Speculation: 2024-25 Roster Thread

[MCB]

Is it just a matter of me having issues writing too much?

Nah, what you typed would be considered a prologue in relation to what and how much other people type.

Not saying anything is wrong with that, just saying you're fine on it

 

[MMC]

I'm on team give the new coach 20-30 games then make trades.

Yeah no that's not really how this works. PV is going to clean up whatever he thinks is wrong with this roster/add what it needs to succeed so that his second coach has a better time than his first one

 

[MCB]

Yeah no that's not really how this works. PV is going to clean up whatever he thinks is wrong with this roster/what it needs to succeed so that his second coach has a better time than his first one

There's a difference in cleaning up what is wrong (bottom 6, etc) and trading away our potential top players just to shake things up in hopes we get better. I get the pressure on Verbeek coach choice and how he needs it to work, however he doesn't need to over react.
I had more to clarify what I meant but my flight is taking off.

 

[Deuce22]

Advocating trading Mintyukov or Zellweger isn't a move I would make. Some are forgetting that these guys are 21 and have played for no one but Greg Cronin. Inking in LaCombe as the future #1 sounds great (and he may be), but one or both of these guys may be better than him in 3 years. Also forgotten is that Mintyukov was coming off a knee injury ( his skating wasn't the same as his rookie year) and Zellweger was bouncing in and out of the lineup.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Advocating trading Mintyukov or Zellweger isn't a move I would make. Some are forgetting that these guys are 21 and have played for no one but Greg Cronin. Inking in LaCombe as the future #1 sounds great (and he may be), but one or both of these guys may be better than him in 3 years. Also forgotten is that Mintyukov was coming off a knee injury ( his skating wasn't the same as his rookie year) and Zellweger was bouncing in and out of the lineup.

The same argument could have been made about Drysdale prior to the trade. Now I don't think there is a single person on here that regrets that. And our defense was in a worse position at that point than it is now. The reason I would move Zell is the same reason I didn't like the Drysdale pick. How many top pairing D are under 6'? Not many. How many #1 D? Quinn and Fox. The simple fact is Zell's ceiling is more than likely going to be limited by his size. He's probably never going to be a guy you want killing penalties or protecting leads. With Luneau/Lacombe/Minty (who I still think is going to be a top pair 2 way guy) how many offensive minutes are there going to be to go around?

To be clear I'm not saying to just sell him for the highest offer. But if someone offers something that fits on our roster better? Go for it.

 

[TheDarkWingThatDucks]

Advocating trading Mintyukov or Zellweger isn't a move I would make. Some are forgetting that these guys are 21 and have played for no one but Greg Cronin. Inking in LaCombe as the future #1 sounds great (and he may be), but one or both of these guys may be better than him in 3 years. Also forgotten is that Mintyukov was coming off a knee injury ( his skating wasn't the same as his rookie year) and Zellweger was bouncing in and out of the lineup.

I don’t think anyone is advocating trading them.

But ….

LHD
LaCombe / Minty / Zelly / Solberg / Hinds In the AHL or NHL already.

RHD
Luneau / Helleson / Warren / Moore in the AHL or NHL already.

Now long term we could go

LaCombe - Helleson
Minty - Luneau
Solberg - Zelly

But let’s say we draft Mrtka, plus I can see Trouba getting an extension.

It just seems unless we are okay with someone being 7th D we have a lot in the pipeline, and longterm our top 9 is currently

Cutter / Leo / Sennecke
Z / McT / Colangelo
? / ? / Terry

Free agency might change this, like an Ehlers or Bennet / plus we may draft a Martin or something.
But seems if we had a chance to trade a LHD for a top 6 player it would help the team, or add a legit top 4 RHD (which are tougher to get).

 

[Hockey Duckie]

The same argument could have been made about Drysdale prior to the trade. Now I don't think there is a single person on here that regrets that. And our defense was in a worse position at that point than it is now. The reason I would move Zell is the same reason I didn't like the Drysdale pick. How many top pairing D are under 6'? Not many. How many #1 D? Quinn and Fox. The simple fact is Zell's ceiling is more than likely going to be limited by his size. He's probably never going to be a guy you want killing penalties or protecting leads. With Luneau/Lacombe/Minty (who I still think is going to be a top pair 2 way guy) how many offensive minutes are there going to be to go around?

