Proposal: Fiala to Anaheim

[Crazy8oooo]

Not sure why a team In the middle of a rebuild is trading away a top 10 pick and 2 projected top 6 forwards. OP’s original deal is arguably more than or at least on par with what Eichel got. The Ducks need multiple pieces to finish off the rebuild so keeping their 2 possible top 6 forwards and the top 10 pick seems like a much better scenario for their rebuild. Hoping Verbeek wants no part of this.

Edit- Even with the edited proposal, I’d rather see the Ducks stay the course for one more season and try their luck at another top pick in hopes of landing a star player.

 

[UglyPuckling]

Its a little misleading to characterize fiala as a rental though. If any trade involving these types of assets is consummated I'm fairly certain a long term deal will shortly follow.

I'm not sure how you managed to figure out what that garble post said.

 

[Gliff]

Its a little misleading to characterize fiala as a rental though. If any trade involving these types of assets is consummated I'm fairly certain a long term deal will shortly follow.

Technically he is a rental until a deal is done. He has one year left as an RFA and he has arb rights. If it goes to arb he will be a UFA next year.

 

[Ducks in a row]

I'm not on the Fiala to Anaheim wagon like some others are. Any trade involving him needs to be a sign and trade and I am worried about what Ducks would need to give up.

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

We got a 1st + top defense prospect for Zucker. Guerin should be able to older a lot for Fiala. Should….

 

[tomd]

I'd really question Verbeek's competence if he acquires Fiala and signs him to an expensive long-term deal after letting go of Lindholm, Manson, and Rakell for not wanting to sign them to expensive long-term deals.

 

[flyerslducks]

I'd really question Verbeek's competence if he acquires Fiala and signs him to an expensive long-term deal after letting go of Lindholm, Manson, and Rakell for not wanting to sign them to expensive long-term deals.

Those guys are older than fiala and would’ve been committed in their mid 30’s probably. Fiala could grow with this team

 

[tomd]

Those guys are a lot older than fiala and would’ve been committed in their mid 30’s probably. Fiala could grow with this team

A lot older? Lindholm is 2 years older and Rakell 3 years older. If Verbeek is trying to improve the team right now (and he's not) then trading away a top-pairing D is NOT the way to do it. And Fiala could just as easily flop with Anaheim when is doesn't have Kaprizov, Zucc, Boldy, et al, on the PP with him.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Those guys are a lot older than fiala and would’ve been committed in their mid 30’s probably. Fiala could grow with this team

Fiala is going to be 26 in July. An 8 year deal would take him to ending his last season a few months short of 34, also his mid-30’s

edited after coffee

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

A lot older? Lindholm is 2 years older and Rakell 3 years older. If Verbeek is trying to improve the team right now (and he's not) then trading away a top-pairing D is NOT the way to do it. And Fiala could just as easily flop with Anaheim when is doesn't have Kaprizov, Zucc, Boldy, et al, on the PP with him.

Fiala didn’t play on that powerplay very often, and he produced 5v5 way better than on the PP

 

[tomd]

Fiala didn’t play on that powerplay very often, and he produced 5v5 way better than on the PP

Great. I think Guerin should do everything possible to keep him.

 

[57special]

I'm not on the Fiala to Anaheim wagon like some others are. Any trade involving him needs to be a sign and trade and I am worried about what Ducks would need to give up.

It's usually a trade and sign in the NHL. Sign and trades are NBA stuff.

 

[57special]

I'd really question Verbeek's competence if he acquires Fiala and signs him to an expensive long-term deal after letting go of Lindholm, Manson, and Rakell for not wanting to sign them to expensive long-term deals.

Rakell is a 29 yo who had a 41 pt year
Manson is a 30 yo defensive dman
Lindholm is a 28 yo with injury problems - vg player though

Fiala is a 25 yo who just had an 85 pt. season, even though he was playing with garbage for half the year.

Do you not see the difference?

Great. I think Guerin should do everything possible to keep him.

I agree.

 

[57special]

Fiala is going to be 26 in July, and will be 27 at the end of his contract. An 8 year deal would take him to ending his last season a few months short of 35.

His next contract will start in the fall, when he has just turned 26yo. He would be 33 in the final year of an 8 year contract.

Your attempt to misinform would be amusing if it wasn't so petty.

 

[tomd]

Rakell is a 29 yo who had a 41 pt year
Manson is a 30 yo defensive dman
Lindholm is a 28 yo with injury problems - vg player though

Fiala is a 25 yo who just had an 85 pt. season, even though he was playing with garbage for half the year.

Do you not see the difference?


I agree.

Here's what I see. Verbeek is rebuilding. You don't trade Lindholm, Rakell, and Manson unless you are rebuilding. Verbeek is likely not done selling either. Fiala is almost 26 years-old and looking for a long-term expensive contract. That doesn't make sense for a rebuilding team. The Ducks will be bad for the next 2-3 years with or without Fiala.

Bottom line...give Verbeek the patience he has asked for. Fiala would be a great addition to a team that is in position to take maximum advantage of his peak productive years. The Ducks are not that team.

