Gorbachav55

I actually wish someone would just sign Zegras to an offersheet so the Ducks can match and be done with it.

I think the point is that superstars get contracts that are different in kind, not just degree. Matthews was a top pick in a huge media market who'd been a sensation right from the start. His situation is not comparable to Zegras'.

Sanderson played a very different season than Drysdale. Two more minutes per game (all of that short-handed time), many more defensive zone starts, and significantly better expected expected goal prevention despite their raw possession numbers being similar. That said, this contract is not good news for the Ducks.

This is a whole lot of begging the question. What was Lindholm's true value? What was Rakell's? Can you point to something that says Verbeek got less than he could for them? I will say that I'm very sure Verbeek got less than Murray could have if he would have traded them in prior years when they had additional term left on their deals. But that's just speculation. As for the veteran signings, Gudas is signed for $4 million per year for his age 33-35 years. Lindholm is signed for $6.5 million through his age 35 season. Gudas brings an element of physicality and truculence that Lindholm doesn't have. Killorn, who has outproduced Rakell every year for the last four years (in addition to being incredibly healthy), brings an element of toughness and leadership that the Ducks were missing. In addition, Killorn and Gudas's deals are relatively short-term, which adds flexibility and reduces risk. The Ducks received assets for Rakell and Lindholm that they can use in the rebuild. Killorn and Gudas cost them nothing but cap space, which they have plenty of.

I think our fundamental disagreement is how horrible the situation was when Verbeek arrived. I don't think it was as bad as it is in San Jose, but I think it was a lot worse than you're giving it credit for. Murray didn't trade the expiring assets when they had value, so Verbeek was forced into a position where he re-signs aging players to long-term deals before the team is ready to compete, wasting their remaining good years on teams that would be mediocre at best (but certainly not playoff teams); or he trades them for worse assets than they could have fetched in prior years. He chose to trade them (the right decision) and that puts him at the foundation level of the rebuild. I know people are tired of losing. I am too. But these things just don't happen that quickly if you want to do them right. Maybe a better GM could have sped this up by a year, but I don't think a better GM would have looked at what Verbeek had to deal with and said he took the wrong path. He had a mess, he cleaned it up, and now the questions are whether he's rebuilding properly and over what timeline. I think there's definitely a timeline that's too long - if the Ducks aren't playing meaningful March games in 2025, that's too long. But we've still got a way to go before then and without knowing how Cronin, Gudas, and Killorn are going to impact the team, I'm not ready to say he owes us anything at this moment. The team needs to markedly improve next year and the year after, but that's still very much on the table.

Well, he had to live through Bob Murray firsthand. I don't blame him.

I don't think that entered the Samuelis' minds (rebuild vs. retool) in any significant way. I think they put together a task force to find a new GM, whomever that might be to run the organization in however they saw fit. The Samuelis have been remarkably hands off when it comes to running the Ducks - they let Murray do his "retool" for several unsuccessful years (while being an abusive alcoholic) without getting involved. I think they trusted the task force and the other leaders of the club to find a quality hire. I doubt they said, "Go find the best person you can; we don't care about the cost!" But I also don't think they were only concerned with being cheap. It's not like Verbeek's name was brand new to GM searches - he'd come up in other teams' searches in the past few years. Personally, I think a rebuild would be a better situation for a brand new GM than a retool. A rebuild allows a complete teardown and complete remake of the team in the image and style you want for it. You've got tons of cap space, lots of draft picks, and a lot of patience (except for Ducks fans, apparently) to get things right. A retool involves retaining certain pieces and trying to get a team from bad to good while tinkering and being under pressure to get back to the playoffs as soon as possible. The latter seems much more difficult to pull off.

