2024-25 - Free Agency/Trade Thread

[Hockey Duckie]

You blame roster construction, when in reality the only reason this happened, is because helleson has looked solid at the NHL level, after not looking great (stats wise) at the AHL level. Wouldn’t a band aid also be just trading for some AHL defensemen who could be a 7th D NHLer, like a Haag, Carrick or someone.

I’m just saying trading Dumo makes us a worse team today, so I hope this sub is okay with player development if that happens.

That's short-sighted of you to not account roster construction, which also affect the AHL club. We have five NHL contracts slots available to afford a couple of fringe NHL d-men to start the season to avoid the potentiality of healthy scratching a youth for days on end at the NHL level. We only have youth d-men available to us today in the AHL.

I think the crutch of Helleson looking solid at the NHL level that caused this mess is a mirage stance. Did we forget the potential for RD Luneau to possibly look solid after a stint down in the AHL? In Luneau's past five games in the AHL, he's potted 1g +3a and had a +2 rating. He is only one of two Ducks property who has a +/- rating greater than zero in the past four weeks. The possibility of an AHL youth D looking solid or equal to our NHL youth D this season would have been high, especially with the org very high on RD Luneau. A logical thought was that we would trade Dumo at the TDL and bring up Luneau to close out the season like we did with Zellweger last year.

Even if we trade Dumo, then we will still need to pull a #7D to the NHL club. Again, we only have youth d-men available to us at the AHL level. That means we are healthy scratching yet another youth D at the NHL level rather than have that youth D in the AHL playing top-4 minutes.

You are only thinking of the situation "in the now" as opposed to thinking of the situation being better prepared before the season started.

---

Speaking of macro thinking, to me this is year 3 of the reset rebuild. That means I was prepared for it to be a development season. 33-year old Dumo made us better from the start as he was attached to one of the youths in Zell or Minty. The 30-year old Trouba trade (we got a bit younger, more physical, more shot blocking and on the right side), LaCombe continuing his progression, and a different RD looking solid at the NHL level has Dumo as the odd man out in this situation. Pairing Dumo-Trouba together and leaving our weaker youths on their own on limited third pairing minutes is a choice that breaks away from development.

As for HF's mentality on player development, aka another losing season, it just depends on if they see this year as year 6 of the rebuild or year 3 of the reset rebuild. When the Verbeekening (resetting the rebuild) happened, that choice made me have a five-year wait-n-see mode. When Verbeek admitted to "blowing up the team" at the Verbeekening, then the most common outcome would be a bottom feeder team for a few years at the very least as you collect prospects and develop them.

I get many of us are tired of losing, but maybe they're coming around to accepting that Verbeek did reset the rebuild and we are in only Year 3 of the reset rebuild.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I dig what you’re saying also why I said I wasn’t attacking you. But if we trade Dumo (this early before the deadline) who is on our pk1 and our shutdown pairing with Trouba, in order to play 2 - 21 year olds it will be a step backwards and I hope the fan base realizes we will struggle, and that struggle will all be for player development. Which our fanbase complains about constantly, because the points aren’t showing up on the stat sheet. Also if we trade him now for another 3rd or 4th people here will complain Verbeek doesn’t know how to manage assets. I just don’t think anything Verbeek does in regards to Dumo and opening up a spot will make the majority of this sub happy.

Well, it's an option and it might be why Pat is willing to listen on Dumo. Would it be the best option? To borrow a popular phrase I've heard around here......I don't know.

But your not breaking news by pointing out that we are often at odds with each other around here on the best path forward. It is sometimes tiresome to watch us all chase our tail at times. But it is what it is.

 

[TheDarkWingThatDucks]

That's short-sighted of you to not account roster construction, which also affect the AHL club. We have five NHL contracts slots available to afford a couple of fringe NHL d-men to start the season to avoid the potentiality of healthy scratching a youth for days on end at the NHL level. We only have youth d-men available to us today in the AHL.

