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

[Crosbysux]

Yeah man, I'm sure having Lindholm and Rakell unsigned on Ocotober 7th was part of Murray's plan

That part might not be, but to believe he didn't know what it would cost and him adding 7.15 million would be rather ignorant. BM knows the general ball park of where they are and where they want to be. BM said he wasn't going to sign Perron, because he wasn't sure what it was going to cost to resign the Swedes. Shortly thereafter, he acquired Bernier, signed Holzer and Stoll, then Vermette. He was able to gauge what assets he could afford. BM has said several times he has to plan 2-3 years in advance. He knew it was going to take a while to get ink on the paper for Rakell and Lindholm, but he wouldn't be making the other moves if he didn't have a plan in place. It you follow the Ducks, it's an easy concept. He might sign a player to an overblown contract, but who hasn't done that on July 1st? Two players to a bad contract doesn't make BM a bad GM. He's a good GM and has earned a chance to show what he can do.

 

[Avs44]

That part might not be, but to believe he didn't know what it would cost and him adding 7.15 million would be rather ignorant. BM knows the general ball park of where they are and where they want to be. BM said he wasn't going to sign Perron, because he wasn't sure what it was going to cost to resign the Swedes. Shortly thereafter, he acquired Bernier, signed Holzer and Stoll, then Vermette. He was able to gauge what assets he could afford. BM has said several times he has to plan 2-3 years in advance. He knew it was going to take a while to get ink on the paper for Rakell and Lindholm, but he wouldn't be making the other moves if he didn't have a plan in place. It you follow the Ducks, it's an easy concept. He might sign a player to an overblown contract, but who hasn't done that on July 1st? Two players to a bad contract doesn't make BM a bad GM. He's a good GM and has earned a chance to show what he can do.

I think you're assuming a lot more confidence on Murray's part then you should be. He might have been a good GM in the past, but the past two years have been anything but good asset management. In fact, it's been terrible. It's far more than just two bad contracts, as you put it.

- Traded Palmieri because he openly said 'I didn't want to pay him' for a second round pick (20-30 goals might have helped about now)
- Signs Clayton Stoner to a completely unnecessary contract
- Let's Francois Beauchemin walk for nothing in free agency
- Replaces Beauchemin by trading a second round pick for Kevin Bieksa
- Re-signs Kevin Bieksa, with full NMC, before he has played a single game
- Let's Matt Beleskey walk for nothing in free agency because he doesn't have the cap space (what a surprise)
- Trades Maroon, a cheap left winger, to a division rival for a measly return, and retains salary
- Spends the rest of the savings on Maroon on Jared Boll.


And now he finds himself in a situation where he has too many defensmen, a lack of wingers, and cap issues...well gee, if only he hadn't traded away two good / decent wingers in Maroon / Palmieri and let another walk for nothing. There wouldn't be a cap issue or an issue of too many defensmen if he hadn't gone out and signed one and traded for the other, then promptly signed him too.


And now he's facing the scenario of quite possibly not improving a very poor left wing group and having to trade away a good defensman on a team that is supposed to be contending with a window that might close quite soon...and that's not even taking into account the fact that he has two really important RFA's unsigned. If you want to look at Murray's entire career and say "he's overall a good GM," fine. But looking at the two past years, the most relevant years, he's been a very poor GM. How he handles this upcoming situation is going to determine whether he can salvage a 100% self-created mess and thus somewhat absolve himself, or whether his job should shortly be on the line.

 

[Pennaduck]

That part might not be, but to believe he didn't know what it would cost and him adding 7.15 million would be rather ignorant. BM knows the general ball park of where they are and where they want to be. BM said he wasn't going to sign Perron, because he wasn't sure what it was going to cost to resign the Swedes. Shortly thereafter, he acquired Bernier, signed Holzer and Stoll, then Vermette. He was able to gauge what assets he could afford. BM has said several times he has to plan 2-3 years in advance. He knew it was going to take a while to get ink on the paper for Rakell and Lindholm, but he wouldn't be making the other moves if he didn't have a plan in place. It you follow the Ducks, it's an easy concept. He might sign a player to an overblown contract, but who hasn't done that on July 1st? Two players to a bad contract doesn't make BM a bad GM. He's a good GM and has earned a chance to show what he can do.

