Speculation: 2021-22 Trade Thread VI : Who's your Dadonov?

[tomd]

I was only replying to the 32 thoughts post. It is far from a dead horse. But I'm happy to discuss anything you actually disagree with in my post. That would be more constructive than an 18th century illustration.

 

[dracom]

The Gibson situation is really all in Verbeek's hands at this point. Only Verbeek knows his timeline for the team's rebuild. If it conflicts with Gibson's expectations of a quick rebuild (Doughty style) then obviously Verbeek has to move him this summer.

IMO, it's going to be a shame if we hold on to Gibson one year too long rather than moving him when his value is at its highest (which is now). Murray did the same thing with Manson and Rakell and most likely lost out on a pair of 1st rounders. If the Ducks have another bad year in 22-23 (which is almost guaranteed) then Gibson's value only falls further. Another .904 save percentage year could lower his value to the point where no team will offer anything meaningful and will expect significant retention if they do.

if that were to happen then we would just keep Gibson. he's not blocking anyone's path right now, Dostal isn't gonna be ready for several more years. we're not in a cap crunch either.

 

[tomd]

if that were to happen then we would just keep Gibson. he's not blocking anyone's path right now, Dostal isn't gonna be ready for several more years. we're not in a cap crunch either.

I guess that assumes Verbeek would be planning an Arte Moreno style quick return to being a competitive playoff team. That is a valid approach but I'm very skeptical it could be pulled off in the next 1-2 years.

 

[DavidBL]

You should stop projecting an extreme outcome as your counters:

1. "I just don't think it will be the sole avenue...​

2. ... nor do I think its limited by where the team is if the right deals are there."​

Let's address point 2. Earlier in the thread, someone asked if teams in rebuilds would make trades for significant talent. Using Murray and the Ducks' rebuild starting at the 2019 TDL as an example, we tried to acquire RHD Justin Faulk in a trade in the 2019 off-season and tried to trade for C Pierre-Luc Dubios using futures. The context there was the Ducks had established veterans on the team, not plugs.

This brings us to point 1. From 2018-19 TDL, Murray didn't add any significant talent. Although he did try to go after the very top-end talent in Faulk and PLD, Murray's other option was to not to use prospect or draft assets for middling talents. By essentially sitting on his hands, he was letting his youth get NHL burn and he lands better prospects because we had no NHL depth if injuries hit us. Result:

Ducks Draft picks​

2019: 9th overall = C Zegras​

2020: 6th overall = D Drysdale​

2021: 3rd overall = C McTavish​

Those three picks are going to be the pillars for the next Ducks hockey era. Murray went solely drafting when the option to acquire top talents didn't work out.

Verbeek doesn't need to use all his draft picks since Murray laid down the foundation, but Verbeek does have a specific rubric for his team of the future. One of Verbeek's rules is age factor and his youth core, imo, revolves around the ages of Zegras, Drysdale, and McTavish.

I have been advocating trying to trade for D Haydn Fluery or D Nicolas Hague as they would not be costly acquisitions and fit our youth core time line. Fluery could be had for a fifth rd or later pick or swap with Steel. Hague could be had in salary dump trade or offer sheet will cost the Ducks only a 2nd round b/c VGK can't afford to re-sign him with their current cap concerns.

Anyhow, why are you so adamant about NOT revealing your plan in detail that a poster asked of you? You pivot to project extremes of building through the draft to change the direction of the conversation? Just give the poster his answer instead of being afraid of criticism while criticizing everyone else.

...


You're projecting again on the organization's ability to have imagination and are constrained with trying to draft potential hockey players.

The Hockey News' 2022 Future Watch has a five year snapshot of farm team rankings.

Anaheim Ducks' 5-year farm team ranking (THN)

2018: 20th​

2019: 21st​

2020: 14th​

2021: 4th​

2022: 1st​

Anaheim's top-10 prospects:

1. C McTavish (2021, Rd 1)​

2. G Dostal (2018, Rd 3)​

3. LD/RD Zellweger (2021, Rd 2)​

4. RW Perreault (2020, Rd 1... 27th OA)​

5. RD Helleson (2019, Rd 2... acquired at 2021-22 TDL)​

6. LW Tracey (2019, Rd1... 29th OA)​

7. LD/RD LaCombe (2019, Rd 2)​

8. RW Pastujov (2021, Rd 3)​

9. LD Thrun (2019, Rd 4)​

10. RD Moore (2020, Rd 3)​

Not included in that list Zegras (2019, Rd 1... 9th OA) and Drysdale (2020, Rd 1... 6th OA). The other youth cores are Terry (2015, Rd 5) and Lundestrom (2018, Rd 1... 23rd OA).

How can a GM help himself build through the draft aside from great scouting? Adding more draft picks is a sound strategy b/c the draft is still a gamble. Murray added a second 1st round draft pick in 2019 and 2020, which both are part of the top-10 prospects above. Verbeek added a second 1st round pick and a second 2nd round draft pick for the 2022 draft. He also added two more second round picks in 2023.

