Speculation: 2024-25 - Free Agency/Trade Thread

[Gliff]

I would love Rutger, but I dont see how he is a need. He is a LW where we have Cutter and Zegras/McTavish in the top 6 already. It only made sense if Zegras was traded.

 

[70sSanO]

Anyone else think it may be worth it to snag Tyson Barrie? good teammate, shouldnt cost a lot, can run a PP, and is a right handed shot.
Plus if he does well you can move him at the deadline for a pick.

Simon Despres would like a word…

John

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Teams generally start digging out of the hole after 3 years, which ironically we were before PV took over. Imo if we're not a bubble team this year than PVs rebuild will be suspect to say the least. This team really could have used some help to push them forward so all of that pressure wouldn't be on 19-23 year olds.

I don't know about digging out of rebuild in three years, especially if you're waiting on prospects to develop. The top-10 guys usually get to the NHL faster, but prospects drafted outside the top-10 will take longer to develop. Last year was LaCombe's first, full pro season and it was in the NHL, but he was a 2019 2nd round draft pick. Colangelo is a 2020 2nd round draft pick and this coming season will be his first pro season (AHL or NHL). RD Ian Moore is also a 2020 draft pick selected in the 3rd round, is finishing his senior year in the NCAA this coming season, and Verbeek wants to sign him. All three prospects were drafted at least two years before Verbeek took over.

What I mean from "bottom out naturally" is that we stopped trying to add external talent but didn't jettison the talent we had. We got the high picks while maintaining the support group around them. Imo that makes it easier to transition from a bottom feeder, like we are now, to being more completive. This summer proves that adding good players is hard when your team isn't doing well and hasn't been for years. We saw glimpses in 21-22 where we went from the 2nd worst to 10th worst, no matter how you slice it, it was forward growth. At that time we had 3 good young top picks, Terry breaking out and support with an aging Getzlaf, who we never replaced, among others to mentor the kids. We'll never know what we could have done if we continued to support that team rather than jettisoning the aging talent we had left.

Under Murray, we technically didn't bottom out naturally. We literally blew out the team, but only one player returned any asset. We lost D Montour, RW Perry, C Kesler, and LW/RW Eaves between the 2018-19 TDL and the 2019 summer. That's a top-4D and three top-6 guys. We bought out Perry while Kesler and Eaves were medical casualties that teams couldn't or wouldn't want their salaries... and Murray did try to shop Kesler's LITR contract.

We continued to purge at the 2019-20 TDL we when shipped off 2014 draft picks: LW Ritchie was a 10th overall pick that didn't pan out and RW Kase was a great offensive weapon whose concussions made it easier to part with. They were 23-year olds when they were traded.

A big reason we sucked so bad during COVID (2020-21) was the loss of Lindholm to injuries, he only played in 18 out of 56 games.

Ducks 2020-21	COVID	Season
Subject	Games	W	L	OTL	Pts	Pts %
Season	56​	17​	30​	9​	43​	0.384​
Lindholm	18​	6​	8​	4​	16​	0.444​
W/o Lindholm	38​	11​	22​	5​	27​	0.355​

For the 2021-22 season, Lindholm missed only two games out of 63 eligible Duck games. Manson missed 17 games out of an eligible 63 Ducks games; He missed 12 of those games after All-Star break as he was put on IR during All-Star break. Anaheim was 3rd in the Pacific during All-Star break, when Verbeek took over. We were 4 points from 3rd place in the Pacific at the TDL with 64 points.

Ducks	2021-22	Record	Breaks	and	TDL	Split
Date	Event	GP	W	L	OTL	Pts	Pts Pct		Pacific Rank
10-Nov​	GM Murray resigns	14​	7​	4​	3​	17​	0.607​		3rd
3-Feb	GM Verbeek hired (All-Star Break)	48​	23​	16​	9​	55​	0.573​		3rd
14-Mar​	TDL	62​	27​	25​	10​	64​	0.516​		6th; 4 points from 3rd
30-Apr​	End of Season	82​	31​	37​	14​	76​	0.463​		7th; 23 points from 3rd
TDL	To End of Season	20​	4​	12​	4​	12​	0.300​

The combo of a healthy Lindholm, Terry breaking out (in his D+7 season), and the rookie duo of Z & D made the Ducks rebound so greatly from finishing with the 2nd worst record in 2020-21 to being a fringe playoff team at All-Star break. What the team was missing was talent depth if Verbeek didn't blow the team up.

