Proposal: Anaheim-Toronto

[Sojourn]

If a post above is true with Lindholm at 7 and Murray at 5, i find it impossible that they haven't agreed on 6 a long time ago.

That's not really how negotiations work. If I come into a negotiation with an overly high number, I shouldn't expect the other side to meet me in the middle.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Theodore yes, larsson maybe, Montour we can't say that.

I still would give up any of them unless Toronto gives us their first.

Our first and third or equivalent propsect for their 2nd? He'll yeah.

at this point it looks like our 1st is a top 5, so that would become the most valuable piece in the deal and takes the incentive away for us to take a bad contract

 

[BB88]

That just goes back to being an opinion, doesn't it?

I'm an Anaheim fan. I love what Lindholm has brought. I'm against paying him $6m+. He's not worth that yet. That's my opinion. It's just as valid as yours.

So you turned under 6M to 6M+ to say he's not worth it to give Murray credit?
He's done an awfull job.

 

[Sojourn]

So you turned under 6M to 6M+ to say he's not worth it to give Murray credit?
He's done an awfull job.

I've already said I've been unhappy with Murray. If you think that's what I'm trying to do, you just aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. The $6m+ figure is what Lindholm was asking for before. I don't think under $6m is a "steal" because if I don't think he's worth $6m+ now, then that pretty obviously means he's worth more in the $5m range.

If he gets paid what he is worth, that isn't a steal. It could turn into a steal, based on his progression, but if I'm Murray I'd want to emphasize what he is worth now, with a little extra for potential, but not enough that the contract is defined by it.

 

[BB88]

I've already said I've been unhappy with Murray. If you think that's what I'm trying to do, you just aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. The $6m+ figure is what Lindholm was asking for before. I don't think under $6m is a "steal" because if I don't think he's worth $6m+ now, then that pretty obviously means he's worth more in the $5m range.

If he gets paid what he is worth, that isn't a steal. It could turn into a steal, based on his progression, but if I'm Murray I'd want to emphasize what he is worth now, with a little extra for potential, but not enough that the contract is defined by it.

Having your teams #1D signed at less than 6M longterm should feel pretty damm nice.
It's going to look extremely nice when the proven #1D's get new contracts.

Lindholm should be a player you build around, you don't mess with those.
I'm sure the team is very happy with this situation.

 

[Sojourn]

Having your teams #1D signed at less than 6M longterm should feel pretty damm nice.
It's going to look extremely nice when the proven #1D's get new contracts.

Lindholm should be a player you build around, you don't mess with those.
I'm sure the team is very happy with this situation.

Here's the problem: Lindholm isn't a #1D yet.

He has shown signs that suggest he could become one, but that's still paying him based on potential.

 

[gabeliscious]

The benefit back would be cap/budget relief with Stoner, presumably to sign Lindholm

Agree that both of those prospects are worth more than a 2nd in isolation, just wondering if that financial relief is worth anything to Ducks fans? Toronto is in a position to provide that relief over the next 2-3 years so it would make sense for us if we could add to our D prospect corps

Sens 2 + hunwick (25% retained) for stoner + montour

Ducks then can burry hunwick in minors and get rid of cap hit. leafs get montour for a steal for freeing up $3.25 million in cap space for ducks.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Sens 2 + hunwick (25% retained) for stoner + montour

Ducks then can burry hunwick in minors and get rid of cap hit. leafs get montour for a steal for freeing up $3.25 million in cap space for ducks.

I would do that as a leaf fan, are you a fan of either team? Also did you see last night's leaf game? Hunwick looked....well, not great

 

[Trolfoli]

Trades, buyouts next summer (Bieksa, Stoner). Get the contract done worry about that later.

Bieksa is a 35+ contract. 35+ contracts don't get cap relief when bought out.

Buying out Bieksa for the expansion draft would result in $4M of dead cap space next year.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

Bieksa is a 35+ contract. 35+ contracts don't get cap relief when bought out.

Buying out Bieksa for the expansion draft would result in $4M of dead cap space next year.

