Speculation: 2024-25 - Free Agency/Trade Thread
- Thread starter All Mighty
- Start date
Rasp
Registered User
- Apr 9, 2019
- 1,312
- 1,891
SJS has smashed it this offseason. Went from being miles off missing so many pieces to pencilling in a bunch of top talent. They are 1-2 years behind us in the rebuild but it looks like they will be our future competition on the way to a cup.
Askarov for a late first is worth it. He is ready to step into the NHL and has a superstar #1G ceiling. Probably doesn't reach it but should still be an NHLer and significantly improves their G pipeline.
Adding potentially a 1C, 1D and 1G in one offseason is huge. Hope it all falls to shit for them though haha.
Askarov for a late first is worth it. He is ready to step into the NHL and has a superstar #1G ceiling. Probably doesn't reach it but should still be an NHLer and significantly improves their G pipeline.
Adding potentially a 1C, 1D and 1G in one offseason is huge. Hope it all falls to shit for them though haha.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 41,694
- 38,008
Likely 2 late 1st round picks
Edstrom was a piece they could afford to move on from as bystedt is a similar player.
They have nothing in terms of goalies in their pool, they keep their 1st…. They’ll likely sell pieces off/fake cap at deadline to add another 1st.
Askarov is arguably #1 goalie prospect in world…. And fills their most obvious hole. I think it was a no brainer for them
It's pretty easy to smash an offseason when you have the 1OA, TBF. Of course it's easy to f*** it up, too.
DavidBL
Registered User
Hard to argue adding 12th oa and arguably the best goalie prospect in the league sure doesn't hurt.
91Fedorov
John (Gibson) 3:16
- Dec 30, 2013
- 1,355
- 1,004
As long as both teams are ruining the Kings hopes, I'll be happy.
You're advocating for a "natural" tear down which necessarily lengthens the rebuild process and then complaining that it takes longer. It is odd you don't see the inconsistency in that. Then you moved the goal posts by changing the subject to drafting acumen.
And for the record, the ducks were an 80 point team in 2018-19 - the rebuild had not yet started. The ducks bought out Perry after that season ended. So I don't know where you're calculating 7 years.
And I disagree that there hasn't been forward progress. Despite the record, last year's team was better than the prior years in terms of talent on the roster and style of play. Not to mention better talent in the entire pipeline.
I'm not saying I'm satisfied with the level of play. I'm saying it is trending upward or "forward".
And to use your logic, here are the Blackhawks point totals in recent years:
2018-19 - 84 points
2019-20 - 72 points
2020-21 - 55 points (56 game covid year), so roughly an 80 point pace.
2021-22 - 68 points
2022-23 - 59 points
2023-24 - 52 points
They had fewer points after drafting Bedard. Would you say their rebuild is "not showing forward progress"?
The "excuse" is that those teams won a lottery (luck) and also tore it down aggressively (not luck), thereby accumulating more first round draft picks. The exact strategy you oppose with your "natural tear down" theory.
Zegras, Drysdale, and McTavish are not elite. They're not really close. Good, yes. And potentially very good (and we can substitute Gauthier in for Drysdale - he's a bit higher level but not quite elite either).
Carlsson is the only one of the Ducks' prospects that has the potential to be elite, and Verbeek, knowing it's extremely difficult to win a Cup without elite players, tore it down to the studs to get the chance at an elite player. Hopefully Carlsson turns out to be that.
So yes, the Ducks had good prospects in the pipeline from the years when they started losing. But they didn't have the elite guy they needed and they had to tear down further to get there.
Carlsson is the only one of the Ducks' prospects that has the potential to be elite, and Verbeek, knowing it's extremely difficult to win a Cup without elite players, tore it down to the studs to get the chance at an elite player. Hopefully Carlsson turns out to be that.
So yes, the Ducks had good prospects in the pipeline from the years when they started losing. But they didn't have the elite guy they needed and they had to tear down further to get there.
70sSanO
Registered User
The one thing is Nashville has a history with elite goalies. It would be hard to see them move the best goalie prospect in the world even with the Saros contract. And Saros has struggled in the playoffs.