Anaheim doesn't have a top D-pairing talent today, as it's all on potential. The Ducks do have depth on the blue line, but they are on the low-end of a 2nd pairing at best. The additions of Gudas and Lyubushkin were great additions for the youth, but that duo isn't on the same level as Lindholm-Manson. We are going to have to wait for a top D-pairing to develop.

The forward group had good veteran sheltering in Rico, Silf, Vatrano, Strome, and Killorn. Terry and Z lead the team in scoring two years ago; Terry finished 2nd in scoring last year with Vatrano finishing 1st. IMO, the problem last year wasn't our forwards, but our offensive scheme that throttled the team down. This year will be interesting because we lost Rico at the TDL and he was the only top-6, veteran forward we had. Still, I think if Z and Mac are healthy, they already had a couple of year's NHL guidance that they can fly on their own.

We are heading into Year 3 of the Verbeek reset rebuild, where the Ducks played seven rookies at the NHL level last year (G Dostal, C Carlsson, LD Minty, LD LaCombe, RD Luneau, C Groulx, and LD Zellweger). It's going to take another year or two of development for upper echelon talent to take hold. Future looks bright with the youth talent being added and will still add. I'm excited about the addition of LD Solberg to becoming a part of our NHL blueline, but he might be two or three years away.

 

[Terry Yake]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1826657768583168193

 

[AngelDuck]

Wow, nice move for the Jets. I’m surprised the Pens would do that

 

[Hockey Duckie]

When you are talking about not "jettison[ing] the talent we had," are you referring to Lindholm, Manson, and Rakell? Manson had a decent year last year on an elite Colorado team, but he'd been mediocre at best before we traded him and was injured in 22-23. Rakell had a very solid season playing alongside Malkin in 22-23, but took a steep decline last season. Then there's Lindholm who has been his good self.

But we need to look at context: Lindholm (top of the league team), Manson (top of the league team), Rakell (middle of the league team, but playing alongside very good players). The Ducks could not have offered that environment to those guys, and we know how well they would have performed in the environment the Ducks offered. They were doing it before they were traded and all three of them were fine. Not great, but fine. And all three were approaching their 30s.

This also assumes that all three would have re-signed here. Lindholm seems like he was open to it based on his comments, and perhaps Manson, but we don't know about Rakell.

So what's the difference if those guys had stayed? The Ducks pick a couple spots later in 2022 and may or may not get Mintyukov. They certainly don't get Carlsson in 2023. But they're still bad. Adding Lindholm and Manson to this roster certainly would have made it better, but they're maybe 10-14 points better? I don't think that's worth losing Carlsson.

I also am not sure what pressure there is on the 19-23 year-olds. They're playing hockey in Anaheim, California for a team that's not expecting to contend. There is as little pressure on them as is possible in the NHL.

I want this team to be good as much as anyone. I hate the losing. But this team still would have lost the last two seasons, even with those guys. Bob Murray made sure of that. And they wouldn't have a potential franchise player to show for the losing. So we'd be Arizona without the exciting new owner. Maybe Ottawa. So when you say "this level of losing doesn't lead to Cups," I'm not sure what level of losing DOES lead to Cups. The Ducks would have lost less, but they would have lost. So would being the 8th-12th worst team in the league instead of bottom 3 lead to a Cup?

One thing we do know about Cup winners - they all have elite players, and the best way (in fact, realistically, the only way as a small market team) to get an elite player is to bottom out and hope draft luck goes your way. The Ducks did that for Carlsson. Now we wait, as painful as that is.

The three I would have kept would be Lindholm, Manson, and Des. All three are physical and all three play on the PK.

