Toggle sidebar

Speculation: 2024-25 - Free Agency/Trade Thread

tomd said:
Step back and think about this from a monetary POV. Laine is a $17.4 million gamble. That makes the Klingberg disaster look like small change. Still being treated for mental health issues. I'm not even sure that teams can do due diligence on him until he is out of the program. His performance has been extremely inconsistent over the past 5 seasons. Has had injury issues. And in 2 years he is a UFA. How in the world does PV sell that to ownership?
Click to expand...
Get that rational thinking out of here, it's not my money!

But in all seriousness that is a very good point, especially when I believe the ducks had an internal cap for a few years (or so it seemed).
 
Assuming hockey players think just like you politically is wrong. You may be fine with California's taxes, but perhaps prospective Duck free agent guy isn't. Or you may hate California because of the high cost of living, but another possible Ducks free agent guy may think it's worth it to pay more to live in Newport Beach. Hockey players have different priorities, their reasons for not wanting to sign with Ducks vary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducks DVM
I feel like he's going to end up on a more low profile competitive team like CAR/DAL/STL.

Playing for the Ducks right now probably wouldn't help improve his mental state...
 
Reveille1984 said:
I feel like he's going to end up on a more low profile competitive team like CAR/DAL/STL.

Playing for the Ducks right now probably wouldn't help improve his mental state...
Click to expand...
It will depend on Columbus' willingness to retain salary. If they prefer not to retain, there are only a handful of teams that could accommodate that.
 
What does a laine trade even look like?

We can’t gamble our 1st, we don’t have a 2nd right now….

Lacombe + ?
 
Zegs2sendhelp said:
What does a laine trade even look like?

We can’t gamble our 1st, we don’t have a 2nd right now….

Lacombe + ?
Click to expand...
If they aren't retaining any money, I don't think we would even have to add to LaCombe tbh (I could even see a world where LaCombe is too much). Laine has too much risk attached to him to command much in return. And if they don't retain salary, there aren't many teams who can fit him in. If they do retain salary, though, then that is a totally different conversation. There are just too many variables to pinpoint his trade value at the moment.
 
Terry Yake said:
always? i'll have to disagree on that

for most NHL players, i think its safe to say winning and money are the two most important things. and the ducks as they currently stand, aren't in a position to offer either of those things. like i said, the ducks didn't seem to have any trouble attracting FAs last decade when they were winning the division every season. hell, you even had the ducks regularly showing up on lists of players' preferred destinations. and its not like the state has seen a dramatic political shift since then. is it just a coincidence then that the ducks were a preferred destination when they were a winning team and no longer today when they've been finishing in the basement the last few seasons? i think the answer is pretty obvious

there are a number of other states with similar politics to CA. i don't see any of those teams struggling to attract players
Click to expand...
I guarantee there are places in the country you wouldn’t move because the politics there are too extreme for you. If they exist, then politics is always AN issue.

I disagree with people saying the Ducks attracted quality free agents at any point that weren’t a brother, a close friend, or a player they re-signed after a trade, unless (in VERY limited numbers) there was a hefty paycheck they couldn’t get elsewhere. Name the top6/top4 players where the Ducks were a preferred destination who weren’t in one of those categories?

This is a pointless conversation without knowing the individual politics of the players being discussed.
 
Ducks DVM said:
I guarantee there are places in the country you wouldn’t move because the politics there are too extreme for you. If they exist, then politics is always AN issue.

I disagree with people saying the Ducks attracted quality free agents at any point that weren’t a brother, a close friend, or a player they re-signed after a trade, unless (in VERY limited numbers) there was a hefty paycheck they couldn’t get elsewhere. Name the top6/top4 players where the Ducks were a preferred destination who weren’t in one of those categories?

This is a pointless conversation without knowing the individual politics of the players being discussed.
Click to expand...
there are many places in the US i wouldn't move to, but it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with geography/weather/distance to family/job opportunities/etc. not everyone's life revolves around politics like you think

the ducks have never been major players in FA or been willing to throw money around, but doesn't seem like they had issues signing depth guys or players who filled positions of need last decade. go back and look at those rosters from 09/10 or so and you'll see plenty of guys who were difference makers who were acquired through FA

if this was a playoff team or one on the cusp of contention, we wouldn't be having this conversation because guys would actually want to play here. its simple, players want to play for winners
 
duxfan1101 said:
If they aren't retaining any money, I don't think we would even have to add to LaCombe tbh (I could even see a world where LaCombe is too much). Laine has too much risk attached to him to command much in return. And if they don't retain salary, there aren't many teams who can fit him in. If they do retain salary, though, then that is a totally different conversation. There are just too many variables to pinpoint his trade value at the moment.
Click to expand...
Would Columbus even want LaCombe as part of the return? They already have Werenski and Mateychuk as their top 4 LHD for the present/future. Another offensive LHD seems pretty redundant for them.
 
tomd said:
Would Columbus even want LaCombe as part of the return? They already have Werenski and Mateychuk as their top 4 LHD for the present/future. Another offensive LHD seems pretty redundant for them.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’d call LaCombe an offensive D. He’s got more defensive upside than both of those guys IMO. And acquiring another LHD would let them play Mateychuk in the AHL until they move Provorov at the deadline. Technically Jack Johnson is their 3LD at the moment, but he should probably be their 7D or 8D.
 
duxfan1101 said:
I don’t think I’d call LaCombe an offensive D. He’s got more defensive upside than both of those guys IMO. And acquiring another LHD would let them play Mateychuk in the AHL until they move Provorov at the deadline. Technically Jack Johnson is their 3LD at the moment, but he should probably be their 7D or 8D.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not.