Askarov has played in the AHL for a couple years. Make him the backup and give Saros fewer starts. Or they don’t think as highly of him as others do.
John
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
Anaheim was higher than 10th at the TDL. At the TDL, we had a record of 27-25-10 (64 pts) and a Pts % of 0.516. After the TDL, the Ducks went 4-12-4 (12 pts) and a Pts % of 0.300. We were at a much higher level of progress prior to the TDL. Remove just four players and our pts production dropped drastically.
You noticed that the 2021-22 season was a huge success in progress after finishing with the 2nd worst record and the TDL decimated the team, then it becomes easily recognizable there was a reset to rebuild. Verbeek overestimated his pro scouting prowess in trying to replace the vets he jettisoned at the TDL that following summer and failed miserably. Another piece of evidence of the loss of better talent that there was a reset to the rebuild. Without top end talents to help shelter the kids, then it'll be up to the kids to be that top end talent. That will take time to fill up the roster.
We don't have a 1st pairing D anymore to set things up better for the whole team. If Lindholm was retained, then Fowler goes to the 2nd pairing. And if Manson was retained, then he either sticks with Fowler or goes to the 3rd pairing. Also, keeping Lindholm and Manson would greatly improve our PK efficiency. Since Anaheim doesn't have a 1st pairing D-man today, the Ducks have to develop a top-pairing d-man and that will take time.
If you don't recognize the Verbeek reset to the rebuild, then of course everyone should be mad. The Hockey Guy from YouTube sees it as a very long rebuild, but he and other mainstream media do not know our nuances. You recognize the reset took away top end talents, but don't see it as a reset and believe the rebuild has been going on for six years. When Verbeek did his Verbeekining at the 2022 TDL, I was prepared for five years of rebuilding (in addition to the 3-year Murray rebuild).
Murray Rebuild
- 2019-21
- 2019: Finished 8th worst record
- 2020: Finished with 5th worst record
- 2021: Finished with the 2nd worst record
............ (Covid season, Lindholm missed 68% of the games due to injury)
Verbeek Reset Rebuild
- 2022-present
- 2022: Finished with 10th worst record
Lindholm was healthy, Z & D first full rookie season
- 2023: Finished with the worst record
- 2024: Finished with 3rd worst record
- 2022: Finished with 10th worst record
Anaheim4ever
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2017
- 9,177
- 5,774
It helped SJ that they didn't do their version of Tracey, Perreault, Gaucher, Myatovic etc. I liked who they picked in 2023 2nd round while the Ducks went with role player types like Myatovic.
Feel like SJ has made better use of late 1sts and 2nds on forward than the Ducks.
Feel like SJ has made better use of late 1sts and 2nds on forward than the Ducks.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I find it quizzical on how definitive you are on Z, D, and Mac's talents.
Verbeek is gonna need more than that. His pro scouting has sucked on the whole. And if Carlsson doesn't improve his 34.8 FO%, then we might have the same problem we are having with Zegras. A 34.8% at the FO dot for a center is not anywhere near elite.
GreatBear
Registered User
It is hard to defend some of the Duck choices. I still feel that it is too early to rate the picks for Gaucher and Myatovic, but Tracey and Perreault were clearly failures. However, a majority of hockey players picked at the end first round and in the second round do not succeed. Looking at an article in Dobber Prospects, only 34% of second round choices play 99 or more games in the NHL. And I think that a better measure is 200 games, and the numbers become even lower if you choose that standard.
While according to this chart 74% of first round choices make the NHL, there is not an even distribution of success within the first round. Players taken at the top of the round are far more likely to play than players taken at the end of the first round. Here is a second chart from the same article.
While it is somewhat hard to read, it appears that around 45% of the players taken at the end of the first round play 99 or more games in the NHL. Peter Holland was picked 15th by the Ducks and played 266 games in the NHL, which by this standard would make him a success. And yet I think that most of us viewed the Holland pick as a failure. So, even amongst the players that "make" the NHL according to these charts, a good number of them are a disappointment as an NHL player.
