Proposal: Blue Jackets-Ducks
- Thread starter MrValueOf
- Start date
darkwingduck
Registered User
Not arguing that Murray isn't a good player, but why does Anaheim need a dman in a trade? We are looking for cheap wingers if you got any to spare. Perhaps wild bill? 
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,280
- 10,207
Ducks politely decline
Murray does not fill a need and Dubinsky's contract is a non starter for Anaheim anyways
Murray does not fill a need and Dubinsky's contract is a non starter for Anaheim anyways
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Rakell and Ritchie? No. No, he does not.
It's a bad deal for Columbus, but let's not exaggerate Murray's worth. He isn't getting Rakell and Ritchie at this point in time.
From an Anaheim perspective, this deal doesn't interest me at all. We don't need Murray.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
This doesn't make any sense for the Ducks - one of the last team's who would be trying to pry Murray away. We need more players like Rakell and Ritchie and have plenty of good young dmen.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Well, I'd debate it. Rakell is a top six forward with even greater upside, and Ritchie has top six potential as well, and he's a power forward style player. Murray might have the potential to get that at some point, but right now? He doesn't get that. His career high of 25 points, with only one full season under his belt is not a large enough body of work to command that kind of return.
Call it ridiculous if you want, but Murray is not Lindholm, and he doesn't have enough games under his belt as a proven, established player for me to think giving up a top six forward, and a potential top six forward is worth it. And believe me, I am very high on Murray, but I'm not so high that I'd give up that kind of return for a player who would be 3rd on Anaheim's blue line depth chart. And that's exactly where he falls, behind Lindholm and Fowler.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
With that logic, wake me when Murray hits 35 points, and is a legitimate two-way defenseman. See how that works? Don't be a hypocrite. Just because you know nothing about Rakell and Ritchie doesn't mean they are toss-ins. Your ignorance is showing here. And I never said Rakell's games count more, but I'm not asking for Murray and extras, am I? I'm not even asking for Murray.
And did you really just accuse Anaheim of being bad? They are in a playoff spot, and that despite being without one of their best scoring forwards, and defensemen to start the season. They made the playoffs last season. When was the last time Columbus made the playoffs? That really isn't a point you should be trying to make. Anaheim is consistently a competitive team. Columbus is consistently... not. And I really don't like that you put me in a position to make this point, because that is such a terrible and petty argument. It's a terrible argument for a winning team.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,280
- 10,207
Rakell is the best player in the deal at this point (I'm a Jackets fan). I don't see what the Ducks would get out of this deal given their shortage of cheap forwards and depth at LHD. Murray should be back to top pair level at some point (he's struggling coming back into the lineup), but I guess the only way you'd see this sort of deal is if the Ducks move another D.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,772
- 39,733
No wonder were a bad team? Lol were 2nd in the Pacific, we're arguably a top 5 team over the last 5 years. And I'd think we played 1 of the hardest scheds to open the season without or beat dmen and 1 of our top forwards missing significant time
Where does Murray fit on our roster at the expense of 2 of our top 6 forwards, your under valuing rakell which is fine. Ritchie hasn't done enough point wise to be valued high but he's def high valued to us.
We already have Fowler lindholm Vatanen manson Theodore larsson who all are alreasy top 4 dmen or look like they will be. We need fonwards not dmen, and we need to keep our good low costed forwards like Ritchie and rakell
Honestly rakell would likely be your most skilled forward if you got him
Stuzchuk
Registered User
Am a fan of neither team, and there's no way Murray is worth that. Worth more than Rakell, absolutely. But there's no way he's worth Ritchie and Rakell.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,772
- 39,733
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
So the Ducks take on a lot of cap and trade two of their younger, most promising forwards (something they've needed for a while) for a center they don't need, another spare forward and a blueliner they don't need.
And the Jackets sell low on Dubi, give away a forward who's been an excellent value signing, and one of our Big Three blueliners (someone we're leaning on hard) for a pair of wingers we don't need.
