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

[Sabresfansince1980]

I wouldn't bother guessing at specific players/prospects or other assets that may have been used as sweetener in a Stoner deal, but it's common sense to believe that BM tried trading Stoner at a price that other GMs wouldn't agree to before resorting to putting him on waivers.

 

[Sojourn]

It wouldn't bother guessing at specific players/prospects or other assets that may have been used as sweetener in a Stoner deal, but it's common sense to believe that BM tried trading Stoner at a price that other GMs wouldn't agree to before resorting to putting him on waivers.

Perhaps, but moving one of your best D prospects to accomplish that goal isn't common sense. Maukkis not only suggested that Montour had been offered, but that he wasn't enough.

There is speculation based on logic, and there is fantasy. This was the latter.

 

[Heraldic]

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.

I don't remember Stoner sitting that much out because of injuries. But I might remember that wrong, and I am happy to be corrected here.

Vatanen had less o-zone-starts without Stoner than with him. And I doubt you get almost 5% difference just because of the trailing late game.

Stoner also had clearly less ice time on 5v5 than any other d-men outside of Holzer. Holzer was his closest comparable in that regard.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Perhaps, but moving one of your best D prospects to accomplish that goal isn't common sense. Maukkis not only suggested that Montour had been offered, but that he wasn't enough.

There is speculation based on logic, and there is fantasy. This was the latter.

Not "perhaps", certainly. BM wouldn't be a NHL GM if he didn't try to trade a mid-cap player before resorting to waivers. As for Montour, I wouldn't guess either way. Cap issues are quite the brick wall for many franchises these days.

 

[Exit Dose]

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.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Anaheim doesn't have to shed the entirety of Stoner's contract to re-sign Rakell and Lindholm to long term deals. They are also expected to make trades down the road, you know, like every other team in the NHL is.

 

[WTFMAN99]

Perhaps, but moving one of your best D prospects to accomplish that goal isn't common sense. Maukkis not only suggested that Montour had been offered, but that he wasn't enough.

There is speculation based on logic, and there is fantasy. This was the latter.

So what's the add on to Montour from there? a 3rd? a 2nd? both?

 

[Exit Dose]

Stoner also had clearly less ice time on 5v5 than any other d-men outside of Holzer. Holzer was his closest comparable in that regard.

Remember, Anaheim has one of the deepest groups of defensemen in the NHL. Stoner and Holzer were Anaheim's third pairing defensemen.

 

[Sojourn]

Not "perhaps", certainly. BM wouldn't be a NHL GM if he didn't try to trade a mid-cap player before resorting to waivers. As for Montour, I wouldn't guess either way. Cap issues are quite the brick wall for many franchises these days.

You kind of glossed over the key point, which is that Montour isn't someone who would be added to sweeten a deal. And, furthermore, there is zero evidence to suggest that he has been. Saying you wouldn't guess doesn't really address it. The point is that it was a ridiculous statement, because Montour is a highly touted prospect with very good upside. If you're going to say that he was offered, and not just offered, but that it wasn't enough, I'd ask for evidence.

I'd ask for evidence if it were Theodore or Larsson too. If it were a lesser prospect like, say, Roy or Welinski, I might say it has merit. But Anaheim is very high on Montour, and he's given them every reason to believe that their opinion of him is justified. If Anaheim offered him up in a deal for Stoner, it's a good bet a team would take it. Montour's value exceeds that of Stoner, and he has the potential to be a much, much better player. I think any GM would take that deal in a heartbeat, and work out how to get rid of Stoner(if they wanted to) at a later point. You don't pass up an opportunity to acquire a late bloomer like Montour.

 

[Sojourn]

I don't remember Stoner sitting that much out because of injuries. But I might remember that wrong, and I am happy to be corrected here.

Vatanen had less o-zone-starts without Stoner than with him. And I doubt you get almost 5% difference just because of the trailing late game.

Stoner also had clearly less ice time on 5v5 than any other d-men outside of Holzer. Holzer was his closest comparable in that regard.

He had a hip flexor injury halfway through the season and missed a fair number of games.

