Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Habs - Ducks

WhatTheDuck

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
24,056
17,494
Worst Case, Ontario
KomicJ said:
Oh scrap that then...if you guys can buyout Bieksa, then trading Fowler for a top-6 forward makes TONS more sense.

You can then go 7-3-1 and protect Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, both Silfverberg and Rakell + that newly acquired winger...and probably Cogliano, and would still be able to protect Lindholm, Vatanen and Despres. NOW THAT'S A PLAN. :)
Click to expand...

Manson over Despres, but otherwise yes it almost lines up perfectly.
 
Sojourn

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
KomicJ said:
Oh scrap that then...if you guys can buyout Bieksa, then trading Fowler for a top-6 forward makes TONS more sense.

You can then go 7-3-1 and protect Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, both Silfverberg and Rakell + that newly acquired winger...and probably Cogliano, and would still be able to protect Lindholm, Vatanen and Despres. NOW THAT'S A PLAN. :)
Click to expand...

I suspect it would be Manson over Despres, though that is likely to be decided this season.

Despres is an interesting case. When he came to Anaheim, he played great. Slowed down some in the playoffs, but he and Fowler were still Anaheim's top D pairing in those playoffs. He looked kind of rusty to start this last season, but he never had the opportunity to shake off the rust, because Barrie jumped into his head with his shoulder and knocked him out of the line-up for a while. But when he returned, he was quite bad. Liability bad. He needs to bounce back strong before I'd be willing to protect him over Manson.
 

liquiduck

Registered User
Jul 23, 2015
2,128
0
KomicJ said:
Really ? Can we have Despres then ? :P
Click to expand...

I think it will just come down to if Despres recovers from his concussions and who proves to be more valuable.

Some Anaheim fans are jumping the gun a bit in saying that Manson would be protected over Despres, but if he ( Manson) takes another step forward then Despres could very well be exposed regardless. Or traded at the TDL.
 
Habs Halifax

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
70,805
27,860
East Coast
liquiduck said:
Poosibly. Or that we need to sign Lindholm first which has already been mentioned.

Neither speaks to how good a player he is.
Click to expand...

Ducks won't have a problem signing Lindholm. Question is term. Bridge deal or long term.

Trading Fowler with 2 years until UFA is going to be hard to get what you want and I know Ducks fans don't like hearing it but a package of prospects fits. It also helps them with the upcoming expansion draft of protected players.

It's my personal opinion but like I said before, they only way you get a top 6 forward is someone with an similar expiring contract. Then you may lose that player in the expansion draft.
 
WhatTheDuck

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
24,056
17,494
Worst Case, Ontario
liquiduck said:
I think it will just come down to if Despres recovers from his concussions and who proves to be more valuable.

Some Anaheim fans are jumping the gun a bit in saying that Manson would be protected over Despres, but if he ( Manson) takes another step forward then Despres could very well be exposed regardless. Or traded at the TDL.
Click to expand...

Salary is one of the big driving forces that would lead me to believe they'd protect Manson over Despres unless the latter vastly outplayed the former. We still likely won't be out of the woods in terms of the budget crunch, Despres makes 2.4M more than Manson next year and still won't have hit the expensive years on his deal.
 
Sojourn

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
Habrye said:
Ducks won't have a problem signing Lindholm. Question is term. Bridge deal or long term.

Trading Fowler with 2 years until UFA is going to be hard to get what you want and I know Ducks fans don't like hearing it but a package of prospects fits. It also helps them with the upcoming expansion draft of protected players.

It's my personal opinion but like I said before, they only way you get a top 6 forward is someone with an similar expiring contract. Then you may lose that player in the expansion draft.
Click to expand...

Unlikely, unless that player is a defenseman.
 

liquiduck

Registered User
Jul 23, 2015
2,128
0
heusy_79 said:
Salary is one of the big driving forces that would lead me to believe they'd protect Manson over Despres unless the latter vastly outplayed the former. We still likely won't be out of the woods in terms of the budget crunch, Despres makes 2.4M more than Manson next year and still won't have hit the expensive years on his deal.
Click to expand...

True, but that difference in cap hit between the two will only last one more year after expansion, and the team has quite a bit of money coming off in 2 years.
 

liquiduck

Registered User
Jul 23, 2015
2,128
0
Habrye said:
Ducks won't have a problem signing Lindholm. Question is term. Bridge deal or long term.

Trading Fowler with 2 years until UFA is going to be hard to get what you want and I know Ducks fans don't like hearing it but a package of prospects fits. It also helps them with the upcoming expansion draft of protected players.

It's my personal opinion but like I said before, they only way you get a top 6 forward is someone with an similar expiring contract. Then you may lose that player in the expansion draft.
Click to expand...

