Speculation: 2023-24 Roster Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr Rogers

Registered User
Jul 11, 2010
20,916
10,519
Calgary
I'm sure whatever decision that's made regarding when the guy will play in the NHL will be the right one.

One thing that Verbeek has been adamant about is not rushing guys, it's definitely a change from the Murray era. Verbeek mentioned that last week as well. So i'm sure if the guy is in the league next year, it'll be because they truly feel like it isn't too soon.
 

Gliff

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2011
16,488
11,866
Middle Tennessee
Why do you assume ducks will be a bottom team next year? I think with the right coach and some decent free agent signings.. Along with a healthy full year of drysdale, Lacome.. Fowler.. We might make a push..
How much better do you think the team will be?

10%?
20%?
30%?
Lets go with 20%.


Here is what the Ducks look like a 20% improvement across the board:
Points: 70 - Tied for 27th
Goal differential: -75 - Tied for 28th
Goals (10% increase): 227 - Tied for 26th
Goals against (10% decrease): 302 - 29th
PP%: 18.84% - 25th
PK%: 77.68 - 19th

Where are we seeing this huge jump? 20% is a lot to improve in 1 year, especially when most of our top prospect will not be making the jump. And even with 20% we are forsure a bottom 10 team in the NHL. Actually closer to bottom 5 now that I look at it.

MacKinnon
Matthews
Eichel


All had over 60 points in their D+1 in the NHL and all were about the level Fantili is

Comparing players like Byfield and Kotkaniemi to Fantili seems a bit out of whack

And the thing about it is Byfield wasn’t rushed even. The Kings were patient with him

He just isn’t any good


Jack Hughes another example of a player of that caliber jumping straight to the NHL and handling it fine

Talent wins out
MacKinnon didn't have a choice. It was either NHL or CHL, so thats a no brainer.
Matthews and Eichel had good rookie years and are obviously the examples of it working out.

I'm not sure how you think Hughes is an example of going straight to the NHL being a good thing. He had 21 points in 61 games in his rookie year and 31 in 56 in his second season. Thats a 36 point pace in his first 2 seasons over an 82 game season... That's not great. If Fantilli had 36 points next year in the NHL I would consider that a failure.

And for every good example there are bad examples. Lafreniere and Kakko. Not to mention the dozens of examples of high picks that didnt go straight to the NHL and adjusted perfectly, while you can't find one that had their development hampered by spending a year in the AHL.. In the end there is no risk in having him spend a year in the AHL.
 

CrazyDuck4u

Registered User
Oct 14, 2006
7,018
4,090
How much better do you think the team will be?

10%?
20%?
30%?
Lets go with 20%.


Here is what the Ducks look like a 20% improvement across the board:
Points: 70 - Tied for 27th
Goal differential: -75 - Tied for 28th
Goals (10% increase): 227 - Tied for 26th
Goals against (10% decrease): 302 - 29th
PP%: 18.84% - 25th
PK%: 77.68 - 19th

Where are we seeing this huge jump? 20% is a lot to improve in 1 year, especially when most of our top prospect will not be making the jump. And even with 20% we are forsure a bottom 10 team in the NHL. Actually closer to bottom 5 now that I look at it.


MacKinnon didn't have a choice. It was either NHL or CHL, so thats a no brainer.
Matthews and Eichel had good rookie years and are obviously the examples of it working out.

I'm not sure how you think Hughes is an example of going straight to the NHL being a good thing. He had 21 points in 61 games in his rookie year and 31 in 56 in his second season. Thats a 36 point pace in his first 2 seasons over an 82 game season... That's not great. If Fantilli had 36 points next year in the NHL I would consider that a failure.

