Jump to content


Photo

Expansion Draft - Potential Players We Could Lose


  • Please log in to reply
559 replies to this topic

#1 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,356 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 20 March 2016 - 04:54 PM

I didn't know if a thread has already been started (if so, moderators feel free to transfer this to a thread on this topic already started).

http://m.thn.com/blo...ipped-to-vegas/

#2 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,815 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 20 March 2016 - 08:03 PM

What fun about this one is you can decide if you want to protect 8 skaters and be able to protect your entire D core OR protect 3 Dmen and 7 forwards.

 

Granted we wont really know what kind of effect this will have until June when they decide if they will expand or not. That decision will have a huge impact on the kind of contracts handed out between now and then.

 

Not to mention, they still have to have a ruling on players with a NMC.



#3 ducksalltheway

ducksalltheway

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 08:57 PM

If this offseason. Gibson Getzlaf Perry Rakell Lindholm Fowler Despres Manson Vatanen.



#4 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,356 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 20 March 2016 - 09:49 PM

What fun about this one is you can decide if you want to protect 8 skaters and be able to protect your entire D core OR protect 3 Dmen and 7 forwards.
 
Granted we wont really know what kind of effect this will have until June when they decide if they will expand or not. That decision will have a huge impact on the kind of contracts handed out between now and then.
 
Not to mention, they still have to have a ruling on players with a NMC.


Yeah, the soonest they'd expand would be for the 2017-2018 season.

#5 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 11:08 PM

And therefore there will be no expansion draft until at least June of '17.

 

The jockeying by the GM's in anticipation of that will be fascinating.



#6 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,356 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 20 March 2016 - 11:15 PM

And therefore there will be no expansion draft until at least June of '17.
 
The jockeying by the GM's in anticipation of that will be fascinating.


Let the games begin!

#7 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 06:51 AM

Those player protection rules allowing you to protect only one goalie might have a bit of a negative affect on Andersen's value the longer he wears a Ducks sweater.

 

Seems to me shopping him to teams that desperately need a reliable starter can't come soon enough.

 

Also, that 25% rule almost insures that we'd have to expose Kesler. Which sucks donkey parts.



#8 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,771 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 08:08 AM


That was the first thing that popped into my head was TRADE ANDERSEN. The problem is that the rest of the league knows what kind of spot we are in right now so his value is gonna be further depreciated. 
 
Good problem to have ... one to many #1 goaltenders.



#9 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,815 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 08:49 AM

This is whats fun about the expansion draft. You know you are going to lose someone so now you have to play chess. 

 

Ritchie and Theodore arent exposed, so nothing to worry about there.

 

The biggest question is really going to be what they decide to do with players who have a NMC or NTC in their contract. If they HAVE to be protected, Getzlaf Perry Kesler Cogs and Bieksa are protected. Having to protect Bieksa almost forces your hand to go the 8 skaters route unless you've already traded Sami/Fowler.

 

If its me, I'm trading Freddy and one of Vats or Fowler this offseason. Depending on the return, you might have to protect the individual coming back. Lets call them... Taylor Hall.

 

At this point you are almost forced into the 7/3/1 due to forced protections.

 

Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, Hall, Cogs Bieksa..... Lindholm, Sami/Fowler, Rakell, Silfver and Gibson. 

 

You now have to expose Despres and I think Manson too. Perron, McGinn, Pirri would all be exposed too if they remain on the team.

 

If you do not have to protect NMC/NTC then it gets more interesting... 8/1

 

Getzlaf, Perry, Lindholm, Fowler/Sami, Despres, Manson, Rakell, Silfver, Gibson



#10 Dutch Duck

Dutch Duck

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,825 posts
  • Location:The Hague, The Netherlands

Posted 21 March 2016 - 08:53 AM

If there's only one expansion team (Las Vegas), each team can only lose one player, right? Andersen. The rest of the team is save, imo.

#11 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,815 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 08:55 AM


 
Yes, only 1 player can be lost, but were talking about another full year from now. I dont think we will be, or should be holding onto both goalies for that long. Trade Freddy to another team and let them protect him while we get something back.



#12 HockeyHeaven

HockeyHeaven

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts
  • Location:Irvine, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 08:58 AM

At the most you will only lose two players - if there are two expansion teams.



#13 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 09:27 AM

If I were the GM and wasn't able to get the value I thought was appropriate for Andersen or Gibson this summer, I'd hold on to both of them until the expansion draft to protect the skaters.

 

The sacrificial lamb.



#14 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,815 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 09:31 AM


Thats an interesting move. Problem is, we dont know if these goalies are going to be ok with playing the 1a/1b game that long. We also dont know what kind of $$ Freddy will demand this summer. If he accepts a mirrored deal like Gibson, then yeah sure. But if he demands more, you put the club in a tough spot. I think we are extremely lucky that not only are these 2 both playing exceptionally well but that neither of them has thrown fits or demanded more playing time. I think its a ticking time bomb.



#15 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 10:15 AM


 
Well there could be a lot of "problems" that develop. Getzlaf could play the entire season next year like he did for the first few months of this one. Gibson could turn out to be the Glass Goalie. Perry could demand a trade. There's a thousand scenarios that could play out. I just don't see a high probability of "Freddie Hates Gibby's Presence and Vice-Versa" becoming one of them.
 
There has been no animus at all between them for a couple years now, so I wouldn't expect it to become a problem. In fact, they have worked very well together, as their performance demonstrates.
 
Also, I don't understand what Freddie's salary demands have to do with it. If we don't sign him, then we can't even trade him... which has been itching a hole in your pocket for quite a while now.
 
You have been so anxious to trade him you seem to see problems with any other scenario BUT trading him. You did the same thing with this TDL.
 
Honestly, wouldn't you have a threshold for the value you expect in return for, say, Andersen? I do.
 
I'd say a 2nd + a prospect at minimum for him.
 
The way I look at it is that a 2nd rounder is CHEAP insurance to protect the skaters. If I can't get more than that for him, I sacrifice that potential 2nd.



#16 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,815 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 10:29 AM


Whoa whoa whoa, bunch of straw man arguments here... lets discuss.
 
1) Of course there could be other problems that develop, but the goalie issue is one thats much more in your face and true than "Getzlafs going to suck" or "Perry demands a trade".
2) Gibson has not been a full time #1 on this team until this year. Hes constantly been sent back tot he AHL. So the fact that they are willing to share is only indicative int hat they are battling it out to become the guy the Ducks want to keep or give the #1 overall role. They both have something to battle for and earn here.
3) Most goalie tandems dont look like this and dont work like this. When you have 2 guys in this situation they start complaining about ice time. We've been lucky so far, but I wouldnt expect that to go beyond this season. Gibson is going to argue that after this year hes earned it. Freddy will argue that hes been able to put up the numbers and deserves the #1 overall role.
4) Freddys salary has everything to do with it. If he demands $5mil as an RFA, we cant keep him. We can still trade him since we own his rights. So saying "we cant even trade him" is false.
5) Of course every player has a certain value attached. Who ever said you trade him 'no matter what the cost'?? I sure didnt. Im not giving him away for nothing.



#17 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:34 AM


What "straw man" arguments am I using?
 
Or are you talking about your argument that having two starting goalies is a problem? That's a straw man right there. You are basing your argument off of a problem that doesn't exist.
 
I never said you proposed to trade him "'no matter the cost'". I asked you if you did have a threshold for the return, and then gave you mine. I don't know how to be any more reasonable than that.
 
As far as Freddie is concerned, if he wants 5mil we take him to arbitration... cause he'll NEVER get that.
 
You don't think trading "his rights" is anywhere near as valuable as trading him with a contract, do you?



#18 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,815 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:55 AM


 
Maybe strawman was the wrong word... how about false or misleading or unfounded.
 
 
Having two #1 goalies will become a problem. I have no doubt about that. Just like how I had no doubt we would make the playoffs. Freddy and Gibby are getting along right now because of the situation. Gibson gets in some games and takes hold because of Freddy illness/injury. They are both on cheap contracts with Freddy as a pending RFA. They have had to play 1a/1b since there have been injuries and illnesses over the past year. They are both in a situation where they are trying to beat the other out, that will not last beyond this season. They are playing nice now, but have no doubt about it, any competitor who is worth their weight, will demand the playtime at some point.
 
Gibsons bridge deal starts next year. Freddys will be an RFA and will/should ask for significantly more than Gibson considering his track record. 
 
Yes, I am basing my argument off a problem that does not currently exist, but that will exist soon. Thats what a GM is supposed to do; avoid issues before they arise. Name me any other tandem with the talent of these two that lasted without confrontation/drama/issues? I honestly can not think of any.
 
Freddies threshold? Depends if its alone or combined with someone else. Id say a 2n rounder is probably the lowest you go but I dont know that it will be that easy of a swap. I think there will be more pieces involved.
 
Ive never thought 'rights' alone were as valuable as a player with a contract. That said, wasnt Saads rights traded? That was a decent return. It not completely unthinkable that someone would give close to full value. Pros and cons both ways. If he has a contract, you know you have a guarantee, but you are accepting someone elses contract negotiations instead of being able to get the contract you want.
 
Another possibility is a sign-n-trade. Bring the other team into the conversation and see what they would be happy with. Get the contract signed and then ship him off.
 
And as for arbitration.... you dont think its remotely possible that he could get $5mil or somewhere close to that? $5mil is probably the ceiling, but I dont think its crazy to put that in the ballpark. $4-$5mil is what I think he would be awarded.



#19 HockeyHeaven

HockeyHeaven

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,718 posts
  • Location:Irvine, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:08 PM

 

What "straw man" arguments am I using?

