Speculation: 2024-25 Coaching/Management/Ownership

[TheStuntman]

The players look like they're thinking too much out there and afraid to commit a mistake.

 

[anezthes]

Trade McTavish for someone like Kakko

No.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Get Zegras back to center and let him loose offensively. Trade McTavish for someone like Kakko (other wingers can also be traded for) or some help on the back end.

I like Mason but i think that losing Zegras is going to hurt more in the long run. He just has that x-factor you really cant teach.

I'm frustrated with McTavish but I'm still not even thinking about moving him unless it's in a package for a player like Tkachuk. Kakko will be available for a 3rd next summer.

 

[Sniperberg]

No.

You missed the other wingers-part there. Besides, McTavish is so bad at the moment that i doubt the Rangers would even consider that trade as it stands.

I'm frustrated with McTavish but I'm still not even thinking about moving him unless it's in a package for a player like Tkachuk. Kakko will be available for a 3rd next summer.

If McTavish keeps trending downwards like this he wouldnt even fetch a 3rd next summer. Might be able to get Keith Tkachuk tho.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

The players look like they're thinking too much out there and afraid to commit a mistake.

Exactly. Which is a 100% repeat of how they looked last year. So, just what have Cronin and Verbeek discussed about making this year a step forward? Because results to date point to them both pretty happy with repeating exactly what they did last year.

 

[ohcomeonref]

Z is the most frustrating case for me. No reason for him to have 2 points so far this year. Just hard to not look at Cronin because he's focused on Zegs a lot in his not even 1.5 years with the team. A good offensive coach would find solutions to help make him productive.

I think i've said this a few times but Cronin very likely isn't remotely capable of getting elite offensive production out of even the most talented. I worry he's getting like 50% of what they could bring and that goes for the dmen too.

It's simple math to me: Z was a 60 point player until Cronin. I'd way rather have a -20 60p player than whatever Z is now. It's actually upsetting. I just hope he hasn't completely detailed what Zegras could be.

 

[70sSanO]

Even though most would consider Detroit's rebuild to be stalled, at least they were able to finish 18th last year with 90+ points. That would be a dream result for the Ducks. We don't even look like we're playing the same sport as the rest of the league most of the time.

Verbeek's biggest problem has been not insulating the extremely young core with any actual good veterans IMHO. We have a bunch of 19-22 year olds getting worked every night, interspersed with a bunch of 30+ dudes mostly on the downswing of their careers.

This is likely why GMPV's big plan was to grab a couple impact guys in the offseason to take a little pressure off the kids, but he completely whiffed and also failed to make any impactful roster improvements by trade. Now we're expecting a top line of Carlsson/Gauthier and a defensive group of children (Luneau/Zellweger/Minty/LaCombe) to not be a bottom five NHL team?

Sure Cronin doesn't seem to be doing much to help the situation, and likely isn't the long term guy for this club. But the Ducks have maybe one player in their NHL prime on the entire roster (Terry), along with the supposed "due for a breakout" duo of Zegras/McTavish combining for one goal in eight games (and an empty netter at that) which has crushed any potential offensive momentum.

It's seeming more and more like our best option is going to be using some of our prospects/draft capital to swing a trade a or two for some solid NHL players at some point. I'm sure Verbeek is aware of this. Higher tier FAs aren't going to sign here, and continuing to be 30th or lower every year with zero upward trajectory is going to destroy any confidence and morale this group has.

Thanks! I hadn’t realized Detroit hit that 91 points last year.

Still not a fan of their rebuild.

John

 

[DavidBL]

How do you do this properly, though? I think you've hit on the issue that's plagued every rebuilding team since rebuilding became a thing.

The first issue comes in the inherent problem with rebuilding. You rebuild because your great players are no longer great, so you need to develop more great players. And most formerly great teams don't have up-and-coming great players because they've picked later in the draft. The best way to get those is by picking as high as possible. You can only pick as high as possible if you're really bad, and getting (or keeping) actually decent veterans will keep your floor from being too low. I know people were upset at the Lindholm trade, but if the Ducks had kept Lindholm, I don't think they get to pick Leo Carlsson.

So you have to wait until you've got those potentially great youngsters in the organization. Now how do you add quality veterans? Three ways:

1. You can do it through free agency, which the Ducks have tried to do. But apparently they've gotten the wrong ones, even though Strome, Vatrano, Gudas, Killorn seems like it should be a solid group. They've missed on some others whom they tried to get (which, incidentally, might be a blessing in disguise). But the problems with free agency are myriad; the really good UFAs probably don't want to come to a bad team, and the mediocre ones need to be overpaid. And they're mediocre.

