16 replies to this topic

[letsgoducksdotcom]

I see that the Scott N retirement thread is getting a little off-track, and thought that his retirement COMPLETELY changes everything. Seems a thread devoted to "what now" is in order, though I don't really care if this is moved to the 2010/2011 thread.

Anyway, the question I think is clear. The Ducks have got ONE big decision to make:

A - Keep it together now, try to keep winning while transitioning out of the "Scott" era, or

B - Get young and give guys like Bonino and Sbisa key roles now


I think that's what Teemu wants to know.

The advantage of A is that if we go out and get a UFA top pairing dman and re-up Wiz and Teemu and Saku we are pretty sure to be a competetive team, and with the right mix of health and a good run from Hiller .. not to mention a guy or two at the Trade Deadline .. there is no reason this team could not compete for a cup.

The disadvantage? We bury guys like Sbisa on a 3rd pairing of the minors. Put a guy like Bonino/Sexton - really pick your prospect - on the shelf another year and keep their development down. Plus, there's no guarantee at all we don't do what we did last year .... start slow and taper off! Worst of all, we trade away prospects to get a guy like Kaberle - and future cap flexibility by giving out UFA deals.

The advantage of B? Well we give Sbisa/Bonino (I'm just picking names off the top of my head, whatever prospects we think are ready or close) a quick introduction into the NHL. We don't trade prospetct for Kaberle, we don't give out a 7 year deal to Michalek or something. We don't trade picks at the deadline to get a Steve Thomas. We seriously commit to a rebuild.

The disadvantage of B? Well, maybe we suck bad! Maybe we don't get back to good before Ryan and Perry's deals are up. Maybe we end up like we were in all those years of sucking while adoring Paul and Teemu?


I truly don't know what's best, but I think I favor "B".

[Todrick]

A.

but that's cause I see the loss of Scott at $6+ mil as a benefit.

He was not worth that and two $3-$3.5mil players or one $1.5mil and one $5mil would be FAR and away better for the team.

I DO think we need to clean out some of the bottleneck on the 3rd and 4th lines and bring up some rookies even if we don't hit full rebuild... but the two are not mutually exlusive

[General:Moters]

I think things won't have to be that clear-cut. Look at this year's Colorado team - you can put young guys in key roles and still be successful.
Our core still looks good.

I do like a somewhat reduced B version myself, but I admit that I am too much of a distant observer. Our owners need fans in the seats and I have doubts about the Anaheim fanbase in its entirety being in favor of a full-rebuild. Which is not really what we need, anyway, since the core is not that bad. We still need a quality defensemen like Martin. But I like the idea of Sbisa or even a wild card like Matt Clark getting more than a look.

[ducksfan95]

This tam doesnt need much help to get to the cup again. we have 2 very good goalies, a very nice top 6 to build from and a bottom six that looks like its comning together, just upgrade the D some and were right there. the offense doesnt lack its the D

[letsgoducksdotcom]

Our owners need fans in the seats and I have doubts about the Anaheim fanbase in its entirety being in favor of a full-rebuild. Which is not really what we need, anyway, since the core is not that bad. We still need a quality defensemen like Martin. But I like the idea of Sbisa or even a wild card like Matt Clark getting more than a look.

That is a good point. Though this might anger some, the truth is that the Ducks draw fans when they are winning and a couple of non-playoff years will be VERY costly to the Samuelli's.

[General:Moters]

It shouldn't anger many, it's the reality of the situation in pretty much every non-traditional hockey market. I've seen it happen in my hometown team this year, that is pretty much the most traditional market in the country. One or two years of non-contention can have dramatic effects, and while I would love to simply look at the sports-side of things, it's a big part of the equasion.

[Sojourn]

Here's my problem with A -

I think Anaheim would just be trying to hold off the inevitable, something that they have arguably been doing since they won the Cup in 2007. It hasn't worked. The team has gotten progressively worse, until finally they missed the playoffs entirely. Some may agree or disagree, but I don't think this team is a Cup contender next season, even factoring in possible changes, so I'd rather not see Anaheim give up assets that could prove to be valuable in the future.

