Confirmed with Link: [ANA/STL] Cam Fowler and 2027 4th round pick for 2027 2nd round and Jeremie Biakabutuka

[ohcomeonref]

Source?

They stated they were willing to waive him. Why would they pay to get rid of him?

 

[MMC]

I guess if someone offered a 2nd for him, then it would have been fine if Verbeek traded 1st for him, doesn't really matter what anyone thinks of that, had to be more than the other team.

Way to completely miss the point

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Way to completely miss the point

I was illustrating that stating that sky is blue is irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

[TheStuntman]

Finally have a chance to comment. Did not expect to see this today.

Fowler is a declining NHL player, who's grossly over paid. His main positive asset; skating, is declining. He gets pushed around in his own zone. He's a negative asset due to his contract and would likely be a buyout candidate on a cap strapped team. This trade should've happened before the season, better late than never. The return is negligible, but the real value is that it finally allows the Ducks to allow their young LD prospects to finally play meaningful minutes, if Cronin allows them to.

A good and necessary trade the Ducks had to do.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Watching some of these highlights I feel like Fowler used to play with much more confidence in jumping into the play.

Fowler had career highs in points just a few years ago in 2021-22 and 2022-23.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Source?

Nothing about the Rangers having "several options" tells me they were backed into a corner and these other teams were only interested if Trouba came with incentive attached.

Columbus allegedly was interested and had waiver priority over us at the time if it came to that.

If you want to believe that everyone else was circling the waters hoping to add picks out of this, but instead Verbeek completely misread like an idiot and offered one - that's your opinion but there really isn't evidence to support it. I'd say based on what we have to go on, it's more likely other teams were willing to take him at face value, or maybe were offering to pay more for retention. Trading requires mutual interest, if we wanted this player, our offer had to better to them than just waiving him to Columbus.

Do we pass on a player we want, just because the trade also helps them accomplish a goal? I don't understand that logic. We wanted Jacob Trouba, or we wouldn't have been calling to get involved.

 

[MMC]

I was illustrating that stating that sky is blue is irrelevant to the point I was making.

The point you’re making is that the team should’ve done something that wasn’t possible for them to do

 

[70sSanO]

Fowler does fit the in with the Blues veteran 30+ yo blue line.

John

 

[Deuce22]

Fowler had career highs in points just a few years ago in 2021-22 and 2022-23.

Points are largely a product of usage. Fowler was better earlier in his career.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

Blues are the 10th worst team in the league according to Tankathon standings.
They should be blowing it up and rebuilding. Its like their the 2019 Ducks and still trying to hold onto making the playoffs and in denial of a rebuild.

 

[Hey234]

But it should now be noted that with one retention slot locked up for the next 3 TDLs, the idea of any kind of Gibson trade would seen to be quite slim. I doubt anybody will take him without retention and I doubt Pat wants to lock up 2 of his 3 slots for the next 3 years. But, who know, maybe I'm wrong about that.

I could be wrong, but Fowler's contract is over next year. That means it's only 2 TDLs with retention: this season and next. I'm not sure that's a huge issue for the team even if they retain on Gibson too.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

The point you’re making is that the team should’ve done something that wasn’t possible for them to do

Obviously not the point I'm making. The point is Rangers used leverage on Verbeek because he really wanted the guy, should have been the other way around when you're dealing with a team who has been trying to get rid of that player for a long time (or, you know, you just don't make the trade), then Blues used the leverage on Verbeek because he now had to get rid of one of the players that are creating a logjam. In the end he mismanaged assets, however minimal they may be, and team will be paying money for a player not to play for them.

And what did he achieve with all this? Still icing 3 bottom pairings, with one guy (Trouba) maybe being a 2nd pairing player in right situation. Rearranging deck chairs on a ship with a broken rudder.

 

[MMC]

Obviously not the point I'm making. The point is Rangers used leverage on Verbeek because he really wanted the guy, should have been the other way around when you're dealing with a team who has been trying to get rid of that player for a long time (or, you know, you just don't make the trade), then Blues used the leverage on Verbeek because he now had to get rid of one of the players that are creating a logjam. In the end he mismanaged assets, however minimal they may be, and team will be paying money for a player not to play for them.

And what did he achieve with all this? Still icing 3 bottom pairings, with one guy (Trouba) maybe being a 2nd pairing player in right situation. Rearranging deck chairs on a ship with a broken rudder.

I don’t know why what you think “should” have happened should really hold any weight here, that’s not how any of this was going to go down. PV had no way of getting Trouba with retention or with an asset coming back, NY would’ve thrown him on waivers before doing that and one of the interested teams would’ve picked him up (be it us or someone else). You're calling it a mismanagement of assets, but I don’t know how you really think this could’ve gone any differently, unless you’re arguing this team should’ve traded Fowler sooner, but I don’t think you’re trying to argue that. Sure we could have not retained on Fowler and maybe still found a taker, but then we’d have gotten even less and people would just complain about that too.

As for what the team was hoping to accomplish, I mean I think that’s pretty obvious, this gives us a much more balanced defense. PV has been wanting to add a top 4 RHD since the offseason and he thinks Trouba can be that player. Meanwhile Fowler no longer had a fit on this roster. PV tried to do a one for one swap, if we had done that we wouldn’t have gotten a 2nd out of this

 

[MMC]

 

[WhatTheDuck]

It would be a sort of random choice to have on there. I'd imagine he would have waived for almost any American club at this point.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

I don’t know why what you think “should” have happened should really hold any weight here, that’s not how any of this was going to go down. PV had no way of getting Trouba with retention or with an asset coming back, NY would’ve thrown him on waivers before doing that and one of the interested teams would’ve picked him up (be it us or someone else). You're calling it a mismanagement of assets, but I don’t know how you really think this could’ve gone any differently, unless you’re arguing this team should’ve traded Fowler sooner, but I don’t think you’re trying to argue that. Sure we could have not retained on Fowler and maybe still found a taker, but then we’d have gotten even less and people would just complain about that too.

