You are being unrealistic if you think a sign and trade is even a possibility. They just don't happen anymore. Especially when involving a UFA.
As far as assets go. I would expect a 1st and a prospect in return for a soon to be UFA Perry. If Gaustad gets a 1st from Nashville, Perry is certainly worth an extra prospect.
Of course all of this is moot. Even if Perry doesn't want to stay in Anaheim and tells Murray so it is almost impossible to deal Perry with the way this team is performing. Would take giant thrown chair across a womans back balls to trade Perry when your team is the 2nd best team in the league.
Just a couple questions and speculation about the Ducks goalie situation next season, if Fasth keeps playing the way he plays this season, do you think the Ducks will think of trading Hiller? Maybe as we have seen it before and before Fasth will steal the # 1 spot from Hiller in the playoffs? All it takes is for Hiller to have one bad game in the playoffs and Fasth to come in and steal the show just like Schneider did from Luongo last year.
If that happens I can see Hiller being dealt in the off season on Draft Day. I believe Fasth will be the Ducks starting netminder next season and will grow into an elite goaltender in the NHL. I told my buddy after Fasth went 3-0 this season that I can see this guy being the next Lundqvist.
Either way ducks should be looking to add not subtract. I'm perfectly fine with letting perry walk as Ufa if it means we add and get a legitimate shot at cup.
Wrt sign and trade. Think it holds less leverage than nba because 5 vs 6 years is big compared to 7 vs 8. Getzalf last year in his deal has a big drop off too.
I think the week coming up with the Sharks, Detroit x 2, Chicago x 2 will decide it. If we dominate those games and look like a legit cup contender he stays regardless. If we don't, and he's not signing, he gets traded.
I also think the people calling for the sign and trade are off base. This isn't the NBA where that sign and trade can net an extra 20M+ over 5 years, for a type of person that is all about ME, in a sport where you only need 3 real players on a team to win. Perry at most is looking at an extra 8-10 over 8 years, and hockey requires an actual team to win. And Perry comes across as wanting a situation rather than JUST money, I don't think he'd want to weaken his new team. He owes the Ducks nothing.
Just a couple questions and speculation about the Ducks goalie situation next season, if Fasth keeps playing the way he plays this season, do you think the Ducks will think of trading Hiller? Maybe as we have seen it before and before Fasth will steal the # 1 spot from Hiller in the playoffs? All it takes is for Hiller to have one bad game in the playoffs and Fasth to come in and steal the show just like Schneider did from Luongo last year.
If that happens I can see Hiller being dealt in the off season on Draft Day. I believe Fasth will be the Ducks starting netminder next season and will grow into an elite goaltender in the NHL. I told my buddy after Fasth went 3-0 this season that I can see this guy being the next Lundqvist.
I would hope they don't trade Hiller based off one good season from Fasth. There have been way too many one year wonders in net to assume that Fasth can handle a starting role based off him winning the role in a shortened season. I could only see it happening if Fasth dominates in the playoffs.
I think the week coming up with the Sharks, Detroit x 2, Chicago x 2 will decide it. If we dominate those games and look like a legit cup contender he stays regardless. If we don't, and he's not signing, he gets traded.
I also think the people calling for the sign and trade are off base. This isn't the NBA where that sign and trade can net an extra 20M+ over 5 years, for a type of person that is all about ME, in a sport where you only need 3 real players on a team to win. Perry at most is looking at an extra 8-10 over 8 years, and hockey requires an actual team to win. And Perry comes across as wanting a situation rather than JUST money, I don't think he'd want to weaken his new team. He owes the Ducks nothing.
Agreed on both accounts. Although I'd guess we'll look to be quite in the grey-ish area over that span and will have few answers for the time being.
You are being unrealistic if you think a sign and trade is even a possibility. They just don't happen anymore. Especially when involving a UFA.
New CBA, new rules. The NHL's new UFA rules are a lot more similar to the NBA's now, and sign-and-trades happen regularly there, although that also has to do with their cap. I'm interested to see what will happen and how value will be established, but it's something I'm sure top-flight UFAs will push for.
