Proposal: Ana - wpg/car/flo

[playasRus]

So, from Ottawa - NYR trade, we established that 2 million dollars has a going rate of about a 2nd round pick. Stoner has a 3.25mil hit however, and because it's over two years (6.5mil), they'll have to give up three 2nds, and take back some salary and contract and half a mil.

So

To WPG/CAR/FLO:
Clayton Stoner
ANA 2nd round pick 2017
TOR 2nd round pick 2017
ANA 2nd round pick 2018

To ANA:
Postma (890k)/Nakladal (600)/Kampfer (610k)

Three 2nd rd picks for 5 million in cap space and salary. ANA has 4million cap space to work with.

Click to read more...

 

[xxreact9]

So, from Ottawa - NYR trade, we established that 2 million dollars has a going rate of about a 2nd round pick. Stoner has a 3.25mil hit however, and because it's over two years (6.5mil), they'll have to give up three 2nds, and take back some salary and contract and half a mil.

So

To WPG/CAR/FLO:
Clayton Stoner
ANA 2nd round pick 2017
TOR 2nd round pick 2017
ANA 2nd round pick 2018

To ANA:
Postma (890k)/Nakladal (600)/Kampfer (610k)

Three 2nd rd picks for 5 million in cap space and salary. ANA has 4million cap space to work with.

As the ducks gm I'd bite my lip and say fine. It's a way out without burning a 1st or Montour/Theo/Larsson, or god forbid Fowler.

Don't see why Carolina with enormous cap space doesn't say yes. Just 2 years of an actually good 3rd pairing guy for 3.2m, for three 2nds? That's darn good for them.

 

[Trolfoli]

The value is low. The team isn't just taking Stoner, it's taking Stoner so the Ducks can add Lindholm. The ability to sign Lindholm is worth at least a 1st.

 

[Everything is fine]

Florida says No.
That cap space is needed next offseason.

 

[Crazy8oooo]

So the Ducks are giving up 3 2nd rounders in order to receive just over 1 million in cap space? How is that going to help them? The reason for trading Stoner would be to shed 3+ million in space, not take back 2 million in worthless players to them AND give up 3 2nd rounders to make it happen.

Edit: Misread the OP. Still, 3 picks should allow for no salary take backs.

 

[Lurked4Yearz]

The value is low. The team isn't just taking Stoner, it's taking Stoner so the Ducks can add Lindholm. The ability to sign Lindholm is worth at least a 1st.

Carolina and Florida does not care that Anaheim will be able to sign Lindholm, they are in different conferences. I'm sure they'd rather Stoner and 3 2nd round picks than Anaheim having to trade Fowler or Lindholm's rights to an Eastern Conference team.

 

[playasRus]

The value is low. The team isn't just taking Stoner, it's taking Stoner so the Ducks can add Lindholm. The ability to sign Lindholm is worth at least a 1st.

Does facing Lindholm twice a year really stop Carolina from getting three 2nds and a depth defenseman for free? I feel like GMs aren't out to extort as much as take advantage. Value is definitely on par. It's not a steal but it's very good. If any other team was offering you a depth D and three 2nds for nothing and wasn't in a contract bind, you'd take it in a heartbeat.

Edit: Misread the OP. Still, 3 picks should allow for no salary take backs.

In terms of pure value, Ottawa 2nd for 2million dollars.
Stoner x2 years = 6.5 million; 6.5mil minus 600k-800k coming back = 5.7-5.9mil = 3x 2nds.

And not to mention ANA 2nds are likely a few spots after OTT picks.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Three 2nd round picks to dump Stoner

 

[playasRus]

Three 2nd round picks to dump Stoner

So we are agreeing that taking Stoner's contract on is worth somewhere between two to three 2nd round picks? As someone else pointed out, it's less of a sting than giving up one of Fowler, Theodore, Despres (which I'd say you'd be lucky to get out of a 2nd round pick 3-4 years down the road when Getz and Perry are old men..)

 

[Ducks in a row]

So we are agreeing that taking Stoner's contract on is worth somewhere between two to three 2nd round picks? As someone else pointed out, it's less of a sting than giving up one of Fowler, Theodore, Despres (which I'd say you'd be lucky to get out of a 2nd round pick 3-4 years down the road when Getz and Perry are old men..)

Trading Despres isn't a sting wish someone would take him but his health issues ruin that.

Trading Stoner with two 2nd round picks should be enough but fans of other teams are too greedy wanting more and more.