Our expansion problems are on on defense. We have protection spots to spare upfront.
 

mytduxfan*

Guest
Habrye said:
Ducks won't have a problem signing Lindholm. Question is term. Bridge deal or long term.

Trading Fowler with 2 years until UFA is going to be hard to get what you want and I know Ducks fans don't like hearing it but a package of prospects fits. It also helps them with the upcoming expansion draft of protected players.

It's my personal opinion but like I said before, they only way you get a top 6 forward is someone with an similar expiring contract. Then you may lose that player in the expansion draft.
Click to expand...

Exactly, however, moving Fowler now would likely increase the value of Lindholm's contract regardless whether it's bridge or long-term. He'd be our only top pairing guy on the team. BM could be easily squeezed.
 
WhatTheDuck

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
24,056
17,494
Worst Case, Ontario
liquiduck said:
True, but that difference in cap hit between the two will only last one more year after expansion, and the team has quite a bit of money coming off in 2 years.
Click to expand...

Salary will still be of more importance than cap hit, Despres sees his salary jump up to $4.7M for back to back years. With Despres that $2.4M head start and an inflated salary to follow, I feel safe in saying he likely would cost us significantly more from expansion to the end of his contract, than Manson would in that same time period.
 

liquiduck

Registered User
Jul 23, 2015
2,128
0
Habrye said:
What format of player protection do you think they will choose? 7F, 3D, 1G or 8F/D & 1G?
Click to expand...

7+3+1


heusy_79 said:
Salary will still be of more importance than cap hit, Despres sees his salary jump up to $4.7M for back to back years. With Despres that $2.4M head start and an inflated salary to follow, I feel safe in saying he likely would cost us significantly more from expansion to the end of his contract, than Manson would in that same time period.
Click to expand...

Your're probably right, but I think how the two play next season will ultimately determine what happens. Despres would have to outplay Manson by what the team considers a significant enough margin to offset the cost. I'm just saying that the actual cost margin will shrink significantly in the not too distant future.
 
TT1

TT1

Registered User
May 31, 2013
23,877
6,437
Montreal
we didnt trade our #9 pick for Fowler, yet ppl think we'd move Galchenyuk, Gally or Patches for him? :laugh:
 
Sojourn

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
TT1 said:
we didnt trade our #9 pick for Fowler, yet ppl think we'd move Galchenyuk, Gally or Patches for him? :laugh:
Click to expand...

You didn't get Fowler for less than that, either. Take note: Two sides are involved in a trade.

Whether or not your GM was willing to trade the #9 pick doesn't mean he's worth less.
 

mytduxfan*

Guest
Sojourn said:
You didn't get Fowler for less than that, either. Take note: Two sides are involved in a trade.

Whether or not your GM was willing to trade the #9 pick doesn't mean he's worth less.
Click to expand...

BM even said he wasn't close to making a deal, so, whether or not 8th or 9th OA was on the table, doesn't mean that BM was seriously considering it.
 
WhatTheDuck

WhatTheDuck

9 - 20 - 8
May 17, 2007
24,056
17,494
Worst Case, Ontario
TT1 said:
we didnt trade our #9 pick for Fowler, yet ppl think we'd move Galchenyuk, Gally or Patches for him? :laugh:
Click to expand...

There's no proving that #9 would have landed Fowler. You guys have extrapolated this theory from speculative tweets and now state it like you know it as fact. Pure speculation, nothing more.
 
dracom

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,773
9,986
Vancouver, WA
TT1 said:
McKenzie and company said otherwise tho
Click to expand...

they never said a deal was close, they just assumed the Ducks wanted only the 8/9th pick. Frankly, Bob murray is one of the most secretive GMs out there, and I doubt even McKenzie knows what BM is doing.
 
Ducks in a row

Ducks in a row

Go Ducks Quack Quack
Dec 17, 2013
18,072
4,461
U.S.A.
TT1 said:
we didnt trade our #9 pick for Fowler, yet ppl think we'd move Galchenyuk, Gally or Patches for him? :laugh:
Click to expand...

Why would Ducks a win now team trade Fowler a young defenseman who lead our blueline in time on ice during the regular season and playoffs be traded away for just a 9th overall pick?

If Fowler is traded I am sure we wanted something that helps us win now and a 9th overall pick doesn't do that. Sabres and Canadiens fans like to say but he wasn't traded for their picks so it means he doesn't have that value and ignore it takes the Ducks to be totally satisfied with that and it should be easy to see we wouldn't be. Too many people like to speculate on things without looking at the big picture.

Unless we are getting Pacioretty or Galchenyuk or Gallagher back for Fowler (nothing else is good enough for us to help us win now) we are not going to be happy to trade Fowler. Canadiens didn't want to trade one of them so no trade was made that is easily the most likely reason Fowler isn't playing for Montreal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X