Dr. Mikkel and Uncle Fester
ARTHUR:
The Ducks have only three of this year's regular defensemen (Visnovsky, Eminger, and Festerling) signed into next year. When you count anyone who wore a Ducks sweater in 09-10 (i.e. Sbisa and Oystrick), the number reaches five, but it's hard to pick out a Top 4 in that group. Well, unless we're calling anyone who played prolonged time with Niedermayer a Top 4 defenseman. Then we would have Festerling, Eminger and the option of signing Wisniewski-- nothing to worry about, right?
Murray will undoubtedly do some work on the blueline this offseason with signings (hopefully better than Boynton) or trades (hopefully better than Kunitz/Tangradi for Whitney), but if he re-signs RFA Brendan Mikkelson, a surprising question mark will continue for a THIRD year. Mikkelson or Festerling?
It seems unfathomable that the team could spend a third year putting a half-season into each of these guys and learning nothing from it. Granted, they spent this year trying to avoid that by signing Eminger and Boynton, but somewhere in the free agents' inability to keep the rookies in the farm and the rookies' inability to reproduce their AHL product on NHL ice, the Anaheim blueline became the ultimate victim of that attempted sidestep.
On paper, Mikkelson has the 'no-brainer' edge. He's the bigger player, the better skater and the Ducks' 2nd Round pick (31st overall!) in 2005; the team has more invested in developing him, even if only in terms of trade value. Generally, the fact that he tanked his contract year would be a good thing, but with the Ducks' defense so sorely shorthanded and the Nick Boynton signing casting a shadow on the ability of this front office (GM and pro scouting staff included) to find a depth defenseman, it's suddenly a very bad thing. And if Sheldon Brookbank can't see eye to eye with management, Festerling will have the skill-free defense market locked up.
Some thoughts and a quick statistical year in review after the jump...
First, I should note that there ARE options. In terms of the tiers of development, Festerling and Mikkelson exist on the same tier as Nathan Oystrick, though all three are probably behind the talent plus NHL experience of Luca Sbisa. If the Ducks are willing to pick a 5-7 defenseman from a tier lower, they can go back to Brian Salcido (who I still suspect was a Manon Rhéaume-ian publicity stunt), or a trio of minor leaguers (Stu Bickel, Eric Regan, John DeGray) all serving a contract year starting this fall. After that, there's Mark Mitera, who got SOME American League time this year, or they can take a chance on Jake Newton. Obviously, someone will stand out in camp, but as long as the Ducks take the preseason seriously and limit the number of Boyntons they work out, there are opportunities to promote from within.
That being said, there is an opening, both in terms of time and responsibility, for one of the Ducks' NHL experienced defensemen to play an entire year next year. And you would think that the front office knows Mikkelson and Festerling well enough by now to not be fooled, or at least overly influenced, by a strong showing in camp.
Again, in theory, the Ducks get more out of playing Mikkelson. There is still potential for a Top 4 toolkit there, and if he can at least fake that for half a season, they can trade him for the value they put into him. But as his inconsistency has degraded from game-to-game to shift-to-shift, putting that additional time into him sacrifices more than a few goals against and squanders the political capital Bob Murray might have had with GM's willing to take a chance on a former 2nd Rounder who "just hasn't put it all together yet."
Festerling tried to step it up in terms of hitting and puck carrying this year, but he may have reached the limit of his paygrade. Playoff teams generally have no problem putting 12 minutes into a guy who will always be a 12 minute guy; it's the definition of depth defense. But from a development standpoint, that's 12 minutes you could spend breeding a Top 4 defenseman. I suppose the Ducks have to decide if they're a playoff team that just missed the playoffs or if they need to recoup some assets before returning to the postseason. If the Ducks are playoff bound, they have to stick with the guy that won't hurt them, even if he can't do much by way of helping them.
Below, a quick statistical year in review of the two players, just to show you how they spent the season. No real statistical conclusions here. Don't be discouraged by Mikkelson's garish plus-minus with the Marlies. While he was tied for second worst on the team, there were six players with a -16 or less rating, including the -20 'leader' who played in only 34 games. Penalties drawn and corsi stats taken from Behind The Net.