I'm glad someone is giving him the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion he is just too stubborn to cave to Lindholm's salary and term demands and way to much of a hardass to let Claude Lemieux get the better of him. All of this leading to the 11th hour is entirely on him having two dead weight defense contracts, 2 to 3 more defenseman than needed, and a backup goalie with a massive cap hit. He should have never taken on bernier or Boll without finalized deals for the swedes in place. Regardless of what his plan is or was, that is poor cap management

 

[lindholmie]

I think you're assuming a lot more confidence on Murray's part then you should be. He might have been a good GM in the past, but the past two years have been anything but good asset management. In fact, it's been terrible. It's far more than just two bad contracts, as you put it.

- Traded Palmieri because he openly said 'I didn't want to pay him' for a second round pick (20-30 goals might have helped about now)
- Signs Clayton Stoner to a completely unnecessary contract
- Let's Francois Beauchemin walk for nothing in free agency
- Replaces Beauchemin by trading a second round pick for Kevin Bieksa
- Re-signs Kevin Bieksa, with full NMC, before he has played a single game
- Let's Matt Beleskey walk for nothing in free agency because he doesn't have the cap space (what a surprise)
- Trades Maroon, a cheap left winger, to a division rival for a measly return, and retains salary
- Spends the rest of the savings on Maroon on Jared Boll.


And now he finds himself in a situation where he has too many defensmen, a lack of wingers, and cap issues...well gee, if only he hadn't traded away two good / decent wingers in Maroon / Palmieri and let another walk for nothing. There wouldn't be a cap issue or an issue of too many defensmen if he hadn't gone out and signed one and traded for the other, then promptly signed him too.


And now he's facing the scenario of quite possibly not improving a very poor left wing group and having to trade away a good defensman on a team that is supposed to be contending with a window that might close quite soon...and that's not even taking into account the fact that he has two really important RFA's unsigned. If you want to look at Murray's entire career and say "he's overall a good GM," fine. But looking at the two past years, the most relevant years, he's been a very poor GM. How he handles this upcoming situation is going to determine whether he can salvage a 100% self-created mess and thus somewhat absolve himself, or whether his job should shortly be on the line.

What about his drafting? His other trades? Stoner was needed. The ducks D wasn't great back then. Lindholm and vatanen were just prospects.

 

[Crosbysux]

I think you're assuming a lot more confidence on Murray's part then you should be. He might have been a good GM in the past, but the past two years have been anything but good asset management. In fact, it's been terrible. It's far more than just two bad contracts, as you put it.

- Traded Palmieri because he openly said 'I didn't want to pay him' for a second round pick (20-30 goals might have helped about now)
- Signs Clayton Stoner to a completely unnecessary contract
- Let's Francois Beauchemin walk for nothing in free agency
- Replaces Beauchemin by trading a second round pick for Kevin Bieksa
- Re-signs Kevin Bieksa, with full NMC, before he has played a single game
- Let's Matt Beleskey walk for nothing in free agency because he doesn't have the cap space (what a surprise)
- Trades Maroon, a cheap left winger, to a division rival for a measly return, and retains salary
- Spends the rest of the savings on Maroon on Jared Boll.


And now he finds himself in a situation where he has too many defensmen, a lack of wingers, and cap issues...well gee, if only he hadn't traded away two good / decent wingers in Maroon / Palmieri and let another walk for nothing. There wouldn't be a cap issue or an issue of too many defensmen if he hadn't gone out and signed one and traded for the other, then promptly signed him too.


And now he's facing the scenario of quite possibly not improving a very poor left wing group and having to trade away a good defensman on a team that is supposed to be contending with a window that might close quite soon...and that's not even taking into account the fact that he has two really important RFA's unsigned. If you want to look at Murray's entire career and say "he's overall a good GM," fine. But looking at the two past years, the most relevant years, he's been a very poor GM. How he handles this upcoming situation is going to determine whether he can salvage a 100% self-created mess and thus somewhat absolve himself, or whether his job should shortly be on the line.