I think for them to be a true Cup contender you'd need to look at the season realistically, and understand that not everything is going to work out. A true Cup contender? They are the teams that can get it done when everything isn't working out. This isn't something that I think would apply to Anaheim. For them to be a Cup contender, their players would all need to click in just the right way, Hiller would need to be great at just the right times, and all of their components would need to be working. I don't consider that realistic, because it never happens. Even with teams that win the Cup, it never happens. Players go on hot or cold streaks, players have off series, or goaltenders have off games. That's the nature of the game, and I don't think Anaheim has the horses to win it all without all of their horses running the race full out.

Maybe there's a fine line that Murray can toe, giving this team a shot at the playoffs, while also not sacrificing the future or keeping good young players out of the NHL, where they probably belong.

[letsgoducksdotcom]

Maybe there's a fine line that Murray can toe, giving this team a shot at the playoffs, while also not sacrificing the future or keeping good young players out of the NHL, where they probably belong.

That's why I voted B, though I'm not real determined about it. I don't think we would be that much worse off trying to replace Scott, Teemu and Saku with youngsters. I may be VERY wrong, though.

[Always Mighty]

The disadvantage? We bury guys like Sbisa on a 3rd pairing of the minors. Put a guy like Bonino/Sexton - really pick your prospect - on the shelf another year and keep their development down.

Why is it bad to let Bonino and Sexton develop for another year? You know why Detroit is so good? Cause they let the prospects stay in the minors for a little too long, but it really allows them to develop into top notch NHL players. And while Sexton might be ready for a full time job, Bonino was no where near ready.

[RGS_Quack93]

I went A. Our biggest problem last year was our D and with Scotty retiring that gives us some $$ to go out a get some talent on the blue line. If were not able to make a good FA signing on the blue line THEN I would say re-build because at that point were having to trade for a big name D man which is going to cost us some talent.

So really it comes down to what opportunities can Bob capitalize on in the FA market or what deals can he get done that dont cost us too much talent.

[letsgoducksdotcom]

Why is it bad to let Bonino and Sexton develop for another year? You know why Detroit is so good? Cause they let the prospects stay in the minors for a little too long, but it really allows them to develop into top notch NHL players. And while Sexton might be ready for a full time job, Bonino was no where near ready.

Yeah, and Phoenix, Colorado, LA all put young guys in big roles and they flourished. Bonino's 22 and a seasoned college player. I don't know how much he'll learn in the minors. Every year some team you think was gonna tank cause they didn't spend ... well they take off! It could happen here.

But the point I was trying to make is that I don't know that Dan Sexton or Mickelson or Festerling or any of these guys is gonna get to the point where they can play top 4 minutes by playing in Syracuse or by playing on our 3rd pairing. Maybe shoving them in the NHL and learning by fire will work. Probably not, but maybe!

[Sojourn]

That's why I voted B, though I'm not real determined about it. I don't think we would be that much worse off trying to replace Scott, Teemu and Saku with youngsters. I may be VERY wrong, though.

Ideally, in my opinion, for A to work we'd need Selanne and Koivu to stay at least one more season. That would allow Murray to focus primarily on the blue line, and cleaning up the bottom six. I think it's possible to replace them all in one year, but not without opening up the safe to players and asking them to have their fill, and then doing the same thing with GM's and Anaheim's assets.

Scotty didn't have the best year, but he was still one of the better defensemen in the league, and he handled huge minutes and responsibilities for Anaheim. I don't think any one defenseman can replace that, so it would take two, and since Anaheim already needed help on the blue line, it would need to be the right two defensemen in my opinion. That might bring Anaheim's blue line more up to spec, but I don't think it would be a great one. Sbisa could throw that all out the window. If he stepped in and played like he did in the Olympics, that could be really special for Anaheim. It's just difficult to put that kind of expectation on a young kid.

Koivu was a real solid two-way center for us, but his offensive upside was more limited. He'd probably be the easiest to replace, except that Anaheim already had a problem finding a 2nd line center. Of course, I still think moving Ryan to the center spot could hold some merit, but that would be up to Ryan. At any rate, Anaheim would be in trouble without a true 2nd line center.

