Proposal: PHI / ANA

[Zegs2sendhelp]

You think? Simmonds is a very good scorer plus hagg who is a young dman with a little upside. Not to mention the 2nd. Unless you’re not valuing what Simmonds brings I don’t see how this isn’t fair value short term

Rentals don't usually bring back top 4 dmen(and mansons a pretty good top 4 dmen, you could argue him as a top pairing)…. Simmonds is a rental, we wont resign him so we get a 2nd... that 2nd is meh doesn't really do much for us. Hagg isn't needed at all... Anaheim drafts and develops dmen as good as any team in the league, we don't need em specially not at the cost of manson that is still pretty young and on a good contract.

We would need a good forward coming back... Simmonds isn't really a starting point unless your adding like frost to him(because hes essentially a rental)… either way tho manson isn't realistically available unless someone overpays.
And I imagine teams like
Toronto/Devils/Oilers etc would love to bid on manson.

 

[imjustzach]

You think? Simmonds is a very good scorer plus hagg who is a young dman with a little upside. Not to mention the 2nd. Unless you’re not valuing what Simmonds brings I don’t see how this isn’t fair value short term

It's not a knock against Simmonds as much as what the team needs. The problem is that moving Manson creates a bigger hole than the one that bringing in Simmonds fills. The Ducks definitely needed more scoring last year but losing Manson means the Ducks have only 1 top 4 RHD and no truly physical presence on the backend.

On top of that, the other two pieces of the trade have minimal value since the Ducks are already strong and deep at LHD (most of whom are already better than Hagg) and the 2nd has a condition. A Philly fan (I think?) compared Simmonds to Perry earlier so given the difference in their production at the same age, if Simmonds asks $7mx5, thats a price the Ducks would undoubtedly walk away from. If the ask was anywhere north of $6 the ducks would be better off resigning Silf who they could likely get for under $5m without losing assets.

Simmonds just doesn't bring enough and carries too much risk between his remaining term, current age (read: risk of regression), and the ask on his next contract. He's a great player but at this point in his career and after his injury last season, I just don't see his value being enough to pry Manson from the Ducks.

 

[lwvs84]

You think? Simmonds is a very good scorer plus hagg who is a young dman with a little upside. Not to mention the 2nd. Unless you’re not valuing what Simmonds brings I don’t see how this isn’t fair value short term

I think because Manson would fit a bigger need. If you took Manson off the Ducks and asked who would the Ducks rather have... a physical top 6 winger who can score or a physical RHD who is very good in his own zone, the answer would be the RHD. While value in a vacuum might be even for next season, Manson holds more value to the Ducks both short and long term. This isn't a knock on Simmonds, more that Manson with proven chemistry, being a unique skill set among Anaheim's defense, and being younger and signed longer holds more value to the Ducks. I, and most Ducks fans I'm sure, would love to have Simmonds on the Ducks and he would probably do well in this system, but just not at the expense of Manson.

 

[PitchNHL]

Simmonds is a UFA and holds the value of a rental until a contract is signed. Hagg has very little upside, hes a bottom pairing defender who hits things, but handles the puck like a grenade.

Manson is a legit Top4 RHD who just had a 37 point season, 36 coming at 5v5, and the other short handed.

I take Manson over that package all day, and im a Flyers fan.

Yeah I agree. My original point was that short term value is there but long term wasn’t.

 

[Getzmonster]

Simmonds and Hagg would look great in Anaheim, but not for Manson. There just isn't a good reason to move him, any issues/needs the Ducks have would not be solved by moving Manson.

 

[Starat327]

Yeah I agree. My original point was that short term value is there but long term wasn’t.

Short term theyre adding a Top 6 Winger but losing a top 4 RHD. Id call that neutral at best.

 

[Getzmonster]

I'd love to have him, but that isn't nearly enough to pry Manson from Anaheim.

If they were even willing then the conversation would have to start with Frost. Manson may not be a #1, but it's the same situation with Couturier where his skillset is so unique that he has value to an organization that far exceeds his placement on a depth chart.

Well said, Couts is a good example. Prying those types of players away requires a decent overpayment unless the team is actively trying to move them. The overpayment just isn't here, let alone the logic for the Ducks to move him.

 

[imjustzach]

Short term theyre adding a Top 6 Winger but losing a top 4 RHD. Id call that neutral at best.

Strictly in terms of depth chart, I agree.

Yeah I agree. My original point was that short term value is there but long term wasn’t.

