Gorbachav55

Killorn is also a 2-time Cup winner and just had a better season than Terry last year. I'm not sure why "highest paid player on their teams" has anything to do with it. I think $6.75 million is about right for a 4 - 6 year deal.

I'll die on the hill that those weren't bad seasons, especially the second one. He was playing excellent possession hockey, very good defense (especially in the neutral zone), and got very little quality power play time (the second unit was hot garbage during those years). He was getting pushed around too much in the offensive zone, but his positional play was very good. As soon as he put on some muscle, his breakout was inevitable.

I don't think those were bad years. He was among the Ducks' best possession and defensive forwards those years. He need to build strength and gain confidence, but the underlying numbers were there. His play out on the ice was good but he wasn't getting results. I hope they can meet in the middle. I don't see Verbeek giving him seven years because of his age (I could see him giving Zegras that many years). But I don't see Terry commanding anything over $8 million unless he completely goes nuts the next two seasons. I just think that's unlikely. Settle in the middle and give him five or six years. I think he's going to be good for a while.

I have zero feel right now for these contract negotiations. We know PV dislikes long-term deals. But that's it. That's all we know. I think that's a terrible deal for the Ducks, mostly for continuity - I'd like to see them at 5 years, $33 million. But I don't blame Terry if he wants less to have options in two seasons. It sucks for Ducks fans though.

Draft luck is also one of those things. The Ducks could have Crosby if they hadn't gotten unlucky back in 2005. The Ducks could have Connor Bedard if they'd been a little luckier this year. It's tough to fight against that. And it's why the team has to ridiculously overpay guys like Killorn to get them to come here. The Ducks are getting ripped for the length and value of that deal, and from a pure numbers standpoint, the critics are right. Killorn is going to be absurdly overpaid, probably by year 3. But Verbeek needed a top-6 winger and he desperately needed veteran leadership in the locker room, so I'm betting he had to offer Killorn at least $1.5 million more per year than any other team was willing to offer. That's just the price of doing business in Anaheim right now, and why I don't mind the deal at all. Hopefully the organization will turn things around and reduce that price a bit, but there's always going to be an Anaheim tax.

It's brutal: https://theathletic.com/4692362/2023/07/14/alex-galchenyuk-arrest-police-report/ Awful stuff, if true, of course, although it's hard to imagine this is all made up if it's being reported verbatim. I hope the NHLPA looks into this and doesn't fight the contract termination, but I do hope that they work to get the young man the help he clearly needs.

But the thing is that Verbeek is doing that on purpose because he wants to keep Gibson. He's said it publicly and it makes sense - Gibson is a proven #1 goalie and the Ducks are going to need one. I think he's setting the price high and hoping he can convince Gibson to stay.

I'm not concerned about helping Edmonton as long as they're helping us too. We definitely are not retaining 50% of Gibson's contract in any deal. $3.2 million per year for a player to play for someone else should be and will be unpalatable for the front office. I can't see the Ducks retaining any more than 25%.

I don't think they'd stay on the phone long enough for Verbeek to hear them laughing. I could see the below trade. Actually, let me rephrase, I think the below trade is more equitable than the one proposed above, although there's no chance it happens: To Anaheim: Jack Campbell, 2025 1st Rd Pick, Evan Bouchard To Edmonton: John Gibson ($1 million retained), Jamie Drysdale, Max Jones I would do that deal if I'm either team (although I'm obviously a biased Ducks fan - Edmonton fans might feel differently). Edmonton gets a bit of salary relief for this year in that Drysdale will cost less than Bouchard in the short term. They get an upgrade in net in Gibson. Anaheim gets more size on the back end in Bouchard, and gets a player a little further along in his career than Drysdale to help balance out the youth a bit. They also get a 1st round pick (although it's 2025). The big turd in the punchbowl is having to take back Jack Campbell and his ungodly $5 million cap hit for four season, but given the Ducks didn't make that deal, I don't think they'll have a problem putting him behind Dostal on the depth chart whenever that's warranted. And they've got the room to handle it. Fowler - Helleson Lacombe - Bouchard Zell/Minty - Gudas

Who are we talking about here? Carlsson is eligible to go to the AHL. Age doesn't matter except for players who are playing in the Canadian junior leagues. Players coming from any other league - Sweden, KHL, US National, college, etc. - can join an AHL team once they're drafted. Carlsson could play with the Gulls this season. Playing with the Gulls would not burn a year off of his ELC, as long as he plays in nine or fewer games with the Ducks. The ELC would then begin next season.