As for what the team was hoping to accomplish, I mean I think that’s pretty obvious, this gives us a much more balanced defense. PV has been wanting to add a top 4 RHD since the offseason and he thinks Trouba can be that player. Meanwhile Fowler no longer had a fit on this roster. PV tried to do a one for one swap, if we had done that we wouldn’t have gotten a 2nd out of this

Pretty evident you did not read what I posted as we're arguing two different things, that way we can go in circles forever.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

It would be a sort of random choice to have on there. I'd imagine he would have waived for almost any American club at this point.

Also makes you wonder how many teams even had interest in him

 

[Dostwall]

Maybe I’m misinterpreting this, but it seems to me like this could imply Cronin needs to win tonight to keep his job?

 

[12ozPapa]

We didn’t owe Fowler 1000 games and it’s clear that this trade was years overdue.

its a business and fowler knows that. guarantee he couldn't care less about who he plays his 1000th game with

We don’t owe Fowler 1,000 games, sure, but it’d be the classy thing to do.

You know Fowler? You guarantee he doesn’t care? Really?

The dude has been a f***ing soldier put in a spot way above his head since day one.

I think it’s a shitty way to treat a player like him - despite his struggles.

I know it’s a business, but 9 games away from 1,000 AND they trade him to a non-contender? Kind of shitty. Do right by the player who has been loyal and played well overall

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I could be wrong, but Fowler's contract is over next year. That means it's only 2 TDLs with retention: this season and next. I'm not sure that's a huge issue for the team even if they retain on Gibson too.

Yeah, you're right. Not sure how I confused that. But I think PV would still be much less willing to retain on Gibby too, at this point.

 

[MMC]

We don’t owe Fowler 1,000 games, sure, but it’d be the classy thing to do.

You know Fowler? You guarantee he doesn’t care? Really?

The dude has been a f***ing soldier put in a spot way above his head since day one.

I think it’s a shitty way to treat a player like him - despite his struggles.

I know it’s a business, but 9 games away from 1,000 AND they trade him to a non-contender? Kind of shitty. Do right by the player who has been loyal and played well overall

If he cared why did he waive his NTC to get out of here today?

 

[12ozPapa]

If he cared why did he waive his NTC to get out of here today?

Very true - but we also don’t know the behind the scenes stuff, even though some here seem to think they do.

He needed to be traded, it was time - but I feel this wasn’t a great way to do it. That’s my opinion.

Can’t wait for the Ducks to continue to suck and people will have to find the next scapegoat.

We don’t owe Fowler 1,000 games, sure, but it’d be the classy thing to do.

You know Fowler? You guarantee he doesn’t care? Really?

The dude has been a f***ing soldier put in a spot way above his head since day one.

I think it’s a shitty way to treat a player like him - despite his struggles.

I know it’s a business, but 9 games away from 1,000 AND they trade him to a non-contender? Kind of shitty. Do right by the player who has been loyal and played well overall

@SmokeyDuck Why not converse rather than just rely on emojis?

 

[FiveTacos]

Obviously not the point I'm making. The point is Rangers used leverage on Verbeek because he really wanted the guy,

Well yeah, we did want him because he fits in many ways (cap floor, RHD, has one more year, stylistic fit, etc). So that's legit leverage.

should have been the other way around when you're dealing with a team who has been trying to get rid of that player for a long time (or, you know, you just don't make the trade),

But they already found a way to get rid of him without giving up anything ... other teams were ready to waiver claim him, as apparently they were also willing to give up assets to get him. So how do you leverage that into them giving up something for us to take him, if they already have an option to give him up without surrendering anything?

then Blues used the leverage on Verbeek because he now had to get rid of one of the players that are creating a logjam. In the end he mismanaged assets, however minimal they may be, and team will be paying money for a player not to play for them.

I think you overestimate how much anyone really cares about someone else's logjams so long as they can get someone they want.

And what did he achieve with all this? Still icing 3 bottom pairings, with one guy (Trouba) maybe being a 2nd pairing player in right situation. Rearranging deck chairs on a ship with a broken rudder.

Rearranging so that our young D don't have to play their off side, that on its own is at least an improvement for development sake. And in the process upgrading two 4ths to a 2nd. Overall I'd call that a small improvement at virtually no cost to us. The increase in cap also means we can deal Dumoulin without a need to take anything back and be no worse off cap floor wise.

If you're hoping for moves that would drastically remake our D ... well that ain't happening unless we're starting to talk putting our best young players on the block.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Given where the Blues are in the standings or what their future looks like, one could make the argument Fowler waiving for this deal was due to his being happy just to get the hell out of here. Could be his statement on the status of where this team is at these days.

 

[MMC]

Very true - but we also don’t know the behind the scenes stuff, even though some here seem to think they do.

He needed to be traded, it was time - but I feel this wasn’t a great way to do it. That’s my opinion.

Obviously we aren’t privy to conversations with either side, but there’s plenty that’s come out indicating both sides were ready to move on (the fact that this trade happened, PV trying to move him for Trouba, Fowler telling the team he was ready in the offseason and waiving his NTC), and nothing indicating the contrary. So while we don’t know for sure, we can make a pretty safe assumption