go4hockey
Registered User
You would be better off dealing Fowler with Stoner and taking less of a return than dealing Fowler alone. I don't think you should move any of the young defenseman in your system they all are pretty good and very cheap.
Value of: Josh Manson
- Thread starter duckpuck
- Start date
You would be better off dealing Fowler with Stoner and taking less of a return than dealing Fowler alone. I don't think you should move any of the young defenseman in your system they all are pretty good and very cheap.
go4hockey
Registered User
They would not move 3 defenseman in one deal plus your trade doesn't help clearing cap to sign their most important defenseman.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,768
- 39,729
mmmm, Martinez and Manson second pairing...
Could never happen though
Cause I like you well give you manson for toffoli
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,768
- 39,729
But seriously id rather just keep manson he gives our defense a little grit and is pretty dependable when hes on the ice, great contract and works really well with lindholm.
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
The Ducks do have an abundance of good young defenseman. However, Manson is one of the last I'd move. Ducks need him as a physical RHD, would just be creating another hole in the lineup.
dracom
Registered User
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
his value is more to the ducks then they would get for him. He is on a low salary and the ducks have an internal cap that helps them out a lot. Also--the ducks have Fowler(123 TOI), Vataanen (119TOI+) and Bieska (105TOI) for the season--you have the drop off from there--his only getting that time because they are missing one guy--the moment he signs--he is down to 15 minutes a game and if you look at the overall season he 5th in average time on ice. So it is a bit early to call him a top 4 d-man right now--Ducks have depth and it is helping him
Like I said--he is of more value to the Ducks then what you could get for him
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
As a ducks fan, I can't help but say that it is rather humorous how many ducks fans come into threads like this one and insist that under no circumstances should the ducks consider trading Fowler/Mansion/Lindholm/Theodore/Larsson/Montour/Cogliano/etc.
If a GM is doing his job, he should consider trading all of the players in the right deal (other than perhaps Lindholm).
Yes - some of those listed are very good players and/or have very good contracts. You have to give to get. I thinks its reasonable to say you don't want to see Manson (or whoever) traded to offload Stoner, but then it will have to be a draft pick (and we know the ducks don't trade those either).
Bottom line, the ducks have extra defenseman. You could argue that Manson is harder to replace internally than Fowler (given that Theodore/Montour have a game more similar to Fowlers). Or you could arge that Montour is an extra piece assuming you keep Vatenen/Fowler. But something needs to give and if Manson can bring back a good forward and/or salary cap relief, then trading him should absolutely be considered.
If a GM is doing his job, he should consider trading all of the players in the right deal (other than perhaps Lindholm).
Yes - some of those listed are very good players and/or have very good contracts. You have to give to get. I thinks its reasonable to say you don't want to see Manson (or whoever) traded to offload Stoner, but then it will have to be a draft pick (and we know the ducks don't trade those either).
Bottom line, the ducks have extra defenseman. You could argue that Manson is harder to replace internally than Fowler (given that Theodore/Montour have a game more similar to Fowlers). Or you could arge that Montour is an extra piece assuming you keep Vatenen/Fowler. But something needs to give and if Manson can bring back a good forward and/or salary cap relief, then trading him should absolutely be considered.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
I don't think that's what Anaheim fans are saying at all. The message I'm getting is that under no circumstances should Anaheim move them in a cap dump trade.
That's a very different thing. Other fans aren't offering value for those players. They are low balling, and justifying it by calling it a cap dump, because they want those players for cheap. For the right deal, I'd move any player. The right deal is not packaging one of them with Stoner, and getting a low return. I'd rather package our 1st, if that's what it came to. We'd be happy to get a player like Manson in the 1st round. We'd be even happier to get Theodore, or Montour, or Larsson.
eternalbedhead
Let's not rebuild and say we did
He's no stud, but he's that kind of player that is worth a lot more to us than the value we could get via trade. Very solid defenseman, good locker room guy, works hard, and he's on a good contract, not to mention that he's really the only quality DFD we have on the team right now. Why on earth would we move him?
Sojourn;123453461[B said:
Point taken regarding a camp dump scnario.
If you read this thread, many of the ducks fans (not you) chimed in with "we should never trade Manson" or "this is the last thing the ducks should do" or "the ducks would never get fair value". That is not at all responsive to this thread - where i asked for Manson's value to other teams.
It may well be is that the ducks best option to create salary space in the short run (for Lindholm) is to put Despres/Thompson on LTIR and waive/send down several players. However, while Lindholm would be a huge upgrade, that does not address the lack of forward depth and logjam on defense (with expansion draft coming). So even if it is not a salary dump trade, the only upgrade options are salary netural trades of Fowler/Manson/Montour/Theodore/another player/draft picks.
And to your point regarding trading a first instead of a player, that's a reasonable option but it doesn't help the ducks next year when the expansion draft comes.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
When has that ever happened? That's really only true for Lindholm, for obvious reasons. I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest that Theodore/Larsson/Montour shouldn't be traded "under no circumstances". Most Ducks fans are very open or even actively looking to trade one of those guys for a similar young forward.
With Cogliano, it's also not so much about not considering it, but knowing that players like him mean more to the team he's on and to the locker room he is a part of than he can bring in a trade, so that is very unlikely to be a beneficial deal.
With Manson it has already been explained - he's a cheap top-4 defender that brings a different element from all the other young defenders the Ducks have. It makes no sense for a team with cap issues to trade one of the cheapest guys to already contribute in a key role. It's counterproductive in every way. Which hasn't just been acknowledged by Ducks fans, but by fans of other teams, because it is rather obvious.
With Fowler, there is (finally) some more resistance to trading him, because it has become very apparent what a hit the defense would take without him, which would be in contrast to the goal of competing this year. It's far from "under no circumstances", though. I don't really know where you're getting that, at all.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Well, I just don't believe anyone should really be untouchable. With a few very, very minor exceptions(Pittsburgh trading Crosby, for example). Whether it's realistic or not, well, that's a different matter. I think a team could make an offer that would entice us to move Lindholm. I just don't think it would ever happen. Anaheim wouldn't ask for the Moon, they'd ask for the Death Star, and I don't think there is a team out there that would be willing to give us that.
I would move Manson in a heartbeat for the right deal. I'd move Fowler. Vatanen. Larsson. I don't care who it is. The return has to justify it, and it has to make sense for us. There's no point in someone offering us a good D prospect, and a 1st, for him, as an example. Even if the offer is good, it doesn't make sense for us.
As for the 1st comment, I agree. It doesn't. I'm also not comfortable moving our 1st at this point. I'm speaking more in terms of value. When you're drafting in the 1st round, unless you're drafting very high, you're hoping to get players like Montour, Theodore, or Larsson(as they are now). Once you get past those prospects who should clearly have good NHL careers ahead of them, it's more hit and miss, and hitting doesn't mean a top six/top 4 pairing talent. They aren't mystery boxes anymore where (imagined) sky is the limit but the odds of you picking a player who is equivalent to them at their age is probably not too favorable.
nuckfan insk
Registered User
I'd have a lot of interest in Vancouver, really don't know how to make it work so ducks could afford lindholm though