And for every good example there are bad examples. Lafreniere and Kakko. Not to mention the dozens of examples of high picks that didnt go straight to the NHL and adjusted perfectly, while you can't find one that had their development hampered by spending a year in the AHL.. In the end there is no risk in having him spend a year in the AHL.
I honestly think this team completely underachieved the first part of the season.. And that was all due to coaching and Drysdale getting hurt.. Thats when Verbeek decided to mail it in and let eakins tank for him... You may be right.. But I think a new voice will bring these guys a much needed confidence boost.. They need to learn to defend as a unit.. That will win them games

Tim Stuezle was “rushed” to the NHL at 18 and is a 90+ point player 3 years later
Some players have IT.. and some dont..
 

robbieboy3686

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
3,326
2,242
I honestly think this team completely underachieved the first part of the season.. And that was all due to coaching and Drysdale getting hurt.. Thats when Verbeek decided to mail it in and let eakins tank for him... You may be right.. But I think a new voice will bring these guys a much needed confidence boost.. They need to learn to defend as a unit.. That will win them games
Imagine if we bring in a couple of larger more physical players, especially one to play with zegras. How much more confidence and swag zegras can play with, knowing he won’t get clobbered. New head coach that’s sharp , and allows our players to chirp back and be swaggy and aggro( you could tell eakins tried to play it cool and tell his guys that, and that’s ok if you’re one of the best teams and your a proven coach) but when you’re eakins and with our lack of talent and size. I’m sure that turn the cheek and walk away gets fing annoying really fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckRogers10

BuiumSaveUs

Danila Yurov Fan Club Executive Assistant
May 2, 2018
19,170
12,078
I get the rationale for wanting to Keep Carlsson/Fantilli from a bad situation, but in Fantilli’s case I would absolutely play him in the NHL, and I think he will have an immediate impact. Carlsson I’d send back for a year. He creates separation more with his skill than his skating and that tends to be a tough transition for young players. But regarding the team next year, I think a new coach that instills actual defensive structure in his team, along with acquiring some more quality defensman and internal growth from young players could make this team relatively competitive. I’m not saying they’ll be a playoff team, but they can certainly play with better teams, whereas this year that was not the case. You’ll also find that competent defense will make Gibson look like a great goalie again which is the fastest way to increase the W column.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoCal Dreaming

CrazyDuck4u

Registered User
Oct 14, 2006
7,018
4,090
Imagine if we bring in a couple of larger more physical players, especially one to play with zegras. How much more confidence and swag zegras can play with, knowing he won’t get clobbered. New head coach that’s sharp , and allows our players to chirp back and be swaggy and aggro( you could tell eakins tried to play it cool and tell his guys that, and that’s ok if you’re one of the best teams and your a proven coach) but when you’re eakins and with our lack of talent and size. I’m sure that turn the cheek and walk away gets fing annoying really fast.
For sure...
 
  • Like
Reactions: robbieboy3686

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,253
4,276
Orange, CA
How much better do you think the team will be?

10%?
20%?
30%?
Lets go with 20%.


Here is what the Ducks look like a 20% improvement across the board:
Points: 70 - Tied for 27th
Goal differential: -75 - Tied for 28th
Goals (10% increase): 227 - Tied for 26th
Goals against (10% decrease): 302 - 29th
PP%: 18.84% - 25th
PK%: 77.68 - 19th

Where are we seeing this huge jump? 20% is a lot to improve in 1 year, especially when most of our top prospect will not be making the jump. And even with 20% we are forsure a bottom 10 team in the NHL. Actually closer to bottom 5 now that I look at it.


MacKinnon didn't have a choice. It was either NHL or CHL, so thats a no brainer.
Matthews and Eichel had good rookie years and are obviously the examples of it working out.

I'm not sure how you think Hughes is an example of going straight to the NHL being a good thing. He had 21 points in 61 games in his rookie year and 31 in 56 in his second season. Thats a 36 point pace in his first 2 seasons over an 82 game season... That's not great. If Fantilli had 36 points next year in the NHL I would consider that a failure.