To be clear I'm not saying to just sell him for the highest offer. But if someone offers something that fits on our roster better? Go for it.

Zell doesn't have to be a #1D. That's LaCombe's slot.

What I can say so far is that Zell can handle top-4 duties better than Minty can for the past two seasons. I think a huge part of that is Zell's skating. Minty doesn't have that skating and it might be a work in progress since he's recovering from a LBI. I do love Minty's tenacity, but his defense is sorely behind.

Like others have said, it's still too early to give up on either one. Yet, we do have Solberg already developing in the AHL. How fast Solberg develops will be how long we can keep Zell or Minty. There's a small possibility we can keep both if Zell moves to the right-side, a potential Solberg-Zell pairing. Our right side is still very much an unknown quantity with our youths.

 

[MMC]

Trading a guy like Minty or Zell or even Zegras shouldn't be viewed as "giving up" on them. The reality is if we want to add high end talent to this team we're going to have to give up something that's going to hurt a bit

 

[branmuffin17]

Trading a guy like Minty or Zell or even Zegras shouldn't be viewed as "giving up" on them. The reality is if we want to add high end talent to this team we're going to have to give up something that's going to hurt a bit

When I mention giving up on them it's as a response to others who seem to have done so already, though I think you're mostly referring to others. And that could be my misinterpretation in some cases, but sometimes giving up might be as simple as believing the players they will become is not what these people were hoping. For me, I would never expect Zell to be a top pairing D. He 100% can be a great 3rd pair (stretch for 2nd pair) with strong PP potential and fit in just fine. I'd like to keep him longer just to see if he can be that for us. As for Z, I'm positive we haven't seen his peak yet.

 

[The Duck Knight]

When I mention giving up on them it's as a response to others who seem to have done so already, though I think you're mostly referring to others. And that could be my misinterpretation in some cases, but sometimes giving up might be as simple as believing the players they will become is not what these people were hoping. For me, I would never expect Zell to be a top pairing D. He 100% can be a great 3rd pair (stretch for 2nd pair) with strong PP potential and fit in just fine. I'd like to keep him longer just to see if he can be that for us. As for Z, I'm positive we haven't seen his peak yet.

If that's the value he brings to a team that will probably be more valuable to a team that isn't already full of young guys who bring the same thing. Like I've said before there isn't PP time for all of the youngsters. We've basically gone away from 2 D PP units. Lacombe is going to be penciled in based on his proven offensive production. Luneau has the same kind of explosive offense in his game with added size. And I'm still a Minty believer. It's not that I don't think Zellwegger is going to be a useful player. I just think what he can bring will be redundant for us and his value will be best used in a trade.

 

[branmuffin17]

If that's the value he brings to a team that will probably be more valuable to a team that isn't already full of young guys who bring the same thing. Like I've said before there isn't PP time for all of the youngsters. We've basically gone away from 2 D PP units. Lacombe is going to be penciled in based on his proven offensive production. Luneau has the same kind of explosive offense in his game with added size. And I'm still a Minty believer. It's not that I don't think Zellwegger is going to be a useful player. I just think what he can bring will be redundant for us and his value will be best used in a trade.

And that's fair. But we don't know how Luneau will develop, and I still wonder what Minty's skillset will be once he matures, where I know exactly what Zell's strength and focus is, if he can make it work. I'm not sure I'd prefer LaCombe on PP, though of course he produced very well there. I just want them to make sure they have proper balance for both PP and PK. What if Luneau doesn't work out, and normal PP is Minty and LaCombe, but there's a coincidental minor and LaCombe is in the box and then we get a PP shortly thereafter? Have Minty out the entire 2 min? I think having more good options doesn't hurt.

 

[JAHV]

I think Zellweger could be Sami Vatanen with better skating and a worse slapshot. The Ducks had a great defense when they had Fowler/Lindholm as second pairing LDs who could play first pairing minutes depending on whether you needed a goal (Fowler) or needed to prevent a goal (Lindholm).