Looking at anything further than depth chart (stats, age, positional need, remaining term, etc), Ducks easily lose both short and long term.

 

[PitchNHL]

Short term theyre adding a Top 6 Winger but losing a top 4 RHD. Id call that neutral at best.

Not even trying to be argumentative but I would rather choose a potential 30 goal forward than a current number 3 dman. I get your point though and long term value isn’t close to fair.

 

[Starat327]

Not even trying to be argumentative but I would rather choose a potential 30 goal forward than a current number 3 dman. I get your point though and long term value isn’t close to fair.

Wasnt trying to be argumenative either. I'm just not as high on Simmonds as some people. Great leader, but his 5v5 play is weak. Id take the 35 point D man who plays well at 5v5 nd PKs over a power play specialist. Just a matter of opinion though.

 

[hatcher]

Wasnt trying to be argumenative either. I'm just not as high on Simmonds as some people. Great leader, but his 5v5 play is weak. Id take the 35 point D man who plays well at 5v5 nd PKs over a power play specialist. Just a matter of opinion though.

Bingo we got a winner. Nice post as Manson is a f***in rock.

 

[DRW204]

Not even trying to be argumentative but I would rather choose a potential 30 goal forward than a current number 3 dman. I get your point though and long term value isn’t close to fair.

last 3 seasons Simmonds has nearly a 1:1 EV Goal to PP Goal ratio. He is heavily reliant on PP. He has great intangibles however his style of play likely deteriorates his body at a higher than average pace. Manson is a great top 4 Dman that is coming off a offensive outbreak year. He's signed at a mere 4.1M (bargain!) through-out his prime. Won't get into the risk of what Simmonds' next deal will have.

 

[PitchNHL]

Looking at anything further than depth chart (stats, age, positional need, remaining term, etc), Ducks easily lose both short and long term.[/QUOTE]

Everything you mentioned except positional need is long term. And I would argue Simmonds has better stats...

 

[imjustzach]

Tbh, I haven't found most of the responses in this thread to be argumentative. Despite Ducks fans (and even some Philly fans) saying that Manson's value far exceeds Simmonds' at this point, I don't think any of us are dismissing Simmonds as a player. He's one of the names that have popped up quite frequently as being a good fit for the ducks both here and on other forums.

I think the biggest problem is that this trade package is "What would it take to get a top 4 RHD?" but for the Ducks, the ask is "What is worth giving up our top pairing RHD?".

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Not even trying to be argumentative but I would rather choose a potential 30 goal forward than a current number 3 dman. I get your point though and long term value isn’t close to fair.

a potential 30 goal scorer winger for 1 year
=/=
top 4 dmen, who is 1/2 the top shut down pairing in the league.

You could see Simmonds as a rental which is what he is, and then Anaheim would potentially be a buyer
Ritchie or Jones + 2nd (1st if Simmonds resigns) for Simmonds.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Tbh, I haven't found most of the responses in this thread to be argumentative. Despite Ducks fans (and even some Philly fans) saying that Manson's value far exceeds Simmonds' at this point, I don't think any of us are dismissing Simmonds as a player. He's one of the names that have popped up quite frequently as being a good fit for the ducks both here and on other forums.

I think the biggest problem is that this trade package is "What would it take to get a top 4 RHD?" but for the Ducks, the ask is "What is worth giving up our top pairing RHD?".

I think the biggest problem is contracts mostly, and the fact that Manson might not be a household name around the league... but Anaheim fans know how great he is... and there really is no incentive for Anaheim to break up the best shutdown pairing in the league. It would take a significant player up front and Simmonds while a good player(and a great pick up as a rental) is not the type of player id consider moving a top 4 dmen on a good contract for. The Flyers certainly have some interesting forwards/prospects that id talk about dealin manson for but I doubt flyer fans would want to go down that road(which is fine, they have a lot of good dmen and can continue to let them develop)

To put it into perspective, there are a good portion of Leaf fans that would give up Nylander to get Manson.... ive seen oiler fans that would give up RNH for Manson(or a package around Pulj)… he has a pretty big value... because he is such a unique player in the sense that he plays a heavy game/defensive game but good enough skater/player to continue to do really well with the direction of the NHL.

 

[PitchNHL]

a potential 30 goal scorer winger for 1 year
=/=
top 4 dmen, who is 1/2 the top shut down pairing in the league.

