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

[Avs44]

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.

I've never seen anyone use raw corsi to blast Fowler, so that's not related at all. Many of the stats against Fowler are far, far more nuanced. However, clearly you think Murray has done a pretty good job / many of his moves aren't nearly as bad as I perceive them to be, so I'll drop it.

 

[Crosbysux]

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.

Ritchie has looked much better so far. Rakell will replace Raymond on the third line and Raymond will be in the AHL. Boll will be the 13th forward and whoever we acquire with trading Fowler fits in somewhere. We need 1 top 6 forward via trade, which should happen when we trade Fowler. Besides that, we need only 1 guy to step up out of a lot of prospects (Sorenson, Ritchie, Roy, Noeson, Nattinen, Kossilla, etc.) which isn't an unreasonable expectation to have. No one expected Sorenson to be playing so well, so maybe we've already gotten 1 guy who stepped up. Ritchie is also doing well, so that's even less to worry about. Season hasn't even started yet, guys need to calm down lol.

 

[91Fedorov]

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.

For all the bad mouthing Stoner gets on these boards, this still has to be said. He plays for the #1 defense in the league. The people here saying he has no value because he's a third pairing D man are simply clueless. He was the third pairing on the #1 defense. That means the 4 guys playing ahead of him were pretty damn good. He might not be on the 3rd pairing on different defense. But some people don't like to have educated opinions, they just like to use hyperbole to trash talk other teams players.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Nobody has to badmouth Stoner after no GM took him for free off waivers. Nobody says he's not worth anything, they just say he's not anywhere near worth his contract.

 

[HanSolo]

Nobody has to badmouth Stoner after no GM took him for free off waivers. Nobody says he's not worth anything, they just say he's not anywhere near worth his contract.

That's fair. Even among ducks fans. We know he's a serviceable bottom pairing defenseman but Murray paid him based on a good playoff performance as though he's a top 4 guy.

 

[vipernsx]

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.

When exactly did they say "Anaheim doesn't have to shed the entirety of Stoner's contract to re-sign Rakell and Lindholm to long term deals."? Or at the very least share the details of their budget which you're able to match up to posted salaries. I'd love to see that quoted source.

Until then it's conjecture based on your assumptions.

 

[Exit Dose]

When exactly did they say "Anaheim doesn't have to shed the entirety of Stoner's contract to re-sign Rakell and Lindholm to long term deals."? Or at the very least share the details of their budget which you're able to match up to posted salaries. I'd love to see that quoted source.

Until then it's conjecture based on your assumptions.

It was brought up by someone after I asked you to expand upon it.

We're paying 2 million less than Bernier's contract is listed as - because Toronto paid the bonus before he was traded. We are 8 million beneath the cap, without the salary factored in. The owners stated that they were willing to pay up to account for the issues created by the expansion draft and that the budget was being raised to account for the contracts they were signing, you know like they did when Getzlaf and Perry were signed. There is even more salary coming off the books this summer via expansion. Then there's the fact that every team makes trades midseason that can easily balance the scales. Even the rumors are pointing to a single deal being sought for.

Now, I'll ask again, what's your basis for your claim. I've given mine, let's see yours. Why does Anaheim NEED to do a second trade on top of a Stoner trade(with retention or a little salary coming back) to fix things? Why is that not enough?

 

[Adam Michaels]

Nobody has to badmouth Stoner after no GM took him for free off waivers. Nobody says he's not worth anything, they just say he's not anywhere near worth his contract.

Don't read too much into a player not being picked off waivers. If a team claims a player, they take 100% of his contract with them. Most teams don't have space on their cap to assume an entire contract. There are teams who probably want Stoner, but in order to get him, they need to send someone else (and their cap hit) back in order to fit Stoner's cap.

A few years back, Habs placed Rene Bourque on waivers and he wasn't picked up. Naturally, you assume no one wants him since he was offered to the rest of the NHL for free. He was sent down to the AHL. Not too long after, he gets traded to Anaheim for Brian Allen. You'd ask yourself why did Anaheim trade for him when they could have had him for free? Because it's easier to remove a cap hit to fit a new one than it is simply adding another cap hit you simply don't have room for.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

4 days until the season starts I wonder who they move because somebody has to go.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Don't read too much into a player not being picked off waivers. If a team claims a player, they take 100% of his contract with them. Most teams don't have space on their cap to assume an entire contract. There are teams who probably want Stoner, but in order to get him, they need to send someone else (and their cap hit) back in order to fit Stoner's cap.

A few years back, Habs placed Rene Bourque on waivers and he wasn't picked up. Naturally, you assume no one wants him since he was offered to the rest of the NHL for free. He was sent down to the AHL. Not too long after, he gets traded to Anaheim for Brian Allen. You'd ask yourself why did Anaheim trade for him when they could have had him for free? Because it's easier to remove a cap hit to fit a new one than it is simply adding another cap hit you simply don't have room for.

Oh I get all that. It still doesn't say much when other GMs have to wait for injuries or cap space to build up halfway through the season before they're willing to add you to the roster. It just reinforces that they don't want you at full price. There's plenty of guys with 3.0-3.5 mil cap hits that would get scooped up today if they were put on waivers and actually worth the salary.

 

[JetsHomer]

Don't read too much into a player not being picked off waivers. If a team claims a player, they take 100% of his contract with them. Most teams don't have space on their cap to assume an entire contract. There are teams who probably want Stoner, but in order to get him, they need to send someone else (and their cap hit) back in order to fit Stoner's cap.