The idea of buying out bieksa is so that ducks don't have to protect him during expansion draft. It has nothing to do with opening space for salary cap

 

[DavidBL]

Ducks fan with my 2 cents.
First, the Ducks have just under 4 mill in cap space due to LTIR according to capfriendly. This would be enough to get Lindholm on a bridge deal but not the long term deal both parties would prefer. This cap space is also dependent on Despres staying on LTIR all year. As far as we know that hasn't been confirmed as there have been no updates about Despres condition. Murray can't commit Lindholm to a contract before he knows what the long term, or at least season term, situation is for Despres.

Second, moving Stoner gives the Ducks 3 mill in cap and actual dollars. This combined with the LTIR gives the Ducks about 7 mill of cap. I am not certain of the Deadline cap accrual rules but the Ducks might be able to accrue enough to allow players to come back. If we do move a Stoner sized contract out we could sign Lindholm to a bridge type deal but again both sides appear to want the long term deal. So to get that long term deal Murray needs to get a firm update on Despres and have a move ready to create extra space. Murray said it himself that there were multiple scenarios that could play out regarding Lindholm. My guess is that he is looking for one that gets him the long term deal.

Third, even if the Ducks do have a budget they can also build some of those savings into Lindholms deal back loading it a bit. I haven't seen an official breakdown of Rakells deal but I would be surprised if there wasn't some back loading in that deal as well.

As for the Hunwick trade, I am not a fan. I think if the Ducks are giving away a prime asset to move Stoner they will want all the space/money. Hunwick would essentially reduce the gains by nearly a 3rd. Yes the Ducks could bury the contract in the minors but they would still be paying him full price and would mean they couldn't demote anyone else the same way, like Holzer, not that I think they would. It just reduces the flexibility greatly. Stoner is a good bottom pairing D. He'll give you pretty safe minutes and stick up for his teammates.

Finally to the OP. I would probably do it. I would want something closer to the 2nd or 3rd that both comparable trades got. Maybe conditions set on the Picks. I'd even add one of our picks if it also meant getting a decent forward prospect as well. In the end I think this is the type of deal the Murray has to make.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Would ducks fans be ok with rielly + brown for lindholm?

 

[Brock Radunske]

Would ducks fans be ok with rielly + brown for lindholm?

Dude...the Leafs need to ADD talent to their defensive corps, not use good prospects for marginal upgrades.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Would ducks fans be ok with rielly + brown for lindholm?

Dude...the Leafs need to ADD talent to their defensive corps, not use good prospects for marginal upgrades.

Ya I'd agree with Brock - Lindholm is better than Rielly as a complete defender, but replacing one with the other doesn't do a lot to improve the team. We need to add to Rielly, Gardiner and Zaitsev to build a team that could really do damage

 

[Canada4Gold]

We just waived Michalek and claimed Ben Smith...see how that works? Waive Hunwick bring in Stoner and add a really good prospect....plus Stoner actually is pretty decent.

His point was that we're at 50 contracts(I only counted 49 but whatever), acquiring 2 contract in a trade where we're losing 0 contract puts us over the 50 contract limit. Waiving anyone doesn't solve that unless they get taken.

You'd pretty much have to add 1 contract(if my 49 count was correct) back in the trade like Loov, or Holl to ensure we don't go over 50, otherwise the trade will no go through.

 

[BB88]

Here's the problem: Lindholm isn't a #1D yet.

He has shown signs that suggest he could become one, but that's still paying him based on potential.

No it isn't.

Which proven #1D do you sign with under 6M today?
Karlsson, Doughty, Josi, Hedman?

You can't.

 

[Sojourn]

No it isn't.

Which proven #1D do you sign with under 6M today?
Karlsson, Doughty, Josi, Hedman?

You can't.

I didn't realize you need to be a potential Norris candidate to be a #1.

 

[eternalbedhead]

People seem to be under the impression that Bargain Bob would be more malleable if we had more cap space. I don't believe that. Knowing him, he'd probably still play hardball with Lindholm. (yet he hands out NMCs to the Bieksas of this world like Halloween candy )


As for the trade, I think it's good value. Toronto gets a solid prospect (or what likely will be a mid-1st depending on if we pull out of this early rut) and a good veteran whose cap hit won't be an issue and gives up a 2nd round pick in return since they still have 2 this year. Losing Larsson or Montour will hurt though, and I think we can make things work without getting rid of Stoner or Fowler. (since we apparently have disregarded the budget this year) I'd say no after some thought.

