Speculation: 2024-25 - Free Agency/Trade Thread

[duckpuck]

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.

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.

One point - his actual salary in dollars the next 2 years is $9.1M which is higher than the $8.7M AAV. So that's another negative.

If the due diligence suggests he's in a good place, I'd be willing to take a flyer on Laine if the price is low - something like Lacombe or Vaak. The dollars are not material for the ducks in the short run.

That being said, if he does return to form, I would not want to sign him to a long term/big $$ deal precisely because he's not shown he can be consistent. So thinking ahead, it you have to ask what the long term upside is? Maybe he returns to form and you flip him for more assets down the road?

 

[12ozPapa]

Again, you're creating conflict when it doesn't exist. Quality signings does not equal role player signings. Quality players puts the team on their backs like a Getz, Perry, Scotty, Prongs, and Kesler. Role players fill in the gaps or are glue types. You need both to succeed, but under our new GM, we're only able to sign role players and not quality players because we're not a playoff quality team.

I dunno why you keep assigning that I don't believe in "players want to play for winning teams" to me. I have stated already in this thread that it's because we're not a playoff quality team that better players chose not to sign with us, which is essentially saying, "players want to play for winning teams". See, that's where you are creating conflict when it never existed.

You have to do a much better job reading b/c we're practically on the same page, but you're refusing to accept it for some unknown reason or reasons. It feels like talking to a person who has drunk too much and doesn't care what is actually said.

There he is! In all his condescending glory!

 

[Rasp]

I dont want Laine. He doesnt fit the type of team we are trying to build and has issues at every team he goes to. He isnt suddenly going to learn to play defence and will cost too much in picks and prospects.

 

[DavidBL]

I dont want Laine. He doesnt fit the type of team we are trying to build and has issues at every team he goes to. He isnt suddenly going to learn to play defence and will cost too much in picks and prospects.

We need players who can score now. Reading the MB thread there are CBJ fans suggesting his defensive deficiencies are being exaggerated. Outside of injuries I also don't know of any issues with the team. We don't need to manufacture things like people have done with Z.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

problem is, when he isn't an overpaid problem child he'll cost an arm and a leg.

You take chances on these players when their value is at their lowest (see Ryan O Reilly) and hope to reap the rewards.

We aren’t competing for a cup the next two years. If he actually turns into something good he’ll be gone as a UFA in two years. The two years he could help bridge the gap to us becoming respectable is not worth paying a high price for (IMO).

It’s been five years since he was worth an arm and a leg. Taking him on at his current contract is already taking a chance even without paying a premium.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

We aren’t competing for a cup the next two years. If he actually turns into something good he’ll be gone as a UFA in two years. The two years he could help bridge the gap to us becoming respectable is not worth paying a high price for (IMO).

It’s been five years since he was worth an arm and a leg. Taking him on at his current contract is already taking a chance even without paying a premium.

What if Laine plays on the Ducks for one year, raises his stock and the Ducks trade him the next year he's a pending UFA. It recoups some of the loss spent getting him and helps the teams roster improve offensively.

 

[DavidBL]

We aren’t competing for a cup the next two years. If he actually turns into something good he’ll be gone as a UFA in two years. The two years he could help bridge the gap to us becoming respectable is not worth paying a high price for (IMO).

It’s been five years since he was worth an arm and a leg. Taking him on at his current contract is already taking a chance even without paying a premium.

Define a high price. Imo, I don't think Lacombe is that. He's unlikely to be here in 2 years either. As I've said before he's 4th on our LD depth chart not including the veterans. I like Lacombe but it's not like he is vastly outplaying projections.

 

[FlyingV09]

Waddell says he wants picks and prospects for Laine...and I assume he wants good ones.

Ya he says that but I’m guessing we’d want to send some salary back. I think something around Strome(to send some money back) and LaCombe makes sense.