Vatanen was excellent as a 3rd pairing RD who provided offense alongside a stay-at-home guy. That's how I envision Zellweger. But they need a good SAH guy on the right side to pair him with. Maybe Moore can grow into that, or maybe that's Warren long-term. Trouba...eh. Gudas could probably do it, but then you'd need two right side guys who are playing up in the lineup. The Ducks don't have that right now.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Trading a guy like Minty or Zell or even Zegras shouldn't be viewed as "giving up" on them. The reality is if we want to add high end talent to this team we're going to have to give up something that's going to hurt a bit

That's the problem. Everybody uses the same argument for why we should trade guys. But nobody ever explains which team(s) or why a team would give a up a high end talent for multiple lesser talents/picks.

I've always been willing to trade guys for the right reason which generally is trading from strength to fill a weakness. But the idea that we expect to trade for high end upgrades is unrealistic IMO. It's nice to have something accidentally fall in your lap. It's foolish to build a business plan around the idea.

 

[ohcomeonref]

That's the problem. Everybody uses the same argument for why we should trade guys. But nobody ever explains which team(s) or why a team would give a up a high end talent for multiple lesser talents/picks.

I've always been willing to trade guys for the right reason which generally is trading from strength to fill a weakness. But the idea that we expect to trade for high end upgrades is unrealistic IMO. It's nice to have something accidentally fall in your lap. It's foolish to build a business plan around the idea.

Everyone looking for a Debrincat-from-Chicago type of trade, but those are hard to come by.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

That's the problem. Everybody uses the same argument for why we should trade guys. But nobody ever explains which team(s) or why a team would give a up a high end talent for multiple lesser talents/picks.

I've always been willing to trade guys for the right reason which generally is trading from strength to fill a weakness. But the idea that we expect to trade for high end upgrades is unrealistic IMO. It's nice to have something accidentally fall in your lap. It's foolish to build a business plan around the idea.

Also, it's not even really proven that our D is actually an area of strength as opposed to simply a surplus. We don't have a good defense right now - we just have a lot of undeveloped prospects. Without knowing how they'll end up, especially given their potential, I don't think you can really call it an area of strength. So except for fall-in-your-lap trades, trading these kids is betting the principal rather than the interest.

 

[TheDarkWingThatDucks]

That's the problem. Everybody uses the same argument for why we should trade guys. But nobody ever explains which team(s) or why a team would give a up a high end talent for multiple lesser talents/picks.

I've always been willing to trade guys for the right reason which generally is trading from strength to fill a weakness. But the idea that we expect to trade for high end upgrades is unrealistic IMO. It's nice to have something accidentally fall in your lap. It's foolish to build a business plan around the idea.

I also think that’s where most of the fanbase is too. Like if a trade makes sense, with the amount of young D prospects we have.

LaCombe (looking real good) / Solberg + Minty + Warren + Luneau (all drafted by Verbeek) / Hinds (Verbeek says he’s close to NHL) / Moore / Helleson (Verbeek traded for him) / Zelly

That is 9 Dmen, 5 LHD and 4 RHD for maximum 7 spots. (Only including 3rd picks or sooner) We have time to make our decision which is nice, but may end up with 2-3 healthy young players sitting in the press box which annoyed fans this year.

No one thinks we need to go force a trade with one of them. But if a fiala / debrincat type deal arises it makes sense that it will probably be Zelly. Whom I absolutely love and do not want to trade right now. But also waiting may lower or up his value. I am willing to gamble and wait, mostly because it’s unlikely anything worthwhile comes up in terms of a deal.

Looking at the bottom of the standings, the sharks and blackhawks aren’t really “good enough” to not suck next year. Barring something incredible. But with McKenna available, some teams will definitely tank for him, I just don’t know if you can out tank those 2 teams. Plus next year DuPont is available, and the cycle will repeat.

All that to say, a team may want to pivot, at some point in the next 2 years, and young defensemen tend to help you suck at the NHL level enough to tank while getting players valuable experience. A trade option could materialize that no one sees today.

Edit : I also know not all those d men are going to be top 4 NHL defensemen, also we have more in the pipeline and may draft one this draft.