Can you believe the cap situation we would be in if we signed Belesky for 4 million, had Palmieri signed for around 4.65 million? We'd be having to move one of, if not both of them. Belesky wanted a NMC, which BM did not want to give him and it's the main reason he was no longer a Duck. He took a risk not trading Belesky a the trade deadline, but he was trying to win the Cup. We lost him for nothing in an attempt to win the cup, which happens quite often... or not often at all depending on what team you support.

The Palmieri trade could have netted better results, which I said when it happened. BM said it was since he wouldn't be able to afford to repay him after the expected breakout season he was primed for. The real reason, or common speculation by Ducks fans, is BM had mentioned several times he wasn't happy with players performance in the Playoffs, where Palmieri was routinely invisible. Palmieri also had a reputation for being a party guy, so shipping him out was also a locker room move.

Maroon was traded because he had a horrible attitude and came into camp way out of shape. Maroon came in to camp with such a bad attitude, they played him on D during one of the scrimmages as a punishment. The change of scenery did him good and I'm happy things are working out. It goes to show he's much more motivated now, since he's dropped close to 20 lbs this offseason. We had guys playing better in our lineup last year than him, plain and simple. The return was exactly what he was worth at the time. He's a fan favorite and some got upset at the move, but it wasn't a bad move.

The Beauch move and Bieksa decision was a bad one. Beauch was fresh off grabbing his ankles in the Chicago series and Bieksa is a better skater. Bieksa was also playing much better the second half of the season and into the playoffs. He is slightly overpaid, but there's no doubt the NMC is toxic. The real reason he let Beauch walk is Beauch wanted a 3 year deal and BM only wanted to give him a 2 year deal. Again, BM was having nightmares of Saad skating circles around Beauch, so you can imagine what he was thinking Saad would do when Beauch was 3 years older. If Bieksa continues his solid play and waives for the expansion draft (which almost everyone expects him to), then the contract isn't nearly as bad.

Stoner was overpaid from the beginning. It was July 1, and BM wanted a big bodied guy. Stoner has been a valuable player for the Ducks and solid partner for Vatanen. Like most guys signed on July 1, he was overpaid. It looks worse now since we are one of the deepest teams in the league, but he's still a good player.

Boll is being paid to fight and, perhaps, be one of the forwards fitting expansion requirements. I agree, I would have preferred spending the money on a more useful player, but BM likes guys who have a set role and are happy in that role. It's why BM got rid of Parros. He wanted Parros to be the fighter who plays 30 games or so, and Parros wanted to be an every game player.

BM has also traded for Kesler, acquired Perron when Hagelin wasn't working out, acquired McGinn for less than people expected, got a 1st for Andersen when people thought he wouldn't, got Bernier for nothing, turned Lovejoy into Despres, got a solid return for Bobby Ryan, and got Garbutt for basically nothing. BM has made a couple head scratching signings, but he's been quick to rectify them (Heatley, Brewer, Penner, Wiz).

 

[ThatSaid]

What about his drafting? His other trades? Stoner was needed. The ducks D wasn't great back then. Lindholm and vatanen were just prospects.

Not at that salary, and very very few people in the world thought it was a good deal when it was signed. He's overpaid by this equation: Take his salary, and subtract whatever league minimum is. That's how much he's overpaid in a given year.

 

[Markus078]

Not at that salary, and very very few people in the world thought it was a good deal when it was signed. He's overpaid by this equation: Take his salary, and subtract whatever league minimum is. That's how much he's overpaid in a given year.

Sure was he overpaid, that's what you have to do at free agency. The Ducks are not the kind of team players take discounts for, plus the higher income taxes increase the total money up to half a million.

The Ducks needed what Stoner brings and he was very good against us in the playoffs before. People also want BM to act quickly at free agency. Quick and cheap usually doesn't work for the better players.

 

[Crosbysux]

Not at that salary, and very very few people in the world thought it was a good deal when it was signed. He's overpaid by this equation: Take his salary, and subtract whatever league minimum is. That's how much he's overpaid in a given year.

That's just not true. He's worth far more than the league minimum. Stoner is overpaid by about 1 million, but he's good enough to suit up 82 games a year on a team with Stanley Cup aspirations. He would have done so last year if it wasn't for injuries as well.

 

[vipernsx]

Do tell.

How do you know how much salary they need to shed?

