Gorbachav55

It's going to be tough for any number of reasons. I actually think Buffalo or Detroit are the best fits for the contract. But they might not be the best fits for what the Ducks are looking for.

No, they're not arbitration eligible. So they have to come to an agreement the old-fashioned way. This doesn't tell us anything about how close or not those deals might be.

A long time ago, he would have. I think he still has value left, but it is a gamble for any team picking him up, and the contract (dollars, term, and NTC) makes it difficult as well. I also disagree about Holtz being a bust. There's bust potential there for sure, but I wouldn't give up on him yet. I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. I think the Ducks would have to retain on both, and if I'm the Ducks, I do it. I know that means they're done retaining for the remainder of the year, but there's no one else on the roster they would retain on anyway (Silfverberg is not going anywhere - I don't think anyone wants him at any price at this point). I also don't think there's any chance Mercer comes back unless the Ducks throw in another high level asset. I would absolutely do: Ducks give: Gibson (25% retained), Henrique (25-50% retained), and...2nd? Tracey? Some other asset for Devils give: Vanacek, Holtz That trade is great for the Ducks. They shed salary, they get rid of players who either don't want to be there or won't make a difference for them anyway, and they pick up a potential young gem. Even if Holtz turns into nothing, the Ducks are fine. I'm ok if you want to argue that the Ducks should get another asset in that deal (or shouldn't have to give up another asset of their own). If you want Mercer instead of Holtz, the Ducks are going to have to give up a 1st or one of their blue line prospects.

This may be that Debrincat decided he doesn't want to sign long-term with the Ducks (or out west at all) and so the Ducks have dropped out of the race. It makes no sense for the Ducks to trade for him if he's not going to sign long-term. I've seen it mentioned in a few places that he's a Michigan guy and would prefer to go to Detroit.

Yes, I think Holtz is worth it, even if the shine has come off him a bit. In the modified deal, the Ducks are giving up three assets that are almost certainly not in their long-term plans - Gibson (wants out), Henrique (won't be re-signed), and Lundestrom (I fully expect Gaucher or Groulx to take his job next season anyway). Holtz has a skillset the Ducks need (shooter/scorer) at a position where they need it (wing). He struggled last year, but it he put up a point per game in the AHL the season before as a 20-year-old. It's possible he's a tweener and will always be an AHL monster who can't get it done in the NHL, but as a former #7 OA pick, it's worth taking a gamble on. I don't think the Ducks could pick up a better asset than that in a Gibson trade without involving some of their top prospects or a 1st round pick.

Heck, I'd do both (Henrique @ 50% retained) and then leave out the 2nd round pick (or drop it to a 3rd). Or include Henrique, but instead of Lundestrom, send them Perreault or Tracey. New Jersey would be stacked - Meier/Hughes/Bratt on line 1, Palat/Hischier/Toffoli on line 2, Henrique/Haula/Mercer on line 3. The Ducks could then go and sign Pius Suter to be a better version of Lundestrom anyway. Boom, done. Verbeek, we're doing your work for you. No need to pay us, just make it happen.

Who says no? Ducks give: Gibson (25% retained), Lundestrom, 2024 2nd New Jersey gives: Vanacek, Alexander Holtz I think this would probably still be a little light for the Devils, but the Ducks obviously aren't going to give up a 1st, and unless they're including one of their D prospects, they don't really have much else that the Devils would be looking for.

You said "he'll easily get $10 million" which means you think his ceiling is a decent amount higher. I think he would easily get $8 million, but his ceiling is $9.5. I don't think any team offers him $10 or even considers it. That's far away from "easily".

The power he has is that a team is going to offer far less if he doesn't want to sign with them long-term. A team acquiring him for one year might give up a first round asset and maybe a minor secondary asset. I think Ottawa is demanding three or four assets to get him long-term, as they should.

I think that's a gross exaggeration. I think his ceiling is $9.5 million. He does the most important thing (score) but does zero else. I don't see him getting $10 million with his size and lack of versatility. I'd go $8.25 for him.

Only if this is legal speak, it's by a lawyer who graduated from New York Upstairs Law School.

No. 1 isn't true by a strict reading of the statement. The second paragraph refers to the first and indicates that Gibson never said those words to anyone, since the first paragraph was left open-ended. However, he does specifically refer to the Ducks' organization in the third paragraph, so I don't know. The letter seems incredibly poorly constructed.

Yeah, I'll take the blame for this one. It's not so much that I want to trade Luneau. I was just throwing a name out there and since he's farther away than Zellweger and Mintyukov, he made more sense to me to include. A few things: I totally forgot he was right-handed. The Ducks absolutely need more RDs in the system, so it makes sense to keep him from that perspective. He's not a bruiser, but he's a bit of a bigger kid and the Ducks need that as well. The fact that he's farther away actually makes it MORE likely the Ducks would keep him in a deal like this (and less likely Toronto would want him). The Ducks are already going to be dealing with a glut of RFA deals to do in three years if Mintyukov, Zellweger, and Gaucher all wind up hitting at the same time. So my bad on that. Mostly it's wishful thinking since I really want to see Zellweger and Mintyukov play. Zellweger because he's so dynamic. Mintyukov simply because he's so highly touted and his pedigree is so high. Luneau, at this point, is kind of a mystery to me, not having seen much of his play. But I agree it would be less likely for several reasons that Luneau would be dealt. Honestly, dts said it above, but Drysdale might be the one I'd be the least excited about and most likely to deal if that came up. I'm just not super enamored of his game, with all the caveats that he could still become a legitimately good top-4 guy. He seems like a tweener to me. If we were to pick up a longer-term RD (Severson? Wait, no...), I'd be fine with dealing Drysdale and hanging onto the other kids.

Blech. Fine, but I mean, also blech. We already have Colton White as this season's Beaulieu. Also as this season's Colton White. Hopefully he spends most of his season in San Diego.

Helleson will be 23 next season. That's not old, of course, and he's a d-man so there's a little bit more runway, but if he doesn't make the NHL team out of camp next year, that's a really bad sign (fortunately, he is waivers-eligible for at least next season). The defense I put together pairs, in general, a bigger guy with a smaller, PMD-type, and it also pairs a "veteran" with a youngster. Drysdale, of course, isn't much of a veteran, but he's got 113 games of experience compared to LaCombe's 2, plus three training camps. I understand this defense will not be in the top half of the league, particularly not in preventing goals. But it's dynamic, it mixes youth and veterans, it leaves space for the kids to make the team, and it doesn't involve the Ducks picking up any stupid contracts that block kids. If Verbeek can trade for a legitimately good RD like Pesce, I'm good with it. Or if he can pick up an asset by taking on a short-term contract like the giant corpse of Tyler Myers to provide some insurance, I'm not as thrilled, but I understand. We have Gudas, which is nice. We overpaid for a character guy like Killorn which is fine. But I don't want anyone else unless they're good and will be around for the next playoff-caliber Ducks team, or unless we can dump them at the trade deadline (Dumba on a one-year prove-it deal would be ok here as well). There are slim pickings out there, and I'm not looking to get Dumba for five years or Travis Hamonic for more than one. If that means we have a young, unproven defense next year, so be it. It will be more entertaining than the crap we've been icing.

If there are no more additions to the defense corps (and I'm not opposed to any, especially on the right side if we can find someone who makes sense), I want to see this to start the season: Fowler - Helleson LaCombe - Drysdale Zellweger - Gudas White Gudas and Fowler can play together if you need a more veteran pair. I know that defense will struggle mightily, but I want to see it. Under a new coach, it can't possibly be worse than what Eakins was putting out there.

I want Zellweger in the lineup next season. I just want to be entertained. He appears to have that ability. Staple him to Gudas' hip and let's see it.

It doesn't get you Nylander. It gets you in the conversation for Nylander. You're still going to have to put additional assets in there to get him. My thought was Luneau and Boston's 2nd. Perhaps that's not quite enough, but it's a starting point.

I think the Ducks will have to retain on Gibson to move him to a contender, but I think he's an upgrade on Matt Murray at least. I do think there's respect for what he's had to go through in Anaheim under Eakins.

Having seen him up close last year, I agree with you. But Toronto is now paying him $4 million to...what? High five opposing forwards as they skate past him to the net?

I see what you're saying, but they obviously think Klingberg can still play since they just signed him. They also are going to need quality LDs since they still have Giordano floating around. I could see LaCombe going the other way. I guess I'm not sure why they would sign Klingberg if they were going to look for another NHL RD through trade.

Brodie/Klingber/Lilljegren/Timmins are all listed as RDs on CapFriendly. Honestly asking because I don't follow Toronto closely enough to know - do all those guys not play on the right side? I know Klingberg does.

I would trade Gibson +25% retained and a couple assets for Nylander and Murray. Gibson (25% retained) + Luneau + Boston's 2nd. Re-sign Nylander for 5 years, $10 million per year. Let's do it.

I don't disagree with this. Heck, it's why I was stumping for Severson all year. I just don't see a great option out there that's obvious. People were talking about Brett Pesce, but I don't see any reason why Carolina wouldn't keep him unless they complete the DeAngelo trade. At that point, I could see it, I guess. Would Dumba be an option for you? I wouldn't be opposed, but I don't want to pay him north of $6.5 per year, and certainly no more than 5 years. I think he's going to command more than that. But on the right deal, I could see it working.

Killorn has played the 6th most even strength minutes among forwards the past two seasons for Tampa. I'd call him middle 6 rather than top 6. But I agree we need a scorer.