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

[Exit Dose]

If the Ducks could have done this, why is the organization waiving him and giving him away for free? And who do you think is taking on two more years at $3.25m of Stoner?

Because they're hoping that they don't have to lose pick(s)/retention if they don't have to? I'm willing to bet that if he clears, and I don't doubt that he will, you will see a Stoner trade soon after.

 

[Elvs]

If the Ducks could have done this, why is the organization waiving him and giving him away for free? And who do you think is taking on two more years at $3.25m of Stoner?

Because in most likelyhood, the Ducks would have to send a high draft pick or a pretty good prospect just to get rid of Stoner's contract in a trade. Therefor it would just be better to lose him to waivers. The chances of him getting claimed is next to none, but you might as well try.

 

[Heraldic]

There are still some people giving artificial respiration to this "Stoner is a solid 3rd pairing D who is only slightly overpaid" narrative?

It seems time is running out for Bob, and waiving Stoner is one of those few (futile) tricks left before he needs to start making those actually difficult (and most likely painful) decisions.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

The Ducks are putting him on waivers because they've already tried trading him and haven't got any takers. After he clears, BM will have to settle for a small cap savings while leaving him in the minors, or become convinced to trade him at other GMs prices (negative value) that he wasn't previously going to agree to.

This is not a step toward solving the problem, this is the first step toward minimizing the damage.

 

[Heraldic]

The Ducks are putting him on waivers because they've already tried trading him and haven't got any takers. After he clears, BM will have to settle for a small cap savings while leaving him in the minors, or become convinced to trade him at other GMs prices (negative value) that he wasn't previously going to agree to.

This is not a step toward solving the problem, this is the first step toward minimizing the damage.

Stoner getting waived (and even clearing) doesn't mean he will be playing in AHL. Even if he is not claimed and traded, he will likely stay in Anaheim.

Stoner isn't the first crappy contract being waived in a hope for someone bluffing before and having actual interest for him. I think Bickell was waived for several times and it was only after the last time that he actually got sent down to Rockford.

 

[Exit Dose]

There are still some people giving artificial respiration to this "Stoner is a solid 3rd pairing D who is only slightly overpaid" narrative?

Going to need you to elaborate on this one.

 

[Sojourn]

Stoner is a solid 3rd pairing defenseman who is overpaid.

I'm not really sure what the objection to that is. That's exactly what he is. The problem is that 3rd pairing defensemen are a dime a dozen. A GM isn't going to want to pay more for a player that he can find equivalent to for cheaper. But sure, keep telling us about our own players. You clearly know better than we do. It's not like we watch him every game.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Point ? Justin Schultz tore the AHL up , you might remember him . When it came to the NHL Schultz left a lot to desire . Remember AHL stats don't mean an NHL career let alone a elite one . I guess you don't want to pay someone to take your cap dumps , it help you sign 2 good NHL players so i am guessing no deal to be had . Let your 2 UFA play in the KHL after all it better then coughing up a prospect to move salary so you can actually have 2 good NHL players in your line up

yeah i remember that and oiler fans were on here projecting schultz as a franchise norris contending dman, nobody is doing that with montour. and if you had put schultz on the trade block at the time i bet you would have wanted alot in return to

 

[Heraldic]

Going to need you to elaborate on this one.

Earlier this offseason I was told that Stoner is a solid 3rd pairing D who is only slightly overpaid.

There are teams who really don't have solid 3rd pairings. There are teams who would be willing even to pay for a solid player even if he is a slightly overpaid.

The problem with Stoner is that he is severely overpaid and he is not actually that good 3rd pairing D.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

A solid 3rd pair that's only slightly overpaid would only require a small add or salary retention to trade.

An average 3rd pair that's well overpaid can't get a taker for a small add or salary retention, and instead gets put on waivers.

 

[Sojourn]

The idea that Montour is a B level prospect until he proves otherwise, and then saying the AHL doesn't count, is asinine. How does a prospect prove otherwise? By playing well. Montour is doing exactly that. If he needed to prove it in he NHL, you're essentially saying that a prospect can't do anything to prove themselves, except in the NHL. Which means a prospect can't prove otherwise, period, until they are no longer a prospect. That's ridiculous.