And for every good example there are bad examples. Lafreniere and Kakko. Not to mention the dozens of examples of high picks that didnt go straight to the NHL and adjusted perfectly, while you can't find one that had their development hampered by spending a year in the AHL.. In the end there is no risk in having him spend a year in the AHL.
This seems like a pretty arbitrary way to gauge next season. For instance Seatle had a 37% lift in standings points. NJ was nearly 78% there is so much that goes into what makes a team successful and bad that it's really WAY to early to even begin to suggest where we might land next year.
For instance adding a guy like one of the top 3 could result in the generation of what 30-40 more goals? Speaking simply that's the difference of adding a 40-50 pt player into the roster over a 10-20 pt player we have. Pk% how many more goals do we stop with an average PK. What about the trickle effect of being better structured leading to more offense which also leads to less penalties? There is so many inputs we don't know it's impossible to predict the outputs.
 
Last edited:

AngelDuck

Rak 'em up
Jun 16, 2012
23,729
18,141
How much better do you think the team will be?

10%?
20%?
30%?
Lets go with 20%.


Here is what the Ducks look like a 20% improvement across the board:
Points: 70 - Tied for 27th
Goal differential: -75 - Tied for 28th
Goals (10% increase): 227 - Tied for 26th
Goals against (10% decrease): 302 - 29th
PP%: 18.84% - 25th
PK%: 77.68 - 19th

Where are we seeing this huge jump? 20% is a lot to improve in 1 year, especially when most of our top prospect will not be making the jump. And even with 20% we are forsure a bottom 10 team in the NHL. Actually closer to bottom 5 now that I look at it.


MacKinnon didn't have a choice. It was either NHL or CHL, so thats a no brainer.
Matthews and Eichel had good rookie years and are obviously the examples of it working out.

I'm not sure how you think Hughes is an example of going straight to the NHL being a good thing. He had 21 points in 61 games in his rookie year and 31 in 56 in his second season. Thats a 36 point pace in his first 2 seasons over an 82 game season... That's not great. If Fantilli had 36 points next year in the NHL I would consider that a failure.

And for every good example there are bad examples. Lafreniere and Kakko. Not to mention the dozens of examples of high picks that didnt go straight to the NHL and adjusted perfectly, while you can't find one that had their development hampered by spending a year in the AHL.. In the end there is no risk in having him spend a year in the AHL.
It’s not a failure for Hughes whatsoever because it had zero negative effect on what he became in the near future. Your whole argument is that Fantili being in the NHL next season could possibly stunt his development. It didn’t with Hughes (he’s a 100 point player at 21)Or MacKinnon. Or Eichel. Or Matthews. Or Barkov. Or Stuezle

These are direct comparable for Fantillis level

I could keep going.

There’s no risk in him going to the AHL but I also see no realistic risk with him being in the NHL. He’s a different caliber player than we’re used to

Kakko and Lafreniere don’t skate well enough to be stars. And I said that about Kakko in his draft year. There were people on this sub that preferred him to Hughes - the kid doesn’t possess the raw athleticism for that though.

Going to the NHL isn’t likely what held those guys back
 

goonsaredumb

Registered User
Sep 30, 2022
781
1,516
It’s not a failure for Hughes whatsoever because it had zero negative effect on what he became in the near future. Your whole argument is that Fantili being in the NHL next season could possibly stunt his development. It didn’t with Hughes (he’s a 100 point player at 21)Or MacKinnon. Or Eichel. Or Matthews. Or Barkov. Or Stuezle
Also worth noting Hughes main problem was he was still physically undersized and had pretty much no experience playing against men going into his first season, he came straight from the USHL, Fantilli has a much more NHL-ready frame and is coming off a dominant freshman season in the NCAA.

And also for the Kakko and Lafreniere examples he brings up, those two guys had their developments hindered by being buried deep in a stacked Rangers lineup, something that's not going to be a concern on this Ducks team.

Fantilli's closest comparable not necessarily playstyle-wise but just as far as how developed he is physically and as a player is Jack Eichel and he came into the league immediately and thrived
 

Deuce22

Registered User
Jun 17, 2013
5,944
8,417
SoCal & Idaho
So Zegras puts up back to back 60+ point seasons, which nobody in his draft did that, and on a shitty Ducks team....no make that historically bad Ducks team, with bad coaching, a poor system, and no depth. Yet he is overrated?

