nieder
-
Posts
14,995 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
192
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Media Demo
Gallery
Posts posted by nieder
-
-
4 hours ago, FanSince1993 said:
I am against Lindholm's 8 X $8 contract. If he wants to stay, 5 years maximum, otherwise, as PV mentioned, let him go somewhere else for high end prospects + 1st round picks. I watched Lindholm closely the last couple of days, he is not $8 mil defenseman.
Lol
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, FanSince1993 said:
To be honest, nobody ranked Kopitar as a top 5 prospect in 2005. At least, I don't remember hearing his name from professional scouts on pre-draft days. This guy came out of nowhere, and turned out to be a lucky pick for Hollywood team, or, it could be any other team.
I think he was the top ranked European prospect. So he didn't come out of nowhere exactly, but you are right, I don't think anyone had him ranked as a top 5 prospect overall. Maybe top 10.
Heck, a number of people had Puliot ranked as the second best player in the draft after Crosby, which seems insane now. I wonder how much of that is down to Canadian bias in the scouting.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, tommer-1 said:
You always need C's.
From memory I'm pretty sure the consensus top-3 prospects ranked after Crosby were Bobby Ryan (RW), Jack Johnson (D) and Benoit Pouliot (LW). I don't think any team would have taken Kopitar top 4.
If anything, Anaheim should have taken Carey Price, haha. It's probably between him and Kopitar for the second best player to come out of that draft.
-
14 hours ago, FanSince1993 said:
Interesting, when someone starts to criticize Gibson, immediately his die-heart followers like Nieder, Fisix and others jump to his defense "He had grade A scoring chances against him" and "nothing he could do in this situation".
That's what decent, overrated goaltenders do; have a spectacular games here and there, followed by streak of terrible games, usually when it matters the most. So, my point is: if Gibson wants to work somewhere else, give his this opportunity. I don't think Lukas Dostal next season would be worse than him.
If they trade Gibson and Fowler then who would you blame when they lose?
-
4
-
-
33 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:
I'm trying to read this in a positive light, but I won't lie that I've thought all of those things. In truth, I wouldn't be at all surprised if your version (or a similar version) is closer to the truth.
I do think there's truth to the favor from Sutter, though. I see the timeline like this: Murray's conduct was bad enough that he realized he had to resign. They blame it on alcohol, which might or might not have been the driver behind the issues. Four months down the road now and Murray is itching to get back into hockey. He probably feels some measure of bitterness that the world has gone so soft that he can't berate someone mercilessly like in the good old days. He reaches out to a fellow old school hockey curmudgeon (Sutter) who's still in the game. Old school guy finds him a cushy job as a favor.
Oh yeah, I think this is exactly how it went down. Classic old boy's club hire.
-
5 hours ago, Gorbachav55 said:
Good for him if he's gotten his life in order. Personally, I'd be wary of hiring him, but if you're convinced that the rage issues were alcohol-related and he's gotten that under control, then okay, I guess. Plus, as a scout, he's not managing anyone anyway, so his prickly personality isn't going to be a huge issue. I suspect he's gone through a program and is sober now and Darryl Sutter is calling in a favor with Treliving to get Murray out of the house and working again.
Good for him but I am glad it's not with the Ducks.
This may sound pessimistic but I was pretty skeptical of the whole checking into rehab thing. It felt sort of like Kevin Spacey blaming all his sexual misconduct on being gay. The implication was that Murray was only an ass because he was an alcoholic. Maybe he's just an ass.
Even if it's true that he was only a jerk while drinking, I find it hard to believe he's gone from a guy that fostered a culture of abuse to being ready to step back into an NHL role in less than 4 months.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 2/21/2022 at 1:47 AM, PetrSykora said:
Forget Kaliyev, Höglander is looking like the real miss. Either way, it's still way too early to quit on Tracey especially considering how wonky his career path has been because of the pandemic. This is his first year with some stability since the WHL shutdown and his numbers in San Diego are fine for a 20 year old.