 

[tomd]

What if Laine plays on the Ducks for one year, raises his stock and the Ducks trade him the next year he's a pending UFA. It recoups some of the loss spent getting him and helps the teams roster improve offensively.

So best case it's a 1-2 year sugar high then you trade him for a draft pick who is 15-16 years old right now. In the meantime the picks/players you trade today for Laine are entering the NHL just when he is leaving the team. Seems like overall it's a step back.

Worst case is that you've got a Klingberg situation except add $12 million to the pricetag.

I'd hope that if PV acquires Laine it is in line with the organization's strategic vision for the next 3-5 years. I'm not sure a short term commitment to Laine solves anything in that regard. After the last couple of years I'd hate to see the team start to make reactive moves that are similar to the moves the team 30 miles to the north has been making.

 

[tomd]

Ya he says that but I’m guessing we’d want to send some salary back. I think something around Strome(to send some money back) and LaCombe makes sense.

You are proposing to send $5.9 million in salary back. I've no problem with your trade proposal but I don't see Waddell biting on it based on his public comments.

 

[70sSanO]

I think Verbeek has stayed his course and has not made obvious bad choices, some borderline ones, just doe the sake of a temporary boost.

Laine has requested a trade from the 2 NHL teams he has played for. If Laine comes here it is because Verbeek has vetted him and sees him as a part of our path forward, if even for a couple years.

PV needs the team to perform better, but he is under no pressure to scramble or grasp at straws to keep his job.

John

 

[DavidBL]

So best case it's a 1-2 year sugar high then you trade him for a draft pick who is 15-16 years old right now. In the meantime the picks/players you trade today for Laine are entering the NHL just when he is leaving the team. Seems like overall it's a step back.

Worst case is that you've got a Klingberg situation except add $12 million to the pricetag.

I'd hope that if PV acquires Laine it is in line with the organization's strategic vision for the next 3-5 years. I'm not sure a short term commitment to Laine solves anything in that regard. After the last couple of years I'd hate to see the team start to make reactive moves that are similar to the moves the team 30 miles to the north has been making.

What's wrong with a 2 year sugar high? It's exactly what we wanted from Stamkos or Marchy. I really don't see how this turns I to something like that the kings have done.

 

[Hamilton Bulldogs]

We aren’t competing for a cup the next two years. If he actually turns into something good he’ll be gone as a UFA in two years. The two years he could help bridge the gap to us becoming respectable is not worth paying a high price for (IMO).

It’s been five years since he was worth an arm and a leg. Taking him on at his current contract is already taking a chance even without paying a premium.

Getting good players to play with the young core is important too.

Having Sam Carrick on one of your powerplays during the season and then wondering why McTavish isn't growing into an elite player isn't going to help the organization get a good idea of what exactly they have.

If the price is cheap, I don't see why you don't take a chance.

 

[tomd]

What's wrong with a 2 year sugar high? It's exactly what we wanted from Stamkos or Marchy. I really don't see how this turns I to something like that the kings have done.

First, it depends on what PV has to give up for that sugar high. We can talk all day about LaCombe being the main piece but we just don't know.

Second, if you don't see the inherent risk in spending $9 million for each of the next two years for Laine then I don't know what to say.

Third, Stamkos and Marchessault are both veterans with a track record who have won Stanley Cups. They would have provided veteran leadership and would have cost zero assets. Completely apples and oranges comparing them to Laine.

Bottom line, I'm not against acquiring Laine if he could be obtained at 50% retention for Strome and a 3rd or something similar. At that price, the risk/reward is neutral. But a LaCombe + for Laine at full price trade could look REALLY bad in a couple of years. And we haven't even talked about the impact of making Laine the team's highest paid player and the risk that that entails on future contracts.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Define a high price. Imo, I don't think Lacombe is that. He's unlikely to be here in 2 years either. As I've said before he's 4th on our LD depth chart not including the veterans. I like Lacombe but it's not like he is vastly outplaying projections.