 

[Gliff]

We got a 1st + top defense prospect for Zucker. Guerin should be able to older a lot for Fiala. Should….

You consider Addison a "top defensive prospect"?

 

[Ducks DVM]

His next contract will start in the fall, when he has just turned 26yo. He would be 33 in the final year of an 8 year contract.

Your attempt to misinform would be amusing if it wasn't so petty.

Or, I possibly misread CapFriendly before coffee. Dial down the hostility, the point was, which is still accurate, that he will also be in his mid-30’s at the end of an 8 year contract.

 

[flyerslducks]

Rakell is a 29 yo who had a 41 pt year
Manson is a 30 yo defensive dman
Lindholm is a 28 yo with injury problems - vg player though

Fiala is a 25 yo who just had an 85 pt. season, even though he was playing with garbage for half the year.

Do you not see the difference?


I agree.

This^^^^. Didn’t mean to say a lot older but any deal that Carrie’s you further than 34 years is always risky…especially when it’s not a star player which none of those guys were. Fiala can easily produce into his early 30s whereas rakell/Manson won’t be producing at a top level in those years

Fiala is going to be 26 in July. An 8 year deal would take him to ending his last season a few months short of 34, also his mid-30’s

edited after coffee

I would definitely bank on fiala producing more than rakell on a long term deal tho.

 

[Ducks DVM]

This^^^^. Didn’t mean to say a lot older but any deal that Carrie’s you further than 34 years is always risky…especially when it’s not a star player which none of those guys were. Fiala can easily produce into his early 30s whereas rakell/Manson won’t be producing at a top level in those years


I would definitely bank on fiala producing more than rakell on a long term deal tho.

I’d agree with that. I think the question that we don’t know the answer to is - does Verbeek hate ALL long term UFA deals, or just the specific players that we had in Anaheim?

 

[flyerslducks]

I’d agree with that. I think the question that we don’t know the answer to is - does Verbeek hate ALL long term UFA deals, or just the specific players that we had in Anaheim?

Well that’s kinda easy haha. Of course it was just the ones he had. He didn’t hate long term deals, but he wasn’t prepared to give it to rakell/Manson for good reason. Those guys wouldn’t have really helped a rebuilding team. It was why I hated the silfverberg signing…it just wasn’t needed and didn’t make any sense. Silf is another guy he for sure would’ve traded had he been a pending ufa at the deadline.

As for Lindholm, he also wanted to get assets to help rebuild this thing quicker. He could’ve offered it but maybe that wasn’t in his plan. I’m sure he will definitely sign players to long term deals if it was in the plan. I have no qualms with what he did at the deadline…he did fantastic. Every gm will make long term signings at some point. I wish I can say the same thing about fletcher…but he resigned risto smfh

 

[nbducksfan19]

A lot older? Lindholm is 2 years older and Rakell 3 years older. If Verbeek is trying to improve the team right now (and he's not) then trading away a top-pairing D is NOT the way to do it. And Fiala could just as easily flop with Anaheim when is doesn't have Kaprizov, Zucc, Boldy, et al, on the PP with him.

2-3 years is a huge difference. The last 2-3 years of the Lindholm deal are likely the exact reason he wasn’t resigned

 

[57special]

Lindholm was a terrific player who's value has taken a hit because of injuries. If he had been healthy, he probably would've been re-signed....maybe not for 8 years. No one is saying that Fiala needs to be signed for 8 years, but I actually think it would be smart for a team to do if they can get him at 7.5M per. Fiala and his agent might prefer a 5 year deal so they can get another big deal while he is still productive, and after the Covid cap freeze lifts.

I think the game is changing to favor fast, skilled players like Fiala(Zegras, drysdale). Obstructions penalties are getting called more than ever, even in the playoffs.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Well that’s kinda easy haha. Of course it was just the ones he had. He didn’t hate long term deals, but he wasn’t prepared to give it to rakell/Manson for good reason. Those guys wouldn’t have really helped a rebuilding team. It was why I hated the silfverberg signing…it just wasn’t needed and didn’t make any sense. Silf is another guy he for sure would’ve traded had he been a pending ufa at the deadline.

As for Lindholm, he also wanted to get assets to help rebuild this thing quicker. He could’ve offered it but maybe that wasn’t in his plan. I’m sure he will definitely sign players to long term deals if it was in the plan. I have no qualms with what he did at the deadline…he did fantastic. Every gm will make long term signings at some point. I wish I can say the same thing about fletcher…but he resigned risto smfh

I don’t know that that is actually the case. The last lockout there were a number of teams wanting to limit all contracts to a 5 year max. Granted, I wanted Rakell gone 3 years ago.

Time will tell. There’s a lot of weirdness right now between the rumors of Verbeek not even talking to several of the player’s agents and the massive coaching purge.

 

[Static]

Technically he is a rental until a deal is done. He has one year left as an RFA and he has arb rights. If it goes to arb he will be a UFA next year.

The difference between this case and a true rental is there will be a mandatory contract negotiation this offseason.

 

[Ducks DVM]

The difference between this case and a true rental is there will be a mandatory contract negotiation this offseason.

Yes and no. He can just go to arbitration and be unrestricted at the end of the awarded contract.