Just speaking of that 2012 draft, it seems like no one had a clue what was going on. The top four went: Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Galchenyuk, Griffin Reinhart. Yikes. Galchenyuk probably had the best career of those four, but they're all pretty much out of the league now. Lindholm is arguably the best pick in the top 10 (Rielly and Trouba have cases), and everyone thought that was a reach at the time.

I think you saw a small version of that happen with analysts and Fantilli. Not that Fantilli will necessarily become a bust; I doubt he will. But the Fantilli hype became a runaway freight train that left very few fans standing in its wake until the draft came and we were all surprised to hear Carlsson's name at #2. And then we heard that Columbus would have drafted Carlsson at 2 as well. We got caught in the echo chamber.

Like many things, these projections become echo chambers. The team scouts are doing their own analyses by visiting in person, and they're seeing a kid with potential game-breaking offensive talent. But even they're not there all the time. I'm not saying any of the following were issues with Yakupov, but there are things either they don't see (off-ice bad habits, personality issues, locker room chemistry problems, etc.), or things that they hand-wave away as being something that can be taught or something that the kid will grow out of (maturity problems, skating issues, a complete lack of knowledge regarding where the defensive zone might be, etc.). There are only a few outside analysts who actually know much about any given prospect - not that they don't do their homework, but they're even less likely than the scouts to see some of the intangible stuff. Most of the stuff they write is based on film they watch (often just highlights, but not always) and then talking to people (scouts, other analysts, team execs) who have their own biases. The rest of the analysts pick bits and pieces from THOSE analysts and you wind up getting things repeated over and over and louder and louder for these top prospects until it forms an overwhelming opinion that morphs into TRUTH. The reality is that it's a projection based loosely on a few things that actually happened and then was injected with the steroids of exaggeration and extrapolation and excitation. Then when the kid gets to the NHL, maybe the intangibles (attitude, bad habits, maturity) combine with the on-ice deficiencies (skating, back-checking) and a suboptimal environment to overcome those deficiencies (Edmonton circa 2012) to completely torpedo any chances the kid had to succeed long-term in the NHL. Everyone acts shocked, but the signs of danger were probably there, they just weren't reported on or, if they were, they were shouted down by the vocal majority as being unfair or unfounded. And it is tough - no one likes the guy who says, "Well, Michkov has incredible hands and offensive instincts, but he has no work ethic in the defensive zone and he's completely full of himself." For good reason - that feels kind of icky to say about a teenager and there aren't many good ways to measure it objectively. So you get a few contrarians who are happy to stir the pot, but most shy away from saying things like that, even if they're true. (Note: I don't personally know if those things are true about Michkov, but I've heard those things said by a few of those pot-stirrers.) But if those truths combine in just the wrong way and in just the wrong time and place, you get a bust like Yakupov. I think it's pretty rare for a bust to come completely out of the blue - a great, hard-working, smart kid got to the NHL and sucked for no discernible reason. But I think it's pretty common for their to be under-reported issues, both with the player himself and/or with the way the team that drafts him handles his development, that cause the demolition of a burgeoning career.

I've tried to point it out, but I'll try again. Lafreniere's FLOOR is a 3rd line NHL player. As a 21-year-old last year, he was a very good 3rd line player. He was useful and valuable there. Even if the scoring wasn't elite, it was solid, and his possession numbers were very good. If that's the worst he is for the next five years, you've still got a valuable player. His CEILING is higher. I don't think it's as high as a lot of fans thought it would be when he was drafted 1 OA, but he's young enough that he could become a 1st line winger or a good 2nd line wing. Even if he never gets better and this is what he is, very few picks past #10 overall are better than that. So if the Ducks are giving up a 2nd rounder for him (heck, even mid- to late-1st rounder), they're probably not giving up more than they're getting. And that's if he never gets better. But the potential is enticing and the price tag probably wouldn't be high. It all depends on that price tag - if the Rangers want too much or Lafreniere wants $5 million or more, it's not worth it at this point. But at a lesser price, he could be a valuable pickup. I'm all for it because I want to see the Ducks do something. I understand why they wouldn't and it's probably not workable with what the Rangers or Lafreniere are asking, but I think it would be fun to see them try something like this. I'm ready to stop caring about future draft picks and care about current players.

I'm going to need someone to get Lebrun and Friedman out of their cottages so they can figure out what's going on with these things. Also, why does Canada have cottages and the US has cabins?