The Avalanche were below average to bad for five years in a row except for the luckiest season in NHL history where Patrick Roy spent all of his fairy dust to get them 112 points (and immediately lost in the first round to a mediocre Minnesota team). They would go on to trade O'Reilly and Duchene in the next few years. Either way, they built their Cup-winning roster around two prominent forwards. Pittsburgh also built their Cup winners around forwards. And you could argue Toews and Kane were as important (if not more) to the Blackhawks Cup teams as Keith and Seabrook. I don't think history shows any distinction between building Cup winners around offense or defense. Both are viable.

We'll see. I'm not convinced we are, but I'm also not ready to say we're not. I think Verbeek has torn it down fine, with a few meaningless but unproductive moves along the way (Klingberg). He's supplemented a good prospect pipeline with more high quality prospects so that the Ducks have a top five system. He's replaced coaches and player development personnel. He's added some UFAs who should provide some of the team structure and culture you're referring to. There's plenty more work to be done, and the proof will be in the pudding, but I'm okay with where we're at. I'm not thrilled, but I'm ok. As for your assertion about defense vs. forwards, though, is that universally true? Colorado rebuilt through their forwards. Erik Johnson was really the only veteran d-man there to help provide stability. Maybe Tyson Barrie, although he was gone a couple years before they won their Cup and was probably more part of the problem than the solution. MacKinnon and Landeskog and Rantanen were the core of the team as it made its transition from basement dweller to contender. Makar, Girard, and Toews came in after the Avs were already a playoff team. I don't see why Fowler and Gudas couldn't provide that stability for the Ducks on the back end as the wave of D prospects graduates to the NHL club. I'm not worried about building from the forwards as much as I am about the guys we're building around. Landeskog and McKinnon clearly were the guys driving the Avs' bus. Zegras is a great hockey player but he does not seem like the leader type to me, which is why I think the Killorn signing was so important to Verbeek (hence the overpayment). McTavish could be that type. Terry seems like he could be as well. Like I said, still plenty of work to be done and questions to be answered, but I think Verbeek chose the right path to get back to sustained success.

The Ducks have ALWAYS been unable or unwilling to sign younger, more prominent free agents. I think that expecting a coaching change last year and a few more wins to change minds is ignoring the 30-year history of the franchise and its ownership. Killorn and Gudas are good players - the type of players the Ducks desperately needed, whether they're overpaid or not. I think things can change for the better as the team improves, but it takes time and improved results. And the improved results are only going to come with the time it takes to build this thing properly.

I'll just disagree with all of this. There was no way to shortcut the turnaround. Murray left the team in the lurch and now fans are calling for Verbeek's head after a year+ of trying to clean up the mess. Getting to .500 last year with Lindholm and Rakell, even if it were possible, wouldn't have helped in the long run. Carlsson will. We'll see how this season goes and what Verbeek's hires and signings do for the organizational culture and the ability to play quality hockey. That will determine whether Verbeek knows what he's doing. Tearing things down to the studs was undoubtedly the right call in the short-term.

Gudas and Killorn play different types of games and bring different assets than Lindholm and Rakell. Verbeek wanted veteran leadership who had experienced recent success. I find it pretty farfetched to believe that the Ducks could have breathed new life by running it back with the same guys plus Strome and Vatrano and Klingberg (who are the only three guys we know were willing to come to Anaheim). I think last year's team plus Lindholm and Rakell finishes maybe 4th - 6th worst instead of worst. And now they're looking at the same team without Carlsson. I don't think it moves the needle in terms of NTCs. The Ducks would still have been really bad. Maybe replacing Eakins would have helped a bit more, but we also don't know what coaches were available and desired to come to Anaheim. That path was the one to perpetual mediocrity.

He said what he needed to say to: 1. Keep the fanbase engaged despite four straight losing seasons. Do you think it would have been wise for him to come out and say, "We're going to suck this year."? Not only would that turn off the fanbase, the players would revolt as well. 2. Give cover for letting Eakins go when things went south. Verbeek added a solid UFA in Klingberg, plus two more good ones in Vatrano and Strome. Add some improvement from the kids and .500 was possible. People here and elsewhere thought as much. When it didn't happen, Eakins was an easy target to let go. I have zero problems with that statement. He's a mouthpiece of the organization. He's going to have to say some things at times motivated by PR. If you're still hung up on it, that's on you.

The jury has been back, rendered the verdict, and has been home relaxing for years. The patient was braindead and on life support. Bob Murray saw to that. Verbeek put it out of it's misery. Whether he can raise new life is a valid question. I'm still hopeful, but admittedly less than I was six months ago. But there should be zero question that the organization wasn't going to make a quick, miraculous turnaround. The players that were traded had been floundering for years here. They weren't going to magically start getting better in Anaheim as they enter their 30s without a complete overhaul that would have required trading every prospect and high draft pick we had. It wasn't going to happen.

Yes, he would be allowed to stay for another year, and I'm fine with that. If everything goes wrong this year, I think that's pretty good evidence that Verbeek isn't cut out for this. But it's also not definitive and he'll still be under contract. Regardless of what happens next year, unless there's some crazy scandal, I'm fine with Verbeek getting to play out his contract.

This is truth. He's made a high draft pick, two coaching hires, and brought in a couple of tough veterans. I'm not overwhelmed with what he's done this offseason, but theoretically he's going to get a closer look at what he has in the system before figuring out what other moves he needs to make. If this season goes poorly (coach looks overmatched, no improvement in defensive play, Gulls are still awful, etc.), then I think it might be time to pull the plug on the Verbeek experiment. But this season could be a step forward and reveal a solid long-term plan. The last two seasons could have been worse - Verbeek could have attempted quick fixes that left the Ducks as a mediocre at best team where they would have lingered for the next five years.

Lol.

This is completely incorrect. The Ducks were headed downhill well before Verbeek got here. Verbeek was forced into a situation where he could try to put a bandaid on an injury that needed several surgeries, or do the surgeries knowing it would lead to a couple of rough seasons. He made the smart move. Now it remains to be seen if he can lead the rehab process.

Eh, Kassian certainly has more skill than Deslauriers. I don't think you can attribute all of his points with Edmonton as just being target practice for McDavid to bank pucks off of and into the net. He had a decent season with Vancouver as well. But he's going to be 33, so I'm not sure how much of that is left. And I'm curious as to his locker room presence. Or is this just a paper move to show Zegras that they're trying to protect him?

I can't and won't take back all the things I said about Deslauriers. He was a bad at NHL hockey. However, it's clear he was a great guy to have in the locker room. Players have gone out of their way to state how much they liked having him on the team. If you've got a good enough team to be able to get him on the ice for 8 minutes on your 4th line and not be hurt, he's a nice addition. OR if you've got a bad enough team where it doesn't matter, Deslauriers could also be valuable. I don't know if Kassian is that guy. He strikes me as more of the hothead type rather than the noble warrior type that Deslauriers was. I guess we'll see how he looks in the preseason.

We all know he isn't signed. He'll be on the team when they begin the season.

Again, there's no point in assuming Drysdale won't be signed. He will be signed.

Freddie Andersen plays for one of the best defensive teams in the league. Fantasy hockey rankings are meaningless to actual hockey analysis without context.

I don't agree that Eichel's seasons were worse than Zegras. First, he was a year younger for both of those seasons. Second, his age 20 season, from a per game production standpoint, was significantly better than Zegras. Lastly, Eichel played MUCH better defense than Zegras did in his first couple seasons. He was a true center. Then when you factor in his pedigree as the #2 OA pick (and projected superstar), plus the healthy cap projections and it's easy to see why he got that lucrative contract (plus Buffalo probably had to overpay because it's Buffalo).

Perry made more because the Hart Trophy and his lack of roots in SoCal (Getzlaf had already started a family) gave him leverage that Getzlaf didn't have. I also think Getzlaf was the type not to care.