1st + DSP or Wagner for Ribeiro, 2nd + someone meh for Reghr.
Might not get it done, but it's what I'd like to see.
PGP
RRS
WKC
BB etem/Maroon/staubitz.
Fowler-Reghr
Beauch-Souray
Sbisa-Allen/LJ
We have the prospect depth. Holland,Rakell,Karlsson all make Wagner easily replaceable. DSP is tough to lose because his skill set is unique, but I think with our wing depth we can do it.
This gives us 4 legit lines and 3 legit pairings IMO, with enough skill and snarl to compete with anyone. I wish there was a center available who was skilled and had snarl, but that's just not available.
Wait? DSP's skill set is Unique and Wagner is easily replaceable? I have it the other way around, a strong defensive center with offensive upside at +10 or a up and down wing at -20.
You can't actually be using +/- to evaluate a players skill set.
DSP definitely brings more to the table if they both reach their potential. I like Wagner and think he's done well in the AHL this year but DSP brings a more unique skillset. Wagner has been great defensively but it would be nice if he started showing a bit more offensively - his numbers in college last season were great but they haven't translated to the next level yet.
I think the week coming up with the Sharks, Detroit x 2, Chicago x 2 will decide it. If we dominate those games and look like a legit cup contender he stays regardless. If we don't, and he's not signing, he gets traded.
I also think the people calling for the sign and trade are off base. This isn't the NBA where that sign and trade can net an extra 20M+ over 5 years, for a type of person that is all about ME, in a sport where you only need 3 real players on a team to win. Perry at most is looking at an extra 8-10 over 8 years, and hockey requires an actual team to win. And Perry comes across as wanting a situation rather than JUST money, I don't think he'd want to weaken his new team. He owes the Ducks nothing.
Where are you getting this 'he doesn't want to weaken his team'. The trade itself does that no matter what. It is up to the GM not to damage his team beyond the value of what he's getting in return, not the player. That isn't selfishness, that is expecting you to do your job. This is also a complete exaggeration seeing as we don't even know what a sign and trade with the extra year would actually add.
Wait? DSP's skill set is Unique and Wagner is easily replaceable? I have it the other way around, a strong defensive center with offensive upside at +10 or a up and down wing at -20.
Plus/minus is meant as a possession stat, not a defensive stat.
Where are you getting this 'he doesn't want to weaken his team'. The trade itself does that no matter what. It is up to the GM not to damage his team beyond the value of what he's getting in return, not the player. That isn't selfishness, that is expecting you to do your job. This is also a complete exaggeration seeing as we don't even know what a sign and trade with the extra year would actually add.
except if he ACCEPTS a sign and trade. its common sense that then Murray can/should ask for more coming back. hence HURTING his new team. he can just negotiate himself with the new team if he knows for sure he wants to sign there.
except if he ACCEPTS a sign and trade. its common sense that then Murray can/should ask for more coming back. hence HURTING his new team. he can just negotiate himself with the new team if he knows for sure he wants to sign there.
So, what you're saying is, you think Perry would rather sign outright with a new team than negotiate a sign-and-trade? I highly disagree, he'd be giving up a pretty good amount of money to do that.
So, what you're saying is, you think Perry would rather sign outright with a new team than negotiate a sign-and-trade? I highly disagree, he'd be giving up a pretty good amount of money to do that.
why would he be giving up any amount of money? he's allowed to sign with the new team for 8 years as long as we trade him by the deadline..
this scenario is all saying if we trade him to the team that he WANTS to go to
except if he ACCEPTS a sign and trade. its common sense that then Murray can/should ask for more coming back. hence HURTING his new team. he can just negotiate himself with the new team if he knows for sure he wants to sign there.
If it's futures, it isn't hurting the team. That's HF talk. They're also getting the extra year. That's what they'd be paying for. If Perry can only sign a seven year deal, then that hurts his team, too. There is give and take.
why would he be giving up any amount of money? he's allowed to sign with the new team for 8 years as long as we trade him by the deadline..
this scenario is all saying if we trade him to the team that he WANTS to go to
Oh, I thought you were talking about any scenario, not just specifically before the deadline. Only difference there is I imagine it would snag the actual trade itself if Perry wasn't signed. Teams might not want to give up great value for a guy who could bolt at season's end, and Ducks might not trade him unless they get full value for a star winger.