See my post above. There is very little chance Lafraniere's a bust on par with Yakupov because his floor is 3rd line forward. If he's not scoring, he's playing good possession hockey and decent defense. If Yakupov didn't score, he was just taking up space.

I wonder how much insight we're going to get about this. To state the obvious, there must be some sort of issue going on with him.

Thanks for that. This is one more piece of evidence as to why I think it's often misguided to blame a GM/front office for things they DON'T do. If it's a pattern over several years, then sure, we can point to a mounting pile of evidence and say the GM just isn't good at identifying and executing moves that improve the team. That's a problem. But things like "We could have matched that!" "Why didn't we make that deal?" "If we'd offered X, the player would be here instead!" And I know I've been guilty of it in the past as well, but I've tried to tone it down because these are almost all two-way streets. Players have agency over their careers (to some extent). If a guy wants to turn down $5 million more so he can stay close to his family or in a market he likes or close to his favorite restaurant, he can do that! These guys are multi-millionaires. It might be worth it to him. Similarly, GMs don't have to deal with other GMs, maybe because they don't like the fit, maybe because they don't want to send a player to a certain market. Or maybe just because they're stupid and vindictive as a result of the other GM hitting them from behind to knock them out of a regional semifinal peewee hockey game 53 years ago and they're still bitter about it. We don't know! I know a lot of people are frustrated by Verbeek's lack of action. I get it. I want good news about my favorite team, too. But the proof is in the pudding for me. The Ducks might not be contenders next year, but if, when training camp begins, the roster looks like it's been put together with care and foresight and a cohesive plan, I'll be satisfied, even if there are five deals I would have liked Verbeek to make that he didn't.

He can still go to any of the three places - NHL, AHL, or SHL.

I apologize if I'm mistaken about the RFA thing and how it works. But that's stupid if a team can't talk to a guy they'd like to sign. Even if it's true that the Rangers will know, just go for it. If the Rangers get mad that the Ducks want their player, oh well. There are 30 other teams to make deals with.

Would it even come out? Lafreniere is a free agent; he can talk to other teams. If Verbeek called his agent and said, "Hey, would your client be interested in coming out to SoCal?" And the agent said, "Not a chance in hell" or "Only for $8 million per year", that would be the end of that and no offersheet would even be thrown out there. The Rangers would never even know and we'd probably never hear about it other than a vague Elliotte Friedman reference five years later when he says, "I heard a western team talked to Lafreniere about possibly signing an offersheet when he was an RFA blah blah blah." But unless the agent blabbed about it, New York would never know. If it got further along in discussions, then the agent might use it as leverage, but wouldn't even necessarily reveal the team.

Aho was just a name I threw out there. I don't expect him to sign with the Ducks. But I don't see why the Ducks wouldn't throw $10 million his way if it were a possibility - he's worth it and they could use an elite winger.

You're right on that - he would need to sign the offersheet. He could decide he wants to stay in New York, or he could decide that he doesn't like that particular offer. The player has to agree to it - it's not unilateral.

Lafraniere is a much, MUCH better defensive/possession player than Yakupov. Part of the reason he fell out of favor after his first season (which is doing a lot of the lifting in terms of his production) is that when Yakupov wasn't scoring, he was a liability on the ice. Lafreniere is not. Yakupov also produced way more on the power play than Lafreniere, who hasn't really had that opportunity. If Lafreniere never gets better as a scorer than he was last season, he's an excellent 3rd line forward who puts up 15 goals and 25 assists per season. At $4.5-$5 million, that's probably a bit of an overpay but not much. Yakupov HAD to play in the top-6 or he was actively hurting your team, and when his scoring dried up, that's when he got dumped.

If the Ducks could get someone like Lafraniere this offseason, then they can go into free agency next season with potentially a lot of options. I know that several of these guys are going to sign extensions, but not all of them will: Matthews, Stamkos, Aho, Nylander, Guentzel, Reinhart. The Ducks will have $11 million coming off the books with no one significant to sign (assuming they get their RFAs signed to multi-year extensions this offseason). They can wade into those waters with a ton of cash ready to throw at someone. Totally unrealistic, but a boy can dream: Aho - Zegras - Terry ($25 million) Killorn - McTavish - Strome ($12 million) Lafreniere - Carlsson - Vatrano ($9 million) McGinn - Gaucher - Who cares? ($5 million) If the cap doesn't rise as much as we think, that could be an issue if either the defense kids don't work out OR they all work out and need to get paid at the same time, but trades will happen.