Gorbachav55

I just put him on ignore. There are certainly reasons to be down on the team; Lord knows I am to some degree as well, particularly with the Zegras and Drysdale debacles. But if we can't find ANY positivity at the beginning of a new season in which we have the #1 prospect pool in the league, a stud top draft pick, a new coach who is saying all the right things, and some solid new UFA additions, then I don't get the point of being a fan. I was legitimately excited to watch the game last night, and, despite the struggles at times, I'm legitimately excited for the new season after watching it. I don't think this is a playoff team, but I think we're going to get some good, exciting hockey on a regular basis.

Having trouble cracking the lineup is maybe too far, but he certainly wasn't a vital piece of the forward group. I think he's lucky that the Ducks' forward depth in their system is so light, otherwise he would have moved on. I wanted Jones to take a step forward last year and he didn't. I don't doubt he's a good clubhouse guy, but, for better or worse, those guys don't become captains any more. It has always been uncommon, but now it's unheard for bottom six forwards to be captain.

Carlsson looked excellent tonight. He had a couple of great passes that weren't converted by his linemates and hit the post on a shot. I don't care what Fantilli looked like; I am excited about Carlsson. Still, screw the Blackhawks.

No, he's being paid for what he will do because of what he did. It's not potential with Killorn. He's proven that he can score and he's proven that he can defend and he's proven that he can bring leadership to a locker room. The former two skills will wane over the next few years; the latter won't. Yes, he's overpaid, but Killorn had choices, so that's what it took to get him here. Zegras doesn't have many choices. It's a completely different negotiation.

I don't even know what argument you're making at this point. Having won Cups is also important - Killorn knows the habits you need to build and the type of work that's required to win Cups. So does Phil Kessel, but he's not a good hockey player any more. So does Patrick Kane and I guarantee you that teams DO want him. But he's taking time off.

You're surprised that a member of the close-knit GM cadre hasn't used an offersheet? These guys are all wimps. They can't just accept that it's business so they'll all take it personally. But even then, offersheeting Zegras doesn't make sense. They'd just be helping the Ducks. Anything below $8.5 million and the Ducks will simply match. Anything above and the Ducks will take their next two 1st round picks, something Chicago is not looking to give up. Buffalo makes more sense because their 1st round picks won't be in the lottery. They'll have plenty of room to get him signed. But no one is going to offersheet because these guys are all afraid that their cohort will be mad at them.

You might not care. But all the people who make actual decisions about actual hockey players care. Killorn brings leadership and solid defense. The Ducks had to pay a premium to get him here, but I have no problem if he makes more than Zegras over the next three seasons.

First, no team is going to offer him $8.5 for one year or even two. If he gets that offer, it's going to be AT LEAST four years, and probably five or more. I think the Ducks would be much more likely to go that high if the deal isn't a bridge. Second, once the offer is out there, the calculus changes. Now it's not "how much is this player worth to us and how can we get him to sign as cheap a deal as possible;" it's "is this player at that contract amount worth more than the draft pick compensation?" And up to $8.5 million, Zegras is probably worth more than a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick. If you add a 2nd 1st rounder, the decision gets harder.

Also, two of those players - Pettersson and Tkachuk - signed their deals in October. Tkachuk signed his the day the Senators played their first game of the season in 2021. I hate that this is dragging on, but this is not uncommon. Moving from ELC to that first real contract is tricky for guys who are stars (but not superstars) in small markets.

Drysdale is not eligible to be signed by another team. Zegras is, but there are only a handful of teams that could both fit him under their cap AND have their own assets to return to Anaheim if they did sign him. Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Nashville are about it. Maybe Philly or Seattle could make something work. But, to be honest, any team signing Zegras to an offersheet is doing the Ducks a favor. The Ducks would match anything up to $8.5 million, and anything above that, they'll probably take the 2 firsts, a second, and a third and be happy with it. As I've said for a while, I'd be thrilled if Zegras signed an offersheet because it would be doing the Ducks' work for them.