Boston was not supposed to be a good team to start the season two year ago and thoughts of missing the playoffs last year loomed heavy going into last season. A significant reason why Boston was great two years ago and still atop last year was the addition of Lindholm. Two years ago, I did a breakdown on the Bruins forum how Lindholm prevents a goal per game with the Ducks and vastly improves the PK unit. That translated the same when Lindholm joined Boston, prevented a goal per game and vastly improved their PK unit.

What the 2021-22 team was missing was actual talent depth. Verbeek sat on his hands at All-star break when he knew Manson went on IR and missed 12 consecutive games. That forced the Ducks to run three rookie defenders in RD Drysdale, LD Benoit, and LD Mahura. I don't believe you understand how drastic that was for the blueline. Benoit and Mahura weren't good enough to be kept by Verbeek! It was evident when Verbeek sat on his hands that he was intending on blowing up the team. We were only 4 points away from 3rd in the Pacific at the TDL and that was with Manson missed 12 out of 14 games.

You truly underestimate the value of Lindholm. With LD Lindholm as a top-pairing D, that put Fowler in vastly better situation to succeed as a 2nd pairing LD. Maybe Drysdale doesn't get injured two seasons in a row if Lindholm is doing the heavy lifting along the boards instead of Fowler.

If those three were kept, then there would be no need to draft Mintyukov AND Terry wouldn't have had a busted face. LD LaCombe, LD Thrun, and LD Zellweger were already in the pipeline. Anaheim would have drafted a forward with that first round pick like a McGroarty (or Snuggerud if Murray were still around). I bet the Ducks still would have drafted Luneau in the 2nd round because it's what they do (See LaCombe and Zellweger as proof).

The team got Carlsson because Verbeek gave the team a shit roster with his veteran additions. Please don't forget that fact. And when Verbeek added more talent the following season, he gave the team a shit offensive scheme and kept Asst coach Brown on as his PP coach! So maybe it's best Verbeek did trade away all those players b/c his past two seasons of record aren't that great to speak about.

 

[Deuce22]

The three I would have kept would be Lindholm, Manson, and Des. All three are physical and all three play on the PK.

Boston was not supposed to be a good team to start the season two year ago and thoughts of missing the playoffs last year loomed heavy going into last season. A significant reason why Boston was great two years ago and still atop last year was the addition of Lindholm. Two years ago, I did a breakdown on the Bruins forum how Lindholm prevents a goal per game with the Ducks and vastly improves the PK unit. That translated the same when Lindholm joined Boston, prevented a goal per game and vastly improved their PK unit.

What the 2021-22 team was missing was actual talent depth. Verbeek sat on his hands at All-star break when he knew Manson went on IR and missed 12 consecutive games. That forced the Ducks to run three rookie defenders in RD Drysdale, LD Benoit, and LD Mahura. I don't believe you understand how drastic that was for the blueline. Benoit and Mahura weren't good enough to be kept by Verbeek! It was evident when Verbeek sat on his hands that he was intending on blowing up the team. We were only 4 points away from 3rd in the Pacific at the TDL and that was with Manson missed 12 out of 14 games.

You truly underestimate the value of Lindholm. With LD Lindholm as a top-pairing D, that put Fowler in vastly better situation to succeed as a 2nd pairing LD. Maybe Drysdale doesn't get injured two seasons in a row if Lindholm is doing the heavy lifting along the boards instead of Fowler.

If those three were kept, then there would be no need to draft Mintyukov AND Terry wouldn't have had a busted face. LD LaCombe, LD Thrun, and LD Zellweger were already in the pipeline. Anaheim would have drafted a forward with that first round pick like a McGroarty (or Snuggerud if Murray were still around). I bet the Ducks still would have drafted Luneau in the 2nd round because it's what they do (See LaCombe and Zellweger as proof).

The team got Carlsson because Verbeek gave the team a shit roster with his veteran additions. Please don't forget that fact. And when Verbeek added more talent the following season, he gave the team a shit offensive scheme and kept Asst coach Brown on as his PP coach! So maybe it's best Verbeek did trade away all those players b/c his past two seasons of record aren't that great to speak about.