 

[Sojourn]

Earlier this offseason I was told that Stoner is a solid 3rd pairing D who is only slightly overpaid.

There are teams who really don't have solid 3rd pairings. There are teams who would be willing even to pay for a solid player even if he is a slightly overpaid.

The problem with Stoner is that he is severely overpaid and he is not actually that good 3rd pairing D.

All evidence to the contrary. Stoner has played well for us.

Again, the issue isn't that he isn't a solid 3rd pairing defenseman. It's that overpaying for a 3rd pairing defenseman is terrible cap management. The conclusion you're drawing is the incorrect one.

 

[Exit Dose]

The problem with Stoner is that he is severely overpaid and he is not actually that good 3rd pairing D.

Again, you're going to have to provide some substance to this claim.

 

[Maukkis]

I'm actually starting to doubt if Montour is even enough to make someone take Stoner. You'd think Anaheim would have already explored some options to get rid of Stoner earlier this summer. I think that Montour has been offered as a sweetener - either with Stoner or with Bieksa, but nothing has happened.

Or, they might have thought the opposite, which would be refusing to offer Montour - which resulted in the deal not getting done, and now they're in a bad spot, with more and more teams being closer to the cap than before, and therefore less willing to take a cap dump back without a good sweetener.

Just speculation on my part, but I think that teams that could take a cap dump would be shooting for one of the big trio (Lindholm/Fowler/Vatanen) and pay actual assets for getting a proven defenseman, which Anaheim has to shed anyway because of the expansion. Or, they want Theodore, as Montour isn't exactly a can't miss prospect like him. The negotiating is easier for the other teams as well, as there really isn't a solid comparable for Stoner and Bieksa, as they both have multiple years left on their deals. But then again, giving up Theodore would achieve very little in the long run, but if Montour isn't enough, what can Anaheim do?

 

[Sojourn]

I'm actually starting to doubt if Montour is even enough to make someone take Stoner. You'd think Anaheim would have already explored some options to get rid of Stoner earlier this summer. I think that Montour has been offered as a sweetener - either with Stoner or with Bieksa, but nothing has happened.

Or, they might have thought the opposite, which would be refusing to offer Montour - which resulted in the deal not getting done, and now they're in a bad spot, with more and more teams being closer to the cap than before, and therefore less willing to take a cap dump back without a good sweetener.

Just speculation on my part, but I think that teams that could take a cap dump would be shooting for one of the big trio (Lindholm/Fowler/Vatanen) and pay actual assets for getting a proven defenseman, which Anaheim has to shed anyway because of the expansion. Or, they want Theodore, as Montour isn't exactly a can't miss prospect like him. The negotiating is easier for the other teams as well, as there really isn't a solid comparable for Stoner and Bieksa, as they both have multiple years left on their deals. But then again, giving up Theodore would achieve very little in the long run, but if Montour isn't enough, what can Anaheim do?

It's unlikely Montour was ever offered, so your premise is flawed from the start.

 

[Maukkis]

It's unlikely Montour was ever offered, so your premise is flawed from the start.

Well, no one of us knows, so it's not like your claim is backed up by anything either.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

I'm actually starting to doubt if Montour is even enough to make someone take Stoner. You'd think Anaheim would have already explored some options to get rid of Stoner earlier this summer. I think that Montour has been offered as a sweetener - either with Stoner or with Bieksa, but nothing has happened.

Or, they might have thought the opposite, which would be refusing to offer Montour - which resulted in the deal not getting done, and now they're in a bad spot, with more and more teams being closer to the cap than before, and therefore less willing to take a cap dump back without a good sweetener.