Oh, I thought you were talking about any scenario, not just specifically before the deadline. Only difference there is I imagine it would snag the actual trade itself if Perry wasn't signed. Teams might not want to give up great value for a guy who could bolt at season's end, and Ducks might not trade him unless they get full value for a star winger.
I doubt that their line would be full value. It's more likely that they may not trade him for a rental package.
I doubt that their line would be full value. It's more likely that they may not trade him for a rental package.
They could take that line, as there's a lot of reasons to keep Perry for the stretch run. But, yes, they'd likely just want a very good package, more than a rental would go for.
Where are you getting this 'he doesn't want to weaken his team'. The trade itself does that no matter what. It is up to the GM not to damage his team beyond the value of what he's getting in return, not the player. That isn't selfishness, that is expecting you to do your job. This is also a complete exaggeration seeing as we don't even know what a sign and trade with the extra year would actually add.
If it adds ANYTHING, it weakens that team. There's no way that he'd get less than a prospect, roster player, and a 1st as a rental. If there's no substantial increase in that return for a sign and trade, then there's absolutely no reason for the Ducks to limit themselves to trading him to that team - 15-20 other teams will pony up a typical rental return for him. You can't have this both ways. Either he has no say in where he's going because everyone is offering the same quality package, or he goes where where he wants because that team offers a better package - which WILL further weaken that team compared to if he signs as a free agent. Common sense fail.
Wait? DSP's skill set is Unique and Wagner is easily replaceable? I have it the other way around, a strong defensive center with offensive upside at +10 or a up and down wing at -20.
Other people have already addressed this, but yes, DSP definitely has the more unique skill set. Not to mention we already have Rakell and Karlsson as 2 way centers, and they have a higher upside.
If it adds ANYTHING, it weakens that team. There's no way that he'd get less than a prospect, roster player, and a 1st as a rental. If there's no substantial increase in that return for a sign and trade, then there's absolutely no reason for the Ducks to limit themselves to trading him to that team - 15-20 other teams will pony up a typical rental return for him. You can't have this both ways. Either he has no say in where he's going because everyone is offering the same quality package, or he goes where where he wants because that team offers a better package - which WILL further weaken that team compared to if he signs as a free agent. Common sense fail.
You're the one implying Perry will control his destination but not cause a larger loss to the team he wants to go to by doing so, not me.
Edit - also, it's impossible for only one of two people to be arguing at cross purposes. If you feel WE are doing that then explain yourself.
You are not asking me questions about what my position is, you are just supplying the most convenient argument and arguing against that. You also seem to be conflating my position with BRG's. If you need a point explained further, then ask before offering up a counter argument.
If Perry wants to head to FA or doesn't care about a seven year deal, then I don't think a sign-and-trade will make a difference. We will get the same returns that Kovalchuk and Hossa received, both in makeup and quality.
I think if Murray doesn't want the typical garbage packages - sweetened with picks - that come with these type of trades, and the circumstances are favorable(ie. Perry has clear destination(s), wants eight years, and the receiving team wants the same), then those things get factored into his demands. I am assuming that at minimum that can be used to make a qualitative difference in the return under those circumstances. In other words, no questionable prospects, the roster player isn't just a down on their luck warm body. It may just mean an extra pick. I don't know what the answer is till we actually see one of these situations play out.
The only way that I can see a core player coming our way, what BRG is lobbying for, is if it's necessary for that team to fit Perry in, it may even call for an addition on our side.
Perry is not owed any favors by us. We may owe him eight years if we keep him, but we don't owe him that if he's leaving. We do not owe the team that wants him the eighth year. If we want we can hold onto him and deprive them of that. I don't think it's major leverage, but it is enough to change what we are capable of demanding.
This isn't even my idea, it's what Dreger put forth on NHL Tonight a few days back.