Every other team also 'passed' on Kaliyev since he was taken in the second round. I'm not saying taking Tracey was the smarter move, but there is a reason why Kaliyev dropped out of the first round.
Either that or Murray thought he was Russian so automatically passed.
-
2 hours ago, Pazonator said:
Gibson not starting tonight…weird
We only have 1 back to back in the next 5 weeks. I am guessing they just want to give Stolarz some game.
-
On 2/14/2022 at 8:57 AM, FanSince1993 said:
You know, Tommer, you just read my mind with this statement. I was thinking about it for a while but wasn't comfortable to mention it on this forum because of possible negative comments. But once you already mentioned it, let me drop my 2c as well.
I noticed lately Getzlaf spends so much energy arguing and yelling on referees....I wish he would spend this energy kicking the butts of some underperforming players on his own team. He's been our captain for so long, maybe this team needs some fresh voice? But who else could be a new captain after he retires? Zegras is too young and none of our "veteran" players have that leadership skills and respect around the league that required to be a captain of NHL team. Interesting to see what will develop who will be a captain in a few years.
To be fair, Getzlaf has always been like that with the refs, lol.
I don't know who our next captain would be. Despite your statement above, we definitely have veterans with leadership skills that are respected around the league (Silf being the obvious one, but his skills have declined so much that I don't know that we would want to make him the captain).
I'm not sure if Zegras would ever be the captain, his personality may not gel with that. Long term it could be McTavish. Terry maybe? Honestly without being in the room it is tough to tell which of the young guys would best grow into leadership roles.
-
12 hours ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:
My point is that the Ducks have been a cluster-F on the backend with Lindholm on it. There’s no easy way out of this because it’s going to take time above all else. I don’t like the idea of running it back with mostly the same defense. I’ve seen enough of it and want to see it broken up. If Lindholm wants to sign a very, very team friendly deal then that’s somewhat tolerable but I don’t like the idea of paying him north of 7 mil a year for the next 7-8 years when he’ll be in his 30’s and the team still a bit out from contending. That’s a ton of risk for the Ducks right now, imo. It’s not like Kesler’s extension when they had to do it to try and keep the contending window open.
As far as stop gaps, look at Holl/Dermott from Toronto, Chiarot from Montreal, Pesce from Carolina, Cernak from Tampa, Gavrikov for Columbus as options to help fill spots. Who knows who will be made available also.
I get the point about wanting to break up this defensive unit, but getting rid of Lindholm who is arguably our best pure defender isn't really going to make our defense any better.
I would instead be looking to move on from Manson. Heck, I would consider getting rid of both Manson and Shattenkirk but they play the same side, so again that leaves a massive hole to fill.
-
1 hour ago, Sexlaf15 said:
I don’t really understand this Mindset and really don’t think trying to sign Lindholm to a 6-7 year deal is smart.
If they let him go then who plays those 23 minutes per game that Lindholm is currently playing? He's also often out there against the best attacking players on the other team. Those are really tough minutes to cover. I think our blueline takes a massive hit if he leaves, unless our front office have a plan to replace him from outside the franchise, because we really don't have anybody in the system ready to take over. Unless you're planning on giving Guhle/Thrun/Mahura 20 minutes per night.
-
4
-
-
5 minutes ago, Sexlaf15 said:
I think we’re making an a bigger deal over the culture and Gibson’s comments on rebuilding. I’m sure if you go to Gibson with a plan and lay it out for him he’ll understand or he’ll request a trade, you get a ton of stuff, and you have Dostal in the wings. I’m not sure what Gibson was supposed to say? “Yeah I’m cool with losing for awhile” of course he wants to win. I really don’t think losing Lindholm, Rakell, Manson really drops the teams abilities very much. Neither of the 3 have played all that welll this season. What’s worse is losing them for nothing In an attempt to squeak into a wildcard spot or sign them to crippling contracts.
I know Hampus' possession metrics are down this season, but he's also basically teaching a kid how to play NHL defense at the same time. He's also playing 24 minutes per night. That's a pretty massive hole to fill on the back end. We don't really want Fowler playing 30 minutes per game next season.