2. Pick up other teams' unwanted role players and prospects and develop them into something valuable. This is ideal, but if your team was good at this, they probably wouldn't need to rebuild in the first place. The only way to do this with a rebuilding team is to get a veteran GM who is given autonomy and finances to build a great pro scouting and development staff.

3. You can make trades for good players. But if you're a bad team, the only assets you have are futures - young players (whom you want to keep as your core), prospects (whom you probably want to keep in case they can become part of your core), and draft picks (which are very risky to trade while coming out of a rebuild - no GM wants to be the one who traded a #1OA because they thought their team was ready to compete before it was).

The last option requires threading the needle super finely, but it seems to be the only way for a team like Anaheim to make it work, unless they find the personnel who can help them accomplish #2. I don't think they've got the GM or the staff right now for that. So Verbeek has to pull a high-wire act - identifying the right veteran targets on teams who want to trade them and then trading the right youngsters/prospects/picks that won't come back to bite him in the ass.

This is why the Buffalo and Ottawa and Detroit stories are fairly commonplace. This is really, really hard to do.

Imo, we have too many kids. We've had so many picks that could have been used in trades and we just keep using them on prospects. It's why we have too many kids right now. Need to consolidate that talent. We may give up some future value but the team needs help now.

 

[JAHV]

Imo, we have too many kids. We've had so many picks that could have been used in trades and we just keep using them on prospects. It's why we have too many kids right now. Need to consolidate that talent. We may give up some future value but the team needs help now.

This is a perfectly fine idea in theory, but it's not that simple, right? The players we're talking about acquiring are still in their prime (or they're very good older veterans). The window we're talking about is basically the last 18 months - after the 2023 trade deadline - because there was no way Verbeek was going to acquire another good player before securing a shot at a top-3 pick in the 2023 draft. And I agree with Verbeek on that. If you don't, that's fine, but I think drafting a potential star was way too important to jeopardize it by adding too many good veterans too soon.

The trade we're making would involve the Ducks trading second round draft picks or B level prospects. Maybe a late 1st acquired in a separate trade. No rebuilding GM on earth would trade their own #1 draft pick unless they were 100% sure the team was going to take a step out of the bottom 8.

Then you have to find a trade partner. No good team is going to want to trade one of those types of players for draft picks or B prospects, since those players are generally important to their contention. So now you're looking at trading with other bad/rebuilding teams. That severely limits the supply, because if those teams had a lot of the players we want, they wouldn't be bad.

All that to say, I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think there's a ready supply of trade chips or trade partners that make this easy. It's Verbeek's job to do hard things, and so perhaps he should have worked harder at something like this. But it's also possible that he did and was shut down at every turn.

We could probably have acquired the type of player you want by getting rid of Zegras. How would we have reacted to that?

 

[Bergey37]

This is a perfectly fine idea in theory, but it's not that simple, right? The players we're talking about acquiring are still in their prime (or they're very good older veterans). The window we're talking about is basically the last 18 months - after the 2023 trade deadline - because there was no way Verbeek was going to acquire another good player before securing a shot at a top-3 pick in the 2023 draft. And I agree with Verbeek on that. If you don't, that's fine, but I think drafting a potential star was way too important to jeopardize it by adding too many good veterans too soon.

The trade we're making would involve the Ducks trading second round draft picks or B level prospects. Maybe a late 1st acquired in a separate trade. No rebuilding GM on earth would trade their own #1 draft pick unless they were 100% sure the team was going to take a step out of the bottom 8.

Then you have to find a trade partner. No good team is going to want to trade one of those types of players for draft picks or B prospects, since those players are generally important to their contention. So now you're looking at trading with other bad/rebuilding teams. That severely limits the supply, because if those teams had a lot of the players we want, they wouldn't be bad.

All that to say, I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think there's a ready supply of trade chips or trade partners that make this easy. It's Verbeek's job to do hard things, and so perhaps he should have worked harder at something like this. But it's also possible that he did and was shut down at every turn.

We could probably have acquired the type of player you want by getting rid of Zegras. How would we have reacted to that?

I agree with @DavidBL but I also acknowledge your point about how difficult that is to accomplish. I do believe that PV tried to get us those players but was thwarted. I also supported his decision not to get low-level vets as placeholders. But we have too many kids who aren't learning. I think we need to identify the few who are true keepers and use others to get them a proper supporting cast. IMHO, Zegras is not one of the keepers, and I would use him to get a quality player we need.