Your plan would have won some more games. I'd say Ducks would have drafted between 10-15. WE wouldn't have Carlsson, Mintyukov, or Senneke. We would still have an older Lindholm (still good), a broken down Manson, and a better goon. I'd rather be where the (actual) rebuild has us now than more competitive short term without three potential elite players.

 

[Trojans86]

Your plan would have won some more games. I'd say Ducks would have drafted between 10-15. WE wouldn't have Carlsson, Mintyukov, or Senneke. We would still have an older Lindholm (still good), a broken down Manson, and a better goon. I'd rather be where the (actual) rebuild has us now than more competitive short term without three potential elite players.

Agreed 100%

 

[nbducksfan19]

Your plan would have won some more games. I'd say Ducks would have drafted between 10-15. WE wouldn't have Carlsson, Mintyukov, or Senneke. We would still have an older Lindholm (still good), a broken down Manson, and a better goon. I'd rather be where the (actual) rebuild has us now than more competitive short term without three potential elite players.

I somewhat agree, but think even with those guys, we are still picking 5–10. No chance those guys make us a 30 point better team…

 

[TheGoodShepard1]

I would love Rutger, but I dont see how he is a need. He is a LW where we have Cutter and Zegras/McTavish in the top 6 already. It only made sense if Zegras was traded.

Yeah, probably should have put this in the Around the League since it wasn’t Ducks-related, but this thread gets more engagement. Was more of a hypothetical to see if Chevy could pry open the vault with a lack of leverage since Yager and a 1st in this draft between 12-18 were really the only prime assets Pittsburgh had to work with

 

[CrazyDuck4u]

Ducks should be talking to Vancouver about a gibson swap

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Ducks should be talking to Vancouver about a gibson swap

How and why lol

 

[Hamilton Bulldogs]

Ducks should be talking to Vancouver about a gibson swap

for who?

 

[70sSanO]

Ducks should be talking to Vancouver about a gibson swap

I know PV has talked to Chick-Fil-A. They are always looking for people to wear the cow suit.

I don’t think they could come to terms.

John

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I know PV has talked to Chick-Fil-A. They are always looking for people to wear the cow suit.

I don’t think they could come to terms.

John

Udder nonsense.

 

[DavidBL]

When you are talking about not "jettison[ing] the talent we had," are you referring to Lindholm, Manson, and Rakell? Manson had a decent year last year on an elite Colorado team, but he'd been mediocre at best before we traded him and was injured in 22-23. Rakell had a very solid season playing alongside Malkin in 22-23, but took a steep decline last season. Then there's Lindholm who has been his good self.

But we need to look at context: Lindholm (top of the league team), Manson (top of the league team), Rakell (middle of the league team, but playing alongside very good players). The Ducks could not have offered that environment to those guys, and we know how well they would have performed in the environment the Ducks offered. They were doing it before they were traded and all three of them were fine. Not great, but fine. And all three were approaching their 30s.

This also assumes that all three would have re-signed here. Lindholm seems like he was open to it based on his comments, and perhaps Manson, but we don't know about Rakell.

So what's the difference if those guys had stayed? The Ducks pick a couple spots later in 2022 and may or may not get Mintyukov. They certainly don't get Carlsson in 2023. But they're still bad. Adding Lindholm and Manson to this roster certainly would have made it better, but they're maybe 10-14 points better? I don't think that's worth losing Carlsson.

I also am not sure what pressure there is on the 19-23 year-olds. They're playing hockey in Anaheim, California for a team that's not expecting to contend. There is as little pressure on them as is possible in the NHL.

I want this team to be good as much as anyone. I hate the losing. But this team still would have lost the last two seasons, even with those guys. Bob Murray made sure of that. And they wouldn't have a potential franchise player to show for the losing. So we'd be Arizona without the exciting new owner. Maybe Ottawa. So when you say "this level of losing doesn't lead to Cups," I'm not sure what level of losing DOES lead to Cups. The Ducks would have lost less, but they would have lost. So would being the 8th-12th worst team in the league instead of bottom 3 lead to a Cup?

