Speculation: 2025 Trade/Free Agency Thread

No interest in trading one of our young forwards for a defensemen prospect. Especially one that isn't a perfect fit.

If they trade Z for a defensemen it needs to be for an actual top 4 guy.

Tom willander is an intriguing prospect, but i still think we need a lot more help up front than we do on the back end.... i just dont think we can trade any young forwards without forwards coming back.

Im pretty hesitant to make any moves until we see what coaching staff looks like tho, There is a lot of untapped offense on this roster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducks DVM
No interest in trading one of our young forwards for a defensemen prospect. Especially one that isn't a perfect fit.

If they trade Z for a defensemen it needs to be for an actual top 4 guy.
I have a couple feelings about this: one, I don't think zegras has that kind of value; I honestly doubt he even gets willander by himself, but Vancouver is desperate and desperate organizations are the best teams to call for trades.

Second, I consider willander somewhat of a defenseman version of Gauthier; one of the best in college at his position, and one who isn't far off from being a real contributor. Yes, you can try and trade for a version of that who is already established, but it will cost more and will come with some sort of caveat, because who is shopping those guys?

As much as I hate to admit it, zegras has the feeling of Drysdale right now, as in, this might be the last time to get something close to real value. I cannot know that as a fact, obviously, but it certainly feels like it.
 
I suspect that Vancouver and Willander will work things out.

I also suspect that the Ducks and Zegras won't work things out.

Vancouver is desperate for a top six center but intra-division trades are difficult and Tocchet is just one step removed from Torts. If Tocchet has any input I don't think Vancouver would pull that trigger.
 
Wheeler ranked willander the 34th best prospect in hockey at the beginning of the year. His report:

One of the better-skating D prospects in hockey, Willander was a beast for the Swedish under-18 team and Rogle’s junior team in his draft year and drove strong two-way results for the Terriers as a freshman and for the Swedish under-20 team last season without necessarily taking a pronounced step (his post-draft season was just OK). This season, he has played big minutes as a sophomore at BU and was impactful as Sweden’s go-to D on their shutdown pair (and also sharing the blue line on the power play with Axel Sandin Pellikka).

He’s a strong-in-all-three-zones defenseman who plays a confident and decisive defensive game that uses his beautiful, balanced skating to swallow up opposing carriers and then push forward or fall back onto his heels and outlet the puck.

He pulls away or retreats from pressure with ease, and excels on exits and going back to get pucks. His head is always up. He gets his shots through. And then, on top of the pro frame, the skating and the general athleticism, he also just plays the game with an intentionality that’s rare in players his age. He looks and operates like a pro out there. His passes are quick and firm. He activates when he can and picks his spots. Defensively, he’s aggressive on pinches and closing gaps, and rarely mistimes them, taking away the space so well in neutral ice. He made some mistakes that showed his youth at times as a freshman but he has looked back to his polished self this season. Willander doesn’t have dynamic skill or creativity on the puck, and his offensive-zone instincts are still coming, but he projects safely as an NHL defenseman and could become a two-way transition monster in a top-four role. Because of how high a level he defends and skates at, he rarely has bad games and play normally tilts in his team’s favor. And even though the offense doesn’t always pop inside the offensive zone, he’s a comfortable puck mover and transporter. He’s going to have a long career as a No. 3-4.

 
Have people already given up on Hellison potentially becoming a solid #4? Didn't we just go through a similar scenario last summer with LaCombe? Didn't Hellison surprise almost everybody with how well he played when he got here? But now we know for sure he's peaked at a 6/7?
It's more that gudas and trouba have one year left. Counting on helleson/Moore/luneau to be fine taking all three RHD spots would also be asking for trouble.
 
I have a couple feelings about this: one, I don't think zegras has that kind of value; I honestly doubt he even gets willander by himself, but Vancouver is desperate and desperate organizations are the best teams to call for trades.

Second, I consider willander somewhat of a defenseman version of Gauthier; one of the best in college at his position, and one who isn't far off from being a real contributor. Yes, you can try and trade for a version of that who is already established, but it will cost more and will come with some sort of caveat, because who is shopping those guys?

As much as I hate to admit it, zegras has the feeling of Drysdale right now, as in, this might be the last time to get something close to real value. I cannot know that as a fact, obviously, but it certainly feels like it.
That's partially my point. Why trade low on Zegras? The upside of him rebounding and being a 70 point forward is worth it to keep him rather then trade from a position of weakness for a position of strength.

I think the smartest thing to do is hold pat on the young players. 1 more year with a new coach and see where we are at. Next summer when he needs a new contract is when decisions need to be made.
 
It's more that gudas and trouba have one year left. Counting on helleson/Moore/luneau to be fine taking all three RHD spots would also be asking for trouble.
I could see that. But I have seen some folks questioning Hellison ever being that solid top 4 guy.