Please note the many different rounds represented in the 2022 top-10 prospects on the #1 farm team for The Hockey News' Future Watch. Our best player on the NHL team today is a 5th round pick in Troy Terry.

Eventually, the goal is to have a team full of NHL talent, some talents developing in the AHL, and longer term prospects. When that happens, then Verbeek can start trading prospects and/or picks for top-end talents like Murray did to acquire Kesler.

Anyhow, here's a quote from Verbeek when he was hired by the Ducks:

"We studied successful teams, then we found our own way to do it," Verbeek said. "In Tampa, we were fortunate because we had [Steven] Stamkos and [Victor] Hedman, two major pieces we could build around. That was a big advantage. We wanted draft picks. We wanted to throw as many darts at the board as we could. Then we need to make sure players develop. Those go hand-in-hand if you're going to build a team that can win in the cap era."​

Honestly, I'm not sure if what I think I am saying and you think you're saying is very different. At this point you've completely lost me. What point are you trying to make?

 

[FiveHoleTickler]

I was only replying to the 32 thoughts post. It is far from a dead horse. But I'm happy to discuss anything you actually disagree with in my post. That would be more constructive than an 18th century illustration.

I don't know, I think 18th century illustrations can be quite constructive especially given the context of our previous conversation. It is understood you will misinterpret things in a peculiar attempt to convince us Gibson should be traded. Hence the illustration.

Also, I don't think gifs were around in the 18th century.

 

[DavidBL]

Neither, but I would say A. A probably has more value, but losing a top defensive prospect is less painful when it is for a guy like Chychrun.

Comtois+Perreault+22nd is where I would get onboard.

These were my thoughts as well. Zell is less important when you add Chychrun. Of course is Zell the Fowler replacement In a few years? From a depth perspective I think we have more D to trade away from.

 

[tomd]

I don't know, I think 18th century illustrations can be quite constructive especially given the context of our previous conversation. It is understood you will misinterpret things in a peculiar attempt to convince us Gibson should be traded. Hence the illustration.

Also, I don't think gifs were around in the 18th century.

What have I misunderstood exactly? When the Gibson tweet about requesting a trade came out a couple of days ago I didn't post "see, I told you so!". No, I stayed away from the discussion until after the denial came out. And Gibson's response is irrelevant except for his 10 team trade list. This is Verbeek's decision pure and simple. And to date - unless I have missed a quote from him - we've heard nothing one way or the other from PV. Until Verbeek says "we're keeping Gibson" the horse is very much alive and kicking.

 

[Duck Off]

The Gibson situation is really all in Verbeek's hands at this point. Only Verbeek knows his timeline for the team's rebuild. If it conflicts with Gibson's expectations of a quick rebuild (Doughty style) then obviously Verbeek has to move him this summer.

IMO, it's going to be a shame if we hold on to Gibson one year too long rather than moving him when his value is at its highest (which is now). Murray did the same thing with Manson and Rakell and most likely lost out on a pair of 1st rounders. If the Ducks have another bad year in 22-23 (which is almost guaranteed) then Gibson's value only falls further. Another .904 save percentage year could lower his value to the point where no team will offer anything meaningful and will expect significant retention if they do.

I disagree with the bold, but agree with the overall thought of this post. Like you said, much depends on the vision PV has. If he's truthfully still tearing the roster down (which I don't think he is), than Gibson should be moved this offseason. Even if he's starting the process for improving the team for the long term, it should still be considered IMO. Just not as dire to move him.

 

[mighty Stanley Duck]

There is so much trade talk regarding Gibby its best to let him go.

He seems like a cool guy, but don't think there is future for him in our organization.

Which is sad, because if he was what we hoped for, we would be better team, now and for the next 5,6 years...

 

[Paul4587]

Agree with this, I just don’t think it’s worth giving up Comtois for.

I don’t think he’s worth giving up anything for, he would be a cap dump which I would hope to get a small amount of compensation for taking.

Sorry for crashing. It’s the doldrums before the draft so I hope it’s okay to toss in a random conversation starter. Hopefully it’s not too annoying.

Gun to your head; you MUST trade one of the following for Jakob Chychrun:

Pick one:

A: Comtois+Zellweger+22nd
B: Comtois+Perreault+10th

^ I’m sure many of you would say neither. But I’m curious which package is least offensive.

And I’d you’re angry I’m here, blame 32 Thoughts. They resuscitated the Chychrun to Anaheim speculation on the last podcast.

The first easily.

 

[FiveHoleTickler]

What have I misunderstood exactly? When the Gibson tweet about requesting a trade came out a couple of days ago I didn't post "see, I told you so!". No, I stayed away from the discussion until after the denial came out. And Gibson's response is irrelevant except for his 10 team trade list. This is Verbeek's decision pure and simple. And to date - unless I have missed a quote from him - we've heard nothing one way or the other from PV. Until Verbeek says "we're keeping Gibson" the horse is very much alive and kicking.

I really don't care to rehash in detail because again, it's a dead horse, but you tried to convince us just yesterday before Gibson's public comments that he should be traded because he doesn't want to be here. You used his body language as your reasoning and I questioned that thoroughly and tried to explain to you that I thought you were reading too much into it.

