Proposal: Habs and Ducks
- Thread starter Pierre Lebrun
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Leon Lucius Black
Registered User
- Nov 5, 2007
- 16,133
- 6,543
Can't even imagine how annoying it must be for Anaheim fans on the trade proposal boards these days.
dracom
Registered User
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Anaheim doesn't need a D man back, And i doubt that De La Rose would cut it for Bob Murray.
rhinoshawarma
Registered User
- Nov 15, 2014
- 2,622
- 314
eternalbedhead
Let's not rebuild and say we did
Ducks don't need a defender back, and with both players coming back the other way only having one year left on their contracts, all we're doing is prolonging our cap hell for a year.
OP doesn't address Anaheim's needs.
How about...
Lehkonen, (LW, $850K) + Condon, (G, $575K) + 2nd for Fowler
Ducks fans??.
How about...
Lehkonen, (LW, $850K) + Condon, (G, $575K) + 2nd for Fowler
Ducks fans??.
Last edited:
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,320
- 10,281
Paulie Gualtieri
R.I.P. Tony Sirico
- May 18, 2016
- 13,058
- 3,445
Kudo Shinichi
Registered User
- Apr 20, 2012
- 21,522
- 28,976
thats nothing compared to all the subban trade proposals that habs had to deal with
jacks*
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2013
- 11,311
- 4
Noble
High Tech Low-Life.
What exactly do the Ducks need? I've seen in multiple proposal threads various Duck fans saying "we don't need more defensemen", "we don't need any more bottom 6 forwards", "we don't need futures, we're going for it right now", "we don't need any more centers, we have a log jam as it is", "our RW depth is strong enough, we don't need any more".
I'm getting the sense that the only thing you guys would accept is either a top 6 LW in exchange for Fowler, or some big overpayment for him. Is this accurate? And if it is, wouldn't the former kind of defeat the purpose of shedding some salary to sign Lindholm/Rakell since a top 6 LW likely makes above 4m a season?
I completely understand not wanting Beaulieu for Fowler. I just don't quite understand what it is the Ducks are looking for in return for him
go4hockey
Registered User
That is a bad return for the Ducks. Also there is no way they will accept a defenseman back. Do you have any idea what their defense looks like and how loaded their system is on the back end. Flush offer down the tubes and start over.
Emerald Duck
Registered User
What exactly do the Ducks need? I've seen in multiple proposal threads various Duck fans saying "we don't need more defensemen", "we don't need any more bottom 6 forwards", "we don't need futures, we're going for it right now", "we don't need any more centers, we have a log jam as it is", "our RW depth is strong enough, we don't need any more".
I'm getting the sense that the only thing you guys would accept is either a top 6 LW in exchange for Fowler, or some big overpayment for him. Is this accurate? And if it is, wouldn't the former kind of defeat the purpose of shedding some salary to sign Lindholm/Rakell since a top 6 LW likely makes above 4m a season?
I completely understand not wanting Beaulieu for Fowler. I just don't quite understand what it is the Ducks are looking for in return for him
When you find out, then please let the rest of us Ducks fans know too. There are so many different opinions among us that whatever happens more than half of the fans will be upset by it.
go4hockey
Registered User
Not very good either. They would have no need for Condon, so Lehkonen and a 2nd does not get you a Fowler.
When you find out, then please let the rest of us Ducks fans know too. There are so many different opinions among us that whatever happens more than half of the fans will be upset by it.
Ducks fans need to consider the laws of supply and demand. ANA has too many D and requires cap space to sign 2 key RFA's. This weakens their bargaining position and will not get them a top 6 winger. A combination of a budget top 9 forward and a prospect is all they will realistically get based on their current cap status.
As a MTL fan I wouldn't do it. You're negotiating with someone in a position of weakness. Beaulieu has looked really good this preseason. I would rather have him at his cheap cap hit.
And although Anaheim is in terrible cap shape, Montreal isn't all that great either. We can't be taking on that type of salary without giving some back and that obviously won't work for Anaheim.
And although Anaheim is in terrible cap shape, Montreal isn't all that great either. We can't be taking on that type of salary without giving some back and that obviously won't work for Anaheim.
Emerald Duck
Registered User
Perhaps. However there are many teams in the league on the demand side that would want or could use a #2 dman like Cam Fowler. Last time I checked, there is not a lot of supply. One team's GM might think he's going to fleece Murray in a trade, only to lose the player to another team who makes a more desirable offer.
Just because Fowler hasn't been traded yet doesn't mean that there is a lack of demand. The Ducks ABSOLUTELY cannot trade Fowler until they have a deal with Lindholm, even if it means that Lindholm's contract is not resolved until the regular season. The deal has to address our need for scoring help and help us to reduce salary.
Murray's challenge is that it becomes more difficult every day to make a significant trade that meets multiple objectives as the regular season approaches, but that's his problem to solve.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Beaulieu is a defenseman we don't need any more defenseman even if we trade one away when will people understand this simple thing? Not trading Fowler for a defenseman we don't need and De La Rose who ain't the type of forward we need so no way do we do this deal.
Legend123
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2016
- 9,989
- 5,233