A few years back, Habs placed Rene Bourque on waivers and he wasn't picked up. Naturally, you assume no one wants him since he was offered to the rest of the NHL for free. He was sent down to the AHL. Not too long after, he gets traded to Anaheim for Brian Allen. You'd ask yourself why did Anaheim trade for him when they could have had him for free? Because it's easier to remove a cap hit to fit a new one than it is simply adding another cap hit you simply don't have room for.

If they had claimed him on waivers he would have had to play on the NHL team. By allowing him to clear and be sent to the AHL they were able to trade for him and play him in the AHL. Stoner passing through waivers means no GM was willing to give him a guareenteed spot on the NHL roster, suggesting that they don't consider him an NHL quality player at his salary.

 

[Dr Quincy]

4 days until the season starts I wonder who they move because somebody has to go.

Hey come on man, be fair. Murray said that his plan all along was to get to this point of the season before signing their #1 D and one of their top 6 Fs.

 

[gilfaizon]

If they had claimed him on waivers he would have had to play on the NHL team. By allowing him to clear and be sent to the AHL they were able to trade for him and play him in the AHL. Stoner passing through waivers means no GM was willing to give him a guareenteed spot on the NHL roster, suggesting that they don't consider him an NHL quality player at his salary.

My head hurts from reading this.

 

[UnicornONtheCOBB]

The Ducks are so loaded with young D, and with how highly young D are valued, it's crazy to think that they won't be able to get a huge return for 1 or 2 of them. They should have no trouble at all. Not many teams are more advantageous position than the Ducks when it comes to D depth. Guys like Perry, Getzlaf, Kessler, and Bieksa are not getting younger and are all still pretty effective and productive players. If I was in charge of the Ducks, I would sacrificing some the youth and future for the NOW, and taking a run at the CUP. If you don't do that, you should be looking to move out those 4 vets, which, due to contract size and age would be really hard to do.

 

[JetsHomer]

My head hurts from reading this.

If a player is claimed in waivers the team that claims him cannot send him to the AHL. If the team trades for him then they can place him in the AHL. Stoner passing through waivers means no one wants him on their NHL roster

 

[gilfaizon]

If a player is claimed in waivers the team that claims him cannot send him to the AHL. If the team trades for him then they can place him in the AHL. Stoner passing through waivers means no one wants him on their NHL roster

They absolutely can send him to the AHL, why do you think they can't?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

If a player is claimed in waivers the team that claims him cannot send him to the AHL. If the team trades for him then they can place him in the AHL. Stoner passing through waivers means no one wants him on their NHL roster

No it doesn't guys get waived then traded all the time.

It means teams want to space send a contract back for him.

 

[Maukkis]

They absolutely can send him to the AHL, why do you think they can't?

Well, you can, but if you claim someone off waivers, he has to stay with the NHL team or go through waivers again before being eligible to be sent to the AHL.

 

[Sojourn]

They absolutely can send him to the AHL, why do you think they can't?

They can send him to the AHL, but he'd need to go through waivers again. Which means the team that just lost him would be able to reacquire him.

 

[Emerald Duck]

No it doesn't guys get waived then traded all the time.

It means teams want to space send a contract back for him.

We have two reasons for moving Stoner: shed some salary and create roster space for our young dmen. If another team has a forward they want to send back who can actually play every day for the Ducks this year and can offer us some cap relief, then we would be interested. Press box forwards need not apply.

 

[vipernsx]

It was brought up by someone after I asked you to expand upon it.

We're paying 2 million less than Bernier's contract is listed as - because Toronto paid the bonus before he was traded. We are 8 million beneath the cap, without the salary factored in. The owners stated that they were willing to pay up to account for the issues created by the expansion draft and that the budget was being raised to account for the contracts they were signing, you know like they did when Getzlaf and Perry were signed. There is even more salary coming off the books this summer via expansion. Then there's the fact that every team makes trades midseason that can easily balance the scales. Even the rumors are pointing to a single deal being sought for.

Source? ...and how much is it being raised? How much are Lindholm and Rakel willing to sign for long term? Unless you have this information or can quote it from a source, you're making assumptions.

Now, I'll ask again, what's your basis for your claim. I've given mine, let's see yours. Why does Anaheim NEED to do a second trade on top of a Stoner trade(with retention or a little salary coming back) to fix things? Why is that not enough?

Rather than getting wound up in your needing to prove your correctness and other's lack there of, I encourage you to reread my post. A question mark is not making a statement.

After you pointed out I was making assumptions, then went on to editorialize. I never said I wasn't, only that you were making assumptions as well. You asked to explain and I believe I have.

 

[Sojourn]

Source? ...and how much is it being raised? How much are Lindholm and Rakel willing to sign for long term? Unless you have this information or can quote it from a source, you're making assumptions.

As opposed to you, who seems to be okay assuming Anaheim has no space? What's the difference?

How is his assumption different from yours? Actually, never mind, it is different from yours, because the owners have actually made it clear they are willing to spend more.

 

[Benstheman]

Assuming Stoner clears (or is he even cleared yet??), Anaheim has about 8M$ disponible to sign both Lindholm and Rakell.

Is it enough?? I thought about 9M$ would be sufficient for both of them but i might be off.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

We have two reasons for moving Stoner: shed some salary and create roster space for our young dmen. If another team has a forward they want to send back who can actually play every day for the Ducks this year and can offer us some cap relief, then we would be interested. Press box forwards need not apply.

Peter Holland sounds like that guy.

However you would need to add an asset not only because you are saving 1.9 million but you are dumping an extra year so the question is what's the asset coming with Stoner?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Assuming Stoner clears (or is he even cleared yet??), Anaheim has about 8M$ disponible to sign both Lindholm and Rakell.

Is it enough?? I thought about 9M$ would be sufficient for both of them but i might be off.

Reports are Lindholm wants 6+ and Rakell wants 4

So no it's not enough