Then Gibson made his public comments saying there was no truth to the rumor that he was ok with being moved

I am oversimplifying for the sake of brevity because it's getting tiresome trying to readdress your points as you continually move the goalposts.

I don't think people should be given any credit for not saying "see, I told you so!" especially when evidence comes out afterwards and proves otherwise. You stayed away from the discussion because Gibson's statements contradicted your reasoning for wanting him to be traded.

Now that Gibson has stated he wants to stay, you are trying to find another angle to convince yourself (and us) why he should be traded. This is you beating a dead horse. I find that calling you out on that is fairly constructive, despite your objection.

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you didn't have any other reasons as to why you're saying Gibson should be traded. I'm just saying one of the reasons why you said he should be traded was completely wrong and you seem to be trying to sweep it under the rug.

 

[tomd]

I really don't care to rehash in detail because again, it's a dead horse, but you tried to convince us just yesterday before Gibson's public comments that he should be traded because he doesn't want to be here. You used his body language as your reasoning and I questioned that thoroughly and tried to explain to you that I thought you were reading too much into it.

Then Gibson made his public comments saying there was no truth to the rumor that he was ok with being moved

I am oversimplifying for the sake of brevity because it's getting tiresome trying to readdress your points as you continually move the goalposts.

I don't think people should be given any credit for not saying "see, I told you so!" especially when evidence comes out afterwards and proves otherwise. You stayed away from the discussion because Gibson's statements contradicted your reasoning for wanting him to be traded.

Now that Gibson has stated he wants to stay, you are trying to find another angle to convince yourself (and us) why he should be traded. This is you beating a dead horse. I find that calling you out on that is fairly constructive, despite your objection.

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you didn't have any other reasons as to why you're saying Gibson should be traded. I'm just saying one of the reasons why you said he should be traded was completely wrong and you seem to be trying to sweep it under the rug.

I'm reposting the relevant part of the 32 thoughts comment:

"To summarize, he says Gibson wants to win but Elliotte figures it mostly boils down to whether they're on the way up, which he thinks Gibson can live with, or whether it's a 5 year rebuild and maybe he can't wait any longer."

I believe this accurately reflects Gibson's feelings. He hates losing. He does NOT want to go thru a multi-year rebuild. If the team can start being competitive soon then he'd like to stay. Can you at least agree on that?

So then it simply boils down to Verbeek's intentions. If this is a multi-year rebuild then it must be pretty obvious to Verbeek that the best move is to trade Gibson this summer. But we don't know what Verbeek will do because we don't know what Verbeek's rebuild plan is.

So yes, I believe that Gibson will be wearing another team's jersey in October and I've explained why. You believe he will stay and you've explained why. One of us will be wrong.

We have 3 weeks left of speculation about the direction of the roster. If you can't handle the intensity of the discussion or any opinion that deviates from your own, I suggest you either take a little vacation from HF or start blocking people you don't agree with.

 

[KyleJRM]

Holding on to Gibson a year too long passed a couple of years ago

 

[Leonardo87]

Dadonov to Montreal for Weber contract. Get bent, Vegas! Lol.

 

[All Mighty]

Oh so Dadonov wasn’t willing to go to Anaheim, but he is willing to go to one of the only teams that was worse than us that also has high taxes.

 

[DavidBL]

Dadonov to Montreal for Weber contract. Get bent, Vegas! Lol.

That will be fun to navigate.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Oh so Dadonov wasn’t willing to go to Anaheim, but he is willing to go to one of the only teams that was worse than us that also has high taxes.

Thats why I never bought it being solely about taxes. He signed that deal with a Canadian team and either didn't have another Canadian city on his list or happily waived to go there.

Either way, great move by Montreal and a desperate one by Vegas.

 

[Duck Off]

love seeing Vegas get buttf***ed in a trade.

Also, let's get this out there now: Do we discuss other teams trades and moves in this thread or the around the league one?

 

[Leonardo87]

That will be fun to navigate.

It was fun watching Vegas try to pull a Tampa, only to miss the playoffs completely. No love lost for that team. Lol.

 

[bsu]

Oh so Dadonov wasn’t willing to go to Anaheim, but he is willing to go to one of the only teams that was worse than us that also has high taxes.

Lmfao so much this. He f***ed himself

 

[DavidBL]

Oh so Dadonov wasn’t willing to go to Anaheim, but he is willing to go to one of the only teams that was worse than us that also has high taxes.

When his list was submitted mtl probably wasn't bad. I wo Der if they were able to use an old list before a new one could be submitted.

 

[Kalv]

Leaked conversation between Montreal and Dadonov after the Anaheim trade went south:

 

[DavidBL]

Leaked conversation between Montreal and Dadonov after the Anaheim trade went south:

View attachment 559373

Not even sure what I'm looking at.

 

[All Mighty]

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Holding on to Gibson a year too long passed a couple of years ago

As the old saying goes...it's better to move a guy a year early than a year late...unfortunately we had a GM who was not proactive, and frankly delusional about the state of the team and Gibsons value is alot lower from playing behind a God awful team for 3+ years