HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

No more hockey for the next 3 months...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2010, 02:33 AM
  #26
Elvs
Registered User
 
Elvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pitea
Country: Sweden
Posts: 7,160
vCash: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Clueless View Post
He was by far the best and most dangerous forward on a pretty poor Sudbury squad which reflected on his numbers. What he did he did mostly on his own. At this point i'd put him and Deschamps at about the same level. Time will tell but i don't think it's a good practise to throw early second rounders around for reclamation projects in the future.

It's not that O'Dell isn't replaceable, it's that at the deadline, a 2nd rounder or that caliber prospect gets you better than EC (Billy Guerin, Nik Antropov). Who knows, maybe that quality veteran UFA forward scores a goal for us in game 7.. instead of, you know, being completely useless.


Whether they were brought in to replace those guys is neither here nor there. The fact is that's what ended up happening. We lost Pronger and Beauch and signed Eminger and Boynton. Thus P&B were replaced with E&B by Murray.
A prospect of Eric O'Dells caliber doesn't get you Antropov or Guerin straight up... Not even as rentals.

Pronger and Beauchemin was replaced by Whitney and Wisniewski, that's how I see. Because that was the plan. Yeah, that didn't work out either and people didn't expect it to. It was expected that our D would be worse, so that our offense could be better. With Pronger and Beauchemin on the team, we'd still have a 2nd line at the caliber of Morrison, EC, Ebbett and Weight.

Looking at how we will have Visnovsky on the team for a full year. I much rather have a group of Visnovsky, Niedermayer (if he stays), Koivu, Lupul and Sbisa over Beuchemin, Pronger and a couple of 3rd line players on the 2nd line.

Elvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 03:06 AM
  #27
Talentless Practise*
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
A prospect of Eric O'Dells caliber doesn't get you Antropov or Guerin straight up... Not even as rentals.
Antropov was traded to the Rangers for 50th overall, Guerin to the Penguins for a conditional pick that was either a 2nd, 3rd of 4th rounder depending on the Pens success. Both deals at the same deadline that we got EC for O'Dell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
Pronger and Beauchemin was replaced by Whitney and Wisniewski, that's how I see. Because that was the plan. Yeah, that didn't work out either and people didn't expect it to. It was expected that our D would be worse, so that our offense could be better. With Pronger and Beauchemin on the team, we'd still have a 2nd line at the caliber of Morrison, EC, Ebbett and Weight.
One can't help noticing the slight difference in success between those team make-ups. I'm certain there's a saying about defense doing something..

But seriously, I don't mind the reasoning in giving up defense to improve offense as offense was lacking at the time but it is the GM's job to make it work. He is responsible for evaluating the talent he's acquiring and giving up. I would rather depend on one player overachieving as a 2nd line center between Ryan and Teemu than three players overachieving playing #2, #3, #4 on defense. His solution turned out to be a disaster.

Talentless Practise* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 04:29 AM
  #28
Elvs
Registered User
 
Elvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pitea
Country: Sweden
Posts: 7,160
vCash: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Clueless View Post
Antropov was traded to the Rangers for 50th overall, Guerin to the Penguins for a conditional pick that was either a 2nd, 3rd of 4th rounder depending on the Pens success. Both deals at the same deadline that we got EC for O'Dell.

One can't help noticing the slight difference in success between those team make-ups. I'm certain there's a saying about defense doing something..

But seriously, I don't mind the reasoning in giving up defense to improve offense as offense was lacking at the time but it is the GM's job to make it work. He is responsible for evaluating the talent he's acquiring and giving up. I would rather depend on one player overachieving as a 2nd line center between Ryan and Teemu than three players overachieving playing #2, #3, #4 on defense. His solution turned out to be a disaster.
Well anything can happen. I know those fetched 2nd rounders in return, but a 2nd round pick usually don't give you a 29 year old that has 21 goals and 46 points in 63 games. Even Parros was worth a 2nd round pick apparently. The Sharks sure as hell gave up more for Huskins and Moen than we did to get EC.

We got a 26 year old pending RFA, with plenty of tools, good history from Pittsburgh, juniors and minors. A player capable of putting up 40 points, maybe even 50 a couple of times in his career depending on linemates. The Rangers are very happy with him, he didn't fit in Anaheim.

Murray saw his potential, and looking at EC now, he's no slouch. He just didn't work out here. While part of a GM's job is to actually trying to see the future, he needed secondary scoring when we traded Kunitz. And he didn't want pedning UFA's, he wanted young players who were already in the NHL.