 

[Avs44]

What about his drafting? His other trades? Stoner was needed. The ducks D wasn't great back then. Lindholm and vatanen were just prospects.

I think drafting is more of a group effort to be honest, so I don't give credit or place blame solely on the GM, but yes, he's made some nice picks, such as Larsson. However, that's one small part of a team...and no, Stoner at his ridiculous cap hit was not needed. You can sign mediocre bottom pairing defensmen for sums well under three million, there's no excusing it.

Can you believe the cap situation we would be in if we signed Belesky for 4 million, had Palmieri signed for around 4.65 million? We'd be having to move one of, if not both of them. Belesky wanted a NMC, which BM did not want to give him and it's the main reason he was no longer a Duck. He took a risk not trading Belesky a the trade deadline, but he was trying to win the Cup. We lost him for nothing in an attempt to win the cup, which happens quite often... or not often at all depending on what team you support.

I think the idea is that you could have given Bieksa's 4.6 million this past year and 4 million for the next two years to a winger instead...your team has zero need for Bieksa on its roster, you have plenty of defensmen - and even last year, there was zero need for a bottom pairing defender. If Murray somehow thought he could rejuvenate a clearly declining 34 year old, he was very wrong. The NMC bit also doesn't fly considering he had no problems giving Bieksa one? So you'll give a 34 year old a NMC and 4 million (who you do NOT need), but don't give a needed winger something similiar? Had Murray simply kept Beleskey, for example, and not traded and signed Bieksa, your team would still have cap issues, yes, BUT, you would not have needed a winger. You could then, for example, still have dumped Stoner, still have iced a proper defense (keep up Theodore this year for example), and still be in the same cap situation as they are today - just with no wing problem.

The Beauch move and Bieksa decision was a bad one. Beauch was fresh off grabbing his ankles in the Chicago series and Bieksa is a better skater. Bieksa was also playing much better the second half of the season and into the playoffs. He is slightly overpaid, but there's no doubt the NMC is toxic. The real reason he let Beauch walk is Beauch wanted a 3 year deal and BM only wanted to give him a 2 year deal. Again, BM was having nightmares of Saad skating circles around Beauch, so you can imagine what he was thinking Saad would do when Beauch was 3 years older. If Bieksa continues his solid play and waives for the expansion draft (which almost everyone expects him to), then the contract isn't nearly as bad.

Beauchemin was probably the best all around defender on the Avs last year...and he did that while playing far too many minutes. If he was given the sheltered role of Bieksa, he would probably do incredibly well at it. That's not to mention, again, the stupid logic of Murray...you don't want Beauchemin for three years, but you acquire Bieksa for three years? Awful talent evaluation if he actually believed the things you stated. Beauchemin, as a player, figuratively skates circles around Bieksa right now.

Stoner was overpaid from the beginning. It was July 1, and BM wanted a big bodied guy. Stoner has been a valuable player for the Ducks and solid partner for Vatanen. Like most guys signed on July 1, he was overpaid. It looks worse now since we are one of the deepest teams in the league, but he's still a good player.

No, he's not a good player, he's a mediocre bottom pairing defensman on a contract you'll have to pay to get rid of. Good players are top four defenders, for example. To see the demand those guys have, there is a superior Kris Russell sitting around right now who'd probably be thrilled to have Stoner's type of contract, yet nobody is giving that to him. Let's not set the bar that low.

BM has also traded for Kesler, acquired Perron when Hagelin wasn't working out, acquired McGinn for less than people expected, got a 1st for Andersen when people thought he wouldn't, got Bernier for nothing, turned Lovejoy into Despres, got a solid return for Bobby Ryan, and got Garbutt for basically nothing. BM has made a couple head scratching signings, but he's been quick to rectify them (Heatley, Brewer, Penner, Wiz).

...And then let Perron walk for nothing, because he couldn't afford him and he 'played the wrong side,' acquired McGinn who apparently didn't do too well, got a 30th overall 1st for Andersen, yes, but failed to dump any cap with him in the process (attaching Stoner would have been brilliant...), got Bernier as part of the Andersen trade (so not nothing), but considering his cap hit is four million it doesn't look so great right now. Regarding Ryan, I was talking about the past two years specifically, so I'm not engaging in that. I'll also point out that Kesler requested a trade and it was confirmed afterward that Kesler had TWO teams on his NMC list - and one of them was Anaheim. That's a gift falling into a GM's lap more than anything else.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Im wondering why a 3-way between hasn't happened between The Oilers and any other team really.