Our RD depth chart isn't looking great and Gudas will be gone in two years. Also, Gudas is wearing down to where his minutes might be regulated to 3rd pairing minutes sooner than later b/c we witnessed his play decay fast with top pairing minutes like Comtois' game when Comtois gained weight. We didn't draft any RD's in this past draft, which means we're relying on the ones we have on hand in Luneau, Helleson, Warren, and, hopefully, Moore.

• Luneau looks to be an NHL lock, but needs seasoning after missing most of last year due to "load mgmt" and a knee infection; we're hoping Luneau won't be injury plagued.
• Helleson still feels like years away. He was drafted in the same year as LaCombe in 2019. I think LaCombe plays better RD than Helleson does at RD.
• Warren has been injury plagued since we've drafted him despite his high potential as a DFD. It'll be his first year as a pro in San Diego.
• Moore is college, specifically Harvard. I think we're all leery about Harvard seniors, see Thrun.

Today, we have two LDs projected to play the right side in Zellweger and LaCombe, provided Luneau is in the AHL. LaCombe is the probably the best defensive player out of all of our blueline youths and prospects right now AINEC.

Laine has been injury plagued for the past four to five years, including his mental break. Anaheim isn't a stable organization to drop Laine in because he will be lacking support structures from the Ducks. We forced players to play through injuries that they really should not have been playing on, especially with the recent Drysdale medical revelation.



I had projected that this season is going to be another development season last summer because we are still in our infancy stages for the youth brigade. Last summer, I broke down where our prospects would be by season and when we should be gunning for top-end FA's and trades. That is why I said this season we rushed our rebuild by pushing so many prospects into the NHL level. We still have too many unknowns to be trading away prospects for a player that has a lot of baggage, including financial ones.

Columbus is in a similar situation like the Ducks, a rebuild team, and they had Laine. Did Laine change their trajectory?
2021 Draft: Picked 5th OA
2022 Draft: Picked 6th OA
2023 Draft: Picked 3rd OA

If Laine didn't help improve Columbus much when he was mostly on the ice, then how would he change the Ducks' trajectory now? And you want to add F Laine by removing talent from our NHL d-corps in LaCombe, which lacks RD depth.

I'm in no rush since I believe we're still in another development season. We already traded RD Drysdale for LW Cutter, where Cutter will be a rookie for this coming season. Then there's a possibility that we're developing a scoring, power forward RW in 6'2 and 209 lbs Colangelo. We're just extremely young and green at forward as well as defense. And since I'm in no rush, then I don't think in desperate measures of taking gambles. We are heading into Year 3 of the reset rebuild.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

Count me in for Laine. Give him that top line RW spot over Terry

 

[DavidBL]

First, it depends on what PV has to give up for that sugar high. We can talk all day about LaCombe being the main piece but we just don't know.

Second, if you don't see the inherent risk in spending $9 million for each of the next two years for Laine then I don't know what to say.

Third, Stamkos and Marchessault are both veterans with a track record who have won Stanley Cups. They would have provided veteran leadership and would have cost zero assets. Completely apples and oranges comparing them to Laine.

Bottom line, I'm not against acquiring Laine if he could be obtained at 50% retention for Strome and a 3rd or something similar. At that price, the risk/reward is neutral. But a LaCombe + for Laine at full price trade could look REALLY bad in a couple of years. And we haven't even talked about the impact of making Laine the team's highest paid player and the risk that that entails on future contracts.

I'm not suggesting we give up anything to get him. There is absolutely a line. I just don't think Lacombe is it. And we don't know either way, but if the ask is our first or Z or something like that then yeah, absolutely pass but that's not really the realm of what's been rumored.

2nd, I guess I don't see the risk the way you do. Could he end up being wasted money, yeah, but we can't seem to get good ufas anyway so what are we spending it on. If PV is within his budget he's within the budget. That's the gamble. He can't be so risk averse that he is too scared to make any moves that could push this team forward.