AHL
Player
GP
G
A
PTS
+/-
PIM
PP
SH
S
S%
Brendan Mikkelson (TOR)
49
7
15
22
-19
43
3
0
73
0.096
Brett Festerling (SA)
17
0
1
1
-1
19
0
0
17
0
Brett Festerling (TOR)
11
0
4
4
3
8
0
0
16
0
NHL
Player
GP
G
A
P
+/-
Corsi
P Tk
P Drw
S
GvA
TkA
Hits
TOI/G
Sft/G
Brett Festerling
42
0
3
3
1
-0.20
5
3
25
7
5
127
12:30
16.2
Brendan Mikkelson
28
0
2
2
-5
-1.24
7
4
21
12
2
28
14:59
19.8
0 recs |
26 comments
|
Comments
Something to ponder
while visions of Volchenkov dance through your heads. Or I guess, for Daniel, weighing the wonder of a Wisniewski-less world.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Apr 25, 2010 2:28 PM PDT reply actions
Though I saw some inconsistencies in Mikkelson’s game at the NHL level, he has a lot more upside. Given his inconsistencies, I still think he’s better to have up with the big club than Festerling. I say this without regard to the team’s expected performance next year because as i see it, an ‘inconsistent’ Mikk is better than a ‘safe’ Fester.
One thing’s for true, neither should be playing top 4 minutes next season unless significant improvement is shown throughout the course of the season, and not just at training camp. Though I think that should be the case; whomever shows a stronger training camp, shouldn’t play too much into the decision on who stays (if not both) up with the big club next year (assuming Mikk is re-signed in the offseason).
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
Yeah, I echoed a lot of your points above. And I think if we were stronger on defense, there would be no problem moving Mikkelson back down the pecking order. And that’s really the issue here: the pecking order. No one’s talking Top 4 D time, but you put a season’s worth of NHL games into a kid and it’s tough to start talking about a two year AHL player or a fresh out of the NCAA kid jumping over him for a 5-7 spot, especially if you can’t trade him.
And as I said above, there are teams for which this isn’t a big deal. A kid tanks his first contract year, awesome. You get him on the cheap and send him back down. Problem is, we kind of need SOMETHING out of the 160 games we put into these two. If the pro scouts come up empty next year, we need to put 82 into someone who’s already played a little bit of time.
I’d say think about it like an RPG. We’ve got XP, and we’re talking about where to spend it.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Apr 25, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Right and who would you spend it on? A guy who will apply the XP and make use of it to reach a higher potential. That’s Mikk
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
Actually, if you’re a properly stocked playoff team, I think you send Mikk back down until he figures out his confidence issues. You have the luxury of not using your big league XP on him until he finds his big league game. The Red Wings would NEVER bring a kid along too fast if he’s having confidence and consistency issues. And really, they would never have to.
Unfortunately, the Ducks aren’t properly stocked and they’re not necessarily a playoff team, so they don’t have a lot by way of excuses NOT to finish Mikkelson’s development right now. Acquiring Sbisa’s to leap over him the way Smid or Mitera would have isn’t going to work forever. So I think it’s really a question of where this team feels it is this year. Does it need to finish incubating this asset ASAP, or is there a way to give Mikkelson another year or two with the Crunch?
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Apr 25, 2010 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm really excited
about a full season of Sbisa. I didn’t understand why the team depressed his development this year and he looked pretty damn good in the Olympics during some key situations. Sbisa really impressed me as a smart defenseman who seemed to put his D ahead of jumping into the rush. He’s not a huge guy (6’2"), but he played a lot of that stay-at-home type D during the Olympics.
I don’t think we’re going to need to worry about offense from the D this year, especially with Lubo. Assuming that we get Scotty back (and he doesn’t have to babysit Wiz), we should get more than enough offense from Scotty and Lubo. I think the key focus should be on steady, un-sexy brutes a la Brookbank.
by PhantomPretender on Apr 25, 2010 7:58 PM PDT reply actions
I’m very curious to see who they pair Sbisa with. I think it will also be interesting to see what happens with Wis. IMO, he shouldn’t be paid more than a 5th or 6th defenseman. Give him a 1-year $1.5 deal and see what he does with that. If he doesn’t want the deal then take him to arbitration on a 1 year outcome and if the arbitrator grants him more than $2 million for the year then I say let him walk.
Scott-Michalek
Vis-Sbisa
Mikk/Wis-Eminger/Brookbank/Clark
Doesn’t seem like much of an upgrade from last year, but I think pairing Scott with a proven, decent, stay-at-home defender will make a huge difference in the team’s success. It’s not much of a reach (cap-wise) to have those guys playing on the top 4. I don’t like the idea of letting Wis walk if the arbitrator doesn’t give Murray a fair price, (assuming arbitration is what will be resulted) but it would free up some cap room if nobody will take Blake or Lupul off Murray’s hands.
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
With the 5th and 6th spot that I filled with 5 players, I’m not purposing that the Ducks sign/keep all those players. I just think those players are the one’s to fill those spots. I guess if I were to rate them in the order of who I think should fill the 5th and 6th defensemen on the team, it would be as follows: Brookbank, Wisniewski, Mikkelson, Eminger, and Clark would be the wild card. Depending on how strong he comes out of camp, I wouldn’t mind seeing him and Sbisa compete for a top 4 spot.
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
However given the fact that Eminger is still under contract next year, he’s the most likely candidate from that list.
Sadly, you can’t pencil Wisniewski in at 5/6. He’ll be talking at least 3M at the RFA table. And even at 2.75M, Carlyle wanted 25 minutes from him. His pay is directly proportional to how much he’ll hurt us. sigh.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Apr 25, 2010 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
To me (and I’m sure anyone else) he’s only valuable as a 5th/6th for now. He hasn’t proven he can log a significant amount of minutes and still be affective without making severe mistakes. You’re correct on your fiscal analysis, so he’ll probably be released after an arbitration hearing and my hope is that Mikkelson will be up to the task and replace him as an offensive threat on the 3rd pairing.
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
I’m not saying Wisniewski is valuable. He’s a gingerbread pylon. But I’m saying that it’s more than wishful thinking that he will be re-signed and placed on the 5/6. You’d do better to pencil a Boynton in there.
There’s a real chance he’ll be re-signed, at least to a one-year to finish off his RFA. The value of that one year will probably be in the ballpark of his salary this year, and so there’s zero chance of seeing him in the 5/6 unless he chooses to represent himself in negotiations.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Apr 26, 2010 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Vis/Sbisa
would surprise a lot of teams. I like that pairing a bunch and I think they’d be able to quickly move the puck out of the zone and generate some offense. Both seem capable puck carriers.
by PhantomPretender on Apr 25, 2010 9:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree. I really just think Murray needs to make one high end signing this offseason. Whomever he gets + Scott, Vis, and Sbisa should round out the top 4. I would rely on Brookbank[replacing Sbisa &/or UFA] and Mikk/Wis[replacing Scott &/or Vis] (assuming they both get signed) to fill in if there are injuries within the top 4.
Suddenly, I’m feeling optimistic about Anaheim’s blue line next season.
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
I would love to see this pairing.
"Abtholoootleee"
by Floyd Gondoli on Apr 26, 2010 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t unless he was paid $1.5 million or less (as stated above) which is a long-shot in itself
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
Personally, even at that price, I would rather not sign him. Rather than sign him just leave the bottom pair as Eminger – Mikkel/Fester.
Also:
your proposed defense doesn’t have enough Boyntons in it.
haha. it’s the offseason motto.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Apr 25, 2010 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I could see that happening, but I just think Wis would be super effective with limited time, for now. You never know, with the right partner and with more experience he could develop into a top 4 guy. But you’re right, I think he’s rushing his pay. He wants too much for his capabilities at this point in time
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.

by 









