Gorbachav55

Eh, that's just secondhand reporting of the Lebrun piece. That said, I'm in, depending on the price. At this point, Zegras and the 2022 first are really the only dealbreakers for me.

All of this - well said. And again, it's also possible (heck, probably likely) that both Henrique and Silf have Buffalo listed on their "No way in hell am I going there" no-trade list.

I don't think you're wrong about how things have been done, but I don't agree with it. It's the theory that your bottom six forwards have to be defensive grinders. It's silly and antiquated (and yes, this is the prevailing theory among a lot of GMs, so I'm not calling you out for it - I understand that's how a lot of the league still thinks). A team absolutely needs defensively skilled forwards, but sometimes those are the same as your offensively skilled forwards, and that's ok. And a team can afford a few defensive specialists when they've got the offense from other lines. But I am fully on board with the "your best defense is a good offense" approach. Let's have a 4th line that keeps the puck in the offensive zone and generates scoring opportunities. If one line creates 10 scoring opportunities in a game and gives up 9, they've done their job. If another line creates 5 scoring opportunities and gives up 4.5, they've done their job, just in a different way. I don't believe every 3rd and 4th line has to be the latter type. I think Milano can be a nice piece of a 4th line that generates offense even if he's poor in the defensive zone. That said, the reason Milano is in the AHL right now is because our GM (and many others) believe that if Milano isn't in the top 6, he's got no place in the lineup. I hate that Murray thinks that way, and I think more GMs are willing to put offense throughout the lineup than have been, but most of the league is still stuck in the bottom-6 grinder mode.

That's not at all uncommon. Plenty of teams keep 4th line forwards who don't kill penalties, including the Ducks throughout the years. Most teams have a mixture of guys throughout their lineups who can kill penalties. The Ducks' problem is that you can count on one finger the number of forwards on their team who you'd consider plus defensively. And that guy (Silfverberg) is coming off of significant surgery. I think Henrique is fine, Lundestrom will be there soon, and Getzlaf has the instincts (if not the physical attributes any more). But who else on this team will kill penalties? Most teams will put one or two of their top line guys out there because they usually have the instincts you want, plus they can score a shortie every once in a while. I'm not sure Zegras is there yet. And none of the other kids have really shown plus defensive skills. In that sense, Milano is part of the problem, but no more than Jones, Terry, Comtois, etc. McTavish is a decent prospect, but I don't think he's earned a spot over Milano based on what he's shown on the ice. And there's significant risk in rushing him and screwing up his development. The Ducks are going to have a bad penalty kill with or without Milano. They might as well get someone who can generate some offense 5-on-5 and doesn't present the development risk that McTavish does.

I don't think McTavish is quite that old. If so, Murray has some scouts to fire. I have seen a ton of potential from McTavish, but he looks like a kid who needs more seasoning. He doesn't look like a player who should be rushed to the NHL for the chance to lose 60 games.

I've heard that, and certainly Lebrun is no doctor, but here's what he says in that piece: So I'm not sure which number is accurate. It's possible the four month figure factors in time for a new team's doctors to examine him and prepare him for surgery as well as extended rehab time afterward, but I'm not sure.

He's got more finish and vision than both of those guys combined. That's not saying a ton, granted, but I think if he stays healthy, he could be an above average contributor on a good 4th line that generates scoring opportunities and doesn't just mill about the ice looking for penalties to take. He has games when he disappears, but if he can get more consistent, he'd be a real asset. Even as he is, he's better than all of our 4th line wingers and probably our 3rd line wingers. He's behind Rakell, Comtois, Henrique (as a wing), and Terry. Probably Silfverberg, but only if he gets back close to where he was before (he's looked sketchy so far in the preseason). Give me Milano over everyone else.

I haven't seen every minute of the preseason, but he and Volkov were two of the guys I liked best. I don't understand this team. At least now we get to watch Derek Grant and Nick Deslauriers chug around the ice.