I think the crutch of Helleson looking solid at the NHL level that caused this mess is a mirage stance. Did we forget the potential for RD Luneau to possibly look solid after a stint down in the AHL? In Luneau's past five games in the AHL, he's potted 1g +3a and had a +2 rating. He is only one of two Ducks property who has a +/- rating greater than zero in the past four weeks. The possibility of an AHL youth D looking solid or equal to our NHL youth D this season would have been high, especially with the org very high on RD Luneau. A logical thought was that we would trade Dumo at the TDL and bring up Luneau to close out the season like we did with Zellweger last year.

Even if we trade Dumo, then we will still need to pull a #7D to the NHL club. Again, we only have youth d-men available to us at the AHL level. That means we are healthy scratching yet another youth D at the NHL level rather than have that youth D in the AHL playing top-4 minutes.

You are only thinking of the situation "in the now" as opposed to thinking of the situation being better prepared before the season started.

---

Speaking of macro thinking, to me this is year 3 of the reset rebuild. That means I was prepared for it to be a development season. 33-year old Dumo made us better from the start as he was attached to one of the youths in Zell or Minty. The 30-year old Trouba trade (we got a bit younger, more physical, more shot blocking and on the right side), LaCombe continuing his progression, and a different RD looking solid at the NHL level has Dumo as the odd man out in this situation. Pairing Dumo-Trouba together and leaving our weaker youths on their own on limited third pairing minutes is a choice that breaks away from development.

As for HF's mentality on player development, aka another losing season, it just depends on if they see this year as year 6 of the rebuild or year 3 of the reset rebuild. When the Verbeekening (resetting the rebuild) happened, that choice made me have a five-year wait-n-see mode. When Verbeek admitted to "blowing up the team" at the Verbeekening, then the most common outcome would be a bottom feeder team for a few years at the very least as you collect prospects and develop them.

I get many of us are tired of losing, but maybe they're coming around to accepting that Verbeek did reset the rebuild and we are in only Year 3 of the reset rebuild.

I’d argue we were never rebuilding in the first place. We were retooling and just sucked as a team. Then Verbeek came in and tore everything to the ground.

Also, hagg complained about being the 7th d man last year, we had a very solid 7th d man, but traded him to get Trouba, the top 4 RHD Verbeek covered this offseason. It’s a win now / later move, that potentially messes up current roster build. He is supposed to find a 2nd 7th D man, ask him to sign an AHL contract and then take Hinds minutes ?

To say questionable rider construction because he didn’t sign 2 (7th D men) to the roster is a bit of a stretch. Its created a short term problem, than will not have any long term effects on our team. Zelly / Minty / helleson …. Playing 10 out of every 15 games isn’t going to do anything for 1-2 months.

Anybody who doesn’t see that the rebuild started with Verbeek just don’t care to be a rational human being. When you trade every UFA with any value on your roster, that is usually a sign that you are committing to rebuilding.

And my main point is this sub doesn’t know what player development is unless someone scores 100 pts. Why is McT being asked to play like a Brady or Matt T, as he gets a goal being in front of the net and tip last night. That’s the type of thing they are working on with McT and Leo. Their weaknesses. Rounding out their overall game. Sometimes there strengths take a back seat in order to round out their game. So I’m frustrated that this sub can’t understand basic fundamentals of player development, and point and XGF and the stat sheet to determine if it’s it working or not.

 

[tomd]

The tough part about trading Zell is that he (IMO) clearly has the highest PP upside of any of our defensemen. I'm not as sold on any of the other guys being PP1 fixtures.

Not directed at you but I don't see any urgency in trading any of the young LHD at this point. Another Drysdale type trade would be fine but those are pretty rare. Mintyukov, Zellweger, and LaCombe are all better prospects than Drysdale was IMO.

 

[TheDarkWingThatDucks]

Well, it's an option and it might be why Pat is willing to listen on Dumo. Would it be the best option? To borrow a popular phrase I've heard around here......I don't know.

But your not breaking news by pointing out that we are often at odds with each other around here on the best path forward. It is sometimes tiresome to watch us all chase our tail at times. But it is what it is.