Ducks fans don't even call him the Ducks best player, Terry has been, and yet he is overhyped by our fanbase? Give me a break. lol
Yet many credit Eakins with doing a great job of developing him. I think there is a better argument that Eakins "system" actually held him back.
 

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,587
2,718
Wow, you got a lot of logical falseness in your rebuttal.

1. Better skater lie.

You stated that Drysdale is a "far superior skater". I responded with "that gap isn't far superior". Then your rebuttal is, "And even if everyone was impressed, that doesn't mean he's a better skater than Drysdale."

People can follow this thread, you know.

scary-movie-shawn-wayans.gif


2. "No one has ever said anything close to that about LaCombe." illogicalness.

That article you've cited is AFTER his first season in the NHL, playing 24 games. LaCombe hasn't had a season in the NHL or 24 NHL games . Can't really compare apples to apples here. I was impressed with Drysdale's first half of NHL games that year, but then he faded for the rest of the season.
Drysdale​
2020-21​
Game Set​
Games​
G​
A​
Pts​
Plus/Minus​
First 11​
11​
2​
3​
5​
-2​
Last 13​
13​
1​
2​
3​
-10​

Maybe we're watching different dimensions of Drysdale's games in the NHL.

But I'll entertain this farce. Here is GM Verbeek on LaCombe on a Dec 1, 2022 NHL.com article:

With [Lacombe], the college game is really easy for him. I mean, he's an excellent skater. He's moving up the ice, but no one can catch him. That's how strong a skater he is.

Here's a quote from coach Eakins, the same Eakins that you referenced about Drysdale's skating, talking about LaCombe before his debut as a Duck:

"He's [LaCombe] an excellent skater. He's got great posture on the ice. His head is always up. He passes the puck extremely hard, doesn't really complicate much. The skating part of it, especially on defense the way you have to play the game, that is certainly going to help him."


giphy.gif


3. How is Drysdale a better player?

- Year 1 in NHL: In only 24 NHL games, Drysdale faded in the last 13 games. CF% = 45.7%
- Year 2 in NHL: Owned the worst plus/minus on the team with -26. His d-pair, Lindholm, was a +0 rating. CF% = 50.8%, which is good!
- Year 3 in NHL: Played only 8 games. CF% = 41.0%. That's worse than his first season! Maybe his D-partner, Lindholm, may have helped some last year.


Here's an OCR article on Drysdale's benching after game 60 of the 2021-22 season:

Jamie Drysdale played all 60 games to start the season, but Ducks coach Dallas Eakins knew it was time for the 19-year-old rookie defenseman to take a break from the action. So, Eakins scratched him from the lineup for last Saturday’s game against the New Jersey Devils.
It wasn’t so much that Drysdale looked tired, but his game looked out of sorts, off kilter. He was on the ice for five of the Chicago Blackhawks’ even-strength goals during an 8-3 loss March 8 and for two of the Nashville Predators’ even-strength goals during a 4-1 defeat on March 10.
Drysdale said he understood Eakins’ message.
“Less busy,” Drysdale said, ticking off the adjustments to his play. “Not force things. Be more efficient. Those were the kinds of things I needed to work on and figure out. I think I’ve done a better job these past two games to do that. I feel good out there. There’s a lot of learning, a lot of development.”

What development happened in Year 3? No development happened. Although it's a small sample, that CF% is a drastic regression. I'd rather chalk it up as a lost developmental year. Here's a snippet from the Sporting Tribune of Fowler on Drysdale's injury that cost him a season:

Fowler bemoaned the fact that this season would have been a good opportunity for Drysdale to get more experience under his belt and play a lot of big minutes, but he also acknowledged that injuries—as unfortunate as they can be—are a part of the game.

How many full seasons has Drysdale completed at the NHL level? One season only. Boasting about Drysdale's 113 NHL games doesn't sound all that great when he's only had only one full season in the NHL.