If you wanted better than EC, and it would have to be a pending RFA between 24-26 years of age. Well then it would probably cost you even a better prospect than O'Dell.


Last edited by Elvs: 06-12-2010 at 04:35 AM.
Elvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 05:26 AM
  #29
Talentless Practise*
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
I know what he was trying to do. It failed and we gave a high 2nd rounder for essentially nothing. His numbers in Ranger blue are worse than Ebbett's as a Duck. Neither guy is a top-6 center on a competitive team as neither can be effective against tight checking. Both guys were and are waiver fodder. Fans from Atlanta were astonished they got anything for him, fans from Pittsburgh all hated him for being a non-competitive figureskater. How was he ever going to work out in the more defensive western conference, going into the playoffs no less? These were fans concerns and they were all 100% accurate. A GM with all his resources should know even better.

Murray took a gamble and lost miserably. There was never even a glimpse of the gamble paying off. I don't see why this should be beyond criticism. Because the intention was good?

Talentless Practise* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 05:37 AM
  #30
Kalvinators
Go Ducks!
 
Kalvinators's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Latvia
Country: Latvia
Posts: 10,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarktacular View Post
You're correct, we do need defensemen at the NHL level more than forwards.

But if you look at our prospect pool we need forwards more than defensemen. With Sbisa, Gardiner, Mitera, Mikkelson, Clark, and Vatanen we have the D side covered relatively well. Compare that to our forward prospects, where there's Beleskey, Palmieri, Deschamps, Bonino, and Holland. Maybe McMillan. Roughly the same # of decent prospects, but there's 2x the forward spots in an NHL team.

A guy picked at #12 won't help us next season, so if you calculate need I'd prefer to look at the prospect pool depth.


And anyways, the defensemen this draft don't look so good. The forwards look much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingDomestica View Post
Yeah pretty much what Snark said. Not only do we have more D prospects, but they're all a lot closer to playing in the NHL and seem to have a bit higher ceiling as well: Vatanen breaking rookie records as an offensive d-man, Clark voted one of the best and toughest dman in the OHL, Sbisa and Gardiner playing very solid all around games for their countries in the recent world tournaments as well as playoffs. The forwards on the other hand, seem to be a bit further away and there's only two with high scoring potential at the moment, so we could use another.
Even with young R(hpefully we resign)PG line, we are bit short in F depth, so i can actually agree with you.
But we should take big, physical D in first round anyway, i think.
Right now on our roster we Have Brooks only who plays like Ducks D should play. We have Nieds (maybe), Vis, Eminger and Vatanen on depth. These D`s are to soft (hope Murray will change something in offseason)
In our depth:
We have Clark. Ok, i like him, he i think will turn out as a great physical shut down d-man. That`s what we need. Ok, Sbisa (most likely will play this season) it hink will play good 2-way game. Don`t know much about Gardiner, so i don`t know about him.

Yeah, overall the situation isn`t so bad, but i would try to take some big D with our #29 anyway.
Looks like Petrovic will be available he`s 6,4. (but looks like he`s loosing all fights he`s in).
I would love McIlrath, but he will go to fast for us.

Maybe i`m just affraid that Murray will make the Ducks for a soft team.

And more - what do you guys think of picking Etem? He lives near from Ponda, but looks like he`s favorite team is Kings anyway, so i wouldn`t pick him just because he`s born in Cali.

Would love Connoly, but yeah, he will go to fast, and probably El nino to.

Kalvinators is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 05:51 AM
  #31
Elvs
Registered User
 
Elvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pitea
Country: Sweden
Posts: 7,160
vCash: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Clueless View Post
I know what he was trying to do. It failed and we gave a high 2nd rounder for essentially nothing. His numbers in Ranger blue are worse than Ebbett's as a Duck. Neither guy is a top-6 center on a competitive team as neither can be effective against tight checking. Both guys were and are waiver fodder. Fans from Atlanta were astonished they got anything for him, fans from Pittsburgh all hated him for being a non-competitive figureskater. How was he ever going to work out in the more defensive western conference, going into the playoffs no less? These were fans concerns and they were all 100% accurate. A GM with all his resources should know even better.