Where does this make sense for... well, anybody?
And the Jackets sell low on Dubi, give away a forward who's been an excellent value signing, and one of our Big Three blueliners (someone we're leaning on hard) for a pair of wingers we don't need.
Where does this make sense for... well, anybody?
What has Murray ever done in his career besides being drafted 2nd overall to warrant this extreme exaggeration? Just because your fanbase has finally realized he won't be a total bust doesn't mean he's a superstar. He has done NOTHING at the NHL level to warrant having such insane value. Nothing on either side of the puck. He's 5th place in ice time on the columbus utter blue jackets this season, his stats are very mediocre in every way both offensively and defensively, his production in every sense of the word production has been mediocre. He is a prospect at this point.
I'm not saying he isn't a really good prospect. But he really is a prospect with a lot more risk associated with him than CBJ fans are admitting. Rakell is far from a prospect, he's an established player who looks certain to eclipse 50-60 points this season and who knows after that.
OP is pretty trash for Anaheim contrary to this widespread consensus. Dubinsky as an asset has NEGATIVE value. A near 6 million dollar player locked up into his mid-30s way out of his prime for 40 points of production. That is an absolute anchor of an asset and clearly has negative value. Not sure what else to say on this one.
Sam Gagner is worth 0. Dubinsky is worth negative. So Ryan Murray, having accomplished very little in the NHL and having taken suspiciously long to develop even to the point of being a rosterable NHL defender, is worth MORE than BOTH Rakell and Ritchie? The world is a different world than what the world was yesterday.
The point being emphasized is Murray is still a prospect, and will be a prospect until he be until he earns any actual role at the NHL level and plays it well. He's 23 years old now and he really doesn't have much to speak for at this level. His 22 minutes of TOI last season were a product of Columbus having a scarily bad defense. This season he's only averaging 18.
Guys like Lindholm were playing top pairing against crosbys and kopitars at age 20 and thriving in that role with +20 ratings and 30+ points scored nonetheless. The value difference is HUGE when you're talking established vs projected. Those who disagree are failing to quantify risk, or failing to realize what little Murray has accomplished in the NHL by the time he turned 23 which is, well, the same age as Rakell who has done a ton more and still has just as much room to grow.
Bad? They've won 4 consecutive division titles. Nothing but sheer insanity could lead to this conclusion.
It's not about games played. It's about production. Rakell right now is clicking above a point-per-game pace while Ryan Murray has 1 point and is playing 3rd pairing minutes. Are you blind, biased, or probably just insane as mentioned before?
Won't even mention that Nick Ritchie a recent 10th overall pick was included in the deal.
Xoggz22
Registered User
Maybe you should do a little more work when looking at stats. Murray is a top 3 dman for Columbus and gets very little PP time. Within your "3rd pair minutes" is a game of 4 minutes due to injury as well as a 10-0 win over Montreal (two games of reduced ice time in case you need help with understanding). Remove that and he's over 20+ per game. He doesn't make mistakes, is a fabulous skater and makes the right play on a consistent basis. He played all 82 games last year after injury the year prior so his development was slowed a little. Points aren't the only issue when evaluating a player and Murray is top 4 on, if not every, most every team in the NHL.
Look, there is no need for Murray on Anaheim but you clearly haven't watched him plan and don't do enough background work to support your posts. Rakell has the look of a solid player but before calling people insane do a little more work on your argument. 7 games into a season does not define a player and maybe watch a little outside of SoCal.
The trade is bad for both teams.
Theridion
Registered User
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
This is pretty horrendous for the Blue Jackets, And Bob Murray isn't trading either Ritchie or Rakell. So neither Columbus nor Anaheim do this.
I was on your side about this deal but I think you've gone off the deep end. Murray has never been less than a solid second pair guy from the moment he entered the league and was "Wiz's babysitter".
Actually 43 pts is top six on most clubs.
And Rakell would be highly valued on the Jackets, though likely not a top liner.
I don't know what you think you gain by insulting other teams fans and their players.