You could see Simmonds as a rental which is what he is, and then Anaheim would potentially be a buyer
Ritchie or Jones + 2nd (1st if Simmonds resigns) for Simmonds.

I would be open to that proposal if I were the flyers

 

[Appleyard]

If Anaheim wanted Simmonds I would prefer:

1st
Kase/Terry/Jones

That is probably fair value-ish to begin going off Lucic.

I like Jacob Larsson as well... but not much of a point with him being LHD.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

If Anaheim wanted Simmonds I would prefer:

1st
Kase/Terry/Jones

That is probably fair value-ish to begin going off Lucic.

I like Jacob Larsson as well... but not much of a point with him being LHD.

make the 1st conditional on Simmonds resgining(if not a 2nd).. and take kase off the list and id prob be interested, Ritchie would also be an option.

Not sure well move Larsson for a rental(or I think we would have done it last year)…. hes got a lot of upside, pretty under the radar prospect.

 

[imjustzach]

Looking at anything further than depth chart (stats, age, positional need, remaining term, etc), Ducks easily lose both short and long term.

Everything you mentioned except positional need is long term. And I would argue Simmonds has better stats...

Manson produced mid-30 points as a D, Simmonds produces ~50pts at F. That being said, we don't have much NHL-ready depth at RHD. If we move Manson, the new RHD is Schenn/Sustr who both produced sub-10.
Simmonds produces more points but in terms of VAR production, you could argue that Manson is more valuable.

Furthermore, assuming we keep all our F, we gain more scoring but also lose our best RHD so the added scoring better be enough to offset how much more we will get scored on. I don't think Simmonds is enough to warrant playing with 2x 7th D on the right side.

Also, Simmonds is turning 30 this upcoming season. There is a definitive risk of regression, especially given his recent injury. Perry's regression started after his injury at the same age. Not saying Simmonds necessarily will regress but it's still a risk you have to factor in.

Stats, positional need, and age are all factors that come into play immediately.

 

[imjustzach]

The Flyers certainly have some interesting forwards/prospects that id talk about dealin manson for but I doubt flyer fans would want to go down that road(which is fine, they have a lot of good dmen and can continue to let them develop)

I think this is a good point. The Flyers and their D are similar to the Ducks and their F. Both could use an immediate infusion but have good prospects that can fill that hole with a bit more production so they don't have to take unfavorable trades unless they're planning to go all-in on the cup that year.

 

[YP44]

If Anaheim wanted Simmonds I would prefer:

1st
Kase/Terry/Jones

That is probably fair value-ish to begin going off Lucic.

I like Jacob Larsson as well... but not much of a point with him being LHD.

Lucic also had a large amount of salary retained. Something the flyers are set up well to do with on Simmonds.

 

[imjustzach]

Lucic also had a large amount of salary retained. Something the flyers are set up well to do with on Simmonds.

A sign and trade w/ salary retained definitely makes Simmonds more interesting to teams as the question mark of his next contract is gone. The risk of regression would be the biggest worry at that point but if the Flyers retain salary on a sign-and-trade, I think they can get a much better return.

If they think Simmonds is going to bounce back, I think they're better off doing a sign-and-trade at the TDL or next off-season where his value will be better than immediately after an injury season.

 

[Cootsfanclub]

A sign and trade w/ salary retained definitely makes Simmonds more interesting to teams as the question mark of his next contract is gone. The risk of regression would be the biggest worry at that point but if the Flyers retain salary on a sign-and-trade, I think they can get a much better return.

If they think Simmonds is going to bounce back, I think they're better off doing a sign-and-trade at the TDL or next off-season where his value will be better than immediately after an injury season.

This is the final year of his contract, they won't trade him next off-season. If he's still on the Flyers at that point I expect he'd be re-signed.

 

[Starat327]

A sign and trade w/ salary retained definitely makes Simmonds more interesting to teams as the question mark of his next contract is gone. The risk of regression would be the biggest worry at that point but if the Flyers retain salary on a sign-and-trade, I think they can get a much better return.

If they think Simmonds is going to bounce back, I think they're better off doing a sign-and-trade at the TDL or next off-season where his value will be better than immediately after an injury season.

Its unlikely that the flyers are going to sign and trade with retention. We plan on being a cap team again in the future as our young kids begin to prove themselves and cap hits start hitting us. Retention for this year wouldnt be a problem, but we arent going to strap ourselves with 2-3 million in dead space for 5 years. We'll take the rental return at that point and call it a day.