One thing we do know about Cup winners - they all have elite players, and the best way (in fact, realistically, the only way as a small market team) to get an elite player is to bottom out and hope draft luck goes your way. The Ducks did that for Carlsson. Now we wait, as painful as that is.

My point wasn't that we shouldn't have traded Lindholm, Manson or Rakell. It was that the rebuild did in fact start with the 2019 draft and not the 2022 when Verbeek took over. We had gained 3 young elite players. By year 4 we were showing signs of getting back to being a playoff team. Yes we would have lost Carlsson but he is 1 of 5 players we would have gotten in those first 5 years. We'd still have had 4 others. We stopped trying to make the team better. We added some support but we have still been bleeding talent ever since 2022. The team has 0 forward momentum. They're not improving. How do you win a cup if you never Improve? My point is by having a better team, even marginally, helps those young players grow to the point of being able to carry the team. My point of the pressure wasn't media based either. They're young players are being asked to carry the offense of a professional hockey team. Their own careers depend on them being successful. The point of getting a high end scorer was to help alleviate that to some extent. I'm not saying Laine or even Stamkos makes us a playoff team but they make us a better team. That is progress. These kids need to start feeling what it's like to win before losing becomes normal. Imo

 

[duckpuck]

Huh?

• Murray Rebuild Drafts
  • 2019
    • 9th OA C Zegras
    • Rd 2 LD/RD LaCombe (Rookie last year)
    • Rd 4 LD Thrun (Traded)
  • 2020
    • 6th OA RD Drysdale
    • Rd 2 RW Colangelo (will be a pro rookie this coming season)
  • 2021
    • 3rd OA C McTavish
    • Rd 2 LD/RD Zellweger (Rookie last year)

• Verbeek Rebuild Drafts
  • 2022:
    • 10th OA LD Minty
    • Rd 2 RD Luneau
  • 2023: 2nd OA C Carlsson
  • 2024: 3rd OA RW Sennecke

With Murray, he likes layering, player duos, DFD-OFD pairings, and some bite with his roster. The crazy part is in the 2021-22 season, his team was a fringe playoff team before Verbeek blew it up at the TDL, 4 points out of 3rd place in Pacific. That was Z and Drysdale's first, full NHL season too. The team had a true #1 pairing D in Lindholm and a couple of 2nd pairing D-men in Fowler along with Manson. Who knows if Thrun would have signed after his junior season if Murray wasn't a belligerent drunk. There's talent there in the pipeline before Verbeek got here.

If Murray wasn't a belligerent drunk, then the next steps would have been keeping the positives on the team (Lindholm, Manson, and Des) and adding talent via FA/trade to push higher playoff chance while waiting on the youths to develop. Also, RD Luneau probably would have been a Murray pick in the 2nd round.

As you can see, all of our non top-10 prospects take time to get to the NHL under the Murray rebuild. The same waiting period will be similar under Verbeek, but getting back to relevancy might take longer b/c we don't have higher end veterans on the team. Anaheim has to develop those higher end talents through their prospects.

You have completely missed the point. Had Murray acted when he should have, the picks in 2019, 2020, and 2022 (in particular) would have been higher. AND, the ducks would have had more picks since the trades of Lindholm, Manson and Rakell would have generated better returns then what the ducks received as rentals. And Gibson might have been traded as well.

 

[duckpuck]

And we don't know if it ever will be even though we did what most wanted once PV got here. The irony of your comment is that we probably got the best prospect with our #9 than we did with the #6 and quite possibly even the #3. To say, high picks don't guarantee anything. They just increase the chances. Let's not also not forget at the time PV decided to tear down to the bones Drysdale had his 34 pt rookie season at 19 after the time in the AHL where IIRC he's was PPG.