Murray took a gamble and lost miserably. There was never even a glimpse of the gamble paying off. I don't see why this should be beyond criticism. Because the intention was good?
Not being physical isn't any guarantee to not work out in the Ducks system. And I know a lot of Pens fans were happy with him. Glimpsies of promise? 9 points in 17 games his first season with Anaheim is like 45 points in 82 games. Those are better than both Morrison and Weight. 45 points is ok for a 2nd line center depending on how good your other five top six forwards are.

If we forget about his playoffs, it's lack of toughness that bothered Ducks fans. It's a common fact on HF that Ducks fans require far more toughness than any other fanbase on here. Simply because of our cup win, a team with plenty of grit. EC has far more skill and upside than Andrew Ebbett btw.

I'm not saying the trade was good. But if the EC trade is the worst Murray has done? Well then he hasn't pulled off any extremely awful one's. In 90% of all trades, if you look back a year after, the trade will look bad for one of the teams involved. That's why it's pointless to still go on about a trade that isn't even among the worse the Ducks has done since the lockout.

I feel comfortable in Murray as far as trading goes. At least I don't have to worry about the Ducks getting overly robbed. His signings on the UFA market are more of a concern to me. But at least we don't have to give up any assets there.

People seem to forget that Burke had the luxury of having Getzlaf, Perry, Penner, Beauchemin, Pahlsson, McDonald and Kunitz at bargain prizes. It's not Murray that made us less competitive, it's the way it goes with the salary cap. I'm pretty happy with the current situation. The Ducks are in a good situation to compete for the playoffs next season depending on this offseason and the future is looking bright.


Last edited by Elvs: 06-12-2010 at 06:09 AM.
Elvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 06:07 AM
  #32
Finnpin
Registered User
 
Finnpin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Helsinki
Country: Finland
Posts: 10,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
People seem to forget that Burke had the luxury of having Getzlaf, Perry, Penner, Beauchemin, Pahlsson, McDonald and Kunitz at bargain prices. It's not Murray that made us less competitive, it's the way it goes with the salary cap.
Yeah and you could compare it to the situation Blackhawks are facing atm...though they are in trouble just quicker.

Finnpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 06:43 AM
  #33
Talentless Practise*
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
Not being physical isn't any guarantee to not work out in the Ducks system. And I know a lot of Pens fans were happy with him. Glimpsies of promise? 9 points in 17 games his first season with Anaheim is like 45 points in 82 games. Those are better than both Morrison and Weight. 45 points is ok for a 2nd line center depending on how good your other five top six forwards are.
9 in 17 is not like 45 in 82 when a guys career-high is 33 points from years ago.. Ebbet had 32 in 48, which is 55 point pace. Did we get a 2nd rounder for him? No, we got zilch because GMs know these types of guys don't make for success in this league. Waiver-wire stopgaps they are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
If we forget about his playoffs, it's lack of toughness that bothered Ducks fans. It's a common fact on HF that Ducks fans require far more toughness than any other fanbase on here. Simply because of our cup win, a team with plenty of grit.
I'd say it was his lack of effectiveness that bothered Ducks fans as well as Thrashers fans and Penguins fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
EC has far more skill and upside than Andrew Ebbett btw.
Based on? For him to have any upside left at all he'd have to learn to compete on the ice, hustle in traffic. He needs things that most prospects already have when they get their first taste of pro hockey. He does not have it. The guy turns 27, is already on his fourth team in a short period of time and has a career high of 33 points. He isn't just going to figure it out.


Last edited by Talentless Practise*: 06-12-2010 at 06:59 AM.
Talentless Practise* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 07:24 AM
  #34
Elvs
Registered User
 
Elvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pitea
Country: Sweden
Posts: 7,160
vCash: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Clueless View Post
Based on? For him to have any upside left at all he'd have to learn to compete on the ice, hustle in traffic. He needs things that most prospects already have when they get their first taste of pro hockey. He does not have it. The guy turns 27, is already on his fourth team in a short period of time and has a career high of 33 points. He isn't just going to figure it out.
Based on passing, shooting, penatly shots, faceoffs, puck control and stick handling. Also based on the fact that Ebbett first reached the NHL at EC's current age and that he's barely a 20 point player in a full season. He's pretty much a Ryan Shannon.

I never said EC can carry a line. But 26 points in his last 41 games, playing his natural position, playing with linemates that can actually put the puck in the net, and approaching his prime as far as age goes, I can surely see him capable of putting up 40-50 points next season if he's given the opportunity. Although, I sure agree that there are players more trustable of putting up those kind of points.