Hahah see that’s the point. I’d say 90% of this sub is fire Cronin, and 75% is fire Verbeek or at least close to wanting that. So, we think Cronin who was know for a development coach, sucks at his job, then when we start winning complain that we are sitting 1 defender who is 21 years old and possibly messing up their development. You’re right about the chasing the tails. Like, I am as pro Cronin as it gets in this sub, and even I know he is a stopgap, that has a 2-4 year shelf life. And we are coming up on the end of year 2.

But I think he is doing his job building a culture of accountability and hard work. To work on the weaknesses in your game to be a more well rounded player as you hit your peak, are more important that scoring 60 pts and being -30 on your +/-. I think it goes to expectations, did we expect the ducks with this roster to be a top 5 team ? Did we expect with the roster to be a bottom 5 team ? Which one did we think was more realistic, and which one are we close too ?

To think if Verbeek thought the HC he hired specifically to be a developmental coach, was sucking at his job and ruining the development, and to think Verbeek would just let this happen.

To think, 375 million people in USA and Canada, that there are only 32 GM’s and we hired the one who is so dumb he can’t even notice how bad Cronin is ruining these players and the locker room, and the culture. Like that type of thinking is just asinine to me, rather than going hmm, maybe things going on behind the scene are going well that point towards a future where things are starting to click. And look we go on a little good stretch here, and maybe this is a step forward and we never look back, maybe this is a step forward before 2 steps back. But how can we just be so the sky is falling at every thing that happens every game, every day. Just I’m a frustrated little duck.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Hahah see that’s the point. I’d say 90% of this sub is fire Cronin, and 75% is fire Verbeek or at least close to wanting that. So, we think Cronin who was know for a development coach, sucks at his job, then when we start winning complain that we are sitting 1 defender who is 21 years old and possibly messing up their development. You’re right about the chasing the tails. Like, I am as pro Cronin as it gets in this sub, and even I know he is a stopgap, that has a 2-4 year shelf life. And we are coming up on the end of year 2.

But I think he is doing his job building a culture of accountability and hard work. To work on the weaknesses in your game to be a more well rounded player as you hit your peak, are more important that scoring 60 pts and being -30 on your +/-. I think it goes to expectations, did we expect the ducks with this roster to be a top 5 team ? Did we expect with the roster to be a bottom 5 team ? Which one did we think was more realistic, and which one are we close too ?

To think if Verbeek thought the HC he hired specifically to be a developmental coach, was sucking at his job and ruining the development, and to think Verbeek would just let this happen.

To think, 375 million people in USA and Canada, that there are only 32 GM’s and we hired the one who is so dumb he can’t even notice how bad Cronin is ruining these players and the locker room, and the culture. Like that type of thinking is just asinine to me, rather than going hmm, maybe things going on behind the scene are going well that point towards a future where things are starting to click. And look we go on a little good stretch here, and maybe this is a step forward and we never look back, maybe this is a step forward before 2 steps back. But how can we just be so the sky is falling at every thing that happens every game, every day. Just I’m a frustrated little duck.

The team started succeeding when Cronin stopped demanding that the team play only dump and chase hockey. Nothing he did mattered until he did that. Also, the team was less exciting to watch than the Kings are. He’s still incapable of having the team play even half the game on most nights, and that’s also a coaching issue.

A lot is still getting covered up by goalie play, but the product is more entertaining now than it was. I would be very interested in seeing a Venn diagram of people who are saying the team is succeeding and goalies are part of the team and the people who said the team needed to be blown up under Eakins because good goalie play was masking how bad the coaching and team actually were.

 

[MMC]

Someone who may be attainable and could help our offense is Matias Maccelli from Utah

 

[All Mighty]

Someone who may be attainable and could help our offense is Mattias Maccelli from Utah

He’s talented, but he doesn’t shoot the puck at all. I guess I wouldn’t mind him as a buy low option for cheap, but I think we can aim higher (and at a different type of player).