 

[BB88]

I didn't realize you need to be a potential Norris candidate to be a #1.

I'd say there are 10-15 #1D's in the league.
You don't sign those guys with under 6M cap hit, not even close.


Lindholm has earned a 5.5-6M cap hit.

 

[Randy Randerson]

I'd say there are 10-15 #1D's in the league.
You don't sign those guys with under 6M cap hit, not even close.


Lindholm has earned a 5.5-6M cap hit.

I think there's 30 #1 Dmen in the league by definition. Not that every team has one (some have more than one), but if there are 30 #1 jobs then by definition the top 30 players at that position in the league should be considered #1 defensemen

the top 10-15 are the elite, top 10 are probably contending for Norris trophies a few times in their careers at least and could probably be called "franchise"

Seems like the lack of standardization in terms causes a lot of arguments on here

 

[duckpuck]

Hard to worry about it later though when every team knows you're desperate to shed salary. You can't just keep Despres and Thompson on LTIR forever if they're healthy.

You mean like Toronto has done to Robidas and Lupul?

Nate Thompson will be back at some point this season - I believe Feb or March. The ducks won't need to rush him back and, when healthy, he's a valuable piece that can be used or traded. He's a good face off center with a reasonable cap hit ($1.6M).

Tragically, Depres' career could be over. He missed most of last year with concussion symptoms and those returned in the first game this year without any contact. The Ducks could legitimately refuse to play him this year (i.e., have him fail his physical like Toronto did with Lupol). At a minimum, they can require that he sit out for an extended time which seems advised at this point.

Bottom line, LTIR is a good solution for the ducks for the foreseeable future - well beyond this years trade deadline.

 

[Morbo]

You mean like Toronto has done to Robidas and Lupul?
.

...no?

 

[Halla]

Montour and Larsson are worth a 2nd?

I'd value them higher, currently, than I would the 1st.

you seem to be forgetting the unloading of stoners contract.
he is easily worth a negative 2nd+. If im the leafs i dont even consider moving what looks like a 31-35 pick for stoner and the 1st (likely 20-30)

 

[The Examiner]

His point was that we're at 50 contracts(I only counted 49 but whatever), acquiring 2 contract in a trade where we're losing 0 contract puts us over the 50 contract limit. Waiving anyone doesn't solve that unless they get taken.

You'd pretty much have to add 1 contract(if my 49 count was correct) back in the trade like Loov, or Holl to ensure we don't go over 50, otherwise the trade will no go through.

I can't believe it took until the 3rd page for somebody to mention this.

I believe you are correct. The Leafs are at 49 contracts (which makes the Smith pickup even stranger). The OP's proposal would put them over (assuming the Leafs take the player and not the pick).

Hunwick and his cap would be a perfect move for the Ducks. Do it Lou/Murray.

 

[Sojourn]

you seem to be forgetting the unloading of stoners contract.
he is easily worth a negative 2nd+. If im the leafs i dont even consider moving what looks like a 31-35 pick for stoner and the 1st (likely 20-30)

I'm not forgetting anything. I'm responding directly to a statement:

No.
All those pieces you mentioned are basically worth a 2nd (save for the 1st...which wouldn't be more than 10 picks apart)
And the Leafs don't want Stoner unless it's a cap-balancer in a bigger deal

Also, JVR isn't in practice today...

Larsson was a recent 1st round pick, and all he's done since then is impress.

Montour was a 2nd round pick, but he's also continued to improve.

If a player like Larsson was drafted higher than the 2nd round, and he's only increased his value since then, how is he "basically worth a 2nd" as the poster said? That doesn't check out. And unless you're drafting at the top of the 1st round, you'd probably be pretty happy to draft a player like Larsson or Montour in the 1st round. Especially Larsson, who is already ahead of the curve at 19 years old.