to be compared to the costs of dealing assets to Vegas to not take either Vat or Manson. Which ever one is more cost effective, you go with that one. And both have big costs. just one has slightly lower costs
You are unable to prove that Bieksa wasn't willing to waive his NMC and thay this deal wasn't reached under those parameters.

Bieksa's $4M stays on the books this season no matter what. Buying him out and replacing that spot with a cheap depth D is such a minimal cap impact, not something you pay a premium to avoid if it comes to that.

Every indication from credible sources had a strong market for Vatanen, but I'm not denying that a more ideal return can likely be found post expansion. That's likely Murray's motivation for this trade.

heusy_79 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:36 AM
  #517
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heusy_79 View Post
You are unable to prove that Bieksa wasn't willing to waive his NMC and thay this deal wasn't reached under those parameters.

Bieksa's $4M stays on the books this season no matter what. Buying him out and replacing that spot with a cheap depth D is such a minimal cap impact, not something you pay a premium to avoid if it comes to that.

Every indication from credible sources had a strong market for Vatanen, but I'm not denying that a more ideal return can likely be found post expansion. That's likely Murray's motivation for this trade.
1. And you are unable to prove he was willing to wave
2. Cap penalties are spread over 2 years, so negative impactions in year 2. This is not the primary concern tho, Murray not wanting to buy out Bieksa is still #1. One assumption is Murray went over and above to not require Bieksa to waive or ask him to do it. But at what cost?
3. There is a market for Vatanen 100% but its a discount from what itd be post draft and potentially not return what Murray wants (wants Ducks to contend now, not get futures)

I dont know what Murray will or wont do, noone does. These are just counter considerations that I see a lack of in this thread

Aceboogie is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:40 AM
  #518
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,334
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
1. And you are unable to prove he was willing to wave
2. Cap penalties are spread over 2 years
3. There is a market for Vatanen 100% but its a discount from what itd be post draft and potentially not return what Murray wants (wants Ducks to contend now, not get futures)

I dont know what Murray will or wont do, noone does. These are just counter considerations that I see a lack of in this thread
Bieksa falls under 35+ rules for buyouts. The Ducks would owe him 2/3s paid out over two years, but the cap penalty would just be his $4M staying on the books for the year. So again you're just talking about a minimal increase to buy him out and replace the spot with a cheap depth D, which is not something you pay a premium to avoid, and that's all assuming he wasn't willing to waive.

heusy_79 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:46 AM
  #519
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 30,159
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich View Post
I think the Ducks must have a deal as evidenced by Manson being left unprotected but....

Bieksa has earned the right to not waive his NTC. He is also injured which means that a buyout was not possible.
You don't know that's he's injured enough to prevent a buyout. Look at what happened with Despres who everyone assumed couldn't be bought out.

Curufinwe is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 10:46 AM
  #520
TMLFC
Registered abuser
 
TMLFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,302
vCash: 50
Scenario;

The Leafs have a deal in place for Vatanen. But did not want to lose Connor Carrick via ED. A deal was done with Vegas- Via Anaheim to leave (already traded) Vatanen alone.
Anaheim also expanded it to Bieksa buyout saving and leaving Manson alone.

Leafs give a small kick to Anaheim for doing it after ED and saving Carrick. (I.e extra pick on top of Vatanen trade)

End of day Ducks lose value of saving money on Bieksa buyout and favour for not touching both Vatanen + Manson. (Deal isn't huge, because players would not be available to Vegas in normal situation - so free prospect/pick for Vegas just for showing up )

TMLFC is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 11:04 AM
  #521
ColdSteel2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,461
vCash: 50
I'm trying to see Anaheim's side of this, but the part I just still cannot wrap my head around is why wouldn't they expose Bieksa with the understanding by all parties that Bieksa would not be selected?

ColdSteel2 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 11:09 AM
  #522
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
 
Vipers31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Country: Germany
Posts: 19,240
vCash: 500
HFDucks is glad to announce that TSN's Darren Dreger is now a part of the "delusional Ducks fanbase in spin mode", on account of him saying (LINK)...:

Quote:
For instance, we know... when you look at Josh Manson or Sami Vatanen of the Anaheim Ducks being left unprotected by the Ducks... I mean, come on. They're going to leave Sami Vatanen unprotected? Clearly there's a deal in the desk drawer with the Vegas Golden Knights. I don't know what it is - it's been speculated it's Clayton Stoner who's also left unprotected, and perhaps a draft pick or a coveted prospect - but it's that kind of stuff that, apparently, the National Hockey League didn't want us in the media to know about, and it might be protecting the spectacle of the expansion draft and the process, as well, I'm not sure.
Welcome to the delusionals, Darren.