 

Or are you talking about your argument that having two starting goalies is a problem? That's a straw man right there. You are basing your argument off of a problem that doesn't exist.

 

I never said you proposed to trade him "'no matter the cost'". I asked you if you did have a threshold for the return, and then gave you mine. I don't know how to be any more reasonable than that.

 

As far as Freddie is concerned, if he wants 5mil we take him to arbitration... cause he'll NEVER get that.

 

You don't think trading "his rights" is anywhere near as valuable as trading him with a contract, do you?

 

 

 

Maybe strawman was the wrong word... how about false or misleading or unfounded.

 

 

Having two #1 goalies will become a problem. I have no doubt about that. Just like how I had no doubt we would make the playoffs. Freddy and Gibby are getting along right now because of the situation. Gibson gets in some games and takes hold because of Freddy illness/injury. They are both on cheap contracts with Freddy as a pending RFA. They have had to play 1a/1b since there have been injuries and illnesses over the past year. They are both in a situation where they are trying to beat the other out, that will not last beyond this season. They are playing nice now, but have no doubt about it, any competitor who is worth their weight, will demand the playtime at some point.

 

Gibsons bridge deal starts next year. Freddys will be an RFA and will/should ask for significantly more than Gibson considering his track record. 

 

Yes, I am basing my argument off a problem that does not currently exist, but that will exist soon. Thats what a GM is supposed to do; avoid issues before they arise. Name me any other tandem with the talent of these two that lasted without confrontation/drama/issues? I honestly can not think of any.

 

Freddies threshold? Depends if its alone or combined with someone else. Id say a 2n rounder is probably the lowest you go but I dont know that it will be that easy of a swap. I think there will be more pieces involved.

 

Ive never thought 'rights' alone were as valuable as a player with a contract. That said, wasnt Saads rights traded? That was a decent return. It not completely unthinkable that someone would give close to full value. Pros and cons both ways. If he has a contract, you know you have a guarantee, but you are accepting someone elses contract negotiations instead of being able to get the contract you want.

 

Another possibility is a sign-n-trade. Bring the other team into the conversation and see what they would be happy with. Get the contract signed and then ship him off.

 

And as for arbitration.... you dont think its remotely possible that he could get $5mil or somewhere close to that? $5mil is probably the ceiling, but I dont think its crazy to put that in the ballpark. $4-$5mil is what I think he would be awarded. 

 

You two just like to argue......



#20 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,815 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:09 PM

 

 

 

You two just like to argue......

 

ya... so?



#21 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:13 PM


 

You two just like to argue......

 
What's it to you, you troll-spanker?



#22 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,771 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:30 PM

 

 

 

You two just like to argue......

No they don't ......



#23 thedozen

thedozen

    1st Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,609 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:43 PM

I think on a team with cap room and poor goaltending Andersen could get $5 million as UFA.  I'm not sure that same team would want to give up the compensatory draft pick due to the RFA status.



#24 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:54 PM

Maybe strawman was the wrong word... how about false or misleading or unfounded.
 
 
Having two #1 goalies will become a problem.

 
Talk about false, misleading, or unfounded. We have evidence to the contrary!
 
And keep in mind I'm only talking about one season. And that's only if we don't get a 2nd + prospect for one of them this coming offseason.
 
There have been many tandems of clear #1's co-existing well for the amount of time I'm talking about. Osgood/Vernon went to two finals and a WC final in three seasons together, and won a Cup together. Hasek/Belfour, Fuhr/Moog, Hall/Plante, Bower/Sawchuk, all close to the top of their games shared net duties.
 
Our goalie coach, Duane Roloson shared net duties as coexisting #1's with Manny Fernandez for about three seasons and they did very well together (except for running into the great brick wall of JS Giguere in '03).
 
Sure, it doesn't last forever, but again: we're talking about one season.
 
In fact, it might create a fantastic competition between Andersen and Gibson next season if they knew the lesser would be exposed to the expansion draft.
 
 

.
.
.
Another possibility is a sign-n-trade. Bring the other team into the conversation and see what they would be happy with. Get the contract signed and then ship him off.
 
And as for arbitration.... you dont think its remotely possible that he could get $5mil or somewhere close to that? $5mil is probably the ceiling, but I dont think its crazy to put that in the ballpark. $4-$5mil is what I think he would be awarded.

 
What are you basing your belief of 4-5mil awarded off of?
 
Bernier, a much much higher rated player at the time, went from 1.25mil to 2.9mil on his third contract.
 
I'll say 3-4mil is what Andersen would be awarded in arbitration, if he keeps up his current pace. Less if he falls off and (heaven forbid) craps out in the PO's.
 
If he wins the Cup and Conn-Smythe, then... well, forget it. We're offing Gibby then.



#25 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,030 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 01:01 PM

I think on a team with cap room and poor goaltending Andersen could get $5 million as UFA.  I'm not sure that same team would want to give up the compensatory draft pick due to the RFA status.

 

 

Comps?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users