 

[MMC]

He’s talented, but he doesn’t shoot the puck at all. I guess I wouldn’t mind him as a buy low option for cheap, but I think we can aim higher (and at a different type of player).

I don’t see any other player who could potentially be available in trade right now that’s good enough to be a significant upgrade without costing more than I’d be comfortable giving up. I would prefer to wait until free agency to make a big swing

 

[Boo Boo]

I’d argue we were never rebuilding in the first place. We were retooling and just sucked as a team. Then Verbeek came in and tore everything to the ground.

Also, hagg complained about being the 7th d man last year, we had a very solid 7th d man, but traded him to get Trouba, the top 4 RHD Verbeek covered this offseason. It’s a win now / later move, that potentially messes up current roster build. He is supposed to find a 2nd 7th D man, ask him to sign an AHL contract and then take Hinds minutes ?

To say questionable rider construction because he didn’t sign 2 (7th D men) to the roster is a bit of a stretch. Its created a short term problem, than will not have any long term effects on our team. Zelly / Minty / helleson …. Playing 10 out of every 15 games isn’t going to do anything for 1-2 months.

Anybody who doesn’t see that the rebuild started with Verbeek just don’t care to be a rational human being. When you trade every UFA with any value on your roster, that is usually a sign that you are committing to rebuilding.

And my main point is this sub doesn’t know what player development is unless someone scores 100 pts. Why is McT being asked to play like a Brady or Matt T, as he gets a goal being in front of the net and tip last night. That’s the type of thing they are working on with McT and Leo. Their weaknesses. Rounding out their overall game. Sometimes there strengths take a back seat in order to round out their game. So I’m frustrated that this sub can’t understand basic fundamentals of player development, and point and XGF and the stat sheet to determine if it’s it working or not.

acknowledging Murray making 3 top 10 picks, acquiring multiple additional late firsts and going on the record as being in a rebuild months before verbeek even got here is irrational?

I understand that verbeek definitely committed to the rebuild but his management team is absolutely the beneficiary of significant rebuilding efforts done by past management.

 

[duckpuck]

The problem is that the article alludes to his value being close to what the Ducks traded him for. Personally, if I had to choose between a 4th and Dumoulin for the rest of the season, I would choose the player. However, the point is moot if Dumoulin wants out.

He's been very good, but in any event I don't think the ducks are resigning Dumo. They have Trouba and Gudas as the veterans and need to make room for the younger guys.

So to me the question is what is the value of Dumo for the remainder of the year? If the ducks can get a 2nd round pick (or package him as part of a bigger deal such as a trade for Elias Pettersson), then you trade him. I wouldn't trade him solely for a 4th round pick.

I don’t see any other player who could potentially be available in trade right now that’s good enough to be a significant upgrade without costing more than I’d be comfortable giving up. I would prefer to wait until free agency to make a big swing

I think this is reasonable. However, it is possible EP or another top forward (Brady T?) asks for a trade. The ducks should be aggressive but with UFA's and in trading for established top line forwards.

acknowledging Murray making 3 top 10 picks, acquiring multiple additional late firsts and going on the record as being in a rebuild months before verbeek even got here is irrational?

I understand that verbeek definitely committed to the rebuild but his management team is absolutely the beneficiary of significant rebuilding efforts done by past management.

You make top 10 picks because you have a bad team. The question is why weren't the top 10 picks top 5 picks? That was because the rebuild was not fully commenced.

The fact that Manson, Rakell and Lindholm were not traded until far too late (and after Verbeek took over) shows that Murray did not embrace a rebuild. If he had an epiphany in the last few months of his tenure, that was far too late.

 

[ScarTroy]

acknowledging Murray making 3 top 10 picks, acquiring multiple additional late firsts and going on the record as being in a rebuild months before verbeek even got here is irrational?

I understand that verbeek definitely committed to the rebuild but his management team is absolutely the beneficiary of significant rebuilding efforts done by past management.

We were bad, not rebuilding. Murray did nothing significant to indicate he was rebuilding this team.