Vipers31 is online now  
Old
06-19-2017, 11:10 AM
  #523
heusy_79
9 - 20 - 8
 
heusy_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Worst Case, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,334
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSteel2 View Post
I'm trying to see Anaheim's side of this, but the part I just still cannot wrap my head around is why wouldn't they expose Bieksa with the understanding by all parties that Bieksa would not be selected?
Just no reason to go through the public and official process of having him waive (or barring that - buying him out) when having a deal in place​ with Vegas means that our list is now a formality. Becomes unnecessary paperwork at that point.

heusy_79 is offline  
Old
06-19-2017, 11:11 AM
  #524
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdSteel2 View Post
I'm trying to see Anaheim's side of this, but the part I just still cannot wrap my head around is why wouldn't they expose Bieksa with the understanding by all parties that Bieksa would not be selected?
Because there is no need to.

If Vegas and Ducks have already agreed to say trade Larsson to Vegas, so Vegas stays hands off of Vats and Manson, and to pick Vermette instead, then why bother jumping thru hoops with Bieksa.

If Vatanen was traded, Bieksa asked to waive and said no and thus protected along with Lindholm and Fowler leaving Manson exposed, they yeah, I would be worried as a Ducjs fan.

The fact that NONE of that happened, tells me a deal is already in place with Vegas.

Tripod is online now  
Old
06-19-2017, 11:12 AM
  #525
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Yeah but the premise is stretched very, very thin. Just a couple of things accepted as matter of fact that arent so clear:

1) The buy out of Beiksa is not some given thing. First it would cost cap penalties to Anahiem (already near the cap), second Murray obviously really values him alot so I doubt would want to buy him out
Maybe it's not a "given", but IMO, what is a given, is they'd rather lose Bieksa than one of their young stud defenders. I agree that Carlyle and Murray love him, but it's absolutely a given that they'd get rid of him before losing someone like Vatanen or Manson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
2) Yes they could trade Vat/Manson and then protect the other after buying out Beiksa (which is not a gimmy). But given the situation of many teaqms around the league already struggling to protect all their good D, the number of teams able to make a deal for another D is shrunk significantly. You are likely looking at 10 teams that could plausibly make a deal. When there is a small market, players are traded at a discount. Ducks want to contend now, so potentially the only assets offered up were futures
Buying out Bieksa is definitely a gimmy if it came to choosing that over losing one of Vatanen/Manson.

The value may have been somewhat lower, but I definitely think there would have been solid offers.

Also, unfortunately, I'm not so sure that Vatanen won't be traded for futures anyway. They may want to re-sign Eaves with the savings, considering how great of a fit he was. I don't want it to happen, but I could see a return similar to the Bobby Ryan trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
So if Murray was try to leave Vegas with nothing, the cost of doing that is:
-Bieksas cap penalty for buy out (if he would have even done it at all)
-The discount from trading a D in this environment
It's definitely not ideal, but I think that cost pales in comparison to what this could have been, if no deal has been worked out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Those costs have to be compared to the costs of dealing assets to Vegas to not take either Vat or Manson. Which ever one is more cost effective, you go with that one. And both have big costs. just one has slightly lower costs. Although from an Oilers POV its tough to chose what to want because both are in same division. Vegas can bend the Ducks over and negatively affect an Oilers direct competition. Or the Ducks can come out ahead and McPhee could fail at taking advantage of the Ducks, resulting in a weaker team. So Oilers get to play a worse off team plenty in the upcoming years
There's definitely a balance, but considering the reported interest in Vatanen by Lebrun and McKenzie, I think you're probably over exaggerating the impact it would of had on trading him pre-ED. I also don't see any logical way Vegas could "bend Anaheim over". The only scenario where this could happen is if Murray and GMGM didn't have something done already. Not a big fan of Murray, but he's not that stupid to put himself in that bind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
1. And you are unable to prove he was willing to wave
Nope. But we are able to prove that he wasn't even asked so why does that matter? Unless you're implying they would consider not asking him to waive and give up a major asset? Again, not a giant Murray fan, but he's not that dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
2. Cap penalties are spread over 2 years, so negative impactions in year 2. This is not the primary concern tho, Murray not wanting to buy out Bieksa is still #1. One assumption is Murray went over and above to not require Bieksa to waive or ask him to do it. But at what cost?
What are the cap penalties if they are just on the hook for his fully cap hit this coming year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
3. There is a market for Vatanen 100% but its a discount from what itd be post draft and potentially not return what Murray wants (wants Ducks to contend now, not get futures)
I think you're getting ahead of yourself with the "not future" package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
I dont know what Murray will or wont do, noone does. These are just counter considerations that I see a lack of in this thread
I think there just as many, if not more, "Ducks are screwed" posts than "Ducks are fine" posts.

Duck Off is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:21 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.