Vatanen had less o-zone starts without him because, when Fowler was injured, Vatanen was put into a more conservative role. That saw him playing with Bieksa. Theodore was brought in during that time, and he needed to be protected. This is why you can't just look at the numbers and come to a conclusion. If you aren't actively following the team, you're going to miss things.

 

[Heraldic]

Remember, Anaheim has one of the deepest groups of defensemen in the NHL. Stoner and Holzer were Anaheim's third pairing defensemen.

And still you saw Bieksa getting as much ice time as he did... Considering Despres was out majority of the season, there wasn't that much after Lindholm, Fowler and Vatanen. Manson is not a bad player by any means, but he would have gotten no business where he was if not because of Lindholm.

 

[Maukkis]

Perhaps, but moving one of your best D prospects to accomplish that goal isn't common sense. Maukkis not only suggested that Montour had been offered, but that he wasn't enough.

There is speculation based on logic, and there is fantasy. This was the latter.

Good to see you caring enough about my fantasy land posts. It's heartwarming.

 

[Sojourn]

And still you saw Bieksa getting as much ice time as he did... Considering Despres was out majority of the season, there wasn't that much after Lindholm, Fowler and Vatanen. Manson is not a bad player by any means, but he would have gotten no business where he was if not because of Lindholm.

That might be true, but Lindholm was there, and they made a good pairing. Chemistry is a factor. For all of Manson's inconsistencies, he's still a better fit with Lindholm, and when he's on his game he's definitely a better defenseman than Stoner. Stoner also has good chemistry with Vatanen.

 

[Exit Dose]

And still you saw Bieksa getting as much ice time as he did... Considering Despres was out majority of the season, there wasn't that much after Lindholm, Fowler and Vatanen. Manson is not a bad player by any means, but he would have gotten no business where he was if not because of Lindholm.

Okay...

 

[Sojourn]

Good to see you caring enough about my fantasy land posts. It's heartwarming.

If caring is dismissing it as ridiculous, sure.

 

[Heraldic]

He had a hip flexor injury halfway through the season and missed a fair number of games.

Yep, but I don't remember it being that many?

Vatanen had less o-zone starts without him because, when Fowler was injured, Vatanen was put into a more conservative role. That saw him playing with Bieksa. Theodore was brought in during that time, and he needed to be protected. This is why you can't just look at the numbers and come to a conclusion. If you aren't actively following the team, you're going to miss things.

Sounds legit, but that's not exactly the truth. With Bieksa, Vatanen actually had pretty much the same o-zone-start ratio as with Stoner.

But it is true, that I'm not that actively following Ducks.

 

[Maukkis]

If caring is dismissing it as ridiculous, sure.

If you have problems with my speculation, wouldn't it be less effort for you to just... you know... ignore it?

 

[Sojourn]

If you have problems with my speculation, wouldn't it be less effort for you to just... you know... ignore it?

And have people come to the conclusion that it has merit? As if we don't deal with enough nonsense rumors.

It takes less effort to refute it and move on.

 

[Heraldic]

That might be true, but Lindholm was there, and they made a good pairing. Chemistry is a factor. For all of Manson's inconsistencies, he's still a better fit with Lindholm, and when he's on his game he's definitely a better defenseman than Stoner. Stoner also has good chemistry with Vatanen.

Okay...

I think that what made look Ducks d-corps that deep was that you got a clear leader in every pairing (when Lindholm, Fowler and Vatanen) were healthy). A good partner can cover and make a lot worse look relatively good.

I don't think that Stoner is a player that can carry any pairing or even be that effective with a comparable - no matter the usage or deployment. Looking decent in a sheltered role with top-6 minutes with a top-4 partner is not that great a deed.

 

[Maukkis]

And have people come to the conclusion that it has merit? As if we don't deal with enough nonsense rumors.

It takes less effort to refute it and move on.

Surely it takes more effort to refute that AND move on than just move on?

I believe you're wrong there...

 

[Sojourn]

I think that what made look Ducks d-corps that deep was that you got a clear leader in every pairing (when Lindholm, Fowler and Vatanen) were healthy). A good partner can cover and make a lot worse look relatively good.