What I mean from "bottom out naturally" is that we stopped trying to add external talent but didn't jettison the talent we had. We got the high picks while maintaining the support group around them. Imo that makes it easier to transition from a bottom feeder, like we are now, to being more completive. This summer proves that adding good players is hard when your team isn't doing well and hasn't been for years. We saw glimpses in 21-22 where we went from the 2nd worst to 10th worst, no matter how you slice it, it was forward growth. At that time we had 3 good young top picks, Terry breaking out and support with an aging Getzlaf, who we never replaced, among others to mentor the kids. We'll never know what we could have done if we continued to support that team rather than jettisoning the aging talent we had left. I get what the situation was, I do, and even now I can't fully disagree with the moves in a vacumn but we can't deny that it made the team worse, which of course, a lot of people wanted for the coveted chance at 1st which we have yet to win and the chances will ALWAYS be greater that we won't win than actually winning. Instead of Carlsson and Senneke we might have Benson and Buium but also have a lot less growth to do to become a good team. Instead, there is a very real chance that we finish bottom 5 again. That's 4 years with a bottom 5 finish in 5 years if we do. And a near miss at 6oa. 2 teams since 2010, from what I can tell, have done this. Florida and Buffalo. Florida missed on Gudbranson who was their first of the 4 in 2010 and was a bubble team by 2015 and in the playoffs by 2016, nor did they have a Z or Drysdale type prospect from their non bottom 5 finishes. Buffalo is still rebuilding. No other team has had more than 3. All this to say that this level of futility doesn't lead to cups. Teams generally start digging out of the hole after 3 years, which ironically we were before PV took over. Imo if we're not a bubble team this year than PVs rebuild will be suspect to say the least. This team really could have used some help to push them forward so all of that pressure wouldn't be on 19-23 year olds.

With the vagaries of the draft and in particular draft lottery, all you can do is maximize your chances. You do that by: (i) accumulating as many picks as possible, particularly first and second round picks; and (ii) you bottom out to make sure those picks are as high as possible in draft order.

The ducks rebuild has lasted longer than it might otherwise have precisely because they bottomed out naturally. And because they've been unlucky in the lottery (including due to expansion) which compounded that.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

How and why lol

Demko is going to miss time, so there is talk of the Canucks acquiring some sort of veteran goalie to pair with Silovs. However, I'd have a hard time picturing them having interest in taking on Gibson's contract.

Edit - signing Kevin Lankinen seems like the obvious move

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Demko is going to miss time, so there is talk of the Canucks acquiring some sort of veteran goalie to pair with Silovs. However, I'd have a hard time picturing them having interest in taking on Gibson's contract.

Edit - signing Kevin Lankinen seems like the obvious move

Ah ya i just figured they’d play Silovs and find a cheap back up/stop gap guy

I think first time I read it as a goalie swap as in
Demko for gibson or something also

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Ah ya i just figured they’d play Silovs and find a cheap back up/stop gap guy

I think first time I read it as a goalie swap as in
Demko for gibson or something also

Lankinen has back to back solid seasons under his belt but for whatever reason is still a UFA after being on one year deals the last two years (1.5M & 2M). If they can sign him for around 2M, the fit seems too perfect

 

[DavidBL]

With the vagaries of the draft and in particular draft lottery, all you can do is maximize your chances. You do that by: (i) accumulating as many picks as possible, particularly first and second round picks; and (ii) you bottom out to make sure those picks are as high as possible in draft order.

The ducks rebuild has lasted longer than it might otherwise have precisely because they bottomed out naturally. And because they've been unlucky in the lottery (including due to expansion) which compounded that.

I fully admit that what you describe is the best way to get high picks. But without good drafting they won't matter. There is plenty of evidence of misses in the top 5 and even 1st overall. I absolutely disagree that this rebuild has lasted this long because we didn't sell off. We stopped trying to add real talent in exchange for more top picks and now we can't seem to convince good players to come here. As I pointed out earlier, in the last 15 years only 2 teams have had 4 years in a 5 year period who have drafted this high. Most are pulling out of their rebuild after 3 and by all accounts we have had good drafting and haven't missed on our top picks. If we finish bottom 5 again this year it's absolutely a failure.