And what's the point saying he only has a 33 point high season when he missed 20 games. Is he gonna be a good 2nd player overall? Not really. But able to put up 40 points? In a fitting system with good chemistry, yes imo.

The trade wasn't good. At this point, I'd certainly say the trade is quite awful given the outcome of EC in the playoffs. But until we know what O'Dell turns into, I don't see it as horrible. Murray took a gamble, but not a huge one as some make it out to be. If GM's we're fired over trades like this one, then they'd all be fired.

Edit: also based on that EC played injured in Atlanta and came off surgery early this season.


Last edited by Elvs: 06-12-2010 at 07:35 AM.
Elvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 08:10 AM
  #35
Talentless Practise*
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
Based on passing, shooting, penatly shots, faceoffs, puck control and stick handling.
All of those things amount to less than the sum of the parts when he doesn't compete. He isn't as skilled as a guy like Huselius who can get away with playing a similar style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
I never said EC can carry a line. But 26 points in his last 41 games, playing his natural position, playing with linemates that can actually put the puck in the net, and approaching his prime as far as age goes, I can surely see him capable of putting up 40-50 points next season if he's given the opportunity. Although, I sure agree that there are players more trustable of putting up those kind of points.
26 in 49 centering Marian Gaborik on many occasion. Is 40-50 points good enough from your #1 center playing with Gaborik? Hell no it isn't and you can bet your shirt (and mine) EC will not be occupying that position next season. I think Ryan Carter could get 30+ points playing there while bringing a physical game and defensive work-ethic. Will EC get 40-50 playing with Ryan Callahan? Hardly. A competitive team can't have leeches on its top forward units, we found this out with Ebbett. EC can be a stopgap on a team with putrid offensive depth like the Rangers but never on a contender. And that is why he doesn't have anything close to a 2nd rounder value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
And what's the point saying he only has a 33 point high season when he missed 20 games.
His career high is 33. He's played 5 seasons in the NHL now and has never exceeded 64 games played. That is not a good thing and doesn't get him the on-pace benefit in my book.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvstrand View Post
The trade wasn't good. At this point, I'd certainly say the trade is quite awful given the outcome of EC in the playoffs. But until we know what O'Dell turns into, I don't see it as horrible.
This is a bit weird. Picks and prospects have asset value based on what the player could become, not what he eventually ends up being. Trading a 4th rounder for Chip was a good value trade regardless of who that 4th rounder ends up being. My grief has always been EC's value wasn't close to the value Murph gave.

Obviously it's not a job threatening trade for Murph (i'll stand by that even if O'Dell becomes a good NHL'er) but it's not a good practise to get into, either. Which neatly brings us full circle from page 1.

------------------

There's going to be a lot of eye-rolling when our North-american friends wake up and read this argument .

Talentless Practise* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 08:34 AM
  #36
Elvs
Registered User
 
Elvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pitea
Country: Sweden
Posts: 7,160
vCash: 708
Quote:
All of those things amount to less than the sum of the parts when he doesn't compete. He isn't as skilled as a guy like Huselius who can get away with playing a similar style.
I was thinking of Huselius as well. As a Swede, I've seen him plenty, and they are sharing the same history to an extent. I think it was back in 05/06 he was on waivers, and I thought we should have picked him up back then because I remember we could use a 50-60 point winger for cheap back at the time. He didn't get a serious chance in Florida, and look what happened when he came to the Flames and got to play with Langkow and Iginla.

Christensen actually has a harder shot than Huselius and can set up his linemates just as good. What Huselius has over EC is shot accuracy, but mainly that he's better at holding onto the puck. Even if EC only plays with Gaborik on a few occasions next year, I can see him getting to 40 points with Dubinsky, Callahan and Prospal or whoever on his wings. Huselius wouldn't exactly be a guy putting up 77 points with those guys either.

Again, in the right system and with some chemistry I think he can do it. And the Rangers seem like a good fit thus far. Point is, people go on about many of our players being useless hockey players, just because they don't fit our system and we don't like their style of play.

Is he a 2nd line player on a cup contending team? No way. Is he a 2nd line player in bottom 5 team? Pretty much. Can he be a 2nd line center on a team contending for a playoff spot? Yes imo, depending on the other players. Afterall, the Rangers was just a penalty shot away from the playoffs this year.

I really have no idea how this turned into an EC thread whatsoever. Point was that many are to hard on Murray imo considering how the cap system works and the situation he was given when he took over from Burke.

Elvs 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 08:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.