I don't think that Stoner is a player that can carry any pairing or even be that effective with a comparable - no matter the usage or deployment. Looking decent in a sheltered role with top-6 minutes with a top-4 partner is not that great a deed.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Stoner can carry a pairing. That certainly isn't an argument I've seen.

Stoner is a solid player for his role. He plays within his game, knows his responsibilities, throws his weight around, and has been there to support Vatanen defensively. That's exactly what you want from a player like him.

A player can be solid in his role and still be overpaid. Those are mutually exclusive. His contract factors into his value to the team, but not his play on the ice.

 

[HoseEmDown]

How much in real dollars does Anaheim need to shed in any trade? Was thinking of deals that may work between Tampa and them. First deal would be based around Fowler and Garrison +, Anaheim saves 400k this year and 1.5mil next in real dollars while getting a replacement for the 2nd pair just not sure what the plus would be, for Tampa they save 600k in cap this year and next. Second deal would be Filppula for Stoner + Thompson, real dollars are almost identical this year Anaheim has an extra 1.75mil next year. This deal is more a way to make use of the nearly 5mil they're paying Stoner and Thompson, won't be paying Stoner to be in the A and Filppula is a huge upgrade on Thompson, for Tampa they get a depth forward to replace Filppula and save 1.75 on the cap next year and can hopefully rid Stoner then to free up more space.

 

[Heraldic]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Stoner can carry a pairing. That certainly isn't an argument I've seen.

Stoner is a solid player for his role. He plays within his game, knows his responsibilities, throws his weight around, and has been there to support Vatanen defensively. That's exactly what you want from a player like him.

A player can be solid in his role and still be overpaid. Those are mutually exclusive. His contract factors into his value to the team, but not his play on the ice.

I didn't say that there was a claim about him being able to carry a pairing. It was just to illustrate that Stoner has been decent in extremely favorable situation.

And it seems we're not talking about the same thing anymore.

Being a solid 3rd pairing guy in general, and being a decent player in a sheltered role with a top-4 d-man are quite different things. It's like saying that Manson is a solid first pairing guy because he looked decent in a role playing in a first pairing (or shared one).

 

[Sojourn]

I didn't say that there was a claim about him being able to carry a pairing. It was just to illustrate that Stoner has been decent in extremely favorable situation.

And it seems we're not talking about the same thing anymore.

Being a solid 3rd pairing guy in general, and being a decent player in a sheltered role with a top-4 d-man are quite different things. It's like saying that Manson is a solid first pairing guy because he looked decent in a role playing in a first pairing (or shared one).

It really isn't like that at all, and you won't find many Anaheim fans calling Manson a solid first pairing guy.

Stoner has only been in Anaheim for two seasons. Who do you think he played with before he came here? It wasn't Vatanen. Furthermore, he's had ice time in Anaheim that didn't include Vatanen. He's been fine. Stoner is a solid player with, or without Vatanen. That doesn't mean he's worth what he is getting paid, but you're suggesting he's a product of Vatanen. Which is weird, because Vatanen needed to be sheltered himself prior to this last season. I'm not quite sure how you think that works.

You're comparing a 24 year old, still developing defenseman with a 30+ year old, with a number of established years in the NHL before he even came to Anaheim.

 

[Exit Dose]

I didn't say that there was a claim about him being able to carry a pairing. It was just to illustrate that Stoner has been decent in extremely favorable situation.

And it seems we're not talking about the same thing anymore.

Being a solid 3rd pairing guy in general, and being a decent player in a sheltered role with a top-4 d-man are quite different things. It's like saying that Manson is a solid first pairing guy because he looked decent in a role playing in a first pairing (or shared one).

Your claim isn't based on anything tangible. It's based on a negative, and relies on everyone dismissing what this player did up until last season.

 

[ThatSaid]

Stoner is one of the most negative assets in the NHL. He's overpaid by about 2.5 million, is a middling bottom-pair D-man who any team would be able to find a more affordable replacement for. Hell, Seidenberg didn't have a contract until after the WCOH.

Amazing that a team unwilling to spend to the cap gave him that contract. Will be difficult to move, and might end up costing Rakell.