 

[tomd]

I fully admit that what you describe is the best way to get high picks. But without good drafting they won't matter. There is plenty of evidence of misses in the top 5 and even 1st overall. I absolutely disagree that this rebuild has lasted this long because we didn't sell off. We stopped trying to add real talent in exchange for more top picks and now we can't seem to convince good players to come here. As I pointed out earlier, in the last 15 years only 2 teams have had 4 years in a 5 year period who have drafted this high. Most are pulling out of their rebuild after 3 and by all accounts we have had good drafting and haven't missed on our top picks. If we finish bottom 5 again this year it's absolutely a failure.

Maybe but maybe not. If the Ducks don't improve it will be a failure (injuries apart) but if they improve and others improve more then I won't call it a failure.

Looking at the bottom 10 teams from last year I see improvements from the following:
SJ, Chicago, Anaheim, Montreal, Utah, Ottawa, Seattle, NJ

I see the following teams getting worse:
Columbus, Calgary

So the question is how much will the Ducks improve and will it be enough to get them out of the bottom 5? I think they could improve 15 points and still finish in the bottom 5 next year. We'll see.

 

[JAHV]

My point wasn't that we shouldn't have traded Lindholm, Manson or Rakell. It was that the rebuild did in fact start with the 2019 draft and not the 2022 when Verbeek took over. We had gained 3 young elite players. By year 4 we were showing signs of getting back to being a playoff team. Yes we would have lost Carlsson but he is 1 of 5 players we would have gotten in those first 5 years. We'd still have had 4 others. We stopped trying to make the team better. We added some support but we have still been bleeding talent ever since 2022. The team has 0 forward momentum. They're not improving. How do you win a cup if you never Improve? My point is by having a better team, even marginally, helps those young players grow to the point of being able to carry the team. My point of the pressure wasn't media based either. They're young players are being asked to carry the offense of a professional hockey team. Their own careers depend on them being successful. The point of getting a high end scorer was to help alleviate that to some extent. I'm not saying Laine or even Stamkos makes us a playoff team but they make us a better team. That is progress. These kids need to start feeling what it's like to win before losing becomes normal. Imo

A couple of things where we might just have to agree to disagree because I see things fundamentally differently.

1. We had not gained 3 young elite players by 2022. Zegras, Drysdale, and McTavish are very good young players, but not one of them has shown the ability to be elite. Of the three, Zegras has the highest ceiling, but that ceiling isn't even to the level of Getzlaf. Drysdale and McTavish are good 2nd line/2D types, even at their best. That is not elite. Cup-winning teams need one or two elite players. Before Carlsson, we didn't have one in the system.

2. I disagree that the team was showing sustainable signs of getting back to being a playoff team by year 4. If you're referring to the run of success in the first two months of the 21-22 season, that was kind of a mirage. They were still getting outshot most nights (sometimes badly), and after that hot start, went 10-16-6 before the trade deadline. I understand the desire to be encouraged by that run (I know I was excited by it), but I don't think it told us much about the trajectory of the team.

The young players have been surrounded by veterans this whole time. Getzlaf, Henrique, Strome, Vatrano, Killorn, and Terry (as he moved from a kid to a vet). If you're asking for better players, I would love them, too, but there lies the dilemma. If the Ducks got better veterans to surround the kids, they would have been drafting in the 5-12 range instead of the 1-5 range. Then they don't get an elite player in the draft and can't compete for a Cup anyway.

 

[Trojans86]

Maybe but maybe not. If the Ducks don't improve it will be a failure (injuries apart) but if they improve and others improve more then I won't call it a failure.

Looking at the bottom 10 teams from last year I see improvements from the following:
SJ, Chicago, Anaheim, Montreal, Utah, Ottawa, Seattle, NJ

I see the following teams getting worse:
Columbus, Calgary

So the question is how much will the Ducks improve and will it be enough to get them out of the bottom 5? I think they could improve 15 points and still finish in the bottom 5 next year. We'll see.

With the number of guys that are in a rapid improvement age range I think there is potential for us to really shock people and play fast and aggressive