LaCombe's had four complete NCAA seasons. That means LaCombe's had four developmental seasons under his belt since his draft year. In his senior year, his role was to be leader and mentor for the younger players as an alternate captain for the team. You can read about all of his accomplishments at Minnesota here: link.

LaCombe's physical and game maturity can afford the Ducks to take it slower with Drysdale. The ultimate goal is to develop Drysdale's game. Missing a year of hockey set back Drysdale's improvement. I'd start Drysdale on the third pair and work his way up.

You might think I'm trashing on Drysdale, but I'm not. I want the best possible scenario for Drysdale to improve and improve efficiently. With LaCombe getting the tougher assignments and minutes, then Drysdale is eased back into the game and not press. Ultimately, we want Drysdale in our top-4 as soon as possible. Having two more speedsters on defense with Drysdale and LaCombe could mean better play on the ice and, hopefully, more wins for the Ducks.

I'll make this really easy for you. There's not a single NHL GM or coach who, today, would rather have LaCombe than Drysdale (assuming both are relatively healthy). Not one. And very few of those, if any, would ice Drysdale on a higher pairing than LaCombe.

4 years of college did not clearly prepare LaCombe to start in the top 4. There is just no substitute for NHL experience. Full stop.

LaCombe might be forced into such a role - behind Drysdale - if the ducks don't fix the roster, But I think there's a decent chance he ends up starting the year in the AHL - just like Drysdale did 2 years ago. That depends on what the ducks do to upgrade the roster in the offseason.
 

Gliff

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2011
16,488
11,866
Middle Tennessee
It’s not a failure for Hughes whatsoever because it had zero negative effect on what he became in the near future. Your whole argument is that Fantili being in the NHL next season could possibly stunt his development. It didn’t with Hughes (he’s a 100 point player at 21)Or MacKinnon. Or Eichel. Or Matthews. Or Barkov. Or Stuezle

These are direct comparable for Fantillis level

I could keep going.

There’s no risk in him going to the AHL but I also see no realistic risk with him being in the NHL. He’s a different caliber player than we’re used to

Kakko and Lafreniere don’t skate well enough to be stars. And I said that about Kakko in his draft year. There were people on this sub that preferred him to Hughes - the kid doesn’t possess the raw athleticism for that though.

Going to the NHL isn’t likely what held those guys back

You make a fair point about Hughes not being effected by his bad start, but can we agree he is the outlier? Most players do not go from 40 points to 100 between their second and third year. The only other guy I can think of is Stamkos.

My whole argument is that there is no upside to him going to the NHL. It's all about risk management. If there is a chance that having a rough year in the NHL could negatively effect his development then I think that has to be taken into account when you consider the upside is basically nothing.

The Ducks will still be a bad team, I expect bottom 10, and it isn't like Fantilli is going to change that. And even if is actually that good that he can carry the Ducks to the playoffs, there is no reason he can't come up to the NHL after dominating the AHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Duckie

Leonardo87

New York Rangers, Anaheim Ducks, and TMNT fan.
Sponsor
Dec 8, 2013
40,966
64,769
New York
.
Yet many credit Eakins with doing a great job of developing him. I think there is a better argument that Eakins "system" actually held him back.

I think in a better system, with a competent PP , and more depth. Z would have been closer to a PPG, same with Terry. Mac I think maybe 5-10 points more where he ended, he was exhausted towards the end of the season, which don’t blame him.
 

robbieboy3686

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
3,326
2,242
You make a fair point about Hughes not being effected by his bad start, but can we agree he is the outlier? Most players do not go from 40 points to 100 between their second and third year. The only other guy I can think of is Stamkos.

My whole argument is that there is no upside to him going to the NHL. It's all about risk management. If there is a chance that having a rough year in the NHL could negatively effect his development then I think that has to be taken into account when you consider the upside is basically nothing.

The Ducks will still be a bad team, I expect bottom 10, and it isn't like Fantilli is going to change that. And even if is actually that good that he can carry the Ducks to the playoffs, there is no reason he can't come up to the NHL after dominating the AHL.
I strongly disagree with being a bottom 10 team, as long as we sign 2 top 4 dmen( mayfield soucy etc ) and add another top 6 forward+ whoever we draft with our top pick. The money is there for us to spend, GMPV will get these done.
 