I'm way too lazy to dig into all the stats but is there a way to reduce Gudas and Truba's ice time to where they can be more successful? We only have to make it work for one more year. Ice time certainly wasn't one of Cronin's strong suits. That should be part of what a new coach will hopefully bring. Balancing youth and age successfully.
 
That's partially my point. Why trade low on Zegras? The upside of him rebounding and being a 70 point forward is worth it to keep him rather then trade from a position of weakness for a position of strength.

I think the smartest thing to do is hold pat on the young players. 1 more year with a new coach and see where we are at. Next summer when he needs a new contract is when decisions need to be made.
To play Devil’s Advocate: some people thought we were trading low on Drysdale, too. And his stock has fallen even further since then. If we waited another year, he probably wouldn’t have returned a Gauthier-type asset.

It just depends on what management thinks Zegras’ likely outcome is as a player. I certainly can’t say that I’m sold on him being a core piece at this point. If they don’t believe he will be one, then they should probably trade him.
 
I could see that. But I have seen some folks questioning Hellison ever being that solid top 4 guy.

I'm way too lazy to dig into all the stats but is there a way to reduce Gudas and Truba's ice time to where they can be more successful? We only have to make it work for one more year. Ice time certainly wasn't one of Cronin's strong suits. That should be part of what a new coach will hopefully bring. Balancing youth and age successfully.
Well our GM has already stated that he wants to make the playoffs next year, so “making it work for one more year” would likely go against that goal. None of those 3 dmen inspire much confidence as a top 4 option, but currently 2 of them have to play that role. Yes, you could split the ice time better, but if none of them are any good, I don’t see how that will help much, if at all.
 
To play Devil’s Advocate: some people thought we were trading low on Drysdale, too. And his stock has fallen even further since then. If we waited another year, he probably wouldn’t have returned a Gauthier-type asset.

It just depends on what management thinks Zegras’ likely outcome is as a player. I certainly can’t say that I’m sold on him being a core piece at this point. If they don’t believe he will be one, then they should probably trade him.
I don’t recall anyone saying that Drysdale for Gauthier was a bad trade. It was the addition of a high 2nd that raised eyebrows.
 
That's partially my point. Why trade low on Zegras? The upside of him rebounding and being a 70 point forward is worth it to keep him rather then trade from a position of weakness for a position of strength.

I think the smartest thing to do is hold pat on the young players. 1 more year with a new coach and see where we are at. Next summer when he needs a new contract is when decisions need to be made.
I don't think it would be trading low. As was echoed, we moved Drysdale at the perfect time, and honestly, zegras is probably beyond that point now. I have no idea what his value even is.

If he can't bring back something substantial, then absolutely hold onto him.
 
Well our GM has already stated that he wants to make the playoffs next year, so “making it work for one more year” would likely go against that goal. None of those 3 dmen inspire much confidence as a top 4 option, but currently 2 of them have to play that role. Yes, you could split the ice time better, but if none of them are any good, I don’t see how that will help much, if at all.
Our GM says a lot of things, out of both sides of his mouth.

He’s boxed himself in with the Trouba and Gudas contracts. There’s no space for Helleson and Luneau if he signs a veteran RD, and it would seem quite premature to be moving youth for mid-level veterans. He either sucks it up next year and rolls with what he has, or potentially makes a huge mistake for the future.

I’m praying he’s not extending the veterans. Trouba on the 3rd pairing after next year would be fine…IF we had legitimate top 4 guys to shelter Luneau, Moore, Warren, etc who should ideally be starting on the 3rd pairing…
 
Have people already given up on Hellison potentially becoming a solid #4? Didn't we just go through a similar scenario last summer with LaCombe? Didn't Hellison surprise almost everybody with how well he played when he got here? But now we know for sure he's peaked at a 6/7?

I certainly think he could be that. He and Mintyukov could make a really nice second pairing if both take steps forward. Not even big steps, just reasonable steps that could be expected from their age, experience level, and a new coach.

I think what most people are thinking is that the team has the following at RD:

- Two 3rd pairing, stay-at-home guys in Gudas and Trouba
- One 3rd pairing guy in Helleson who could potentially be a 2nd pairing guy
- Several kids who are unproven (Luneau, Moore, Warren, Solberg if he can play that side)

There is a giant glaring hole at RD1. We've seen that it's not going to work with Gudas. I don't think Trouba would be better. It's a big stretch for Helleson. Luneau and Moore could both potentially work there one day, but it might ruin them to put them there next season. The team is going to need a decent RD1 to make the playoffs next year and it seems like that can only come from outside the organization. You just have to make sure you're not blocking anyone if you do that.
 
Our GM says a lot of things, out of both sides of his mouth.

He’s boxed himself in with the Trouba and Gudas contracts. There’s no space for Helleson and Luneau if he signs a veteran RD, and it would seem quite premature to be moving youth for mid-level veterans. He either sucks it up next year and rolls with what he has, or potentially makes a huge mistake for the future.