Just speculation on my part, but I think that teams that could take a cap dump would be shooting for one of the big trio (Lindholm/Fowler/Vatanen) and pay actual assets for getting a proven defenseman, which Anaheim has to shed anyway because of the expansion. Or, they want Theodore, as Montour isn't exactly a can't miss prospect like him. The negotiating is easier for the other teams as well, as there really isn't a solid comparable for Stoner and Bieksa, as they both have multiple years left on their deals. But then again, giving up Theodore would achieve very little in the long run, but if Montour isn't enough, what can Anaheim do?

any team with the cap room would jump at the opportunity, it is pretty obvious he is not being offered in trades as a pure cap dump for another player

 

[Smitty426]

It's unlikely Montour was ever offered, so your premise is flawed from the start.

Why would you assume that
I would guess BM has gone thru a ton of scenarios
Even ones he does not like

 

[Avs44]

I'm actually starting to doubt if Montour is even enough to make someone take Stoner. You'd think Anaheim would have already explored some options to get rid of Stoner earlier this summer. I think that Montour has been offered as a sweetener - either with Stoner or with Bieksa, but nothing has happened.

Or, they might have thought the opposite, which would be refusing to offer Montour - which resulted in the deal not getting done, and now they're in a bad spot, with more and more teams being closer to the cap than before, and therefore less willing to take a cap dump back without a good sweetener.

Just speculation on my part, but I think that teams that could take a cap dump would be shooting for one of the big trio (Lindholm/Fowler/Vatanen) and pay actual assets for getting a proven defenseman, which Anaheim has to shed anyway because of the expansion. Or, they want Theodore, as Montour isn't exactly a can't miss prospect like him. The negotiating is easier for the other teams as well, as there really isn't a solid comparable for Stoner and Bieksa, as they both have multiple years left on their deals. But then again, giving up Theodore would achieve very little in the long run, but if Montour isn't enough, what can Anaheim do?

Do you have even one piece of evidence to back even one thing you just said up? I mean...the train of thought is here is pretty unbelievable.


"I bet the Ducks have tried to add to Stoner to get rid of him (no evidence), in fact they probably added Montour and it wasn't good enough (no evidence) and the teams want someone really good like Theodore instead (no evidence), or someone proven like Lindholm (no evidence), so yeah...Anaheim is in a tough spot because Montour probably isn't good enough to get rid of Stoner."


There's speculation, which is usually based off of something, and then flat out fantasy land where you fabricate an alternative reality.

 

[Heraldic]

The idea that Montour is a B level prospect until he proves otherwise, and then saying the AHL doesn't count, is asinine. How does a prospect prove otherwise? By playing well. Montour is doing exactly that. If he needed to prove it in he NHL, you're essentially saying that a prospect can't do anything to prove themselves, except in the NHL. Which means a prospect can't prove otherwise, period, until they are no longer a prospect. That's ridiculous.

I think the problem is that Montour represents the type of d-men that easily get lost in the transition. For every Klingberg there are way too many gragnanis, brennans, almquists and clendenings.

Montour might be able to translate his game into NHL and be a really impactful player. Or he might not, and be pretty much useless. Certain types of players are a lot easier able to translate their game.

All evidence to the contrary. Stoner has played well for us.

Again, the issue isn't that he isn't a solid 3rd pairing defenseman. It's that overpaying for a 3rd pairing defenseman is terrible cap management. The conclusion you're drawing is the incorrect one.

Again, you're going to have to provide some substance to this claim.

Stoner is a defensive d-man who gets heavily sheltered. That is as useful concept as selling ice cubes in Antarctica.

In other words, you need to heavily shelter him to be even somehow manageable. You rather use your o-zone-starts and easier match-ups for sheltering certain players or take advantage of by using your offensively skilled players?

Stoner has bad mobility and he is not good with the puck. He's type of d-men are dying out extremely fast here. A lot better players of the same type (Quincey/Seidenberg) had to settle for a rotation guy contract. And there is a reason for that. The game is moving extremely far away from guys like Stoner. It has been doing that for a while, but is doing by rapidly pace.

Stoner played barely half of the games last season, even though Ducks had quite a lot of injuries.

 

[Sojourn]

Well, no one of us knows, so it's not like your claim is backed up by anything either.

The burden of proof is on you. I'm supported by precedent. Oh yeah, and a lack of any evidence at all that supports your belief. Has there been even a single rumor suggesting Montour has been used to sweeten the pot?

 

[Avs44]

Well, no one of us knows, so it's not like your claim is backed up by anything either.

Uh...generally you don't believe in something unless you have evidence. The onus is entirely on you to back up your claim. His evidence is pretty straightforward: there is nothing factual, or even speculative, from anyone with any credibility to back up what you said, therefore, it is not logical to believe in 'it' (which is precisely his position). Nice try.

 

[Sojourn]

Why would you assume that
I would guess BM has gone thru a ton of scenarios
Even ones he does not like

Because it makes no sense. There is no evidence at all to suggest this was the case. And, finally, because if Murray needed to sweeten the pot, he wouldn't start with Montour.

 

[Sojourn]

Stoner is a defensive d-man who gets heavily sheltered. That is as useful concept as selling ice cubes in Antarctica.

In other words, you need to heavily shelter him to be even somehow manageable. You rather use your o-zone-starts and easier match-ups for sheltering certain players or take advantage of by using your offensively skilled players?

Stoner has bad mobility and he is not good with the puck. He's type of d-men are dying out extremely fast here. A lot better players of the same type (Quincey/Seidenberg) had to settle for a rotation guy contract. And there is a reason for that. The game is moving extremely far away from guys like Stoner. It has been doing that for a while, but is doing by rapidly pace.

Stoner played barely half of the games last season, even though Ducks had quite a lot of injuries.

You put 2 and 2 together, and somehow got 5. Stoner was a regular. How did it not occur to you that he was also one of the injuries?

And, BTW, Stoner was paired with an offensively skilled player. That may not be the case this season, but when Vatanen was put on the ice for offensive situations, so was Stoner. The exception to this being late in a game when the team was down a goal.

 

[vipernsx]

This is not how the market works. Even if we assume the ducks have to sell, it does not mean they will have to take a crap return. If i needed to sell a $100 starbucks gift card because i needed cash, and everyone in the world knows it, that doesn't mean I would need to take $50 bucks for it. You know, I could call a bunch of people who would be interested, drumb up some competitive offers, and likely get $90 bucks for it. Taking Girgs as the centerpiece for Fowler is like taking $50 for my $100 starbucks gift card.

Yeah but the truth is there are only 29 other people in the world. According to GeneralFanager, only 13 people have room in their theoretical budget to give you $100. The problem is worse when those 13 people, at least 3 have other gift cards they need to buy and are trying to find the money for (Tampa, Calgary, & Winnipeg) several others have their own limited income issues and can't afford your giftcard (Ottawa, Florida, New Jersey, Carolina) and Edmonton just acquired a Gevalia machine and Nashville acquired a french press with a 6 year supply of elite coffee beans, this adds to their Keurig, Nespresso, and Tassimo which they already have. Pretty quickly the "bunch of people" turns into 3, who are Boston, Buffalo, and Dallas. Dallas let Dehmers & Goligoski walk, you think now their looking to block Honka or Lindel? The remaining two people, you're still competing with them to be the riches man in the world, so they're going to use their bargaining leverage as best they can.

Simply put, consider the demand. I mean look, I want an Ferrari F12 Berlinetta, but I can't afford one. If me and one other guy are going to a bankruptcy auction I'm not paying anywhere near half price for the car unless the other guy at the auction also wants it really bad.

The Ducks are in need of a top6, having Rakell out makes that issue worse. No team wants to be without their top blueliner. If the Ducks could have easily cleared contracts and money sufficient to get these players into the lineup, they would have already done so.

Because they're hoping that they don't have to lose pick(s)/retention if they don't have to? I'm willing to bet that if he clears, and I don't doubt that he will, you will see a Stoner trade soon after.

Problem is money. Ducks are begging someone to take Stoner to shed the 3.25m. If he's traded, it means someone wants to send money back. Can the Ducks afford to take the money back? If they take money back, do they need to make another move to shed more salary?

It's a sucky situations for Ducks fans, but every team has had their run-in with the cap and lost players for well under their value.