 

[JetsHomer]

Jets aren't downgrading from Postma to Stoner and taking on his salary for some probably useless picks

 

[hamzarocks]

The ducks don't have our 2017 2nd they have which ever 2017 2nd pick is the 2nd worst out of the three we have. So it could be the sens or the sharks as well. I'd expect the sens to do better than us so it would be there 2nd most likely.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

So, from Ottawa - NYR trade, we established that 2 million dollars has a going rate of about a 2nd round pick. Stoner has a 3.25mil hit however, and because it's over two years (6.5mil), they'll have to give up three 2nds, and take back some salary and contract and half a mil.

So

To WPG/CAR/FLO:
Clayton Stoner
ANA 2nd round pick 2017
TOR 2nd round pick 2017
ANA 2nd round pick 2018

To ANA:
Postma (890k)/Nakladal (600)/Kampfer (610k)

Three 2nd rd picks for 5 million in cap space and salary. ANA has 4million cap space to work with.

Doubt just moving 3 2nd rounders would be enough, Bob Murray would've to include at least Montour to move that contract. Maybe Stoner+Montour+2017 2nd round pick or something like that. And i seriously doubt that BM is going to move 3 2nd round picks just to unload that contract any ways.

 

[Exit Dose]

I think once you hit two 2nds, if another pick is added at that point, it's a few rounds back - around a 5th or later. They aren't taking back enough salary or cap to bring back three 2nds.

 

[playasRus]

We seem to be towing the line of "too much to give away a useful depth D" to "not enough to take on just a depth player."

Just 2 years of an actually good 3rd pairing guy for 3.2m, for three 2nds? That's darn good for them.

The value is low. The ability to sign Lindholm is worth at least a 1st.

Still, 3 picks should allow for no salary take backs.

I'm sure they'd rather Stoner and 3 2nd round picks than Anaheim having to trade Fowler or Lindholm's rights to an Eastern Conference team.

Three 2nd round picks to dump Stoner

Doubt just moving 3 2nd rounders would be enough, Bob Murray would've to include at least Montour to move that contract.

I think once you hit two 2nds, if another pick is added at that point, it's a few rounds back - around a 5th or later. They aren't taking back enough salary or cap to bring back three 2nds.

 

[Nurmagomedov]

Trading Stoner with two 2nd round picks should be enough but fans of other teams are too greedy wanting more and more.

Ofcourse. They'll just keep building and building their pipedreams and then when the deal comes out they'll be like "what the hell is (insert GM) doing?"

It'll end up being something like Stoner + 2nd for a 3rd.

 

[aj8000]

Three 2nd round picks to dump Stoner

Yes, due to the minimal amount of excess cap space at the moment in the NHL, it is worth a lot more then three second round picks. Stoners cap hit is two years so a team needs to have the space excess for two years to take that contract on which makes the cost to access that cap space even more costly.

The teams with cap space have the upper hand in any negotiation.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Yes, due to the minimal amount of excess cap space at the moment in the NHL, it is worth a lot more then three second round picks. Stoners cap hit is two years so a team needs to have the space excess for two years to take that contract on which makes the cost to access that cap space even more costly.

The teams with cap space have the upper hand in any negotiation.

Three 2nd round picks are great value what fans of other teams want is to take Ducks to the cleaners that is all. A lot more then three 2nd round picks

 

[Maukkis]

The thing is, moving Stoner gives Anaheim cap space and reduces their payroll. The cap space is an asset which they get immediately and can use at their own will, while the lower payroll allows them to do that. The other team would get draft picks at the cost of two years of cap space and money. Those picks aren't close to contributing in the next three years, nor are they guaranteed to be anything worth having. You can hit Faulk, Aho and Rask - or you can hit Alt, Dalpe and Hagemo.

What are the chances of the former happening? Close to zero. Heck, even the chances for one of the second rounders to hit is low - let alone more than one.

9/30 2011
10/30 2010
12/30 2009
11/30 2008
6/30 2007

=48/150

I went through the five drafts from 07-11 and counted the amount of second round players who have contributed in the NHL (criteria: ~100 games, also those who are contributing now but don't have enough games under their belts, such as Jacob Markstrom and Brian Dumoulin). Now, the probability to get one seems to be around the 32% mark. That looks good on paper, but then... guess how many of those players are/were players who got their chances but never stuck around, or those who bounce between the fourth line and the pressbox? This is just my opinion, but if you go through the data yourself, I don't think your score will differ too much from my 13. If we combine these numbers, the likelihood of getting a decent top 9 forward/5D or better/a capable goalie from the second round is around 23%.

From that trade offer, you get three shots at getting a contributor from the draft. On the other hand, you could get a prospect, a more known commodity. How likely is it for a good prospect to become a contributor? Much more likely than a pick, that's for sure. And that counts for many, many GMs. They want bang for their buck, not magic beans. In this case, it means that one of your high end prospects is what it would likely take to get Stoner shipped out.