I don't know that it tells anything new, at least not anything that's concrete, but Lebrun does indicate that talks are heating up again. https://theathletic.com/2875312/2021/10/08/lebrun-the-latest-on-renewed-jack-eichel-trade-talks/ And he has this to say about the Ducks: The timing makes a lot of sense for Anaheim. Eichel would get the surgery but would remain out pretty much the entire season, returning maybe in late February or early March. So for those worried about screwing up the draft pick, it wouldn't be that big of a risk. And then Eichel would still have four years remaining. The problem is still coming up with a return that Buffalo would accept. We know Zegras is off the table. And the Ducks cannot afford to give up their first round pick this year. I'm softening on my stance on Drysdale - I'm still hopeful for him, but I could see him never getting past being a decent 2nd pairing guy. That said, the Ducks don't have many promising RHDs in the system, so it's still not great to have to include Jamie. I think you have to include McTavish in the deal, and there needs to be a first round pick - if you can get away with a 2023 1st, that's great. You probably need one more good young player - Perrault is the one who comes to mind, although again, I'd consider Drysdale here - and maybe Buffalo will take Steel off your hands. Then you need salary to make it work. Kesler's expiring contract is always an option if Buffalo just wants a short-term cap hit. But maybe Buffalo would take Henrique or Silfverberg to mentor their young players. On the other hand, both have NTCs that probably include Buffalo on their list. McTavish, Perrault, Steel, Henrique/Silf/Kesler, 2023 1st - Does Buffalo do that? I still think that's light, and a team will make a better offer, but I'd probably do that deal. It gives them Eichel - Zegras - Lundestrom - Groulx down the middle long-term. You'll need to re-sign Rakell and Lindholm, and supplement from outside the organization at wing, since the Ducks took Tracey over Kaliyev losing Perrault leaves a hole there. But I think it could make sense. I know we've discussed this ad nauseum here, so I'm kind of beating a dead horse. And I know there's decent risk that Eichel never returns to the same level and/or he hates Anaheim and immediately wants out of here. But it would definitely get my heart pumping the way that an Eakins-coached pile of hot garbage never could.

I forget where I saw it, but someone mentioned that the Ducks have said they'll start the season with 8 d-men. I'm not sure if that's a firm commitment. It doesn't make sense to me.

Is there no price at which you think it's worth it to trade for Eichel? I'm on board with keeping Zegras, Drysdale, and our first from the upcoming draft, but if we can get him for lesser prospects and picks, I'd be down. Sure, there's a chance he's never the same again. There's also a chance the Ducks have very good (and possibly elite) top 2 centers for the next five years. I think Murray should very much be involved in the discussions. If he can pry Eichel out of there for pennies on the dollar, let's do it. Now, I also think it's very unlikely that it happens, but it doesn't hurt to kick the tires.

Why? Because Manson's hurt? For heaven's sake, Murray.

It's not for me. I've gone over there a few times when people have linked to Twitter threads that interest me, but I've never found the format satisfying (too brief, poor grammar and spelling, too reactionary, etc.). I also very rarely read anything on my phone unless it's a novel I'm reading on the Kindle app. And I'm not interested at all in commenting there. Twitter seems to be designed for mobile users and I consume 98% of written internet/online content via computer. To be honest, I've quit several message boards in which I used to participate because that sort of discourse has begun to permeate many internet forums. A gif or image used properly in the right circumstance can be hilarious; however, I seem to think the "right circumstance" occurs far less often than most seem to. I won't read the comments of anyone who refuses to use capital letters or at least attempt proper punctuation. I do appreciate the use of videos when appropriate, but those can be embedded in most message boards now. I like interacting with people with whom I share common interests. It's why I've stuck around here. I enjoy the interaction much better when it's measured, rational discourse. And I know that I've participated in my share of petty arguments and have been a pain at times, although I try to provide logic for my positions and I'm trying to be friendlier and less condescending in my disagreements.

Ugh, no thanks. That sort of thing doesn't interest me in the least. I want to read complete thoughts, not character-limited reactions. It's why I mostly stay away from game threads.

