Speculation: 2024-25 Coaching/Management/Ownership
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
The ducks rebuild took longer because Murray was slow to tear down the team. The fact that Verbeek took over with 3 high profile pending UFAs - Manson, Rakell, Lindholm - speaks to that exact issue. They should have been traded the prior year, but Murray failed to do so. Verbeek had no choice but to trade them.
Boo Boo
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2013
- 2,484
- 2,798
I honestly think it has more to do with having a policy of trading pending ufas otherwise I fail to see why Henrique and like stolars were kept around rather than trading them at the same deadline that those guys were traded at
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
Sure, the pending UFA's do coincide with TDL often. But context matters between UFA contract differences and blowing up the team.
Verbeek said we were in a middle of a rebuild and the next step is to become contenders b/c we have good veterans, good youths, and good prospects on the way. Those are his words. Verbeek inherited a team in the middle of a rebuild that was 3rd in the Pacific at all-star break when he was hired. Seems odd to jettison a lot of the "good" players that helped propel the team from finishing with the 2nd worst record last year to 3rd in the Pacific at All-star break the ensuing season.
According to Manson and his agent, Verbeek never talked to them about any extension. I don't know much about the Rakell situation, but I was indifferent on Rakell b/c he's streaky by the seasons. Verbeek didn't think he needed a pugilist on his team and got a 3rd round pick for Des, which we used a 4th round pick to nab him.
Now onto Lindholm, Lindholm wanted to stay with Anaheim on a team friendly deal. He wanted to retire as a Duck. That was the crux for Verbeek, who had a specific rubric to abide by due to term and age. Verbeek offered more money, but far less term. Boston signed Lindholm to an 8-year contract for $6.5 mil AAV, where he'd be UFA at age 36. Lindholm would have signed for less money for the same term with Anaheim. It is hilarious seeing contracts handed out to Gudas and Killorn years later b/c Gudas' contract ($4 mil AAV) ends when he's 36 years old and Killorn's contract ($6.25 mil AAV) ends when he's 37 years old.
I'm not crying daily about missing the playoffs for potentially seven seasons. The moment Verbeek blew up the team at the 2022 TDL, I knew he reset the rebuild and we'd have to wait five years to see if the gamble worked. Verbeek stated it takes five years minimum for a rebuild. Verbeek also stated he blew up the 2021-22 team! I'm here knowing it is year 3 of the Verbeek reset rebuild with two more years to go.
If y'all keep saying it's not reset, then Verbeek needed to be fired last year as we are in year 6 of the rebuild. His magical 2022 off-season acquisitions were nowhere near close to the production of the 2021-22 team. None of his teams, including this year's team, are in the same realm as the 2021-22 team.
Maybe my memory isn’t serving me correctly, but I feel like Verbeek started the rebuild. Murray was just treading water. What did Murray do that signified a rebuild? Having a shit team doesn’t mean you are rebuilding, it just means you are a shit team. Verbeek came in and starting selling off assets to start a rebuild.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
He was finally sort of admitting in interviews that they needed to step back and consider the larger picture etc towards the end but it was never a full commitment to rebuilding. Otherwise would have started moving out more veterans
Henrique had no value. He had been waived went unclaimed. During the flat cap era, no one wanted the term on his contract.
The ducks had no business re-signing Rakell or Manson - full stop they should have been traded and that was obvious to everyone. So of course Manson (who had been injured a lot and had regressed) didn't receive an offer.
Lindholm was a harder call. The problem was that the ducks (Murray again) had signed Fowler to a long term deal. It is understandable why Verbeek didn't want two aging D-men on long term deals and, like the rest of the team, Hampus wasn't playing very well.
But, fundamentally, we just disagree that trading 3 pending UFAs (only one of whom arguably should have been retained) is "resetting" the rebuild. It is what any team in a rebuild would do.
All these underperforming coaches getting fired, must be nice.
70sSanO
Registered User
It is a bit of a Lindholm vs LaCombe. Lindholm has the edge on the defense side and LaCombe appears to have more “potentially” offensive upside; Hampus’s 53 point outlier notwithstanding.
When the trade was made LaCombe was just hopes and dreams. And up until the last month or so a case could be made that Jackson would probably be moved at some point in time.
LaCombe has 7 years on Lindholm so that will one day come into play. Especially since Lindholm seems to be more injury prone as the yeas go by.
One of the worst moves is still moving Deslauriers for an eventual replacement Johnston.
Johnston choreographs his fights where Des gets his pound of flesh. Neither one is an offensive threat, but Deslauriers is an upgrade enforcer.
John
When the trade was made LaCombe was just hopes and dreams. And up until the last month or so a case could be made that Jackson would probably be moved at some point in time.
LaCombe has 7 years on Lindholm so that will one day come into play. Especially since Lindholm seems to be more injury prone as the yeas go by.
One of the worst moves is still moving Deslauriers for an eventual replacement Johnston.
Johnston choreographs his fights where Des gets his pound of flesh. Neither one is an offensive threat, but Deslauriers is an upgrade enforcer.
John
Lord Flashheart
Squadron Commander
It's only underperforming if expectations are incorrect.
Frosted Tips
Fire everyone!
McClellan would’ve been good for the stage the Ducks are at
Would at least make players enjoy playing, ha
MMC
Global Moderator
This roster isn't good enough for us to move on from our "development coach" to our "guy who has proven he can get teams into the playoffs" coach. Once that guy fails, the seat really starts to get hot for the GM. Once we had an offseason where only depth additions were made that should've dispelled any idea that this was a playoffs or bust year for PV
Dr Johnny Fever
RIP Grizzly 399
If guys aren't developing well it absolutely is time to move on from our "development" coach.
MMC
Global Moderator
I don't think the development that the fans want to see and the development that PV wants to see are the same thing
dracom
Registered User
i just don't agree with the notion that this roster isn't good enough. I 100% believe this roster is good enough to contend for a playoff spot if they had a coach that is known to get their teams into the playoffs.
MMC
Global Moderator
Not really sure why you or anyone else would think that, this team has no top pairing D, 1C, and only has like 2 top 6 wingers, also they finished 3rd last in the league last year and only added Gauthier, Dumoulin, and Fabbri
Last edited:
I wouldn’t even call him a developmental coach as I’ve learned more about him and he’s really started to show his true colours. Def loves his vets. Without any context about him and his hire (if I didn’t follow the Ducks) nothing about him would suggest he’s a “developmental” coach.
dracom
Registered User
Dr Johnny Fever
RIP Grizzly 399
We can debate the definition of development if you want. But you're just moving the goalposts. If they're not developing then you have to get rid of the guy who was brought in to develop them. That shouldn't be debatable.
SmokeyDuck
Registered User
They kind of are though, just not as fast as everyone is demanding. Much improved of late.