 

[Trolfoli]

Does facing Lindholm twice a year really stop Carolina from getting three 2nds and a depth defenseman for free? I feel like GMs aren't out to extort as much as take advantage. Value is definitely on par. It's not a steal but it's very good. If any other team was offering you a depth D and three 2nds for nothing and wasn't in a contract bind, you'd take it in a heartbeat.

2 free 2nd's and a cap dump isn't bad. If Carolina know's the Ducks must have the space to sign Lindholm they ask for a 1st or one of their nice young D because it's that much more valuable to the Ducks and everyone knows it. There are only a couple of teams that can eat a contract like Stoner's for 2 years. They are going to ask for more then 2nds because they can.

 

[playasRus]

2 free 2nd's and a cap dump isn't bad. If Carolina know's the Ducks must have the space to sign Lindholm they ask for a 1st or one of their nice young D because it's that much more valuable to the Ducks and everyone knows it. There are only a couple of teams that can eat a contract like Stoner's for 2 years. They are going to ask for more then 2nds because they can.

The thing is, trading a young D away with Stoner to sign Lindholm puts them in another bind - they can't protect them all because of Bieksa's NMC. BM also has an incentive to let Lindholm's RFA year slide and have him play in Europe somewhere for the year.

At the end of the year, no one will say he should've give up a top end asset like a 1st/Montour to sign Lindholm and lose Fowler/Despres in the expansion draft.

 

[Maukkis]

The thing is, trading a young D away with Stoner to sign Lindholm puts them in another bind - they can't protect them all because of Bieksa's NMC. BM also has an incentive to let Lindholm's RFA year slide and have him play in Europe somewhere for the year.

At the end of the year, no one will say he should've give up a top end asset like a 1st/Montour to sign Lindholm and lose Fowler/Despres in the expansion draft.

That's another thing to consider. One of Fowler and Vatanen is going to be picked anyway, if Bieksa isn't bought out - and although that's the logical choice, that's also Murray saying "I f**ked up, that was a bad move and it was completely on me". It would look better to trade one of the two defenseman for a forward, address a need and save your face from having to admit that brutal mistake.

 

[Ducks in a row]

2 free 2nd's and a cap dump isn't bad. If Carolina know's the Ducks must have the space to sign Lindholm they ask for a 1st or one of their nice young D because it's that much more valuable to the Ducks and everyone knows it. There are only a couple of teams that can eat a contract like Stoner's for 2 years. They are going to ask for more then 2nds because they can.

Of course teams would ask for more back but that doesn't mean they will get it and it doesn't mean they won't settle for two 2nd round picks.

The thing is, trading a young D away with Stoner to sign Lindholm puts them in another bind - they can't protect them all because of Bieksa's NMC. BM also has an incentive to let Lindholm's RFA year slide and have him play in Europe somewhere for the year.

At the end of the year, no one will say he should've give up a top end asset like a 1st/Montour to sign Lindholm and lose Fowler/Despres in the expansion draft.

Theodore,Montour and Larsson don't need protecting. Trade away Fowler before expansion draft and have Bieksa waive for expansion or buy him out. We protect Lindholm,Vatanen and Manson from the blueline. Losing Despres in expansion draft isn't a big deal for us with his health problems.

 

[Trolfoli]

The thing is, trading a young D away with Stoner to sign Lindholm puts them in another bind - they can't protect them all because of Bieksa's NMC. BM also has an incentive to let Lindholm's RFA year slide and have him play in Europe somewhere for the year.

At the end of the year, no one will say he should've give up a top end asset like a 1st/Montour to sign Lindholm and lose Fowler/Despres in the expansion draft.

So Lindholm is going to play the year abroad and help the Ducks out?

I agree with it not making sense to pay to move guys to just lose them in an expansion. That's why I think Lindholm gets moved. He'll get a better return then Fowler and it may be enough for the fan base to be excited about so their ire doesn't turn to the GM.

That's another thing to consider. One of Fowler and Vatanen is going to be picked anyway, if Bieksa isn't bought out - and although that's the logical choice, that's also Murray saying "I f**ked up, that was a bad move and it was completely on me". It would look better to trade one of the two defenseman for a forward, address a need and save your face from having to admit that brutal mistake.

Fun fact: Bieksa is on a 35+ contract. His cap hit is still with the Ducks even if they buy him out for the expansion.

 

[Trolfoli]

Of course teams would ask for more back but that doesn't mean they will get it and it doesn't mean they won't settle for two 2nd round picks.

Maybe someone bites, but taking cap for 2 years = 1st in my book. Don't think 2 2nds is enough especially if that team could be a playoff team and those 2nds are late.