Yeah, they're bad, but I think they could be decently ahead of the Ducks in goal scoring. But they also aren't facing the 95 Devils throughout the season. They'll be up against some bad defenses in the Pacific.

Honestly, I think Seattle could sneak into that third spot. Maybe that's just the Vegas PTSD talking, but they could be not terrible. And "not terrible" is all you need to be to get into the playoffs in the Pacific. Unfortunately, the Ducks don't qualify. In another "LOLDucks" moment, Sean McIndoe at the Athletic did his annual "reasons for optimism for the bottom 10 teams in the league" column. Basically, it was "hope John Gibson gets hot and that Trevor Zegras becomes a superstar quicker than expected." They included a picture of Zegras in the article. Except it wasn't Zegras. It was CAPTIONED as Zegras, but it was actually a picture of Danton Heinen. They couldn't even put up a picture of one of the two exciting things about the Ducks this year.

I have no desire to be on any of those platforms. I'm not on Instagram or Snapchat or Tik Tok and I visit Facebook about once a week. I enjoy intelligent discussion, which is why I come here. I have found that most of those places don't have much constructive discourse.

I do not use Twitter and I have found this to be a nice feature.

Check out Eric Stephens at The Athletic. He's been prolific since camp has begun.

Here is, unsolicited, a representative, but by no means complete, list of players I'd like to see start over Jacob Larsson at LD: Cam Fowler, Hampus Lindholm, Josh Mahura, Brendan Guhle, Kodie Curran, Simon Benoit, Scott Niedermayer, Sandis Ozolinsh, Trevor Zegras, Bobby Orr, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, my grandmother, Bryan Allen, Bono, your grandmother, the Pope, Dionne Warwick, Deion Sanders, and Dion Phaneuf. In roughly that order. Please, Eakins, no Larsson.

It's no secret that I think both Murray and Eakins have to go. However, Eakins gets back on my good side with this quote in Stephens' latest piece at The Athletic. Music to my ears. I give Eakins until the first time he plays Jacob Larsson in the regular season before I think bad thoughts about him.

Zero. First, we have no idea what's been said behind closed doors, so maybe he has been more vocal with the people who matter, and we haven't heard it. Second, whether he has or not, that's not his job. His job is to captain the hockey team, which means the players we have. If he were to come out and blast ownership in the media, what would that do? He might alienate current players, he would not endear himself to management, and this is Orange County. It's not a Canadian market where it will be a big story. There's not really such a thing as media pressure in Anaheim. I can't see it leading to anything constructive.

I can just see those conversations during offseason planning. GMBM: "Okay, who are we talking about next? Assistant: "Mathieu Perreault" GMBM: "He had a decent season last year, but we just picked up Kesler, we've got Rakell coming up, just let him go." Assistant: "Maybe we should ask the analytics guy what he thinks?" Everyone laughs. GMBM: "Alright, fine, bring in the nerdboy!" The assistant opens a cage in the corner and drags out a haggard looking man in chains. GMBM: "Ok, nerdboy, what do YOU think of Mathieu Perreault?" Analyst: "Actually, sir, he was really good for us. His Corsi and Fenwick numbers were some of the highest on the team which tells you how good his puck possession was, his scoring per minute at even strength was fantastic, and I've compiled some offensive zone entry figures that would..." Someone shoots a spitwad at him. It misses. Everyone laughs anyway. GMBM: "Corsi and Fenwick? I think I tried to trade for those two guys several years ago. Good faceoff numbers. But I don't think they're relevant to this conversation. Perrault would be our third or fourth line center. He's 5'10. How would that work when he's trying to defend the slot?" Analyst: "Well, he's not the best at that, admittedly, but the data show that his neutral zone passing is good and he spends so much time with the puck in the offensive zone that..." Assistant, mockingly: "He's not the best at that, he says! What a joke! Who wants third or fourth line centers for their OFFENSE? Come on." GMBM: "I've heard enough. Take nerdboy back to his cage and put a TV over there somewhere so he can actually WATCH a game once in a while." Analyst: "Actually, I watch every game. That's how I compiled the zone entry statistics since you won't let me have a computer with the internet." GMBM: "Here's a calculator. Have fun. We're cutting Perreault. [to everyone else] Let's talk about some possible free agent pickups. I heard Minnesota isn't going to re-sign Stoner. Did you see the picture of him when he killed that bear? Now THERE'S a guy we want defending the slot. A four-year deal sounds about right." Analyst: [whimpers softly]