 

[ADHB]

acknowledging Murray making 3 top 10 picks, acquiring multiple additional late firsts and going on the record as being in a rebuild months before verbeek even got here is irrational?

I understand that verbeek definitely committed to the rebuild but his management team is absolutely the beneficiary of significant rebuilding efforts done by past management.

That was a function of being terrible because he didn’t rebuild. Rebuilding means trading away players for future assets. He more or less did none of that, choosing more often than not to sign mid level veterans to extensions (Silf, Henrique, etc.) and in the trades he did make, almost every time he was looking for immediate help, not prospects or picks.

 

[Boo Boo]

He's been very good, but in any event I don't think the ducks are resigning Dumo. They have Trouba and Gudas as the veterans and need to make room for the younger guys.

So to me the question is what is the value of Dumo for the remainder of the year? If the ducks can get a 2nd round pick (or package him as part of a bigger deal such as a trade for Elias Pettersson), then you trade him. I wouldn't trade him solely for a 4th round pick.




I think this is reasonable. However, it is possible EP or another top forward (Brady T?) asks for a trade. The ducks should be aggressive but with UFA's and in trading for established top line forwards.


You make top 10 picks because you have a bad team. The question is why weren't the top 10 picks top 5 picks? That was because the rebuild was not fully commenced.

The fact that Manson, Rakell and Lindholm were not traded until far too late (and after Verbeek took over) shows that Murray did not embrace a rebuild. If he had an epiphany in the last few months of his tenure, that was far too late.

Well Mctavish was a top 3 pick that we got from finishing 2nd to last and dropping in the lottery and drysdale was a 6th pick that we received from finishing bottom 5 and losing the draft lottery. Those bottom 5 finishes in conjunction with having multiple additional firsts from selling at the deadline to me screams rebuild.

 

[DavidBL]

We were bad, not rebuilding. Murray did nothing significant to indicate he was rebuilding this team.

He didn't add any significant UFAs, he sold off some players to get 3 additional first rounders. The only thing he didn't do is scorched earth the team and sell everyone without trade protection, ie players who had term. Even PV has only moved Vets when they were upcoming UFAs. The significant ones just happened to be the same year BM was removed. The desire to blame BM is weird to me. He wasn't a bad GM, he wasn't a great GM. Is he a decent person? Thats a different question and one we can't really answer not knowing him. Sounds like not really given reports though. Either way this team is wholly built by PV. 1 top 10 pick should have been top 5, IMO, one was 3rd OA and ome was 6th overall. So nearly a top 5 pick.

 

[JAHV]

Well Mctavish was a top 3 pick that we got from finishing 2nd to last and dropping in the lottery and drysdale was a 6th pick that we received from finishing bottom 5 and losing the draft lottery. Those bottom 5 finishes in conjunction with having multiple additional firsts from selling at the deadline to me screams rebuild.

Rebuilding is a conscious decision that involves action (trading away players, mostly, or trading for bad assets and picking up a sweetener in the process). It involves purposeful demolition before the building process begins.

What Murray did was watch the house collapse around him while trying to hold it together with duck tape (pun intended) and some chewing gum. He wasn't rebuilding.

 

[ScarTroy]

He didn't add any significant UFAs, he sold off some players to get 3 additional first rounders. The only thing he didn't do is scorched earth the team and sell everyone without trade protection, ie players who had term. Even PV has only moved Vets when they were upcoming UFAs. The significant ones just happened to be the same year BM was removed. The desire to blame BM is weird to me. He wasn't a bad GM, he wasn't a great GM. Is he a decent person? Thats a different question and one we can't really answer not knowing him. Sounds like not really given reports though. Either way this team is wholly built by PV. 1 top 10 pick should have been top 5, IMO, one was 3rd OA and ome was 6th overall. So nearly a top 5 pick.

