Sadly I feel like this reasoning is sound and I'm very scared that PV won't add to the D.
As for my 2 cents, I think we keep and who we let go very much depends on who PV thinks he can get this summer and that IMO starts with the draft lottery. If we win and actually get first I don't think he adds a forward. If we land anywhere else I think he moves forward with who ever we draft with the assumption that they won't be on the team next year. I think if we add a Roy or Pesce they would fill the elevated role of Lindstrom. Pushing him to a #7. From there who does The new guy play with Fowler or Minty? If it's Fowler it likely pushes Zell to the 3rd pair RD with either Vaaks or lacomb. If they like Fowler-Zell then the new guy plays with Minty which pushes Gudas to the bottom pairing. I think this distinction determines which you keep. Keeping both Vaaks and Lacomb allows for more flexibility in those pairings. Which I think spells the end if Lindstrom. Unless they go 8 D.
Your scenario doesn't have Luneau in the picture. Verbeek said at the Migration event that Luneau would be in the NHL picture. If Luneau is healthy, then Verbeek will put Luneau into the NHL b/c of the investment he put into Luneau this year and keeps in-line with the shortening the rebuild.
If we do sign a Roy or Pesce, then there's no need to keep Lindstrom.
I think Verbeek is running into danger here with rotating youths, even with adding a FA d-man for Lindstrom.
We will only have two years left with Fowler and Gudas after this season. We have to replace these two defensemen. It took Vaak and Lindstrom to start showing up at age 25, but that just happened and it is not a long enough sample to be considered established NHL talent. Our best D prospects are the ones we've already seen at the NHL level in Minty, Zell, Luneau, and LaCombe. Yet those youths aren't NHL established yet.
Keeping all eight (keeping Lindstrom instead of a FA for this thought exercise) at the NHL level for a year is going to affect four young defensemen as they will be rotating into the lineup. It is possible to put Zell in the AHL next year to continue to develop his defense, but it feels doubtful. It is possible to put LaCombe into the AHL next year, but he cannot play more than a total of 70 NHL games to retain waiver exemption; currently, LaCombe has logged a total of 67 games (2 last year and 65 this year). Anaheim has six more games left to the season.
Verbeek could put Luneau into the AHL next season to relieve some of the clog, but it would put the rebuild behind with respect to Luneau's progression as well as identify the mismanagement of Luneau.
There will be some teams that will probably snatch up Vaak and Lindstrom if they are waived due to their improvement this season with the Ducks. Teams with a tight budget could snatch up one of these two with the added factor the contract is cheap like a Josh Mahura. (Though I like Vaak and Lindstrom better than Mahura.)
Another possibility that could occur would be moving on from one or both of Fowler and Gudas after next season, a year earlier than their contracted term.
TBH, there's just too many factors going on with the blueline right now that going after a FA d-man doesn't make sense. Then again, I've already sold myself to wait about five years when Verbeek reset the rebuild. We're only in year two of the reset.