Gliff

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2011
16,488
11,866
Middle Tennessee
I strongly disagree with being a bottom 10 team, as long as we sign 2 top 4 dmen( mayfield soucy etc ) and add another top 6 forward+ whoever we draft with our top pick. The money is there for us to spend, GMPV will get these done.
Sure lets just sign 2 top 4 defensemen and a top 6 forward. That sounds easy and I'm sure that wont require terrible contracts...

How many top 6 forwards or top 4 defensemen have the Ducks signed in the past decade? Let me save you some time. 2 top 6 forwards (if you consider Strome and Vatrano top 6 forwards) and 0 top 4 defensemen. And thats if you consider them top 6 forwards.

You realize other teams want to sign top 4 defensemen also right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deuce22

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,253
4,276
Orange, CA
Sure lets just sign 2 top 4 defensemen and a top 6 forward. That sounds easy and I'm sure that wont require terrible contracts...

How many top 6 forwards or top 4 defensemen have the Ducks signed in the past decade? Let me save you some time. 2 top 6 forwards (if you consider Strome and Vatrano top 6 forwards) and 0 top 4 defensemen. And thats if you consider them top 6 forwards.

You realize other teams want to sign top 4 defensemen also right?
When have the Ducks been in a position to or need to? Circumstances change. The approach should change with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robbieboy3686

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,771
9,986
Vancouver, WA
i feel like what we do this offseason really depends on where we draft. if we do get Bedard, then I think it's best to really go for some quality players whether through trade or free agency. If we get Fantilli or Carlsson who may require an extra year to develop then you go after some place holder guys and sign them for a year or two.
 

Duck Off

HF needs an App
Oct 25, 2002
21,012
5,473
Oklahoma
Overall team toughness has to be addressed. It was absolutely ridiculous that verbeek made no effort to surround his young skill guys with some dudes to protect them, beyond that there's no net front presence on this roster which is also apart of being a tougher team, and that goes for both sides of the rink.

I agree, but by far my #1 complaint about Verbeek's last offseason was that he was content with *that* defensive corps going into the season. It was painfully obvious we were going to bleed goals this year. If I thought he was trying to shoot for a bottom 3 finish going into the season, I wouldn't be so critical of it, but I honestly think he thought the team would be better. I don't care what they do at forward, but two physical, clear NHL defenseman need to be added. Mayfield and one of Graves/Soucy (preferably Graves) would be swell.
 

robbieboy3686

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
3,326
2,242
I agree, but by far my #1 complaint about Verbeek's last offseason was that he was content with *that* defensive corps going into the season. It was painfully obvious we were going to bleed goals this year. If I thought he was trying to shoot for a bottom 3 finish going into the season, I wouldn't be so critical of it, but I honestly think he thought the team would be better. I don't care what they do at forward, but two physical, clear NHL defenseman need to be added. Mayfield and one of Graves/Soucy (preferably Graves) would be swell.
He won’t allow himself to be put in that position again, as of now, he looks like a genius who orchestrated the perfect tank. He follows this up, with adding true dmen( even if he overpays an extra year or so) and probably uses 2024 draft picks( or guys like Perrault or Tracy non verbeek draft picks ) to bring in a top 6 player at the draft from a team strapped for cap room. The whole “ we aren’t there yet “ for trading draft picks, I feel is the approach to this years draft. After this draft, verbeek will have had 2 drafts all of his own to make ample picks with. And trading a 2nd round pick or so in the 2024 draft for immediate help is easily warranted and justified.
 
Last edited:

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
18,945
14,121
southern cal
I'll make this really easy for you. There's not a single NHL GM or coach who, today, would rather have LaCombe than Drysdale (assuming both are relatively healthy). Not one. And very few of those, if any, would ice Drysdale on a higher pairing than LaCombe.

