Exactly. I think the focus is getting put too much on the Beauchemin dispute. There were plenty who were okay with letting him walk, if the money wasn't right. That being said, I don't understand Murray not making an offer. It's one thing if Beauchemin turns down a reasonable contract, to take more somewhere else, but to just not make an attempt?
Still, that's only part of the issue. The bigger issue is not that Beauchemin wasn't offered a contract, but that Murray let him go and then failed to fill the hole that was created by the absence. Not only did that impact the team's performance, but then Murray had to spend valuable assets to try to fix the problem mid-season.
This. For me at least, the problem wasnt Beauch specifically, but it was that Murray went into the season with 3 Top 4 defensemen, and hoped that one of Eminger, Boynton or Sbisa would magically become one. Re-signing Beauch would have fixed that problem completely, as it would have not left the hole.
And honestly, Murray got lucky in 2010-2011 that Fowler did what he did, or he would have had the same problem. And he STILL had to spend Gardiner to bring Beauch back. Imagine what would have happened had Fowler not adjusted so quickly and was sent back to juniors? We would be looking at 3 seasons out of the playoffs.
No offense to Murray, but when you lose/trade our top 2 defensive prospects in a span of 1 1/2 years, you gotta go. I've been a fairly big Murray advocate, but there is no way you can trade a player that is guaranteed to be in your organization(Gardiner) and then lose another top defensive prospect, granted never under contract(Schultz), and claim you should keep your job. Especially after missing the playoffs..AGAIN.
How was Gardiner guaranteed to be in the organisation? He could of walked just like Schultz, no?
Was Gardiner already on an ELC?
IIRC, yes Gardiner had already signed with the Ducks.
I've been a huge Gardiner>>Schultz because of the defensive side of their games. Gardiner played in all situations, top PP, top PK, and top ES unit, but completely understood people valuing Schultz skillset more because Schultz is more offensive, rivals Gardiner in skating, more offensive, and is right handed. All of which are much more rare.
IMO, for this year alone, Vatanen > Schultz in terms of readiness for the NHL. Schultz has been a man amongst boys for a while now. Vatanen has been playing against men for longer than Shultz but it has granted it has been on a larger ice surface. Still, I believe Vatanen has always has always been ahead of Shultz on my depth chart in terms on "NHL ready defenseman".
Just had a look and Leafs actually signed Gardiner after the trade so Ducks didn't sign him to one. source
So it's hard to say Gardiner would of been a Duck, would he probably of signed with us? Probably, then again, we all thought Schultz would as well, so who knows haha
It sucks that we did lose both of them, but I don't really think BM could of handled the Schultz situation any better, it's just a shame Schultz has proceeded like he has without any prior warning to the Ducks.
I would think if we had acquired another top 4 dman that wasn't Beauch in that deal that people wouldn't think the deal is as bad, it's just the fact we acquired the guy we let go a couple of seasons before the trade to get him back.
Justin Tooltz should have warned the Ducks long time ago that he isn't going to sign with them...trade value would have been better and now it's...LOL...this waiting game and giving Ducks a hint there is a chance when there isn't just hurt the club... enjoy your fame and money where ever you sign gold digger Tooltz.