I hope our new GM is trying to get a contract done with Hampus right now. This should be priority number 1 prior to the deadline. If they can't reach a deal and don't want to lose him for nothing then I understand moving him.
-
3
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gorbachav55 said:
I want to be with you because I think trading the pending UFAs is the right move (with Lindholm possibly being the exception), but I do think those other situations are different in one way: John Gibson. LA had already won two Cups with the core of their team, and Detroit didn't have anyone who fit the bill of "longsuffering franchise player" when they hit the middle of their rebuild.
If John Gibson is part of the solution, I think it's really tough to sell all the major pieces at the deadline. I don't think it's a matter of him not understanding what the organization is trying to do; I think Gibson is so competitive that it doesn't matter. And if Gibson goes into a funk, that losing culture can seep in really quickly. We've seen it the past few years when Gibson's soul has been so crushed that he gives up.
The Ducks are in a bind. They're ahead of schedule on the "rebuild", and the team is clearly energized by winning, which starts in goal. It's easy to see that the Ducks are clearly better off trading most of their UFAs, with Lindholm being the only one it might be prudent to keep, but that also clearly hurts their chances to win this year. Which sends the message to guys like Gibson, "Sorry you worked so hard this season, but maybe next year?" If the Ducks sell everyone at the deadline, I think they need to be ready to move Gibson in the offseason. If they keep everyone, I think they're doing themselves a severe disservice for competing consistently in the next 5 - 8 years. They probably need to take a hybrid approach, which will be tricky and might leave everyone a bit upset.
It might depend on what our new front office decide to do in the offseason. Moving all of our UFAs at the deadline likely tanks their chances this season - but if they can convince Gibby that they intend to make big moves this summer and be a real contender next season, that may be enough to persuade him to stick around.
-
5 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:
I know it's tough to trade these guys in a season where the team is in the playoff race, and it depends on what the Ducks can get for them, but I hope Verbeek takes a hard look at trading Rakell and Manson. I don't envy him his position; these are tough decisions to make.
I agree. I would be pushing hard to re-sign Lindholm but would be fine with moving both Rakell and Manson at the deadline.
The team is further along than we thought they would be, thanks in large part to the development of Terry, Zegras and Milano, but this team is still rebuilding and can't lose assets for nothing. But like I said, I would also be fine with re-signing both Rakell and Manson as they still bring value to the team - I just think they're going to get more on the open market than Anaheim should pay to keep them.
-
Our 4th liners are all UFA as well (Robinson, Deslauriers, Carrick). I would love to see Carrick re-signed. I think he's a perfect 4th liner. The others I can take or leave. Deslauriers could have some value at the trade deadline for a team looking for more toughness ahead of the playoffs, e.g. Edmonton.
-
31 minutes ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:
If he re-signs all three then, I’ll respectfully request that he be fired lol. The issue I see with that, especially with Rakell and Lindholm is that they don’t have any trade protection, which I’d bet on them requesting in their new deals. Not to mention that those players’ current contracts are also what makes them particularly valuable at this point.
If he did re-sign all 3 then it would depend on how much he signed them for I guess. But I think most people are on the same page that the order of priority is Lindholm, then Rakell, then Manson. Personally I think Manson has to go unless they are re-signing him for like $2M or less, but I'm sure he would get more than that on the open market. Lindholm would obviously be great to lock down, and I would be fine with re-signing Rakell provided it's not more than what he's making now. But again, he can probably get more than $3.8M per season on the open market.
-
48 minutes ago, Jasoaks said:
its gonna be REALLY interesting...I agree, I can't imagine Eakins being fired...but it's gonna be about expectations. I think Eakins can look at being relatively safe if he exceeds what Beek is gonna expect this and next season. I mean, Blashill is definitely on a similar level as Eakins in coaching imo...and Yzerman extended him...so...i dunno...especially if he thinks we are up to 5 years away from being a consistent juggernaut contender...
Even if Eakins finishes the season well, most new GMs want to bring in their own guy. Maybe they get along and see eye to eye on the strategy moving forward so Verbeek extends him. But I would be completely unsurprised to see a new head coach for next season.
-
5 minutes ago, HockeyIzCool said:
The anvil over Dallas' head just got larger.
This will be interesting. I have to think Verbeek is leaning towards just letting Eakins' contract run out at the end of this season and bringing in his own guy.
-
LeBrun reporting it's going to be Verbeek.
I'm kinda surprised it's not an internal hire but I'm ok with getting an Yzerman protege.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gorbachav55 said:
You also wonder what that will mean for Thrun and LaCombe. Not that either are known quantities, but if you haven't signed yet and you're looking at four years of Fowler and seven or eight of Lindholm in front of you (plus Zellweger coming behind), how likely are you to sign? My guess is that the Ducks lose at least one of those guys, and maybe both, to the Jultz loophole.
If Lindholm re-signs then we have to trade at least one of those guys.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Shadowduck said:
Biggest issue for the Duck's playoff chances is the fact that Calgary and Edmonton have so many games in hand and both teams have been winning games. Both teams have seven games in hand on the Ducks and LA and Vegas have two games in hand. If all these teams earn half the points available to them:
Vegas - 59 points -
Calgary -57 points
La -55 points -.576%
Ducks - 55 points - .573%
Edmonton -54 points
Ducks are barely in the #2 wild card spot. I'm not saying the Ducks can't make the playoffs but it is going to be difficult even if they finish strong through the remainder of the season. Still I'm happy with the improvement the Ducks have made in much of their game. Still work to do though.
The Ducks need to get their sh*t together if they want to get to the playoffs. If they play the rest of the season like they did on the most recent road trip (like, 5 good periods total out of 15) then it won't matter how the rest of the Pacific play.
-
On 1/28/2022 at 9:39 AM, Gorbachav55 said:
Tortorella, to no one's surprise, is still not a big fan. He's worried about guys carrying the puck down the ice on their stick.
This actually got me thinking - would players do that? My first thought is, "No, that would be dumb. It's so easy for someone to knock the puck off." But it's not quite as easy now as it used to be, since you can't slash a stick any more. Now where the line is between a stick check and a slash, I don't know. Clearly it's legal to hit someone's stick with your own; you just can't be overly violent about it. So while it's easier than it was, I still don't think it's easy, plus you've got to balance the thing.
But the bigger issue is passing. Especially coming through the neutral zone, you've got to be able to pass quickly to a teammate. That's tough to do with the puck sitting on top of your stick.
I could see someone doing this on a clearcut breakaway if they were totally confident, but otherwise, I don't think it's a positive play - too many risks for too little reward.
They might just ignore a slash in this situation.
I've seen this happen in beer league before (I know, nothing like the NHL). Somebody just chopped the middle of their stick in half and the refs ignored it. Like it's kinda the risk you take if you want to try that.
-
Do we need a separate Covid thread? Lol.
Manson into protocol now.
Gibby should be back next game though, so that's a plus.
-
38 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:
The NHL all star game is always dumb. I haven't watched in years, and although I enjoy the skills competition, I always forget that it's on. And especially this year when they have a ton of games to make up and COVID concerns are running rampant, there's no point in having it. Push it back to next year and use the short break to get a few extra games in.
It's fun for kids. In that sense I don't really have a problem with it. But this year, forget it.
Are the DUCKS better team today?
in Anaheim Ducks
Posted · Edited by nieder
Some pretty bizarre comments here considering Anaheim are widely regarded to have been the biggest (or one of the biggest) winners of the trade deadline.
To answer the question: No, the Ducks are not a better team today than they were a few days ago. You can't lose two of your top 4 defensemen and not replace them and be a better team. But Verbeek is doing a great job so far. I know people are sick of losing, but be glad we finally have a clear direction and leadership, and he has loaded up on draft picks, some of which will likely be packaged to bring in other players. We are in a strong position for the offseason with both cap space and picks.
Re: Gibson I would not be surprised if he is moved in the offseason. The deadline was not the time for that kind of trade. Kinda like Chychrun in Arizona. Easier to facilitate that kind of trade in the offseason.