4 years of college did not clearly prepare LaCombe to start in the top 4. There is just no substitute for NHL experience. Full stop.

LaCombe might be forced into such a role - behind Drysdale - if the ducks don't fix the roster, But I think there's a decent chance he ends up starting the year in the AHL - just like Drysdale did 2 years ago. That depends on what the ducks do to upgrade the roster in the offseason.

Oh... you went with yet another logical fallacy, a red herring.

We went from Drysdale is "a far superior skater" to "LaCombe didn't get this praise from Eakins" to "ASSUMING BOTH ARE RELATIVELY HEALTHY would rather have Drysdale of LaCombe".

Was Drysdale healthy last year? Damn, damn, damn these facts!

4 years of college did not clearly prepare LaCombe to start in the top 4. There is just no substitute for NHL experience. Full stop.

Did you watch any of the last two games of the season? Did you know LaCombe was playing in the top-4 for the Ducks in his first two games in the NHL.

It sure sucks not accepting facts.

LaCombe might be forced into such a role - behind Drysdale - if the ducks don't fix the roster, But I think there's a decent chance he ends up starting the year in the AHL - just like Drysdale did 2 years ago. That depends on what the ducks do to upgrade the roster in the offseason.

Equivocation logical fallacy here.

You're presuming that LaCombe's starting point is the same as Drysdale's starting point. But you already screwed up b/c LaCombe started playing top-4 for the Ducks already.

Also, why didn't Verbeek send LaCombe down to the AHL like he did with D Helleson after the Ducks' season was over?

The best ability is availability. Drysdale wasn't available last year and that not only stopped his development, but regressed it because he couldn't practice for six months. You are incapable of accepting this fact. We don't know where Drysdale is in his development stage now. LaCombe's probably passed up Drysdale in development.
 

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
18,945
14,121
southern cal
I agree, but by far my #1 complaint about Verbeek's last offseason was that he was content with *that* defensive corps going into the season. It was painfully obvious we were going to bleed goals this year. If I thought he was trying to shoot for a bottom 3 finish going into the season, I wouldn't be so critical of it, but I honestly think he thought the team would be better. I don't care what they do at forward, but two physical, clear NHL defenseman need to be added. Mayfield and one of Graves/Soucy (preferably Graves) would be swell.

Verbeek dropped lots of hints besides the 2021-22 TDL reset rebuild hint. At the start of free agency, Verbeek actually stated that defense wasn't a priority as he was more focused on his forward acquisition of Vatrano, Strome, and el Nino. El Nino didn't fall through. Klingberg got rejected by the league and finally relented to sign with us as well as got us to the cap floor. Kulikov was added on Aug 31st b/c Kulikov was a mess for the Wild in the playoffs.

There are many who believe what Verbeek believed that his defensive acquisitions should have done much better. Fancy stat people all believe this.

This defense screamed disaster with castoff non-shutdown D's. I was prepared for a bottom-3 finish all year long and it didn't bother me like most of this board.

After seeing LaCombe and Helleson at the end of the season, Verbeek is probably more inclined to continue to build through the draft and not hinder a pathway for the other youths who are making their way over to the pro side next season. We're looking for plugs again at the blueline.

Phase 1 Defense, 2020-23: Drysdale, Benoit, Mahura, Vaaks
Phase 2 Defense, 2023-24: LaCombe... call-ups: Helleson, Hinds
Phase 3 Defense, 2024-25: Minty, Zellweger, Hinds, Helleson
Phase 4 Defense, 2025-26: Luneau, Warren, Moore

Shutdown D: 6'3 RD Moore, 6'3 LD/RDHinds, and 6'5 RD Warren

The purpose of the reset rebuild was to create talent depth and that talent depth will help control the cap. We have a lot of darts, but we don't know how many will pan out defensively. At the same time, we can't block them out for progressing to the NHL level. We're going to be very young on the blueline and I don't see Verbeek dissuading from that plan, tbh. He isn't going to be wasting assets this early in the reset rebuild because there's too many unknowns so far.