Anaheim - 1st (Oilers 2017)
Winnipeg - Fowler + 2nd (Oilers 2017)
Edmonton - Trouba


Maybe more adds? I dunno. This seems like it could be the base of something that materializes.

 

[Avs44]

Im wondering why a 3-way between hasn't happened between The Oilers and any other team really.


Anaheim - 1st (Oilers 2017)
Winnipeg - Fowler + 2nd (Oilers 2017)
Edmonton - Trouba


Maybe more adds? I dunno. This seems like it could be the base of something that materializes.

Well...Anaheim is probably not at the point of accepting a first rounder for their best / second best defender (depending how you view Lindholm right now), and Winnipeg might not think Fowler is good enough for Trouba....so that seems to be the type of trade that works out for Edmonton and really nobody else.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Well...Anaheim is probably not at the point of accepting a first rounder for their best / second best defender (depending how you view Lindholm right now), and Winnipeg might not think Fowler is good enough for Trouba....so that seems to be the type of trade that works out for Edmonton and really nobody else.

Wait.
So Anaheim needs capspace, and the rumours all summer have been Fowler...
So.. How exactly do they get capspace if not through Draft Picks?

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

That part might not be, but to believe he didn't know what it would cost and him adding 7.15 million would be rather ignorant. BM knows the general ball park of where they are and where they want to be. BM said he wasn't going to sign Perron, because he wasn't sure what it was going to cost to resign the Swedes. Shortly thereafter, he acquired Bernier, signed Holzer and Stoll, then Vermette. He was able to gauge what assets he could afford. BM has said several times he has to plan 2-3 years in advance. He knew it was going to take a while to get ink on the paper for Rakell and Lindholm, but he wouldn't be making the other moves if he didn't have a plan in place. It you follow the Ducks, it's an easy concept. He might sign a player to an overblown contract, but who hasn't done that on July 1st? Two players to a bad contract doesn't make BM a bad GM. He's a good GM and has earned a chance to show what he can do.

Given Bob's history there's no way he went into the summer thinking anything other than, he could sign them to cheap bridge deals. Yeah, he had a plan and it blew up in his face when Magnus didn't go for the "we'll see who wants to be here" line. At some point this summer, Bob's "plan" got a major reality check. Now he's scrambling because bumping up to the cap isn't where he wants to be.

I don't know how this will end up, but this is definitely is not all going according to Bob's "plan".

 

[Sojourn]

The worth of Edmonton's 1st round pick is just too varied. As much as people like to focus on the number of 1st overall picks they'd have, and their decade of suck, it doesn't hold much significance heading into this season.

 

[Crosbysux]

I think drafting is more of a group effort to be honest, so I don't give credit or place blame solely on the GM, but yes, he's made some nice picks, such as Larsson. However, that's one small part of a team...and no, Stoner at his ridiculous cap hit was not needed. You can sign mediocre bottom pairing defensmen for sums well under three million, there's no excusing it.



I think the idea is that you could have given Bieksa's 4.6 million this past year and 4 million for the next two years to a winger instead...your team has zero need for Bieksa on its roster, you have plenty of defensmen - and even last year, there was zero need for a bottom pairing defender. If Murray somehow thought he could rejuvenate a clearly declining 34 year old, he was very wrong. The NMC bit also doesn't fly considering he had no problems giving Bieksa one? So you'll give a 34 year old a NMC and 4 million (who you do NOT need), but don't give a needed winger something similiar? Had Murray simply kept Beleskey, for example, and not traded and signed Bieksa, your team would still have cap issues, yes, BUT, you would not have needed a winger. You could then, for example, still have dumped Stoner, still have iced a proper defense (keep up Theodore this year for example), and still be in the same cap situation as they are today - just with no wing problem.




Beauchemin was probably the best all around defender on the Avs last year...and he did that while playing far too many minutes. If he was given the sheltered role of Bieksa, he would probably do incredibly well at it. That's not to mention, again, the stupid logic of Murray...you don't want Beauchemin for three years, but you acquire Bieksa for three years? Awful talent evaluation if he actually believed the things you stated. Beauchemin, as a player, figuratively skates circles around Bieksa right now.