While I am not satisfied with some of the Ducks 1st and 2nd round picks, and indeed feel that they were wasted draft picks, it is simply not that unusual for many of those players picked late in the first round and in the second round to fail. There are always some really good players drafted at those points in the draft, but those tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Is San Jose, or indeed any other team, better at picking those successes than the Ducks? Probably, but we would need to do a long term analysis of each team and each player to determine that, and I am too lazy to spend my time doing that. All I can say, in conclusion, is never expect too much out of a draft choice.
DavidBL
Registered User
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the "natural" tear down has to take longer. That's your assertion. I've been very consistent in my belief that the rebuild started with Z. I didn't move the goal posts, my point was that even if you have the high picks that if you miss with them well they won't help the rebuild. It's relevant to the strategy of bottoming out the team. I was trying to point out that even though we didn't pick top 5 we got 2 great talents with 9 and 6 which seem to be downplayed because they weren't top 3-5 picks.
As for Chicago, they At least made moves to try and make their team better. Something we haven't done. League expectations are that Chicago will be better than the Ducks. We'll see how the year turns out.
DavidBL
Registered User
That's BS. We had plenty if first round picks outside of the Luck of winning the lottery do you really see their prospects as better than ours? There are 23 men on a roster. 1 great player helps but it's not the difference of playoffs and last place. It also ignores the PV did end up doing as you suggested, before they did. So we should still be ahead.
Edit: I misspoke. Chicago and Anaheim did their tear down at the same time. We jaut already had 1 3rd overall pick at the time already.
Last edited:
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
The Sharks are better with drafting forwards in the late 1st and in the 2nd round than the Ducks. Although, if Colangelo and Pettersson hit, then it does kinda shrink down that margin with the Sharks. I agree we could have drafted better than Gaucher and Myatovic, but I think we had a height limit in the 2022 and 2023 draft as well as not drafting anyone in college or heading into the college with any pick above the 5th round. Snuggerud (NCAA), Bystedt (SHL), and Kulich (6'0) were available behind Gaucher. Brindley (NCAA and 5'9) and Danny Nelson (NCAA) were available after Myatovic.
Look at what the Ducks have done outside of forwards. Most of their defensemen in the late 1st or in the 2nd round look like hits (4 out of 5), with the exception of Warren. Then throw in G Clara. We're by far superior at defense and netminder drafting. The Sharks have one of our own in LD Thrun, a 2019 fourth round pick.
This all fits how Anaheim has been drafting all along: very good at defensemen and goalies late outside the top-10, but sus on forwards. We took swings on forwards under Murray, but we're taking defensive-minded forwards with our first pick outside the top-10 (Gaucher and Myatovic) under Verbeek. Defensive forwards may still find a way onto the roster if they don't produce offensively. It's still early on Gaucher and Myatovic.
Anaheim4ever
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2017
- 9,177
- 5,774
True about Pettersson and Colangelo. Dickinson should become the best D the Sharks have drafted since Vlasic which is a long long time ago.
Ducks DVM
sowcufucakky
Someone explain to me why people think San Jose will be a better team THIS year. Their kids are absolutely not ready to carry that team.
Last edited:
DavidBL
Registered User
I think the perception is that they improved and we didn't. I sure hope we can stay healthy this year.
Celibrini will help as will Toffoli. Couture should be healthy and they were a MUCH better team last year when he was in the lineup. They have more depth up front and the D will likely be marginally better. Goaltending looks at least stable. Finally, they can't possibly be worse than last year.
Wishful thinking because they are nipping at our heels as far as future core is concerned. Obviously Buffalo situations can happen, but if both these rebuilds go as planned we’re going to be facing them in the playoffs for the next decade. Same with Chicago, all of our cores are the same age relatively.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
It is hard to defend some of the Duck choices. I still feel that it is too early to rate the picks for Gaucher and Myatovic, but Tracey and Perreault were clearly failures. However, a majority of hockey players picked at the end first round and in the second round do not succeed. Looking at an article in Dobber Prospects, only 34% of second round choices play 99 or more games in the NHL. And I think that a better measure is 200 games, and the numbers become even lower if you choose that standard.