You know how he got those additional picks? By trying to tread water and failing. He traded Montour way too early in his career, we all saw the potential. He traded Kase who had his own set of circumstances, but that’s not a “rebuild” move. I honestly am not sure what other additional first round pick you are referring to though other than the two I mentioned. I’m not saying BM was a bad GM, I’m saying he didn’t start a rebuild, because he didn’t.

 

[DavidBL]

You know how he got those additional picks? By trying to tread water and failing. He traded Montour way too early in his career, we all saw the potential. He traded Kase who had his own set of circumstances, but that’s not a “rebuild” move. I honestly am not sure what other additional first round pick you are referring to though other than the two I mentioned. I’m not saying BM was a bad GM, I’m saying he didn’t start a rebuild, because he didn’t.

Obviously I disagree. He very clearly traded away current assets for futures and didn't use them to improve the team back then He didn't actively try to improve the team. If he went and spent those assets on current players I could see the argument but he didn't. He still had to ice a team every year. He still needed guys to play.

 

[DaGeneral]

That's short-sighted of you to not account roster construction, which also affect the AHL club. We have five NHL contracts slots available to afford a couple of fringe NHL d-men to start the season to avoid the potentiality of healthy scratching a youth for days on end at the NHL level. We only have youth d-men available to us today in the AHL.

I think the crutch of Helleson looking solid at the NHL level that caused this mess is a mirage stance. Did we forget the potential for RD Luneau to possibly look solid after a stint down in the AHL? In Luneau's past five games in the AHL, he's potted 1g +3a and had a +2 rating. He is only one of two Ducks property who has a +/- rating greater than zero in the past four weeks. The possibility of an AHL youth D looking solid or equal to our NHL youth D this season would have been high, especially with the org very high on RD Luneau. A logical thought was that we would trade Dumo at the TDL and bring up Luneau to close out the season like we did with Zellweger last year.

Even if we trade Dumo, then we will still need to pull a #7D to the NHL club. Again, we only have youth d-men available to us at the AHL level. That means we are healthy scratching yet another youth D at the NHL level rather than have that youth D in the AHL playing top-4 minutes.

You are only thinking of the situation "in the now" as opposed to thinking of the situation being better prepared before the season started.

---

Speaking of macro thinking, to me this is year 3 of the reset rebuild. That means I was prepared for it to be a development season. 33-year old Dumo made us better from the start as he was attached to one of the youths in Zell or Minty. The 30-year old Trouba trade (we got a bit younger, more physical, more shot blocking and on the right side), LaCombe continuing his progression, and a different RD looking solid at the NHL level has Dumo as the odd man out in this situation. Pairing Dumo-Trouba together and leaving our weaker youths on their own on limited third pairing minutes is a choice that breaks away from development.

As for HF's mentality on player development, aka another losing season, it just depends on if they see this year as year 6 of the rebuild or year 3 of the reset rebuild. When the Verbeekening (resetting the rebuild) happened, that choice made me have a five-year wait-n-see mode. When Verbeek admitted to "blowing up the team" at the Verbeekening, then the most common outcome would be a bottom feeder team for a few years at the very least as you collect prospects and develop them.

I get many of us are tired of losing, but maybe they're coming around to accepting that Verbeek did reset the rebuild and we are in only Year 3 of the reset rebuild.

Fringe Dman are available for next to nothing at the deadline, or on waivers. I don’t think it falls into a roster construction issue

 

[TheDarkWingThatDucks]

The team started succeeding when Cronin stopped demanding that the team play only dump and chase hockey. Nothing he did mattered until he did that. Also, the team was less exciting to watch than the Kings are. He’s still incapable of having the team play even half the game on most nights, and that’s also a coaching issue.

A lot is still getting covered up by goalie play, but the product is more entertaining now than it was. I would be very interested in seeing a Venn diagram of people who are saying the team is succeeding and goalies are part of the team and the people who said the team needed to be blown up under Eakins because good goalie play was masking how bad the coaching and team actually were.

You’re not wrong and hey I don’t think HCGC is a good NHL coach, I think he is a good developmental coach, who can instill a work ethic and develop a culture. That we have been sorely lacking as Getz kinda started to slow down.