Verbeek is fortunate to already have Terry, Z, and McTavish in tow. He'll be adding another top-6 forward with our first round pick. It's our defense that we're waiting on. Mahura got shipped out. Vaaks looks like a bust already. Andersson (not listed above) has been made out of glass the past two seasons with the Gulls. Helleson looked lost this year in the AHL, but looked okay in sheltered minutes in the NHL in the final games.

Fowler-xxx
LaCombe-Drysdale
xxx - xxx
White
Vaaks

Benoit is an RFA with arb. He should be kept as he's our only physical NHL'er in our system. We need to sign at least one defensive plug. I also have a bad feeling that Verbeek is gonna want to keep pushing Vaaks into the lineup.
 

Gliff

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2011
16,488
11,866
Middle Tennessee
When have the Ducks been in a position to or need to? Circumstances change. The approach should change with them.
For the 5 years before they traded for Kesler where they needed an actual #2 center?

For the 5 years that Fowler played with scrub bottom pairing partners.

And that was while they were contending. You think they should spend in UFA now as the worst team in the league?
 
Oct 18, 2011
44,277
10,197
So Zegras puts up back to back 60+ point seasons, which nobody in his draft did that, and on a shitty Ducks team....no make that historically bad Ducks team, with bad coaching, a poor system, and no depth. Yet he is overrated?

Ducks fans don't even call him the Ducks best player, Terry has been, and yet he is overhyped by our fanbase? Give me a break. lol
I'm not sure what people were expecting with a team who gave up the most shots in NHL history. That means you dont have the puck, which means less offensive opportunities. Terry and Henrique are the only other players on this roster that could sniff a playoff teams top 6 and Henrique probably would be a 3rd liner

I agree, but by far my #1 complaint about Verbeek's last offseason was that he was content with *that* defensive corps going into the season. It was painfully obvious we were going to bleed goals this year. If I thought he was trying to shoot for a bottom 3 finish going into the season, I wouldn't be so critical of it, but I honestly think he thought the team would be better. I don't care what they do at forward, but two physical, clear NHL defenseman need to be added. Mayfield and one of Graves/Soucy (preferably Graves) would be swell.
My hope here is he did it purposely to tank. But if it isn't starting to be addressed this summer then his team building philosophy has to come into question. It was incredibly disappointing to see him not get tougher after the Terry incident last year
 

Deuce22

Registered User
Jun 17, 2013
5,944
8,417
SoCal & Idaho
He won’t allow himself to be put in that position again, as of now, he looks like a genius who orchestrated the perfect tank. He follows this up, with adding true dmen( even if he overpays an extra year or so) and probably uses 2024 draft picks( or guys like Perrault or Tracy non verbeek draft picks ) to bring in a top 6 player at the draft from a team strapped for cap room. The whole “ we aren’t there yet “ for trading draft picks, I feel is the approach to this years draft. After this draft, verbeek will have had 2 drafts all of his own to make ample picks with. And trading a 2nd round pick or so in the 2024 draft for immediate help is easily warranted and justified.
I don't think he's a genius, but he did orchestrate a pretty damn good tank.
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,253
4,276
Orange, CA
For the 5 years before they traded for Kesler where they needed an actual #2 center?

For the 5 years that Fowler played with scrub bottom pairing partners.

And that was while they were contending. You think they should spend in UFA now as the worst team in the league?
You mean the years they we were right up against the cap and didn't really have space to add big name UFAs? We did add Koivu. BM built his D around having 3 solid pairings for years after. Spending bigger money on Fowler Lindholm and Vatanen. BMs management and roster contruction was his preference but didnt mean he didn't spend money. He just didn't spend it all the time in what WE wanted. Also BM isn't here anymore, why would anything BM did in the past 15 years have any bearing on what PV will do in the future.

As for the last, this team is in a unprecedented situation for itself. I don’t think they should build the entire team through UFA but for sure should add pieces we don't have internally, like defensive minded D. At least 1 to play with Fowler to help shelter the inherent pairings a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FiveHoleTickler
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad