Gorbachav55
-
Posts
3,389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
75
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Media Demo
Gallery
Posts posted by Gorbachav55
-
-
Carlsson with a great burst of speed for that opportunity, just can't finish.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Sexlaf15 said:
Man, Gibson bites so hard and commits to shots so hard he completely takes himself out of plays like that.
You've got to let this go. I'm not saying Gibson is playing great right now, but the Coyotes just got to complete two rifled passes right through the slot. That's just not on the goalie.
-
2
-
-
Leason is doing absolutely nothing on that play.
-
That was some terrible penalty killing right there.
-
Silf is toast. He just doesn't have any game left.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Sexlaf15 said:
I generally like my goalie to try and make a save and not fall over himself skating backwards
I generally don't blame the goalie for penalty shot goals that are perfect bar down shots.
-
Just now, Sexlaf15 said:
Gibson is so bad man…
You're going to blame Gibson for that? That's absurd.
-
1
-
-
McTavish hits the pipe with a rocket then Kassian throws a pass to no one.
Mintyukov with a couple of tough plays. He needs to get that shot through and it leads to a breakaway.
-
1 minute ago, Sexlaf15 said:
Cannot break the puck out to save their lives. Same ol story
Yeah, it's hard to say how much is the players and how much is coaching, but the struggle with breakouts looks a lot like Eakins era stuff. I was hoping for better.
-
Kassian in midseason form with the dumb penalty on the PP.
-
Yeah, not looking great. Thomson with two really bad turnovers.
-
I love that Carlsson is staying up and I'm surprised so many of you are surprised by that decision. He looked ready to me.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, ike8228 said:
Is it though? It seemed like most people here were on the 1 year at like 875k-1mil prove it. Giving him 3 years locks us into a potential injury soft guy? Not that he is , but if he is, oof.
At $2.3 million, the risk is minimal. If he really is injury-prone, the Ducks will just stash him on LTIR and the Samuelis can find $2.3 million in between their couch cushions. I'm not worried about this money creating spending issues anywhere else on the roster in the next three seasons.
I thought the prove-it deal made sense for both sides, but more for Drysdale than the Ducks. Now he's locked in at a low rate for three years.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Sexlaf15 said:
I have a feeling it was that 3rd year that Anaheim strong armed Drysdale into.
That's my feeling as well. I think that if this had been the AAV for two years, that's about right. Maybe a little high, but not much. But, assuming Drysdale progresses even a little bit and stays healthy, that third year could be a huge steal for Anaheim.
Now just wait until the 2026 offseason when Zegras, Drysdale, Gaucher, Mintyukov, and Zellweger all need new contracts. Fowler and Gudas will be coming off the books, but that's going to be a busy summer (fall?) for Solomon and Verbeek.
-
Interesting line combos. I'm not sure how that top line will work, but I'm interested in seeing it!
-
32 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:
Here's the announcement. He's still waivers exempt so they just sent him down.
I remember that announcement, but I must have skipped over Helleson's name. Thanks.
-
3 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:
Helleson already was cut.
I think LaCombe and Mintyukov stay.
Fowler, Gudas, Lyubushkin, LaCombe, Mintyukov, Vaakanainen, Thomson.
He was? Sorry, I must have missed that. Yeah, Mintyukov probably stays then.
Fowler - LaCombe
Mintyukov - Gudas
Vaakanainen - Lybushkin
I've enjoyed watching Zellweger, so I hate to see him cut, but Mintyukov is probably more NHL-ready.
-
6 minutes ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:
Hagg and White on waivers
So how does this break down for our D-corps? I'm assuming we're keeping seven.
- Absolute locks: Fowler and Gudas
- Near-lock: Lybushkin: I can't see him being waived, although it's odd he hasn't played much this preseason
- Likely: LaCombe and Thomson: Maybe I'm being overly optimistic with both of these guys, but LaCombe definitely looks ready and I can't see the Ducks letting go of Thomson right after picking him up, although there wasn't any cost to it.
- 50/50: Vaakainen: I continue to be unimpressed with him, although there are flashes of quality. The only reason he's this high is because he'd need to go through waivers.
- Young guys with a chance to stick: Helleson, Mintyukov, Zellweger: Helleson is the most physically developed but doesn't carry nearly the upside of the other two. Zellweger is certainly the most exciting. Mintyukov has the potential to be the best of the three. I honestly have no idea which has the best shot of making the team, but my guess is Helleson, simply because that seems to fit better with Verbeek's MO.
- Young guy who might get nine games: Luneau: He's looked pretty good during the preseason and, with Drysdale out, might get a look at RD before heading back to juniors. But I don't see him sticking.
- Jamie Drysdale: Jamie Drysdale: enough said.
Although we have to remember that this might not mean Hagg and/or White are ticketed for the AHL. Hagg in particular only has a one-way contract. The Ducks might just be trying to sneak him through waivers while teams are cutting guys, and then they'd bring him back up to be the 7th d-man. It gives them flexibility over the next month so they could move him back and forth without him having to clear waivers again.
If I had to guess, this is the defensive lineup until Drysdale returns:
- Fowler - Lybushkin
- LaCombe - Gudas
- Vaakanainen - Thomson
- Hagg
If I had my way, it would be this:
- Fowler - Lybushkin
- Zellweger - Gudas
- LaCombe - Helleson
- Thomson or Vaakanainen (having not seen Thomson, I can't say whether he looks better than Vaakanainen or not)
-
1
-
1 minute ago, perry_mvp said:
Byram is more valuable because the Avs have no cap space. What I'm talking about is the value of the player to the team regardless of cap space. Drysdale is just as valuable. I wouldn't pick Gudas, Lyubushkin or Thomson over Drysdale.
But cap space is part of the calculation of a player's value. If it weren't, the Ducks would just pay Drysdale whatever he wanted and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:
The Sanderson contract shouldn't have been an issue with the Drysdale side until September 6th when it was signed. Plus it doesn't take effect until the 2024-2025 season. He's still on his ELC right now. I've always maintained that the best comparable is going to be Byram. I just don't think Verbeek wants to commit to Drysdale when he has Luneau and Warren in the system along with Helleson, Moore and now Thomson. Whether or not those guys pan out is yet to be seen but as Verbeek likes to say, he has a lot of darts to throw at the dartboard.
By the way, Byram is on a two year deal after injuries with an AAV of $3.85M. Similar amount of games played. Similar amount of points. Both top 10 picks.
I think Byram is a good comparison; however, and I think this is crucial, Byram is a year older than Drysdale. That's where the Ducks allowing Drysdale to stay in the NHL during the COVID year comes into play; because Drysdale got to stay up, his ELC didn't slide like Byram's did, and the Ducks are getting less of Drysdale's prime on the cheap. And while they have similarly tough injury histories, the timing of Drysdale's hurts, because the Ducks have no idea how it will respond to game situations. So that's depressing their offer as well.
I don't think Drysdale should get the same as Byram this next season, at least partially because the offensive numbers might be similar, but the defensive numbers favor Byram by a lot. But if Drysdale shows he's healthy this year, I think that $3.85 is a good place to start on a contract for the following season. But I don't think $1.25 this year is unreasonable. If they do a 2-year deal, something in the $2.25 million range seems fine.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:
Well, like you said, the season was a lost season. So there wouldn't have been any reason to bring him back even if he was cleared by the doctors. That would be a judgement call from Verbeek. It's also been pointed out in different posts that he was being paid anyway (which he was entitled to) to sit out. I don't know. Just seems weird. Maybe Drysdale's side didn't think it would be this complicated to get a new contract.
There were reasons, even if they're not particularly compelling in the Ducks' situation. Any games for Drysdale are games in which he's learning to play at the NHL level, an important factor for a still young, developing player. Also, if we listen to Gary Bettman, no team really tanks, so if the Ducks were trying to win and Drysdale was better than at least one other defenseman in their lineup, he should have been playing. Of course, that's a bunch of malarkey, but this is the NHL commissioner saying this BS.
To me, it seems like Drysdale's side is seeing the Jake Sanderson contract (and others) and thinking some that scratch should be coming his way. The best way to bring that contract into play is through arbitration, or the threat of arbitration. Because the Ducks held Drysdale out last year (for legitimate reasons, in my opinion), arbitration is now two years away for Jamie. Drysdale thinks he should be compensated for perhaps being artificially restricted from obtaining that leverage.
If the Ducks had played Drysdale those last two games, I think Jamie would already have signed the one-year prove-it deal and figured that he'll get a big bump next offseason when he's arbitration eligible. But now he's facing the prospect of two years before arbitration, and that's one extra year of health risk for him. And I doubt that he wants to do this again next year. So the trick is to find a two-year deal that works, and I'd bet Drysdale's camp is in the $4 million per year range, while the Ducks are in the $1.5 million range.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:
I don't what kind of evidence you would find. Everything sounds to have been verbal. Interesting thing about the interview was Verbeek said the injury in general takes 4-6 months to recover from. He then went on to say in Drysdale's case it would take six months. I think it would be normal for a patient especially an athlete to ask the doctor{s} how long before I'm back playing. If Drysdale was told 4-6 months because that's the general recovery time then he could have had that expectation of coming back before the season was over. There just isn't any evidence of what was said between both parties.
If team doctors (or if Drysdale saw personal doctors), there would be evidence. Doctors document everything, and generally, they communicate through writing just so things are clear. If a doctor wrote an email to Verbeek on March 20th that Drysdale would need one more week of physical therapy and then would be ready to play, that would be evidence. Or some sort of evaluation done by a doctor that gets saved in a database that indicates he's healthy. I actually think it would be fairly suspicious if there were NO written communication between doctors and Verbeek regarding Drysdale's status. I would think there would be regular updates on how he's progressing.
So I actually think it would be very easy to find a "paper" trail if doctors had indeed given Drysdale the thumbs up to resume full practice and game activity by April. That doesn't necessarily mean the Ducks did anything wrong; their response could have been that Drysdale's fitness level was still not quite where it needed to be or that they were worried about a recurrence of the injury in a season that was lost. I think those are legitimate reasons not to play him, even if they feel a bit convenient in retrospect.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ike8228 said:
Regardless of what side thought what, was there any info or clearance by doctors or trainers? That’s what should be factored in.
All we know at this point is that Verbeek says 6 months and Drysdale either isn't pursuing an investigation or he and his agent have determined that there's no basis for an investigation because the NHLPA isn't doing one.
-
42 minutes ago, Spencer_12 said:
Friedman was on the press conference call for the Zegras contract announcement and asked about Drysdale’s injury timeline. It starts at 4:30. Verbeek is pretty clear that he was going to miss at least 6 months with the injury he had. That would have put him out until at least the end of April, so he had no chance at getting back for the regular season.
What’s interesting is Verbeek mentions having a conversation about this with Drysdale a few weeks before training camp. That leads me to believe Drysdale did probably feel like he could have came back and played a few games before the end of the season, but Verbeek once again told him there was no way. The fact that this was still being talked about between Drysdale and Verbeek 2 weeks before training camp does seem to give weight to Friedman’s reporting of Drysdale being a bit frustrated about everything.
And this makes sense with both sides feeling they are doing the right thing. The Ducks were protecting the health of a young player when the team had nothing to play for. The player was trying to get back in the lineup to play (and also to improve his contract status). Since the Ducks wouldn't let him play, the player wants some compensation for being forced (in his mind) into a more detrimental contract status.
Drysdale just has no leverage unless he can prove some sort of grievance against the organization.
Preseason 23-10-05 - Yotes @ Ducks
in Anaheim Ducks
Posted
I posted before your next one. But there's got to be some understanding of the awful defense being played in front of Gibson. No goalie stops that unless he gets lucky.