vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
- Sep 4, 2005
- 6,791
- 3
I don't think I'm making any more assumptions that you are. I don't think you know their budget any better than I.
Rumor: Ducks trying to unload a contract in order to re-sign Rakell/Lindholm
- Thread starter caley
- Start date
- Status
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Detroit, Buffalo, Montreal, Boston and New Jersey would be the ones most likely looking into a Fowler type D man.
Especially when BM has already said that the Samueli's are aware this year is much different than previous years due to the expansion. BM said that he has been afforded the room necessary to make provisions for the expansion draft. If we trade Fowler and lose Despres to expansion, that's close to 8 million off the books, which would be replaced by guys making less than 1 million. The budget for the Ducks could simply be the difference between what we are paying Bernier and his cap hit, with potentially making room by trading someone like Stoner during the season.
Czarnik's strong showing at B's camp have them already at 5 top3 centers. While Spooner can help out on the wing while Vatrano is injured, and Backes can play RW, somethings gotta happen sooner than later. Boston should be on the phone line with the Ducks every day to make it happen.
dracom
Registered User
My guess is it ends up being Fowler for Spooner straight up. No added picks or prospects, just a straight up hockey trade.
nilssont
Registered User
- May 27, 2007
- 1,766
- 275
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
This is pretty much my Thinking as well, Then BM sheds about $3.075 million of Fowlers salary to help resign both Lindholm and Rakell. That deal makes the most sense for Anaheim.
Wallet Inspector
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 6,289
- 5,823
I would be willing to give up Josefson (1.1m, one year), Boucher (715k, one year), and a pick for Fowler (4m, two years).
Ducks fans, do you think the GM was blindsided by the internal budget? I would think an NHL GM could plan for these types of things. It's seriously going to be a shame for your club if they have to trade Palmieri one year and Fowler the next just to stay under budget.
Ducks fans, do you think the GM was blindsided by the internal budget? I would think an NHL GM could plan for these types of things. It's seriously going to be a shame for your club if they have to trade Palmieri one year and Fowler the next just to stay under budget.
Curufinwe
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2013
- 56,994
- 45,414
dracom
Registered User
I think they would if the Ducks cap situation wasn't what it is. But the Bruins have a bit more leverage than we do, so it may just come to this type of deal.
Man. There is literally 0 leverage for someone acquiring Fowler. After moving Thompson to LTIR, Stoner to AHL, and Simon Despres there is more than enough cap to sign both RFAs.
I can guarantee this fan perceived urgency to move Fowler is not shared by the management. He's both their best valued contract at $4M and their leading TOI defender. I just don't picture a GM of a contending team in a cap struggle going "OMG we have to trade our most cost-effective player and our best defender right away". Do you not see the counter-intuitiveness here.
In general, your most "bang for buck" asset is the very last player you'd trade for cap relief. That is Cam Fowler to the ducks, Duncan Keith to the hawks, JVR to the leafs, Voracek (before extension) to philly, etc.
The Fowler trade rumors began because the ducks let in the least GA in the NHL last season and Theodore is poised for a big leap, Montour is knocking on the door, their blueline is just too good and its crowded. So who do you move for forward help to improve your team? We landed on Fowler because of UFA complications, expansion draft protection wasting, and how good of a value he provides for his cap hit. That is the only reason why. He is not expendable, he is not an urgent move. He is just the best option to trade if the team decides to get better forwards and address an area of need.
Last edited:
I'll fly to Anaheim and kick Murray in the b***s if that happens. I also expect this to happen though, so getting ready to log off so I can go find my steel toed boots.
No. I also don't think these moves are a direct result of the budget though. Palmieri sure as hell wasn't related to the budget. He just gave up on the player at the worst time.
I do believe that Murray underestimated the difficulty in moving Stoner though. I think he could have made Toronto take him in the Andersen trade, but he wanted a better sweetener, so he figured he could move Stoner later on.
So while Fowler being traded may be somewhat related to the budget; it's more related to Murray's ****ups in Stoner and Bieksa. I like Stoner, but that contract was so freaking terrible. I'm not sure what he was thinking with the Bieksa/Beauchemin scenario. A casual fan would have known how stupid that decision was.
I also think it's more related to the expansion draft and our young players. You could argue that we have 3 NHL ready prospects in Larsson, Theodore, and Montour. They obviously shouldn't be counted on for roles as important as Fowler's, but that logjam is definitely relevant.
In my opinion, the time to move Fowler is next offseason. He's too important to the team. This would give our younger guys more experience too. He should have made Stoner part of the Freddie trade, and (if needed) traded Despres at the start of the offseason.
Basically, our GM being a moron is the problem, not the "budget".
Quack Shot
Registered User
No he wasn't blind sided. If he didn't make dumb signings like Stoner and Bieksa we wouldn't be in the position.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
I would think that Spooner and Tatar have equal value, And Detroit would definitely need to add on a Tatar deal. Like a 2nd or semi decent prospect would assume that Boston would need to add a little on a Spooner deal as well.
my Gut is telling me Stoner is the one who get moved. His contract plus a pick and/or a prospect
Bruins have like 4 prospects at every position with solid NHL upside, they can add a B prospect without a problem.
Agalloch
EliteProspects
People think the Ducks are in a corner due to their salary cap, which is laughable. BM has known for some time he has had to move a salary. He said he tried moving Stoner at the draft, but was told those discussion would have to wait until later (maybe even the trade deadline). SINCE the draft, Murray has added in the neighborhood of 7.15 million dollars. That came with the likes of Holzer, Boll, Bernier and Vermette. BM isn't the type of guy to make brash moves. BM would not have added those 4 players and that much salary if he didn't have a plan in place. With the # of D on the Ducks roster, Holzer only makes sense if BM already has at least 1 if not 2 trades worked out (Fowler and Stoner). Everything has been dependent on the Swedes resigning, which is why Fowler is still on the Ducks. There are other salaries BM can move out if teams think they'll get Fowler for pennies to the dollar. With the cap situation as it is, a team isn't going to have to trade an established top 6 player that is typically required for a player Fowler's caliber, but to think you're not going to give up a decent package for him surrounding a good prospect (Spooner, Svechnikov, Pastrnak, etc), you're crazy.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Impacts of a rising cap on the upcoming Trade Deadline and Free Agency- Latest: DistantThunderRep