That interview was infuriating to read. Better late than never, I guess, but it seems like Murray's had his head stuck firmly in the sand (or somewhere else, if you prefer) for the last four seasons as it pertains to the rebuild. And this quote about analytics really got my blood boiling: "We had some people and we had some numbers"?!?!?!? My goodness, Murray. I suppose these new-fangled, computer-thingamajigs are confusing, too. I don't even blame Murray for being bad at analytics - I'm a numbers guy, but I recognize that not everyone is, and that's ok. There are plenty of things that Murray is (was?) good at in the GM role. But part of the job is knowing where your deficiencies are and hiring someone to cover those deficiencies. This confirms what we've speculated about for years - that the Ducks have been laughably behind the rest of the league in using analytics to evaluate players and inform transactions. Murray's been bringing his abacus to work at NASA every day and wondering why other guys are getting promoted before he is. I'm glad that deficiency has finally been identified and, hopefully, resolved, but imagine what could have been.

I think it depends on what you think is sane. For years (basically since the advent of free agency), NHL GMs have paid players for what they've done rather than what they will do. They've ignored aging curves and thrown out huge, lengthy contracts to guys in their late 20s and 30s who have established that they're quality players. If those guys are elite and stay elite (or close to it), the contract pays off. But often the deals look bad by the end. Age catches up to them and injury or ineffectiveness render the last few years of the contract painful and immoveable. These deals are maybe slightly less risky than the Kaprizov deal in that you're usually sure you're getting SOME good years, but the payoff is also far less. There's no potential to tap into by paying a 28-year-old Dougie Hamilton $9 million a year. You're just hoping he keeps his current production for as long as possible. (And I'm not ragging on that that deal, by the way - I think it's a good one - but it's an example of what I'm talking about.) GMs have started to pay elite young talent when they're still elite and getting better. Guerin is paying for no downside in Kaprizov's career. The Avs are paying near top dollar for Cale Makar, but they get him when he'll be at the top of his game, and can let him walk, if they so desire, before his decline phase. I wonder if we'll start seeing more of this across the board; UFA contracts and extensions that buy out UFA years will decrease in dollars, while RFA deals will increase. The shift hasn't taken place completely - elite young stars are getting paid while above average youngsters still have to wait for their payday. And this is because the variability is greater when you haven't seen the elite production yet. A young player with a good-not-great season might not reach those heights again. But it's rare for a young guy with an elite season to end up being a bust, and GMs are starting to realize that and pay accordingly. They usually wind up with a small discount because they're paying early rather than having to pony up after a monster season. In this case, there have been 10 rookies in the cap era to put up .85 points per game or more in at least 50 games (Kaprizov was at .93 in 55 games, or .87 in 62 if you want to include playoffs). Of the 10, seven have been elite players in their careers, one has been good but not quite elite (Paul Stastny, and if the Wild got Paul Stastny's production in his early 20's, I think they'd be disappointed but it wouldn't be a bad contract), and the jury's still out on the other two, but it looks promising for at least one of them (Laine and Pettersson). Kaprizov is a bit different in that he was a rookie at 23, so the potential for improvement isn't quite as high, but the chances that he flames out completely are still really low. There were 21 players who put up a season like Kaprizov's in their age 23 year, regardless of rookie status. Only two could be labeled as busts or one-year wonders (Max Domi and Chris Stewart). The rest is a collection of good (Tomas Vanek, Mike Richards, Bobby Ryan) to elite (Malkin, Kucherov). I think the Wild will take the 90% chance that Kaprizov lives up to the deal over the next five years.