That's one of those argumentation techniques that's designed to present bias. All of those players were MORE productive than Zegras ("as many or more"). Let's get a little bit more ingenuous with the argument: Four of those guys (Svechnikov, Hughes, Stutzle, and Tkachuk) signed 7- or 8-year deals coming off of their ELC. Those deals averaged just over $8 million per season. Of course, the rumor is that Zegras is going to be a bridge, but we don't know if it's Zegras or Verbeek who wants that. Matthews is not comparable to Zegras. In terms of draft pedigree and production, he's completely out of Zegras's league. Pettersson is the one guy who signed a true bridge deal. He signed for $7.35 million for three years after putting up nearly a point per game his first two seasons. If you scale it down for Zegras's production, you get to $6.2 million per year. As mentioned, it's hard to know how to parse the bridge vs. long-term issue. Who wants what? Do the Ducks want short-term? Or does Zegras? If the Ducks did a long-term deal for Zegras for $8 million per year, I'd be ok with that. I think it's a bit high given his deficiencies, but I think it's likely he lives up to or outperforms that deal. On a short-term deal, I'd be happy with $6.2 million per year. That's well above $4 million, so yeah, that offer remains an absurd low-ball. But if you factor in that Zegras is not as good defensively as Pettersson, something in the $5.5 - $6.0 million range isn't crazy.

I don't understand your point about faceoffs. I mentioned them in my first post because, whether or not they're important, most people use them as a way to evaluate centers. Then you told me I've said in the past that they're not important. I affirmed that statement (they're not important) and said we can ignore them if we want. Now you don't want to ignore them. Which gets us back to square one. Zegras wasn't good at faceoffs when we began this conversation about faceoffs and, as far as we know, he's still not. We're not complaining about McTavish because: McTavish was a rookie last season. Zegras was in his third year (second full). Zegras was at 41.4%, which was better than his rookie year, but not by much. We'll see if McTavish improves this year. McTavish isn't in contract negotiations, so it doesn't matter at this point. Faceoffs still aren't important.

Faceoffs aren't that important. But it's better to win them than to lose them, and it's a center's job. If you want to throw that qualification out, then that's fine. The rest of it stands. Eakins was a terrible coach, but his message wasn't, "Don't play good defense." It's possible Zegras plays better under a different system, but he hasn't been known as a defensively responsible player really at any point since he became a prospect. I think Verbeek kept Eakins around for the opposite reason - he might not be a great NHL tactician, but he was good with young players and would help them develop good habits. I think you're wandering into deep conspiracy theory territory by thinking Verbeek wanted his young players to play worse last year so he wouldn't have to pay them as much this year. He needs these young players to succeed to build a winning organization, and it's not just as easy as flipping a switch with a new coach.

Based on what evidence do you think that? If we're willing to believe the reporting about the Ducks' low number, would you also believe a high number from Zegras or Drysdale? You might very well be right about those numbers. Those seem like they're in the realm of possibility (although $8 million on a bridge is almost as absurd as $4 million), but we have no idea at this point.

If Zegras had showed the capability of being a #1C, I'd be with you. He hasn't. He's not defensively responsible (and you can't throw out the "everyone was bad under Eakins" line - yes, that's mostly true, but some were worse than others, and Zegras was one of them, especially last season). He doesn't take faceoffs well. He's not a team leader. He's undisciplined. All of the talk about moving him to wing isn't just because they now have Carlsson. If Zegras had showed the aptitude to be a center, he'd stay and someone else would move to wing. Can Zegras get to the place where he's a good center? I believe he can. I don't think that ship has sailed yet. But there's a lot of projection involved in that assessment. So we're not talking about paying him less because the team might move him to wing. The team might move him to wing because there are certain things he's not good at that a 1C should be able to do, and being poor at those things also gets you paid less. If Zegras put up so many points that those other things didn't matter, then we're having a different discussion. But 23 goals and 65 points isn't it. Yes, $4 million, if that's the offer, is very low. But $8 million (on a bridge) is very high for what he brings to the table right now. Somewhere in the $5-$7 million range seems about right. I would skew toward the higher end of that because I think it makes sense to pay a little bit more when you're a bad, small market team. I think it makes sense to ensure your players know you value them, but that ship HAS sailed I think. At this point, just get something done.

People are throwing out these numbers and implying that it's a sure thing they'll sign for that. We have no idea what the players are asking for in these negotiations. We've heard a number for the Ducks, and, if true, it's absurdly low. We haven't heard anything about what the players want. For all we know, Drysdale is asking for something around what Jake Sanderson just got. And Zegras is asking for $9 million+ on a bridge. We have no idea.

Nah, he's just talking about working on things that are difficult and unfamiliar. Doing drills and learning systems that aren't comfortable forces guys to work harder and learn. I don't think it was an odd thing to say in this context.

He should be paid less than he would if he was a center. Kane and Toews is actually a point in favor of the argument I'm making. Look at the point totals for Kane and Toews. Yes, Kane played 100 more games, so go ahead and subtract 100 points if you want. The difference is still 250 points. Kane outproduced Toews by 15 points per season and STILL didn't make more than Toews. And you're telling me that centers aren't paid higher?

I just wonder what Drysdale's camp is thinking. He's got zero leverage. Unlike with Zegras where the Ducks don't have a huge pipeline of forward talent, Drysdale's role on the team is uncertain unless he goes out there and proves himself. Sure, his absence makes the Ducks' defense worse this season, but it was going to be rough anyway. I'm fine with the Ducks throwing him a little bit of a bone to keep him happy, but dts is right that they don't NEED to. Drysdale needs to be on the ice.

McTavish has that potential, even if he's not going to be a high end #1. If Zegras moves to wing (or moves out), McTavish-Carlsson-Gaucher in four years could be even better than what the Kings are rolling with this year in Kopitar-Dubois-Danault. Of course, it might not play out that way, but then the Ducks will have to go out and and find someone through trade.

I agree completely. The rumor that's out there is ridiculous, yes. But Zegras has work to do before it's clear he'll be a 10-figure type of player. And a bridge deal should reflect that the team isn't buying out any UFA years and that the player still has something to prove. I wouldn't go above $7 million on a bridge.

Well, if that's true, then the Ducks deserve what they get. Unfortunately, it's the fans who get the misery. Seriously, if this is the case, fire Verbeek, Solomon, and the Samuelis into the sun. As an Angels fan also, is it possible for me to root for two more miserable franchises? What a kick in the crotch.

I think you're quibbling now. You might not like that specific set of circumstances (and I doubt the Ducks would do that in the next couple seasons given where they are in their rebuild), but there are examples of young stars being traded for equivalent player quality. If the Ducks got this bridge signed, got to playoff contention in year three, but Zegras wanted out after that season, I wouldn't have a problem with them trading Zegras for older proven talent that needed to be re-signed. I wouldn't do eight years for a 30-year-old, but I would have traded for Huberdeau and Weegar and gotten them a mid-term extension.

Just last year, we had Tkachuk - Huberdeau/Weegar, which seems like where this could go if Zegras is upset even after signing a bridge deal. I know that Huberdeau busted, but we've got to acknowledge the Darryl Sutter jerk factor, and at the time, most people thought that was a good trade for both sides.

I know there's virtually no chance of this happening, but I'd love to get a timeline of how these negotiations are going down (Zegras and Drysdale). I'd like to think both sides are being reasonable and are just coming at it from different perspectives, but at this point, it's clear that in both cases, the sides are staunchly holding their ground. Who has more to lose here? The Ducks have almost nothing to lose in the short-term; they're not expected to challenge for a playoff spot. In the long-term, they could be alienating a couple of potentially key players in the next good Ducks team, which would possibly lead to them forcing their way out of town and the Ducks getting less than full value on them in the trade market. The players lose money in the short-term the longer they hold out. They might be losing money in the long-term as well if a hold out leads to a long absence. But they also gain leverage if they're willing to do that, both in terms of their contract and where they might want to play. Possibly the biggest factor is in the damage this does to the Ducks among the rest of the players. Are they able to see this as just business? Or does it lead to disgruntled players? I don't think there were any long-term ramifications to the Lindholm/Rakell holdouts, but perhaps there was some behind-the-scenes stuff we're not aware of. I have a feeling the the Ducks (Jeff Solomon) are the ones being harder in these negotiations, but who knows?