I have no idea what value to put on Laine. To shell out $9 million a year for the next two years he’d better be a 40-40 guy. Too risky for me but your mileage may vary.
 
I would seriously consider Laine at full price. If we can get him down to, say $7mil, I'd do that deal pretty comfortably.

I think he's still got it and if he doesn't, it won't be hard to stomach that contract for 2 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Gib and DuckRogers10
Terry Yake said:
there are many places in the US i wouldn't move to, but it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with geography/weather/distance to family/job opportunities/etc. not everyone's life revolves around politics like you think

the ducks have never been major players in FA or been willing to throw money around, but doesn't seem like they had issues signing depth guys or players who filled positions of need last decade. go back and look at those rosters from 09/10 or so and you'll see plenty of guys who were difference makers who were acquired through FA

if this was a playoff team or one on the cusp of contention, we wouldn't be having this conversation because guys would actually want to play here. its simple, players want to play for winners
Click to expand...
I literally said the opposite of the bolded. I said “I think politics is always a factor in a life move, but it’s usually well well below most of the other ones”

I said it was A factor, not the factor. I also pointed out that for some people (Tim Thomas comes to mind) it may very well be a very important factor, and pointed out that you have absolutely zero idea about how much it means to anyone but yourself without talking to them, which you haven’t.

I’m also going to say that you’re either the most open minded person on the planet, or have simply not traveled enough. There’s always a place that is too extreme for any person’s viewpoint IMO

IMG_5310.jpeg

IMG_5311.jpeg


No, I see zero quality free agent adds who weren’t, as I said, family members, close personal friends, or re-signed players who were traded for.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Smirnov2Chistov
Ducks DVM said:
I literally said the opposite of the bolded. I said “I think politics is always a factor in a life move, but it’s usually well well below most of the other ones”

I said it was A factor, not the factor. I also pointed out that for some people (Tim Thomas comes to mind) it may very well be a very important factor, and pointed out that you have absolutely zero idea about how much it means to anyone but yourself without talking to them, which you haven’t.

I’m also going to say that you’re either the most open minded person on the planet, or have simply not traveled enough. There’s always a place that is too extreme for any person’s viewpoint IMO

View attachment 897283
View attachment 897284

No, I see zero quality free agent adds who weren’t, as I said, family members, close personal friends, or re-signed players who were traded for.
Click to expand...
tim thomas is one extreme example and you're only basing that off his decision to not visit the white house and some comments he's made. not sure what that has to do with anything really, especially when he starred for a team in one of the most liberal cities in the US

i've traveled to quite a places in the US and there isn't a single place i would refuse to live in because of politics as the main factor. especially if i was being given an opportunity to succeed at something. weather, cost of living, distance, etc sure. but not politics. if you want to talk places i wouldn't live solely for political reasons, i'm thinking somewhere like afghanistan or north korea

that's just the 09/10 roster. look at the teams throughout the last decade when they were winning the division. plenty of quality players who were brought in via FA. almost as if guys would rather play for winning teams
 
I don't see any problems in adding Laine to the lineup for two years. Only important re-signs next year are for McTavish and Dostal. With McGinn, Fabbri and Vatrano coming off the books I don't see problem finding money for McTavish and Dostal.

This team needs goal scoring and Verbeek has thus far failed to improve that area this summer. If Laine could be had for picks and/or prospects then I think it's an option worth exploring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84
Terry Yake said:
tim thomas is one extreme example and you're only basing that off his decision to not visit the white house and some comments he's made. not sure what that has to do with anything really, especially when he starred for a team in one of the most liberal cities in the US

i've traveled to quite a places in the US and there isn't a single place i would refuse to live in because of politics as the main factor. especially if i was being given an opportunity to succeed at something. weather, cost of living, distance, etc sure. but not politics. if you want to talk places i wouldn't live solely for political reasons, i'm thinking somewhere like afghanistan or north korea

that's just the 09/10 roster. look at the teams throughout the last decade when they were winning the division. plenty of quality players who were brought in via FA. almost as if guys would rather play for winning teams
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think I will. It’s your thesis, you prove it.

I’m also done tilting at windmills. I’m saying that politics do matter to some people, because…clearly they do. Not that they always do, not that they must, but that they CAN. Plenty of people openly say they believe so. Your position is that because you don’t think politics matters for you, it cannot possibly be the case that they’d matter for anyone else, and again, the fact that there’s an argument about it is prima facie evidence that my position is correct.

Also, the world is a far, far more polarized place than it was 15 years ago. Quoting attitudes from 15 years ago isn’t necessarily relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deuce22 and DuckRogers10
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom