Rumor: Ducks trying to unload a contract in order to re-sign Rakell/Lindholm

[Vipers31]

Thanks for the quote.

So it's not a cap dump. After that quote there really isn't any other option than Fowler (considering he was the one the trade talks were about at the draft). Silfverberg might be the other, but I don't really see that being the case.

And the teams are probably the same teams as before (Wings, Montreal and Buffalo).

So basically there really isn't anything new here.

You're welcome, and yeah, that's basically it. Just a soft confirmation of the name everyone had first in mind going into summer.

 

[Crosbysux]

"Significant contract". Is it in terms of cap hit/salary or the caliber of the player?

I'm not sure is Despres a "significant". Stoner's contract is not significant despite it having a significant impact on Ducks. Fowler is a significant player, but not sure is his contract a significant?

Pierre never said anything about a significant contract, the guy who posted the tweet was way off on how he posted it. He said a player, who he did not want to name out of respect for said player, and then he said, "let's say Ducks are in trade talks to move a highly valued player, to an east coast team." They were discussing Rakell and Lindholm's contracts and how Anaheim will have to free up space somehow. The size of contract for the player being moved was never discussed. He didn't want to say Fowler, since Fowler has already dealt with the consistent trade chatter at the deadline.

Now to the Fowler trade. Guys can dream that they will get Fowler without giving up a player you wouldn't want to lose, but you would be doing just that, dreaming. If Ducks just wanted to clear cap space, they find a way to move Stoner or even trade Despres. Moving just one of those guys would clear enough space. BM has said that he wouldn't move Fowler unless he got a good return. There's enough teams looking for a player like Fowler, that BM will be getting a good return.

 

[Heraldic]

Pierre never said anything about a significant contract, the guy who posted the tweet was way off on how he posted it. He said a player, who he did not want to name out of respect for said player, and then he said, "let's say Ducks are in trade talks to move a highly valued player, to an east coast team." They were discussing Rakell and Lindholm's contracts and how Anaheim will have to free up space somehow. The size of contract for the player being moved was never discussed. He didn't want to say Fowler, since Fowler has already dealt with the consistent trade chatter at the deadline.

Yeah, that was dealt above.

Now to the Fowler trade. Guys can dream that they will get Fowler without giving up a player you wouldn't want to lose, but you would be doing just that, dreaming. If Ducks just wanted to clear cap space, they find a way to move Stoner or even trade Despres. Moving just one of those guys would clear enough space. BM has said that he wouldn't move Fowler unless he got a good return. There's enough teams looking for a player like Fowler, that BM will be getting a good return.

Fowler likely isn't going to be traded for peanuts. But he likely isn't going to be moved in a hockey trade either. The likely return is a solid package of futures and perhaps one cost controlled roster player.

You likely need to pack something actually valuable to move Stoner, and moving Despres frees only 2,6 mil. actual salary. And him needed to be replaced by someone, frees only about 1,5 mil. actual salary. It's likely not enough.

Teams haven't been willing to give B.Murray so far what he has been asking for Fowler, why, when the season is about to begin, would they suddenly give it? The pressing need is not for those teams, the pressing need is for B.Murray who still has his most important defensive player staying Sweden.

And if the reports of B.Murray wanting to get Rakell and Lindholm under long-term contracts are true, he needs to make a lot of space salary/cap hit wise. Not sure is even moving Fowler alone, with no considerable salary coming back, going to be enough.

 

[Chayos]

geez, no need to get all pissy about it

Hockey teams sometimes hold onto veterans to long and miss out on value because of it. If Anaheim is competing for a cup now then you can't trade those guys, but are they? They maintain an internal budget that is forcing Them into trading players of substance to be under. Having these 2 contracts is hurting their chances of being a contender. There is a good chance Perry and Getzlaf are going to regress from this point forward. Trading one of them would mitigate the risk of a being saddled with 2 declining assets. The Ducks would get mad value for these players and would stock their team up to be able to compete for years to come on a budget.

 

[b in vancouver]

Send Perry to Boston.

 

[Debrincat93]

No one who follows the Ducks closely would say that of Kesler, he's easily worth what he's paid at the moment and isn't going anywhere.

not from what i've seen last season but thats fine. within 2-3 years that tune will change.

 

[dracom]

not from what i've seen last season but thats fine. within 2-3 years that tune will change.

Uh, he had a Selke caliber season last season. He also put up 53 points while being tasked to shut down teams top lines. So what exactly didn't you like about his play last season?

Also, no one is saying that the contract will be good for the entire term, we know it's going to get bad in a few years, but it's just fine right now. We got a couple of years left of Getz, Perry, Kes still be effective forwards for their price tag. It's why we don't want futures for guys like Fowler, we don't need them if we want to win a cup in the next couple of years.

 

[Vipers31]

not from what i've seen last season but thats fine. within 2-3 years that tune will change.

You can't have seen too much of last season, with all due respect. Probably the Ducks best forward for the campaign. It may change within two years, maybe three, or only after four, we'll have to wait and see. Either way, that's what happens when you have key players approaching UFA status and look to stay in contention. Some contracts will have less pretty years attached to them.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

not from what i've seen last season but thats fine. within 2-3 years that tune will change.

Selke caliber season, and put up 50+ points and was a very impactful player for our team..


I'm guessing you didn't actually "see" much

Now ill agree 2/3 years down the line that contract might suck a lil but as of right now hes well worth it and he very well could still an effective player in 2-3 years you cant predict the future.

 

[Theridion]

Ug. Such bad contract management from anaheim.

If i had control, id deal any pick to any team willing to take bieksa or stoner.

1st + bieksa for nothing.
2nd and 3rd + stoner for nothing.

 

[Vipers31]

Ug. Such bad contract management from anaheim.

If i had control, id deal any pick to any team willing to take bieksa or stoner.

1st + bieksa for nothing.

No, thanks. Much rather go with Murray than your approach on that.

 

[KingTux]

Why did they wait that long

 

[BB88]

Now to the Fowler trade. Guys can dream that they will get Fowler without giving up a player you wouldn't want to lose, but you would be doing just that, dreaming. If Ducks just wanted to clear cap space, they find a way to move Stoner or even trade Despres. Moving just one of those guys would clear enough space. BM has said that he wouldn't move Fowler unless he got a good return. There's enough teams looking for a player like Fowler, that BM will be getting a good return.

Despres contract right now doesn't look that great, why would anyone do a favour and take Stoners contract?

Every Gm knows someone has to go, it will lower the value.
You are dreaming if you think this situation doesn't lower Fowlers value.

 

[Vipers31]

Despres contract right now doesn't look that great, why would anyone do a favour and take Stoners contract?

They'd get an asset to take it. Not a 1st or a great prospect, because the contract isn't that bad.

Every Gm knows someone has to go, it will lower the value.
You are dreaming if you think this situation doesn't lower Fowlers value.

Again with that narrative. Stories like that don't drive value, supply and demand do. There are at the ultimate least two teams reported in the talks. Are they both lowballing, praying that their lowball is better than the other lowball, while not considering making less of a lowball offer? Or are the interested teams straight up colluding to keep the price down, for whatever shared interest they don't actually have?

 

[Debrincat93]

ok well from the games i saw he struggled. maybe they were anomolies, but i just didnt see him play very well.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I think you are off by 25 - 50k in the wrong direction, but I think that Risto deserves 6+ based on the Hamilton deal, don't you?

I think Buffalo ought to go max deal at $6.5M. Doubt Buffalo goes that high. Probably $6M.

McCormick retires, Fasching and Nelson to AHL. Bring Grant to NHL. 23rd roster spot has a shade over $4M with Risto getting $6M.

 

[BB88]

They'd get an asset to take it. Not a 1st or a great prospect, because the contract isn't that bad.


Again with that narrative. Stories like that don't drive value, supply and demand do. There are at the ultimate least two teams reported in the talks. Are they both lowballing, praying that their lowball is better than the other lowball, while not considering making less of a lowball offer? Or are the interested teams straight up colluding to keep the price down, for whatever shared interest they don't actually have?

If someone takes Stoners contract it allows Anaheim to ice,

Lindholm- Vatanen
Fowler- Despres
Theo- Bieksa
Why would anyone help on that?
Anaheim has no use for Stoner, other teams have had to give up value to move contracts, TT, Crouse, so would Anaheim.
Stoner isn't a rental.

Fowler will bring value, but being in October and Anaheim having troubles with signing their #1D it absolutely affects.
I'd still easily offer Spooner still, but not more.

 

[Vipers31]

Why would anyone help on that?
Anaheim has no use for Stoner, other teams have had to give up value to move contracts, TT, Crouse, so would Anaheim. Stoner isn't a rental.

TT and Crouse went for far worse contracts, fully acknowledging the term on Stoner's deal. It's not going to happen. The Ducks would keep the actually serviceable depth defender around before going that route if a lesser asset isn't cutting it.

Fowler will bring value, but being in October and Anaheim having troubles with signing their #1D it absolutely affects.

So, I give you a reasoning why it doesn't, and you just repeat your opinion? Why would it affect? Supply and demand don't hinge on the seller's situation. The Ducks being forced to something only means they don't just get to do nothing and wait for an overpayment, it doesn't make multiple interested teams collectively drop below a certain line.

I'd still easily offer Spooner still, but not more.

It wouldn't be a bad basis, I suppose. And if you offer Spooner "easily", I question how open you'd actually be to the "no more" part.

 

[Theridion]

No, thanks. Much rather go with Murray than your approach on that.

Dealing away futures... players who might develop into 2nd liners... is better than overpaying 2nd tier players now.

Thats capland

 

[BB88]

TT and Crouse went for far worse contracts, fully acknowledging the term on Stoner's deal. It's not going to happen. The Ducks would keep the actually serviceable depth defender around before going that route if a lesser asset isn't cutting it.


So, I give you a reasoning why it doesn't, and you just repeat your opinion? Why would it affect? Supply and demand don't hinge on the seller's situation. The Ducks being forced to something only means they don't just get to do nothing and wait for an overpayment, it doesn't make multiple interested teams collectively drop below a certain line.


It wouldn't be a bad basis, I suppose. And if you offer Spooner "easily", I question how open you'd actually be to the "no more" part.

Bickell has 1 year left, Stoner has 2 years.
Stoners contract is worse than Bickells and it's more difficult to find teams that would take those contracts today, Ari&Carolina don't need more cap dumps and you don't want to have Stoners 3M+ cap hit next offseason if you are a team that wants to fight.

You need to look at what Chicago has been dealing the last few years and have they gotten full value for their players when they have been against the cap like Anaheim today? No.
Saad, Sharp, Bickell/TT.

I'd give up Spooner because Boston has Bergeron, Backes and Krejci that can play C for few years, it would be dealing from strenght, but wouldn't add to it anything valuable because even if Fowler improves the blueline he doesn't solve the biggest problem, lack of #1D on the blueline.
I like Fowler but don't consider him as a game changer.

 

[Static]

Bickell has 1 year left, Stoner has 2 years.
Stoners contract is worse than Bickells and it's more difficult to find teams that would take those contracts today, Ari&Carolina don't need more cap dumps and you don't want to have Stoners 3M+ cap hit next offseason if you are a team that wants to fight.

You need to look at what Chicago has been dealing the last few years and have they gotten full value for their players when they have been against the cap like Anaheim today? No.
Saad, Sharp, Bickell/TT.

I'd give up Spooner because Boston has Bergeron, Backes and Krejci that can play C for few years, it would be dealing from strenght, but wouldn't add to it anything valuable because even if Fowler improves the blueline he doesn't solve the biggest problem, lack of #1D on the blueline.

Stoner is still an NHL player with a smaller cap hit, and coming from a team with more ways to cut down on salary as well as more space. It's not the same thing.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Ug. Such bad contract management from anaheim.

If i had control, id deal any pick to any team willing to take bieksa or stoner.

1st + bieksa for nothing.
2nd and 3rd + stoner for nothing.

Bieksa NMC now hurts.

 

[Static]

It's funny touring the boards and reading the trade proposals for Fowler and Stoner. Very amusing.

 

[varano]

They have cap space.

Who are the owners? Why are they so cheap?

You Would think a team that's old and trying to win now would, you know, actually spend to try and win?

they ice a competitive product every year but the team just doesn't make money

 

[Jumptheshark]

You're welcome, and yeah, that's basically it. Just a soft confirmation of the name everyone had first in mind going into summer.

For me if it was fowler he would have said so. Everyone and their dead granny predict he will be traded sooner than later