No, he's not a good player, he's a mediocre bottom pairing defensman on a contract you'll have to pay to get rid of. Good players are top four defenders, for example. To see the demand those guys have, there is a superior Kris Russell sitting around right now who'd probably be thrilled to have Stoner's type of contract, yet nobody is giving that to him. Let's not set the bar that low.



...And then let Perron walk for nothing, because he couldn't afford him and he 'played the wrong side,' acquired McGinn who apparently didn't do too well, got a 30th overall 1st for Andersen, yes, but failed to dump any cap with him in the process (attaching Stoner would have been brilliant...), got Bernier as part of the Andersen trade (so not nothing), but considering his cap hit is four million it doesn't look so great right now. Regarding Ryan, I was talking about the past two years specifically, so I'm not engaging in that. I'll also point out that Kesler requested a trade and it was confirmed afterward that Kesler had TWO teams on his NMC list - and one of them was Anaheim. That's a gift falling into a GM's lap more than anything else.

Bieksa shuttled between the second and third line on a team who was the best defensive team in hockey... better than when Beauch was on the team. A lot of things play into that, but our defense was not the slightest concern by seasons end. They wanted Bieksa to play a veteran leadership role on the second pairing. He did that at times and also played on the third pairing. Even when he was on the third pairing, he was still playing the PP and PK, both units placing at the top of the NHL. You can say what you want about Bieksa, but he was solid player for us down the stretch and in the playoffs. We lost do to a lack of offense, not defense. He's making 4 million the next 2 years, Beauch is making 4.5, which would make our cap situation even worse if you want to make the spin Beauch should have been retained. I don't like advanced stats and feel just about everyone on these boards misuse them, but thought I should drop this here... I was actually surprised that he moved down a spot, was #1 most the season.http://kuklaskorner.com/psh/comments/worst-20-players-by-raw-corsi2

 

[Exit Dose]

How do you know how much salary they need to shed?

I'm going by statements made by the GM and owners over the course of the summer. Now you tell me what your source is.

 

[Avs44]

Wait.
So Anaheim needs capspace, and the rumours all summer have been Fowler...
So.. How exactly do they get capspace if not through Draft Picks?

A young, cheap forward is what they are aiming for for Fowler? You pay something reasonable to get rid of Stoner or dump Despres before you trade Fowler for just a draft pick a year away. I've not heard any rumours they are open to trading Fowler for just futures.


That's not to mention the rip-off deal it would be for Edmonton to poach Trouba for just a first and second round draft pick. I don't think any GM's are too keen on letting Chiarelli pull off Hamilton 2.0. I take it you're an Edmonton fan.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Oops?

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Im wondering why a 3-way between hasn't happened between The Oilers and any other team really.


Anaheim - 1st (Oilers 2017)
Winnipeg - Fowler + 2nd (Oilers 2017)
Edmonton - Trouba


Maybe more adds? I dunno. This seems like it could be the base of something that materializes.

If the Oilers offered a first plus a second for Trouba, I think the Jets should consider. Although, that would all be contingent on Trouba's willingness to sign with Edmonton.

 

[Crosbysux]

How does Anaheim shed salary? Do they have any players on LTIR?

Yes, they have 1.6 going to LTIR (Thompson). They don't need to move much salary to be in compliance, which is why Fowler for Spooner, +, is what most are speculating. With Stoner being waived and Ducks saving 900k, it's also possible there's enough to bring in Tatar, but that would be really close to the cap. That's why we are all saying that Ducks aren't going to get screwed in a trade, we can easily trade a player away and be fine regarding the cap.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

If the Oilers offered a first plus a second for Trouba, I think the Jets should consider. Although, that would all be contingent on Trouba's willingness to sign with Edmonton.

I mean maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Winny wanted a LHD. Which is why I thought it made sense.


I dunno. Maybe my proposal is out to lunch. I have absolutely zero idea how Anaheim claims cap space or what return Winny thinks its getting for Trouba.

 

[Avs44]

Bieksa shuttled between the second and third line on a team who was the best defensive team in hockey... better than when Beauch was on the team. A lot of things play into that, but our defense was not the slightest concern by seasons end. They wanted Bieksa to play a veteran leadership role on the second pairing. He did that at times and also played on the third pairing. Even when he was on the third pairing, he was still playing the PP and PK, both units placing at the top of the NHL. You can say what you want about Bieksa, but he was solid player for us down the stretch and in the playoffs. We lost do to a lack of offense, not defense. He's making 4 million the next 2 years, Beauch is making 4.5, which would make our cap situation even worse if you want to make the spin Beauch should have been retained. I don't like advanced stats and feel just about everyone on these boards misuse them, but thought I should drop this here... I was actually surprised that he moved down a spot, was #1 most the season.http://kuklaskorner.com/psh/comments/worst-20-players-by-raw-corsi2

Oh, so this is what we're going with now? All I've heard from you Ducks fans for the past three months is "Fowler had to carry around Bieksa!" to help explain his poor advanced stats. That was actually pretty much one of the go-to arguments against people bashing Fowler for poor advanced stats. Now that's going to be twisted into something positive for Bieksa?


Also...I'm not sure how to explain to you the irrelevance of those stats you just posted. Colorado was statistically the worst possession team in the league last year...by posting raw corsi stats of individual players...do you honestly not understand how monumentally flawed that is, or are you just being intentionally obtuse? Did you not notice that all four of the Avs' top four defenders last year are bottom 10 on that list? What you basically just proved is that the defenders who played the most minutes on the worst possession team in the league had the worst possession numbers...in other words, water is wet is basically what you just proved. That's why we use something called relative measures If you'd actually read what you linked you might have noticed that the author even acknowledged that very fact at the bottom.


That might be one of the worst misuse of advanced stats I've seen on this board in quite some time so...congrats.

 

[Crosbysux]

Oh, so this is what we're going with now? All I've heard from you Ducks fans for the past three months is "Fowler had to carry around Bieksa!" to help explain his poor advanced stats. That was actually pretty much one of the go-to arguments against people bashing Fowler for poor advanced stats. Now that's going to be twisted into something positive for Bieksa?


Also...I'm not sure how to explain to you the irrelevance of those stats you just posted. Colorado was statistically the worst possession team in the league last year...by posting raw corsi stats of individual players...do you honestly not understand how monumentally flawed that is, or are you just being intentionally obtuse? Did you not notice that all four of the Avs' top four defenders last year are bottom 10 on that list? What you basically just proved is that the defenders who played the most minutes on the worst possession team in the league had the worst possession numbers...in other words, water is wet is basically what you just proved. That's why we use something called relative measures If you'd actually read what you linked you might have noticed that the author even acknowledged that very fact at the bottom.


That might be one of the worst misuse of advanced stats I've seen on this board in quite some time so...congrats.

I already posted I don't believe in advanced stats, but people blast Fowler for his (many on this post topic), which is why I posted that. I'm not one of the guys who have been claiming Fowler had to carry him around, I'm one that says Bieksa played well towards the end of the season. I've been saying that all along. I think a lot of people saw how horrible he was to start the season and held it against him for the rest of the season. He was constantly out of position to start the season and getting caught out of position. He toned it down and would be back in position when he did his wondering thing. He has a different style then people are comfortable with. Bieksa played in the same system (Vancouver) his whole career, so there's a feeling out process with that. His NMC is horrendous and he's slightly overpaid, but I don't mind him one bit on our team. He can carry the third pairing and play on the second pairing when injuries hit.

 

[clownshoes]

This is BM's line-up as of right now:

Ritchie/Getzlaf/Silfver
Raymond/Vermette/Perry
Cogs/Kesler/Sorensen
Garbutt/Wagner/Cramarossa (Boll)

and not enough cap to sign Rakell and Lindholm.

It's ugly and he needs to pull 2 rabbits out of his @ss to keep this team competitive.

RC hinted at splitting up perry/Getz.

Keeping them together:

Ritchie/Getz/Perry
Cogs/Kesler/Silf
Raymond/Vermette/Sorensen
Garbutt/Wagner/Boll


thats a playoff bubble team at best. God help them if Ritchie busts and silf maintains another 20goal season.