I think at this point you have to let Rakell walk for a year while you sign the stud Dman and then make a trade at some point this season for cap space...
Let rakell come back next year.
Let rakell come back next year.
Rumor: Rakell to Sibir Novosibirsk
- Thread starter Wanderson
- Start date
WesMcCauley
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2015
- 8,616
- 2,600
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,721
- 7,597
Fowler for Dano + what? Gives Anaheim some forward depth (that + should be another ELC forward, or a pick which I don't see being as appealing to the Ducks), and gives us a replacement for the greedy one. Anaheim gains cap space to keep Lindholm and Rakell.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
I don't think that has come out anywhere. There's no way he has the leverage to demand more than the recent bridge deals signed by JT Miller and Ryan Strome though.
Dano just isn't a strong enough starting point, no thanks.
hockeykicker
Global Moderator
- Dec 3, 2014
- 35,786
- 13,870
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
Why are the Ducks so cheap with their young players? They're willing to overpay for old guys but they don't want to pay the fair price for a guy like Rakell.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
gratefulyours
Great 8 = T. Selanne
because resigns were getting to easy so bob decided to give himself another hurdle.
Avs44
Registered User
- May 16, 2011
- 21,889
- 10,678
Doesn't change his point. Stoner was glibly handed 3.25 million, Bieksa was re-signed for 4 million before he had even played a game, salary was retained on Maroon for no earthly reason...and then Murray trades a guy like Palmieri because he openly admitted he didn't want to have to pay the guy the year after, and gets into holdouts with key RFA's. It's some terrible money management.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Yes, I think everyone is fully aware he handed out a couple bad contracts. But it doesn't make the point I replied to any smarter. Just about every team is cheap with their young guys, because they just can be. (Impending) UFAs have much more leverage. Some guys shouldn't have been able to use the leverage to get the deals they did out of Murray, but that point actually stands.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
I'm sorry, what? Where is the evidence they are "so cheap" with their young players? They get their RFA's signed to good contracts .
McDonald19
Registered User
So...
-no bridge
-Rakell won't be healthy enough for opening night lineup regardless of contract.
-no bridge
-Rakell won't be healthy enough for opening night lineup regardless of contract.
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
He's asking for 6x4, which will end up being a steal in one or two years. There is no way for the Ducks to shed some salary somewhere else to make room for him? You can't risk losing a player like Rakell for the money that you spend on Bieksa.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,280
- 10,204
agree 10000000% i was fine with him trading Maroon...then he goes and signs a trash player like boll for 2 years.....
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
There is room for him, and there is no substantial risk of losing him over extended negotiations. He can't get that type of money anywhere else.
Well I think having one key RFA in Sweden and the other considering a year in Siberia is evidence, but if that's cool with you/the Ducks I suppose there's no reason to worry.
JetsHomer
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2011
- 10,941
- 3,146
Another point towards the 'Ducks are cheap' narrative is their star defenceman sitting out and calling them cheap
mouser
Business of Hockey
Rakaell is in the situation where I'd think its in his own best interests to take a two year bridge instead of ~6 years in the low to mid $3m range.
Bob's had the same tendencies his entire tenure here. Generally gets RFAs signed for good deals that he's highly praised for. Overpays, or at best, gets market value when he's re-signing UFAs.
It's also one of his tendencies to obsess and overpay physical, bottom pairing defenseman. Easily his biggest flaw as a GM.