Yes, Stamkos and Marchy add more than Laine, thats why he wasn't first choice. Term is still manageable and the cap hit isn't outrageous, unlike someone like Marner. If he recovers than he is worth that deal.

I actually don't mind keeping Strome. I think he adds character to the team. The whole point of adding Laine is to add to the team not make a lateral move. The risk is in the money spent. To spend lesser assets to get a potentially better player. I also don't tend to think that Laines deal overly affects the young players. One, they have to prove they deserve more and if they do great, it means they had good years; two, PV has demonstrated he is willing to take them to bridge deals; and three, outside of McTavish, Laines deal will be over. I don't think it generates the leverage any more than the precedent of when the deal was signed. You also have the argument that it wasn't a deal you signed.

I guess we just see the risk very differently.

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

I dont want Laine. He doesnt fit the type of team we are trying to build and has issues at every team he goes to. He isnt suddenly going to learn to play defence and will cost too much in picks and prospects.

He certainly isn't a guaranteed asset, but it seems a little unfair to talk about mental health issues after the passing of his father like he's PLD.

 

[KelVarnsen]

I’m in for Laine. Hopefully buy low and he rebounds. And wasn’t he already paid 2 mil in Bonus in July 1? The cap hit is a little higher than actual dollars paid since the bonus is already gone right? Ducks need better players and Laine, if his head and heart are right, is a better player. To me it’s worth the gamble.

 

[Dostwall]

FWIW, Aaron Portzline wrote today about Laine:

“There are plenty of destinations. If we had to pick two: Anaheim and Carolina, with Montreal an outside shot.”

Blue Jackets Sunday Gathering: Arbitration avoided after Kirill Marchenko signs

The Blue Jackets announced Sunday they've agreed to terms with Marchenko's agent on a three-year, $11.55 million contract.

www.nytimes.com

 

[KaseMeOutside]

I see no reason to be trading assets right now unless it's for a top 4 dman. I think our forward group while young atleast has talent and if they were supported by a good D core I think Anaheim could get by and see how things play out for a few months

 

[MCB]

FWIW, Aaron Portzline wrote today about Laine:

“There are plenty of destinations. If we had to pick two: Anaheim and Carolina, with Montreal an outside shot.”

Blue Jackets Sunday Gathering: Arbitration avoided after Kirill Marchenko signs

The Blue Jackets announced Sunday they've agreed to terms with Marchenko's agent on a three-year, $11.55 million contract.

www.nytimes.com

Interesting. I'm down to gamble on Laine (easier said when it's someone else's money though)

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

I see no reason to be trading assets right now unless it's for a top 4 dman. I think our forward group while young atleast has talent and if they were supported by a good D core I think Anaheim could get by and see how things play out for a few months

We have assets to spare in LHD and goalies, though.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Define a high price. Imo, I don't think Lacombe is that. He's unlikely to be here in 2 years either. As I've said before he's 4th on our LD depth chart not including the veterans. I like Lacombe but it's not like he is vastly outplaying projections.

I answered this before. I wouldn't give up Lacombe now. You would. That's fine, we disagree. You aren't changing my mind.

Getting good players to play with the young core is important too.

Having Sam Carrick on one of your powerplays during the season and then wondering why McTavish isn't growing into an elite player isn't going to help the organization get a good idea of what exactly they have.

If the price is cheap, I don't see why you don't take a chance.

I did say that for a cheap price I'd be OK with it. Make it a low pick and I'd be willing to take the financial risk. But only as long as we aren't giving up talent or high picks.

 

[DavidBL]

I answered this before. I wouldn't give up Lacombe now. You would. That's fine, we disagree. You aren't changing my mind.


I did say that for a cheap price I'd be OK with it. Make it a low pick and I'd be willing to take the financial risk. But only as long as we aren't giving up talent or high picks.

Fair enough. Your limit is late round picks.