Selanne, even despite not having quite the same impact he once had, still has a gift for finding the back of the net. You have to figure, healthy, he'd be good for at least 30 goals, and possibly more. That's harder to replace, because goal scorers are expensive and teams don't usually give them up freely. It would be really nice if Lupul could come back healthy, but I have some concerns about that.

I think we should also factor in that Anaheim is expected to have their self-imposed cap, which I think would make it harder to accomplish all of this. One of the reasons I am for B is also that I would like Anaheim to utilize some of their young players a bit more. If Anaheim can't make a run for the Cup, and my personal opinion is that they won't be able to, that we should be careful about signings so that when those young players are ready to step into the NHL they will be able to fight for a spot against other players, and not against big weighty contracts.

[Sojourn]

I also think we should consider that the Weaser situation plays into this. If we lose him, it hurts our blue line, but if we hold on to him it might be a contract we regret later.

[ZOT]

I voted B.

This is starting to feel like the summer of 2003 minus the Stanley Cup run. The Ducks lose their captain and gain Federov and Prospal.

Hopefully, Bob Murray doesn't make the same mistakes as Bryan Murray, in terms of the FA market. As for the draft, I pray that Bob hits the same gems like Bryan.

Good luck Bob, these next couple weeks are critical towards the future success of the Ducks.

[From Section 425]

.
Good luck Bob, these next couple weeks are critical towards the future success of the Ducks.

...and your future tenure as the Ducks GM.

[Todrick]

This is starting to feel like the summer of 2003 minus the Stanley Cup run. The Ducks lose their captain and gain Federov and Prospal.

Sadly i suspect we will be getting that captain back...

[General:Moters]

Why is it bad to let Bonino and Sexton develop for another year? You know why Detroit is so good? Cause they let the prospects stay in the minors for a little too long, but it really allows them to develop into top notch NHL players. And while Sexton might be ready for a full time job, Bonino was no where near ready.

I don't agree. The reason for Detroit's success was more having a core of great overall, multi-dimensional players and finding elite talent in late rounds credit to their exceptional scouting in Europe. There's also nothing to suggest a player doesn't develop on the big club. It's just different strategies. Having a kid practise with the big guys everyday outweighs the negative side of a player occasionally (!) play just a few shifts on some nights (as long as he's not limited to a few shifts all the time).

letsgoducks mentioned other examples, I agree with him. There's no definite wrong in prospect development at the beginning. You just need to see if your route works with the kid, and then maybe adjust.

I went A. Our biggest problem last year was our D and with Scotty retiring that gives us some $$ to go out a get some talent on the blue line. If were not able to make a good FA signing on the blue line THEN I would say re-build because at that point were having to trade for a big name D man which is going to cost us some talent.

So really it comes down to what opportunities can Bob capitalize on in the FA market or what deals can he get done that dont cost us too much talent.

I agree to some degree, but let's not commit to the illusion that Scotty's retirement helps us significantly in the money department. He needs to be replaced. There is no single player as good as him on the (free agent) market. And we'll have to overpay, which is the very nature of July 1st. The biggest chunk of what's "saved" from Scotty will most likely be used for one addition - if we actually can, given the many suitors and few targets. The odds tell us we won't get some kind of bargain on two defenseman that make as much as Scotty did combined, so that we'd actually have improved. We'll have to compensate this loss in other ways.

I also think we should consider that the Weaser situation plays into this. If we lose him, it hurts our blue line, but if we hold on to him it might be a contract we regret later.

Absolutely. Same thing as with the possible targets in free agency. Murray does know about the problems and he would not like anything better than address those needs whatever the cost. However, that's not how you stay successfull in the league. We'll have to look at our club, at all options, at possible additions, then look what they'd be worth to us and by how much we would dare to go over that amount. Addressing a need just for the hell of it makes you do stupid things, for example sign Wade Redden to a 6 year, $39 mio. deal.