While according to this chart 74% of first round choices make the NHL, there is not an even distribution of success within the first round. Players taken at the top of the round are far more likely to play than players taken at the end of the first round. Here is a second chart from the same article.
While it is somewhat hard to read, it appears that around 45% of the players taken at the end of the first round play 99 or more games in the NHL. Peter Holland was picked 15th by the Ducks and played 266 games in the NHL, which by this standard would make him a success. And yet I think that most of us viewed the Holland pick as a failure. So, even amongst the players that "make" the NHL according to these charts, a good number of them are a disappointment as an NHL player.
While I am not satisfied with some of the Ducks 1st and 2nd round picks, and indeed feel that they were wasted draft picks, it is simply not that unusual for many of those players picked late in the first round and in the second round to fail. There are always some really good players drafted at those points in the draft, but those tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Is San Jose, or indeed any other team, better at picking those successes than the Ducks? Probably, but we would need to do a long term analysis of each team and each player to determine that, and I am too lazy to spend my time doing that. All I can say, in conclusion, is never expect too much out of a draft choice.
I've shared these charts before and how difficult it is to find success the further you are from the top-10 selections. It's all a gamble once you hit the 20s and it just gets worse the further down the draft you go as signified by both charts. The log graph in the 200 game chart is similar to the NFL draft of success per draft slot. Of course there will be outliers, but they're called outliers.
Anaheim is probably average with drafting forwards outside the top-10, but they are far above average with finding defensemen and goalies outside the top-10.
Defense
We have drafted only three defensemen in the top-10 in the 16 years of Madden: Lindholm at #6 in 2012, Drysdale at #6 in 2020, and Mintyukov at #10 in 2022. Yet, the Ducks have drafted plenty of d-men outside the top-10 that have played in the NHL. We currently have only one top-10 drafted d-man in our system (NHL, AHL, prospects) in Minty and three 2nd rounders debuted in the NHL last year in LaCombe, Zellweger, and Luneau.
Anahiem has drafted d-men so well that we've often traded D-men to acquire forwards: package Sbisa (the drafted d-men of Vatanen, Fowler, Manson, and Lindholm made Sbisa expendable) to acquire Kelser, traded Vatanen for Rico, traded Pettersson for Sprong, traded Montour for a draft pick Tracey, traded Manson for draft pick Terrance +, traded Lindholm for draft pick Gaucher +, and traded Drysdale for prospect Cutter.
Goalie
We have never drafted a goalie in the 1st round during Madden's tenure with the team (Murray & Verbeek): Gibson in Rd 2 of 2011 draft, Andersen in Rd 3 of 2012, Dostal in Rd 3 of 2018, and Clara in Rd 2 of 2023. Anaheim traded Andersen for draft picks, which became 2016 Rd 1 C Steel and 2017 Rd 2 LW Comtois.
Yet many people think our scouting staff is doing a shitty job because we're batting for average with forwards in the late 1st and 2nd round. Anaheim's success with d-men and goalies has helped to supplement the lack of hits on forwards via trades.
There is no way Chicago or San Jose are ahead of us in the rebuild, despite winning the lottery. We have loads of young talent at every single position. They both have a few pieces but will need a few more years of top draft picks to match us if that is even possible. We have the best under 23 group of kids in the league.
Ducks DVM
sowcufucakky
Yes, but I don’t see any of that making up the 12 points between the teams when there are 5 Ducks who should be healthy, and Gauthier being added should equal or surpass 18 year old Celebrini (for this year at any rate). They also have several players who pretty clearly aren’t meant to be on the team past February, which will should mean the typical spring falloff/collapse as well. I think they can be better, but I’m not seeing why people think they’re better than the Ducks NOW.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Semifinals Hawthorn Hawks @ Port Adelaide Power - Adelaide Oval, AdelaideWagers: 5Staked: $4,800.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