I think his role in our organization’s development is to be the person who forces a lunch pail work ethic. Team over self, all that jazz.

I could care less* about how awful the dump and chase is, and how long it took him to adjust. They say iron sharpens iron and we needed these kids to be challenged mentally and physically.

I am not saying Cronin chose dump and chase to force the kids to struggle as some 5 d chess move. I don’t think he’s particularly an amazing xo’s coach but he clearly knows something about personal relationships, and he cares for his players, and he’s holds people accountable (whether you think he does with the veterans is a different story altogether and how you really lose a locker room)

If he wasn’t doing these things that I state above, Verbeek would have fired him, because Verbeek brought him in to change the culture, and develop the kids (sadly at the NHL level). But hang out little buddies, we are about 1-3 years away from maybe really turning into a wagon. Like we our one Ranta / marner + a legit offensive minded HC away from taking some big steps.

I just think Cronin has done what his expected job was, well, and don’t like him getting the short stick every night if. Leo isn’t progressing, why are you making Zegras defensive minded, why are you making McT play in front of the net. Because we need our young hopeful stars to improve on their weaknesses. McT isn’t going to forget how to shoot a puck, Zegras isn’t going to forget how to 360 no look pass, Leo isn’t going to forget how to skate. We need these players to improve at their strengths, but more importantly toy their weaknesses, and I think that is being done.

* is it could care or couldn’t care less, I’m working and brain fried

 

[ScarTroy]

Obviously I disagree. He very clearly traded away current assets for futures and didn't use them to improve the team back then He didn't actively try to improve the team. If he went and spent those assets on current players I could see the argument but he didn't. He still had to ice a team every year. He still needed guys to play.

So the big moves of BM rebuilding was trading Montour and Kase? And he gets credit for not being a buyer when we were a shit team? Like I said before, and yes I understand we disagree, which is fine, but I think we were just a bad team treading water, not a rebuilding team.

 

[DavidBL]

So the big moves of BM rebuilding was trading Montour and Kase? And he gets credit for not being a buyer when we were a shit team? Like I said before, and yes I understand we disagree, which is fine, but I think we were just a bad team treading water, not a rebuilding team.

And the big moves PV did was trade Lindholm and Rakell and Manson? The latter 2 not returning first round picks like the Kase deal did? I just don't see a difference in rebuilding and intentionally not improving team. Yes we were a bad team, I'd say it was by design as evidenced by nit actively trying to improve the team. Do you really think BM was trying to win those years?

 

[Rasp]

BM never committed to a proper rebuild. He even called it a 'retool'.

Verbeek came in and went for the full rebuild changing the timeline of the team improving.

 

[Boo Boo]

And the big moves PV did was trade Lindholm and Rakell and Manson? The latter 2 not returning first round picks like the Kase deal did? I just don't see a difference in rebuilding and intentionally not improving team. Yes we were a bad team, I'd say it was by design as evidenced by nit actively trying to improve the team. Do you really think BM was trying to win those years?

I agree - it sucks that there were some lean years there at the beginning of rebuild where we seemed to be stuck in a holding pattern but cooking in the background of that era was the development of Terry , Dostal, Lacombe,(who as of late are our best players) zegras and Mctavish among others. That’s a not insignificant portion of the future core that was built for pat to inherit.

 

[ScarTroy]

And the big moves PV did was trade Lindholm and Rakell and Manson? The latter 2 not returning first round picks like the Kase deal did? I just don't see a difference in rebuilding and intentionally not improving team. Yes we were a bad team, I'd say it was by design as evidenced by nit actively trying to improve the team. Do you really think BM was trying to win those years?

Montour and Kase weren’t UFA’s, of course those are going to get better value. However, PV got Drew Helleson in the Manson trade and a second (Carey Terrance) which is similar value and is already more impactful than those 1sts BM received and used. Not to mention Luneau from the Rakell trade. Funnily enough it appears we struck out worse on better value from the Lindholm trade.