I’m praying he’s not extending the veterans. Trouba on the 3rd pairing after next year would be fine…IF we had legitimate top 4 guys to shelter Luneau, Moore, Warren, etc who should ideally be starting on the 3rd pairing…
I really hope he trades at least one of Trouba/Gudas. Their reputations alone should get us a pretty good return. I could absolutely see a team giving up a late 1st for Trouba at 50% (maybe with us taking a contract back, too) even if we know he isn’t worth that.
 
The team is going to need a decent RD1 to make the playoffs next year and it seems like that can only come from outside the organization. You just have to make sure you're not blocking anyone if you do that.

Reality is that we're not gonna plug every hole by next year. And no one is selling off a top pairing RHD, even a rental one, for cheap. Half the teams in the league are looking for that. Any UFA who fit the bill would be exceedingly expensive.
 
Well our GM has already stated that he wants to make the playoffs next year, so “making it work for one more year” would likely go against that goal. None of those 3 dmen inspire much confidence as a top 4 option, but currently 2 of them have to play that role. Yes, you could split the ice time better, but if none of them are any good, I don’t see how that will help much, if at all.

I certainly think he could be that. He and Mintyukov could make a really nice second pairing if both take steps forward. Not even big steps, just reasonable steps that could be expected from their age, experience level, and a new coach.

I think what most people are thinking is that the team has the following at RD:

- Two 3rd pairing, stay-at-home guys in Gudas and Trouba
- One 3rd pairing guy in Helleson who could potentially be a 2nd pairing guy
- Several kids who are unproven (Luneau, Moore, Warren, Solberg if he can play that side)

There is a giant glaring hole at RD1. We've seen that it's not going to work with Gudas. I don't think Trouba would be better. It's a big stretch for Helleson. Luneau and Moore could both potentially work there one day, but it might ruin them to put them there next season. The team is going to need a decent RD1 to make the playoffs next year and it seems like that can only come from outside the organization. You just have to make sure you're not blocking anyone if you do that.
I understand the dilemma. But what worries me is that if we try and force the issue to make the playoffs next year, we may be trying to thread the needle on how to improve immediately while not holding back some of our future guys. Quite the balancing act. And just as importantly it could require moving someone out now that we will regret moving 2 or 3 years from now.

I want to make the playoffs next year too. But we won't be cup contenders next year. We shouldn't do anything dumb for the sake of just making the playoffs next year.

I'm not saying I have the answer, but I don't want to see us move too quickly, pay a high price, and then regret it almost as quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deuce22
Regarding trading Zegras, I still don't think any of the kids should be traded until we see how they do with a new coach, at least our forwards. Also, I'm in agreement with someone who said it, I think PV is going to throw a bunch of money at Bennett
 
Who are realistic impact players that could conceivably be available this summer? Via trade that is

He probably gets to dictate where he goes at this point even without an official no-move clause, but I would take a long look at Ryan O'Reilly. There is no better guy for a short-term #3 center role behind Leo and Mac IMO (assuming they don't want to put Z there), he'd be a perfect fit and he's great value ($4.5M cap hit with a $4M salary annually through 2027).
 
I certainly think he could be that. He and Mintyukov could make a really nice second pairing if both take steps forward. Not even big steps, just reasonable steps that could be expected from their age, experience level, and a new coach.

I think what most people are thinking is that the team has the following at RD:

- Two 3rd pairing, stay-at-home guys in Gudas and Trouba
- One 3rd pairing guy in Helleson who could potentially be a 2nd pairing guy
- Several kids who are unproven (Luneau, Moore, Warren, Solberg if he can play that side)

There is a giant glaring hole at RD1. We've seen that it's not going to work with Gudas. I don't think Trouba would be better. It's a big stretch for Helleson. Luneau and Moore could both potentially work there one day, but it might ruin them to put them there next season. The team is going to need a decent RD1 to make the playoffs next year and it seems like that can only come from outside the organization. You just have to make sure you're not blocking anyone if you do that.

Really well explained. I agree with your entire assessment of the situation, but I differ on your conclusion.

They are most likely not going to find a perfect, long-term fit for LaCombe this off-season. It is an issue that needs to be addressed at some point but probably not this off-season as it's one of the most difficult positions to fill. There's no rush.

It seems more likely that the ride with what they have with different usage, and they see who steps up and who doesn't. Gudas and/or Trouba will most likely be gone at the deadline, and that's when they'll decide if they have something internal, or they need to find something external. Moore and Luneau would both benefit with more time in San Diego. If they are too good for the AHL, then that's an awesome problem to solve later this season or next.
 
I just don’t see how you can roll a defense with Lacombe, Minty, Zellwagon, Helleson, Luneau/Moore, Trouba/Gudas. Way too young and not enough sandpaper. I’m all for upgrading Helleson for a RHD that can eat mins with Lacombe. Let Trouba be #4, and Gudas #6. Then in a year, let Gudas or Trouba go and see if Luneau is ready. But at that point, you’re not running a bunch of young guys
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad