Plan D
by cal-S- on Aug 26, 2011 12:12 AM PDT
Email
PrintSo last week, I wanted to open the discussion about envisioning this team's "post-8" future. Though premature, some interesting thoughts came out of the forth and back in the comments. What became obvious after reviewing the post was that regardless of what direction the Ducks embark upon it begins and end with Teemu's version of "The Decision."
On the other hand, the Ducks have seemingly made all the offseason moves that they had planned to make regarding their defense earlier on this offseason; the most notable transaction of course being the swapping of big boys Andy Sutton and Kurtis Foster with the Edmonton Oilers. Aside from that, Bob Murray brought experienced minor leaguers Bryan Rodney, Mathieu Carle and Matt Smaby to help bolster a struggling Syracuse Crunch squad while also continuing the retooling of the organization's defensive depth charts (You might have forgot to say good bye and good luck to former prospects Brett Festerling, Brendan Mikkelson, Mark Mitera, Dany Syvret).
In addition, with many of the rearguards returning, team chemistry looks to bode well in comparison to the previous two seasons, which saw quite a bit of turn over year to year. Plus, the Ducks did boast one of the most effective tandems in the league last season as well as one of the most dynamic young defenseman in the game. Couple that with rising and veteran physical presence and you have a defense that projects to be able to compete at a higher level then has been the case in the previous two seasons (or so we here hope!).
So that leads us again to look at what cards we would be playing with if we were Bob or Randy informally seeing how our deck stacks up against other teams'. This time, of course, with the focus being the formulation of our hypothetical "Plan D," as in D-fense...
The first issue that must be addressed regarding our D this season will be the absence for the second year in a row of Toni Lydman for the start of the season. Hopefully, he will be able to jump right into the fire un-singed as was the case previously, but this obviously will put a little pressure on our depth from the very start of the preseason. Despite this, I anticipate a recovered Lydman sharing the ice with Norris Trophy snub, Lubomir Visnovsky on a returning 1st pairing for the Ducks. After that, it gets a little more tricky as to how you pair these defenders. Here's the full list of our organizational depth:
| Name | Position | Shoots | Height | Weight | Age |
| Francois Beauchemin | D | L | 6'0" | 207 | 31 |
| Sheldon Brookbank | D | R | 6'1" | 202 | 30 |
| Mathieu Carle | D | R | 6'0" | 203 | 23 |
| Mat Clark | D | R | 6'3" | 205 | 20 |
| Kurits Foster | D | R | 6'5" | 226 | 29 |
| Cam Fowler | D | L | 6'1" | 196 | 19 |
| Nate Guenin | D | R | 6'2" | 210 | 28 |
| Toni Lydman | D | L | 6'1" | 202 | 33 |
| Jake Newton | D | L | 6'3" | 200 | 22 |
| Bryan Rodney | D | R | 6'0" | 195 | 27 |
| Justin Schultz | D | R | 6'1" | 163 | 21 |
| Luca Sbisa | D | L | 6'2" | 207 | 21 |
| Matt Smaby | D | L | 6'6" | 239 | 26 |
| Sami Vatanen | D | R | 5'9" | 163 | 20 |
| Lubomir Visnovsky | D | L | 5'10" | 197 | 35 |
| Sean Zimmerman | D | R | 6'2" | 220 | 24 |
It is almost certain that we will not see college-standout Justin Schultz or Swedish Elite, Sami Vatanen anytime this season as they are all still a ways off in their journeys to the big club. Same goes for recent drafties Andrew Welinski and Josh Manson barring a phenomenal training camp. That leave the Ducks with a pretty clear picture of who will be up with the big club to start and most likely finish the season.
Anaheim Calling favorites Cam "Boy Phenom" Fowler and Luca "Chump Crusher" Sbisa look to be increasing their prospective roles this upcoming season with both of them surely getting more minutes this season in all situations, possibly even together. This leaves Beauchemin, Foster and Brookbank playing in the last 2 slots. Realistically, that means that fringe players like Smaby, Carle and Rodney would most likely only get a look if necessity called for it. However, I would not be at all surprised if either Mat Clark or California-born Jake Newton can make some strides to join or even push the fringe at some point this season as both seem to have the desirable tool set for NHL Defensemen.
With that in mind, this is how I see the line up starting off minus Lydman:
Beauchemin - Fowler
Visnovsky - Brookbank
Sbisa - Foster
Smaby scratched
And here is what I envision seeing with the return of Toni Toca:
Lydman - Visnovsky
Beauchemin - Sbisa
Fowler - Foster/Brookbank
In the preseason I would like to see this:
Fowler - Welinski
Sbisa - Schultz
Manson - Vatanen
It should be interesting to see how players like Carle and Rodney do in our system as it favors Defensemen who can carry the puck out of the zone. Players like Smaby and Clark may push veterans such as Brookbank from below for that 7th spot especially with the Ducks seeming lack of physicality on the backend...
For some reason, I thought I could generate more discussion here because the roster on D is set, but it really turned out that there wasn't much wiggle room here to play different combinations. Thoughts?
This article is user-generated. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Anaheim Calling. Please do not link this article as representative of Anaheim Calling content or viewpoints . . . unless it's really really good.
126 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I know we all dislike the idea of separating Lydman and Lubo, but what about a Lubo and Beaucheman combo. When Lydman comes back try him with Fowler if Lubo and Beaucheman find any chemistry. Still doesn’t address the top 4 for while Lydmans out but we can experiment with line combinations during preseason a bit more then we did last year. I wonder how Sbisa and Lubo would work together.
Yeah I can see that. From what I saw last season though, I am seeing Beauchemin as being a 4-5 defenseman this season. His penalty killing skills still seem sharp, but his tenacity and pugnacity have appeared to have diminshed ever so slightly. He needs to utilize those skills if he is to be effective and I don’t really see that as of now. Thus, it makes it hard to see him paired on the top pairing getting top pairing minutes. I guess with the caveat that if you paired Beauchemin and Visnovsky together you could also pair Fowler and Sbisa together a play both lines a lot, I might buy into that argument more for sure!
I look at our D and can’t help but wish we had a veteran shut down guy. I thought we’d be ok, but the more I look at it the more I realize we are going to force Sbisa into this physical shutdown role, which is a shame, because the kid does have some very solid offensive upside and should be allowed to explore it a little more.
I totally agree. But shut down guys are hard to get ‘cuz everyone wants them. It’s possible that we have enough in place (if everyone plays healthy and well) that we just need a solid, physical defensive D-man to round out our group, a la the recently scrounged Scott Hannan. We’ll see I think we are all still hoping that Brookbank can be that guy until one of the young prospects can turn the light bulb on.
Building off that reply, who does everyone want to see make the jump up to the Big League? In other words are there any D prospects that particularly excite you??
I’m at least interested in Carle. I think if he shines and can win a spot then it gives the team a little bit more balance in it’s D pairings. I know Daniel really likes the idea of having a “shut down” pair, but I would happy if we saw something like Viz-Lydman, Beauch-Fowler, Sbisa-Carle. I think all of those guys are at least good skaters and have decent vision. And it’s true that those types of players usually do better in Randy’s system than big defenseman who have trouble moving.
Kevin, I’m with you. I think we see Viz-Lydman back together again, there is no sense in breaking that up. I think we see Beauch paired with Nieds 2.0, because Beauch and Nieds 1.0 were so good together. Sbisa will probably play with Foster to start, but I agree that the 6 spot can be had by a few guys.
I’m most excited for Shultz and Vatenen. We have 2 of the best skating defenseman prospects out there, that is a great thing… But it does beg the question, where are the big guys in the system? Hopefully Smaby or Manson come along and surprise.
McNab still has hope that Mat Clark can turn it around this year so keep an eye on him.
by Newport Rebel on Aug 27, 2011 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think we’ll have any idea what our bottom 4 will look like after Lydman gets back. With a full training camp under their belt maybe Beauch will develop chemistry with Fowler, but I feel there was a reason Sbisa was paired with him last year. I see them as being a physical force with some offensive upside, maybe not a “shut-down” pair but a well rounded unit. There has been a lot of talk about letting Fowler and Sbisa grow together but I prefer having veterans play with them. My guess is Foster will beat out Brookbank for the 6th spot and will play with Fowler. Lydman, Beauch. Sbisa, and Lubo will see the PK time unless Foster impresses with his defensive abilities… Here is my argument for breaking up Lydman and Lubo. Fowler needs him more then Lubo does. Beauch would give the big physical presence for the top line, much like he did for Neids, while Lydman would give Fowler a strong defensive partner that can help bail him out and possibly reduce some responsibility and help build some confidence. That would leave Sbisa and Foster which could be interesting to see. It also moves our second most offensive D-man ( Fowler ) onto the second pairing rather then the 3rd. I say try it in training camp and preseason and see what happens.
That is interesting, and I can’t really argue against the Lydman/Fowler, Beauch/Vish pairings. All I can say is that if Fowler and Beauch mesh in camp, there would be no reason to break up the our top pairing of Lydman and Vish.
Vish and Lydman were so good together last year I just don’t see any real advantage to seperating them.
Sorry for being so late to the conversation, it was a long weekend.
I don’t know about Carle being a good match with Sbisa. I remember people being happier with his offensive abilities rather than his defensive abilities. I also agree that it would be better overall to keep Fowler and Sbisa with veterans rather than each other, unless we get a top pair guy to play with Beauchemin, which is pretty unlikely.
I have hope for Manson. Kid might be a steal as a sixth round pick if everything I’ve read is true. Personally, I still think Clark will be a key shut down piece going forward. He had a rough year last year, but he has all the tools to be a good physical shut down guy. If he gets past the growing pains, he’ll be great.
by Daniel AC on Aug 29, 2011 4:26 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I also feel that with the departure of Lilja and no real defensive player to replace him or Sutton that Lubo will be on the PK a lot more. Which means he’ll have a lot more wear on him.
Lubo is going to get hit even more than he did last year, Lydman too. Right now our 4 PK defenseman are Lydman, Beauchemin, Sbisa and…and…I guess Lubo. That’s not encouraging. Maybe Cogs can put all that PK skill into action from the blueline?
If Brookbank makes the roster, he’ll probably get the PK duty but he has to make the roster. That being said, being able to play PK may give him a boost over Foster.
I think we can all see this too. Who knows though, may be Foster can put that big frame to use and block some damn shots and battle in the corner. The Ducks might ask him to…
In 74 games with Edmonton last year, Foster played 11:38 minutes shorthanded, which came to an average of 9 seconds per game. I don’t know if we should be counting him in our plans for when we are shorthanded. Personally, I think we should let Fowler give it a shot before we put in Lubo or Foster. Make Fowler lose that job. I think he’s shown he can handle pressure situations, so I’m sure he’ll do the work to be good at it.
I understand these thoughts completely, however, I am under the impression that we would all like to see PP with Lubo – Fowler first pairing and 2nd pairing of Sbisa – Beauchemin/Foster. If that’s the case, I don’t see any reason that we will not split the time on the PK like Lydman – Beauchemin 1st over the boards, and Sbisa – Fowler/Foster over 2nd.
Beauchemn is a pretty saavy veteran. I think you’re looking at a situation where Foster and Sbisa split time on the 2nd PP unit, not Beauchy and Foster.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 11:31 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Personally, I wonder if Beauchemin and Visnovsky should be on the first unit and Fowler and Sbisa on the second one. Beauchemin used to quarterback the second unit on the Cup team. He has a pretty hard shot and is pretty good at getting it through. At the very least he should be the responsible adult on the second unit.
Sbisa and Foster should get PP time as a reward system. Let Beauchemin be the steady force.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 11:34 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think it’s better to keep Beauchemin on the second line and help either mentor Sbisa further, or mesh will Foster. More than anything, I truly believe that CHEMISTRY wins cups. I think you keep the top pairing together both at ES and on the PP. You don’t want to mess with those unless they lose that chemistry next season. I would also argue that both Sbisa and Fowler seemed to find chemistry last season with Beauchemin so either would work. I think its more important as to who meshes well on the third pairing. As for the PK, I agree that I would rather see Fowler than Lubo, but I think we might be seeing Brookbank as our 6th man if things dont start well.
When we won the Cup, Pronger and Niedermayer weren’t the top pair. Niedermayer and Beauchemin were. Pronger and O’Donnell were the second pair, and Pronger and Scotty played on the top PP unit. Overall, I agree. Chemistry is important, and I would say a key element of chemistry is when every player knows his role.
I also agree that the team would be best served by Beauchemin playing with Fowler or Sbisa. Sbisa/Beauchemin looked good last year.
And actually, I was trying to find some evidence for Foster’s shotblocking ability to gauge it, but it seems somewhat non-existent. But hey, with great blockers like Beauchemin and Lydman, it does seem to rub off a bit on others…
I know yahoo sports has that stat from the past two seasons. There’s a chance NHL.com has been keeping it for longer.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 11:35 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I just saw this little tidbit about Sbisa. For some reason it made kind of reminisce about his #5… Vitaly Vishnevski used to wear that when he was on the Ducks and remember some of the bone-crunching hits he laid on players? If Sbisa can do something like that, and I think most here would agree he could do just that and probably more, then I think the Ducks D will look really good this year.
Completely agree, Cal… I love sbisa, he is quickly becoming my favorite player. He is the reason I say that we have one of the deepest d-corps in the league. As his confidence continues to grow I see no limit to his game.
He (along with palmieri and etem) are going to make that Pronger deal very worth it in the next few years.
He (along with palmieri and etem) are going to make that Pronger deal very worth it in the next few years.
I think we all hope so. I do feel that right now, though there are some real limits to Sbisa’s game. However, I am expecting that with a year under his belt and a year for Carlyle to analyze what he can count on Luca for that we will see a player who is growing in his game this season.
You’re analysis in July was excellent, really well done.
I think with experience, coaching, and growing confidence we will see those quicker decisions with the puck in his own zone. We will see him read plays more effectively, not chase the puck, or lose his check.
He did get beat a few times to the middle when looking for bit hits along the wall, but I will give him those (for now). I think he realized that he needed to establish his physical game to get himself involved, randy said that all year long. I really like that they are letting him flourish physically, that will go a long way in improving his confidence in all areas.
I can’t wait for the day when he ‘winds it up’ through the neutral zone and elects to take it himself instead of dumping off to a teammate. Those are going to be exciting times.
Those times aren’t going to come if he has to stay back to cover for an attacking Foster, or attacking anybody for that matter. Sbisa is being talked about as if he just needs to play physical and get the puck going the other way. That’s a recipe for getting a guy to forget his offensive skills.
Mishandling is a loaded word. Sbisa is at a point where his development could go a few different ways, and he could still become a very serviceable NHL player. The question is, do we want Sbisa to be someone’s defensive partner, or do we want someone to be Sbisa’s partner. In other words, will he become a do it all type of defenseman, or just another guy back there who hits and moves the puck?
I think if he’s partnered with Fowler in the future as the number 1 group they will be a dominant group, not a set of individuals where one is the others partner. If Sbisa becomes the Seabrook (guy who hits and moves the puck) to Fowlers Kieth (guy who does everything), then I am ok with youre scenario.
I don’t know who is talking about him as though he is simply a defensive player. I think you are confusing that with him focusing on solidifying his defensive game first in the NHL rather than let his offensive, god-givin, talent carry him.
If the plan was to make him sound in his own end prior to letting him unleash his offensive game, then I can’t say I disagree with that in the least.
Developing the defensive game is fine, but that usually means playing more responsibly in the context of using one’s offensive talent, if one has it. What you are describing is a scenario where a guy puts away that “god-given talent” and then comes back for it later. In the NHL, if you forget about that offensive ability for a while, you’ll probably find that it hasn’t developed sufficiently to be effective.
“In the NHL, if you forget about that offensive ability for a while, you’ll probably find that it hasn’t developed sufficiently to be effective.”
I’m not sure where you are getting this from…. In my personal experience- I had taken years, or spring leagues, or camps to develop different areas of my game- only to come back and find that I had not lost my original skill set. Muscle memory is a pretty awesome thing. Every athlete experiences this.
It sounds like your just scrounging for a negative again… How would you have them handle Sbisa?
It’s ok; you can continue to think I scrounge for negative comments, and I’ll continue to believe you are incapable of critical thought. I’m sure we’ll get along great.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say you didn’t play professional sports. The margin of error is much greater at th professional level. Look at the MLB where losing 1-2 mph off a fastball can derail a pitcher’s career.
Yes, muscle memory is amazing. I went to play baseball not too long ago, for the first time in years, and found I could still throw the ball and swing the bat. Of course, I couldn’t throw it as hard, and my timing and hand wye coordination at the plate weren’t as good, but I could still play. To think a guy will start emphasizing different aspects of his game and the orbs parts won’t suffer, is non sensical to me. If you keep telling a kid to stay back so nothing get behind him, eventually he will lose his instinct to attack. If he feels he constantly has to cover for his D partner who always attacks he’ll develop a rhythm covering instead of getting up on the play. If he’s dumping the puck more than he’s shooting it, he might even develop a different muscle memory.
The most important thing to conside is that Sbisa isn’t a fully developed player. To borrow your term, not all of his muscle memory has been established. That in turn begs the question, why would you try to make him overdevelop something that might limit his overall potential?
As for what I would do, I would try to keep Sbisa with Beauchemin. Fowler is an extraordinarily mature player and might not need that veteran presence to let him know when it’s good to attack and when it’s good to stay back. I think Sbisa still needs that. I’d also ask him to play significant time on the second PP and PK units. Sbisa reminds me of an improved Beauchemin. If you let him decelop everything in his game, he’ll be an invaluable piece who plays anywhere anytime and can affect the game from the blue line. If we keep forcing him into this shutdown role, it’s going to stifle the overall development of his offensive game.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 11:56 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m going to agree with you and say that they should let go the reigns this year on him a bit. I think you’re just being overly critical.
They handled him exactly how they should last year. It was his first full year and they developed the area that most needed work.
You’re choosing to focus on a negative that may or may not happen. I don’t call that critical thinking. Thats just being skeptical.
You just find things to doubt and run with it, it’s not enjoyable to read. You act like you have evidence but you’re simply predicting whats going to happen. Those predictions are, much more often than not, negative.
We were having a nice conversation about how we are excited for sbisa, then you just come in like the Grouch and squash it.
We know you think everyone and everything about this organization sucks, but maybe hold it in once and awhile??? Some of us want to look forward to the upcoming season.
First, we aren’t talking about how they developed him last year, we’re talking about how they will play hin this coming year.
I’m not making predictions, I’m generating If, then scenarios. There’s a difference, you should learn it.
It seems your default move is to just say I don’t give evidence for my claims, but you never five evidence to support the claim that I don’t give evidence, conundrum.
If you want an unrealistically optimistic view of this team, go play on the OC Register boards. That’s not what we do here. I understand people want to kill the messenger, but don’t get mad at me because you can’t see the flaws in our organization. I write to give my views on hockey, if you don’t like them, don’t read them. No one makes you come here. I apologize for not being one of those fans with an endless optimism who will bow down and praise an organization that continues to make mistakes. If all you want to do is talk about what an amazing, flawless team we are and the great season we are going to have, then call Murray; I’m sure he needs another yes man.
by Daniel AC on Sep 1, 2011 11:30 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
As often as I don’t agree with Daniel’s assessments, I’ll go ahead and say it is what it is. Everyone is allowed to their own opinion. I mean I can see positives and negatives to every player, move and decision this team makes. I mean I hate the fact that Carlyle refuses to roll a legitimate fourth line when we had fourth line players who could play…
Look, from where I sit, Daniel’s arguments are often flawed. That’s my opinion. But so often times so are the arguments, their just his opinion. Take it or leave it. But please don’t “baby cry” every post about it. Instead, engage in the discussions you find satisfying, interesting and fun.
Sorry cal, he just took the wind out of my sbisa-sails.
Daniel, easy man. Your last paragraph says it all. It sounds as if you’re talking about a last place team with no upside. Obviously, we have different outlooks for our team.
Fishy,
I do think Daniel has a point here in that if the Ducks expect D from one side of the rink then it might hamper Sbisa to pair him with Foster as Foster has shown in his career to be a defenseman with a little below average defense. That said, it’s on the coach to ice pairings that show chemistry regardless if it fits their scheme. Carlyle has shown a tendency to put a mobile guy with a less-mobile guy. If you recall how that worked last season with Sutton you might shutter like me. However, I think where Daniel may be missing is in the fact that obviously chemistry is the overriding factor in determining pairings. I mean this was the exact reason our second pairing for the majority of last season was Fowler – Lilija!
Look Fish, don’t tell anyone on any comment thread to go easy. I’ve seen you blow up at people for less.
Second, It’s become clear that you want to spin everything I say to be as negative as possible. The interesting part of this scenario is that I never actually made a negative comment. You assumed it was negative because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear. Same thing with the last paragraph. I didn’t say this team was destined for last place; I said the organization continues to make mistakes. Please stop misinterpreting my words simply because you disagree with me. I don’t understand why you think I need to say positive things all the time.
As for you Cal, I’ll issue the same statement I do to Fish, if you think my arguments are flawed, then attack the arguments and I will respond appropriately, but don’t make the generic claim and expect it to hold up.
The main point of what I was getting at was that everyone’s opinion is their own whether I agree with it or not. The only generic claim I was making was that I don’t always agree with your opinions.
by cal-S- on Sep 1, 2011 10:00 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You actually claimed that his arguments are often flawed and didn’t provide any evidence as to why you think so.
I got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell
Meaning personally, I find faults in some of his arguments. Not that he has made some philosophically invalid claim based on the dogma of logic. Even if I thought that was the case. I feel most of the discussions here are based on opinion (Daniel’s, Fish’s, mine or otherwise) and because of this I am inclined to agree or disagree at my discretion. Nobody is the authority on the subject.
What’s funny is I was actually trying to move the discussion away from this grammatical, semantical, syntactical bullshit and back to hockey. Whoops…
by cal-S- on Sep 2, 2011 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Cal, I think everyone here posts so often because we enjoy conversing with people that have a wide variety of opinions. So, if you find faults in someone’s arguments, why not point them out rather than just saying their arguments are faulty? It doesn’t really hold up unless you provide an explanation, you know?
I got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell
I still am not getting how an organization that continues to make mistakes has rebuilt itself (while remaining competitive) in a high cap/low budget world into a team that certainly has a bright present and future. I don’t get how that happens. If they are continually wasting assets, how is it that they have more than they had a few years ago? That math doesn’t add up.
Look back to the summer of ‘09… Where was the youth coming in? Did we have a farm system? How were we going to afford to fill the holes with proven vets. We are a middle of the road team in terms of spend. The gap between what the ’rich’ teams spend and what the other teams spend is growing with the cap projected to increase until the CBA. What at that point needed to happen to rebuild this franchise? I’ll tell you what, exactly what did happen.
Starting with the Pronger trade this team made a commitment to youth and to a rebuild; ‘lets draft well so we can remain competitive on a budget’. They made that commitment, and it was one that needed to be made and is working.
Hmmm….do you really want me to go back to the beginning? Ok, I think I’d start with the Whitney trade, followed by the Pahlsson trade, and not even taking a swing at re-signing Beauchemin. Then I’ll say the over commitment to Wisniewski, the turnstyle of bottom 6 forwards who lacked character and/or skill.
This team hasn’t been able to pick up valuable depth pieces since Murray traded away all the ones he inherited. Having Talent is nice, but it doesn’t win Cups and it won’t get us much deeper than the first or second round. If Murray continues to claim that he’s trying to build a serious contender, he’s failing. He plays it safe 100% of the time. The most daring move he made was the Whitney trade, and he got fleeced.
This team is fairly average. It lacks a lot of depth. The Ducks were on the high end of output last year, and haven’t improved their depth much. Cogs might be a good third line player, but I still don’t think he fills the most pressing need of a veteran defensive forward. Murray just hasn’t shown a lot of creativity as a general manager, he prefers to sift around bargain bins and waits for things to happen to him instead of making things happen. That’s how he got Visnovsky. He was doing Edmonton a favor in a salary dump. So, yes, I think this team has made several mistakes during Murray’s tenure and that we continue to suffer because of them. Is he drafting better? Yes, he did a good job of listening to his scouting staff. I don’t remember if he hired the current director of scouting or if he was a Burke hire, but either way Murray is listening to them. Other than that, I can’t say I’ve seen much to with which to be pleased. Murray tries not to lose, he doesn’t try to win.
i dont necessarily disagree with you, but i do think you give to little credit also. Also put into context the time and circumstances of each move….
At the time i didnt mind the whitney trade, and he has played well with the oilers and in pittsburgh, just not here. Maybe, you can make the claim that murray went and got the wrong man for coaches system OR that the coach simply used in away from his strengths…both would be true.
My memories foggy, but at the time of the pahlsson trade, were we not close to the cap? and i vaguely recall it said that he wanted to test the free agent market. I can understand that argument that maybe he could have offered him more money, and maybe convinced him to stay. but maybe it was better to ensure we got some return than nothing, and help with cap space. which is the arguement i use convincing myself why we got rid of huskins… i liked him.
agree with your Beauchemin argument however. completely.
However give some credit, he did turn mac into ellis, signed turnover toni, and gambled on emery. argue that emery was a low risk gamble sure…but noone else took it, and he did play a big role in making it to the playoffs.
Id also argue that hes hampered by the selanne situation. he could take a punt and try to make a big trade, however our only real asset is bobby ryan, and id argue that if selanne retires then ryans 30 goals would be difficult to replace.
The free agent market was also a little shallow (this year), although wellwood and jp dumont might be interesting, so who would he have picked up.
However i would complain that he murray hasnt seemed to realise that we got where we did last year on the backs of some career years, and id argue that vis and perry wont get back there,and lydman is coming off his second consecutive shortened preseason (and few plaers of anysport play well after that). add to that hiller and selanne. So i would like him to do more…but im not sure what there is to do, other than draft and wait…and maybe put all the chips into a webber trade…
by BennyLightning on Sep 3, 2011 3:45 AM PDT up reply actions
sorry got distracted. anyway the take home point was that i dont think murray has been as awful as you would say. not amazing by any stretch, but not terrible.
by BennyLightning on Sep 3, 2011 3:53 AM PDT up reply actions
On the contrary, I think you are more closely expressing how I feel. I don’t think Murray has done an awful job, by he hasn’t done a good job either. He’s done A job. I think I emphasize the bad so much, because so many peopleseem to think he’s done well. But, he hasn’t. He’s basically just kept the team afloat.
As for the Pahlsson trade, it wasn’t a cap move, he wanted a return for a guy who would become a free agent. When you start trading away potential free agents because you think they’ll leave, I think that’s a sign that you consider yourself a genuine small market team, a team that can’t compete year in and year out. Personally, I think Pahlsson was too valuable a piece to trade away. You ride it out and see if you can re-sign him. I think the Pahlsson situation was a clear indication of Murray’s shortcomings as a GM; he doesn’t seem to have confidence in himself. He doesn’t seem to be able to find the courage to make a bold move, like trading Bobby Ryan.
I understand there aren’t a Ron of guys out there, but I expect an NHL GM to be able to make something happen. That’s why they are professionals and I’m some dude who writes for a blog. But, don’t just get a guy because he’s good. Get the player you need. I think Murray has shown he can get a few good players, but he hasn’t been able to getthe ones he needs or the ones that fit into the system, at least not with any regularity. As my friend and co-founder of the blog would say “I wan Murray to try and lose his job.”
by Daniel AC on Sep 3, 2011 7:46 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I might chime in with I believe Beauch and Sbisa were the second pairing last season. Fowlers Minutes dropped a lot once Beauch got here. At least that is the trend that I saw last year in one of my fantasy leagues that uses TOI.
I hear you. But I really get the feeling that they are trying to lower the expectations on Foster and make him more of a role player here. We all know he can shot the puck, what we expect though is for him to solidify a pretty cohesive D group with solid, physical play in his own end and smart, opportunistic plays in the offensive zone.
I can buy that to an extent. If you want a guy to fill that role as a defensive player, why not get a defensive player? Foster has never demonstrated a penchant for physical play, despite his size. Im sure he can learn to be solid defensively, and maybe he’ll pitch in offensively in a smart way. However, we once tried to get Wiz to be less of an offensive minded defenseman and it was a disaster. Same for Whitney. Trying to change a player who has a decent amount of experience is a dangerous thing.
That’s not to say Foster will be awful, I’m just suing we should expect him to be him. It’s kind of like when you get in a relationship with someone and keep trying to change them to be the person you thunk he/she can be instead of the person he/she is. Sorry, I’m teaching interpersonal this semester.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 11:43 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I am with u on this point. I am also not exactly sure what they expect from Foster considering the Ducks have some pretty bright spots on offense from the backend. My only guess is that he will platoon with brookbank depending on the teams needs.
by cal-S- on Aug 31, 2011 12:39 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Unfortunately, I’ve come to expect moves like this. The platooning option is the best one I’ve heard.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 1:53 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah. Platoon happens all the time in baseball, but hockey it isn’t as common. I think coaches should utilize it more though. I seem to remember Detroit doing this often throughout the years…
by cal-S- on Aug 31, 2011 3:17 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Baseball is different in hockey. The type of teamwork is different and, I think, doesn’t lens itself to platooning. In baseball cohesion comes in the form of everyone fulfilling his or her particular role in unison. like fans performing a wave, it doesn’t require everyone doing it at the same time to work, and each individual takes it upon himself to do the right thing at the right time.
In hockey, each guy develops a relationship with his linemates or D partner and they operate together at the same time. It’s like a crew team. If one guy starts rowing at a different pace it can affect the whole boat. Because of that different kind of chemistry, I think the platoon is less effective in hockey. It only seems to work when the system in place is so strong that it might not matter who gets plugged in. I think Detroit is an example of that.
I’m not saying it can’t work, in fact I think the Ducks will have to give it a shot this year, just trying to provide an explanation.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 4:06 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m with ya…
Going back to your thought about Fowler getting the time on the PK, I guess it makes sense along the lines that Foster may have been picked up in fact to relieve the pressure Sbisa and Fowler may feel to produce points. It is very possible that both will be looked at for a more well-rounded game rather than only offense.
by cal-S- on Aug 31, 2011 4:19 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I thunk that’s a fair assessment. My argument for Fowler would be that he is company property. We invested a pick in that kid, we should make sure he develops into a superstar.
by Daniel AC on Aug 31, 2011 6:36 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Going back to this point, I am not always convinced that teams can develop kids into superstars. From my vantage point, it seems more like a set of circumstance and personal character versus anything coached at this level. I feel like as you were talking about with Sbisa that teams develop fundamentals and systems. It just seems like those next level players have that confidence and talent regardless of their situation…
I do think that being around other great players can definitely help though.
Daniel
I didn’t reply above because we were getting a bit thin up there and thought we could use some more space….
My biggest argument with you is that you are not putting each move into context and you are not accepting the very clear fact that Murray inherited a team that was hamstrung by big contracts as the NHL moved into a bloated Cap world.
Whitney Deal (part 1)- I’m not going to sit here and say we won this deal, but you need to recognize a few facts; 1- Whitney made less money (3.25 mil) in cash in the year he was here than Kunitz (3.5 mil) did. 2- Whitney was an olympian in 2010 and was widely considered to be one of the best up and coming american defensemen at the time we traded for him… At that time in 2009, it was recognized that we would need to replace Scotty with a puck moving defensemen. I understand why they went out and got Whitney.
Pahlsson Trade- They traded Pahlsson for Wisniewski . Again, they knew the Pronger/Nieds days were over. Time to get some young D with potential. Pahlssons was to become UFA at the end of the 2009 season, while Wiz was set to be RFA. Wiz was unquestionably a guy on the up and up, and has become a D-man who gets on the scoresheet regularly. Its hard to deny the fact that the Ducks didn’t get some quality talent here in this trade. Had his ego not gotten in the way, he might still be a contributor here. Pahlsson was also dealing with stomach problems and bouts of mono…. Smaller market teams need to ensure they get something in return for guys going UFA. Wiz had the talent to be worth the gamble.
Beauchemin non-offer: http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-07-06/sports/24655314_1_francois-beauchemin-bob-sauve-bob-murray … sounds like a case of he said/she said. If teams are offering him 4 million per and you can only offer about 2, do you really throw that offer out there? Murray was clearly interested in him but simply couldn’t place a competitive offer.
Wiz overcommitment: Not sure what you mean here, he signed 2- 1year deals with the ducks. Doesn’t seem like they overcommited at all… If you mean they thought he was the answer to losing Nieds, I think all you need to look at is the fact that they didn’t sign him to a long long term deal with tons of cash. They simply thought he had the potential to be a number 1 defensmen. It seems Murray isn’t the only GM to think this way (see roles in NY, MON, and COL). Thank god we weren’t the team to sign him long term.
Bottom 6: I am going to agree with you partly here. I don’t think that we have not had guys who can fill the roles on the bottom 6, but I do think we have gotten guys that the coach and GM don’t seem to see eye to eye on… What I will say is that Murray never made the mistake of overpaying these players. He knew that he would have to fill those spots with young and cheap talent through the draft. Being a smaller market in a growing cap league, the simply needed to get by until these draftees developed. They can only afford to sign their core players to long expensive contracts, the rest of the team must be puzzled together via youth. I think their plan is coming to fruition…. I do think that the coach and GM need to come to some sort of agreement on which players they will commit to certain roles though, especially the young ones. I think Randy needs to be forced to play certain players.
Once again, this team is headed upwards in my opinion. They rebuilt while remaining competitive and exciting. For a small market team this is an impressive feat….
I think the next 2 years will provide all we need to know about the job Murray and the organization have done. I am very optimistic.
Ok. The Whitney deal: I think you’re forgetting something. Whitney didn’t fit. He was lost the entire time he was here. Also, it was pretty widely accepted that the Ducks were going to move Pronger, not Niedermayer, and that Whitney was meant to replace Pronger’s size and offensive production. Another bit of information you’re forgetting is that Pittsburgh was looking to unload Whitney, yet still got a standard return. In a sellers market, the GM should be able to talk down the price. Murray didn’t. More importantly, the GM should know the player he’s getting. What did Murray think he was getting? Did he think he’d be able to completely remold a player who had already established an NHL identity? Context does not justify an incorrect action. I agree, that making a move for a defenseman, in the given context of the team, made sense. However, he still overpaid, and he still managed to get the wrong defensman. You don’t get half credit as an NHL GM.
Pahlsson: I don’t know what makes you think an extra defenseman off a Chicago roster that thought it was Cup bound was an up and coming player, but the largest consensus on Wisniewski when he got traded was that he was injury prone. In other words, we traded our best defensive forward for an offensive defenseman who had major problems staying healthy. I’d like to add that watching that guy hunch over and limp off the ice every time he blocked a shot was annoying. If you can’t stay in the play after blocking a shot, then don’t do it. Ok, Wiz rant over. Pahlsson was the core of the shutdown line and a key veteran piece who understood Ducks hockey. He’s the guy you hold on to and make sure you re-sign. Move Moen, move Rob Niedermayer, move anybody else. Pahlsson was a long term Duck who deserved to stay. Imagine how much better this team would be if it had Sami to anchor the shut down line for the past couple of seasons. I don’t think Wiz was worth that.
Beauchemin. I’ve maintained two things in this Beauchemin discussion: Murray never made an offer, and Murray had the money to pay the 3.8. First, Murray never made an offer. The article says he never made an offer. He says he called his agent, but it doesn’t say he made an offer. If Beauchemin is willing to take less money, which is the sentiment I got from the article, then how can Murray not even offer 3.25. He offered Wiz 2.75, He gave Eminger 1.5, and he offered Boynton something like 1.25. My math isn’t as good as it used to be, but that comes out to 5.5 million. Maybe Murray didn’t have the money, because he already had plans to piss it away. Basically, Murray chose Wisniewski over Beauchemin, and anyone who watched that team in the playoffs knows that was a stupid choice. More importantly, how are you going to let your top defenseman’s partner of the past 3 seasons just walk away. Sorry, this isn’t a budget issue. It’s a Murray doesn’t know how to spend his money issue.
Wiz overcommitment: You keep putting things into this context of money, but there are other factors to consider, like losing, and Scott Niedermayer’s mental health. Wiz was so crazy that he made Niedermayer play poorly. It got to the point that Scotty was expecting Wiz’s mistakes and would over commit on a play, putting himself out of position. Personally, I think re-signing Wiz was an overcommitment. Let a lone doing it twice. Wiz isn’t a top 4 guy. He’s a bottom pair guy who should be used on the PP. Yet, the Ducks tried to play him as Scott Niedermayer’s partner. I’m still convinced that Niedermayer retired because of his awful experiences with Wisniewski. Also, see my analysis on Murray choosing Wisniewski over Beauchemin and how stupid that was.
Bottom 6: You’re right, yeah I said it, Murray didn’t over pay for those forwards, in cash. Personally, I’d prefer overpaying for a good bottom 6 guy to wasting draft picks and roster spots on all these guys who don’t fit. Winchester cost a third rounder and took us out of any RFA sweepstakes that might be had. Look, you can’t fill the bottom 6 with only youth. You need veteran guys who can teach them the NHL game. Our core doesn’t have any of those veteran guys. You need guys who know how to lose, because those are the guys who help the team rebound. Murray traded away the last guy we had who knew how to overcome adversary to be successful, Kunitz. Guys like Getzlaf, Perry and Ryan, have always had some kind of success. They’ve always used their talent to get praise, and they’ve always been wanted by other teams. Guys like Kunitz had to earn it after almost everyone else had given up on them. We don’t have that edge, and Murray hasn’t used his bottom 6 to replace it. Yes, you need youth, but you need veterans too. I think we can both agree that balance is best. It’s better to spend a little on a good player than spend way less on 3-4 guys who can’t offer the same quality of skills and leadership.
I don’t think the team is heading upwards. I think it is where it is. It doesn’t have the players to be a Cup contender. Even when we get the young scorers on the team, we won’t have the defensive ability in the bottom 6 to win a Cup. This team is going to be a maybe playoff team for the next few years, because the GM can’t spend his money effectively.
Wow!
I’ve been a little busy the last few days, so I’m a little surprised that this conversation is still going on. Daniel I think you are usually a fair and accurate judge when it comes to this stuff but I’m a little surprised sometimes at your “revisionist” history.
1) You both admit that Whitney was talented. And we all can agree that he wasn’t a good fit for the team. But even the best GMs don’t know exactly how things are going to work out. Fish is right in saying that this team made a commitment towards youth. You can’t risk the future for the present, even if that present contains Scott and Teamu. Yes Murray got rid of Kunitz, but he also had Getzlaf, Perry, and Ryan at that point. You give surplus to get what you need. You say that he got rid of the only player that knew diversity and didn’t replace that veteran need? Um how about the 3 masterson winners on the 2nd line? I’m pretty sure all of them have had to play on loosing teams and know how to battle both personal and on the ice problems. Also you talk about his inability to judge talent. Well I don’t really see Tangardi doing that much in the NHL. Most of the time thats a way a trade works: you give a piece you don’t think is worth as much as another team does. I still that the trade made sense AT THAT TIME. Granted Whitney didn’t play well in our system and instead we ended up loosing good assets for someone not worth it. But Murray did what a GOOD GM would do and turned that bad asset into something better. In the end he got Visnosky who has played great. Kunitz and Tangardi weren’t wasted and he managed to do his job very well.
Pahlsson: Listen I really liked that 3rd line we had going the cup year. And I really like Sammy, but you make it sound like the decision to move him was coming out of no where! Take into account this: in the 2 years before getting traded he missed 56 games. In the season before his contract year he was a career low -16. Not great for a D specialist. Murray saw his stock diving and decided to make a move. We ended up getting Wiz, who I really liked as a Duck. Yes he was put in situations that he shouldn’t have been put in, but that wasn’t his fault. He’s a solid top 4 Dman who brings speed, offense, and grit to his game. That season we missed the playoffs there were much bigger problems with the D: Eminger, Boyton, Festerling, Michelson, Sbisa, Brookbank. No one was stepping up to fill the other 3 positions. Should Scotty have been paired with Wiz? No, but then again Murray never even knows if him and Selanne are staying or retiring each year so its hard for him to make those types of decisions. Do I still blame Murray for those decisions? Yes, but because this is a budget team he has to take risks somewhere. That year it was the D, this last year it was the bottom 4 pairing.
I agree with you Daniel in saying that he’s not perfect. He really isn’t, but name a GM you would rather see here? I seem to remember Burke making some pretty bad decisions in the past too. I like where this team is heading, and I’m really excited for next offseason. People forget that we will have a whole new line of players and a butt load of cap space to work with. Murray has set this team up well. We have good Dmen, great top 6 forwards, and a slew of bottom 6 forwards that are all brimming with potential. I have faith in Murray, and until this team stops being competitive I will continue to, but that doesn’t mean I wont criticize him for mistakes. Being a GM is all about taking risks and making gambles. I know the gambles Murray makes aren’t the most exciting ones, but they are the ones he should make for a team on a budget like the ducks.
I’ll say one thing about Wiz that made me not care for the player. In the year we didn’t make the playoffs he had an interview that he said something like, “I don’t think it is a big deal that we didn’t make the playoffs, I think the fans here have gotten spoiled. Teams don’t make the playoffs every year.” Obviously this is not a direct quote but I feel that was the gist of what he said. Now it might be true that teams won’t always make the playoffs, but to me it sounded like he didn’t think it was a big deal that they didn’t make it. I want players that care if they win or lose. Maybe I’m overreacting to a simple comment, but I haven’t cared for the guy since that night.
1) Starting with the comments about adversity, I think you’re misinterpreting what I mean by adversity. I’m talking about guys who have had to work to be acknowledged as talented. Guys who weren’t wanted until they were found by a team that saw that their value. I’m sorry, but Selanne and Koivu, despite overcoming some horrible personal hardships, don’t have that experience. Blake did go undrafted and fits more the mold of what I’m talking about. It’s one thing to suffer personal set backs off the ice. It’s completely different to suffer through your late teens and early 20s being told you’ll never be an NHL player, and finding the personal motivation to overcome that. Perry, Getzlaf and Ryan don’t fit that mold either. Out of curiosity, what has to happen for me to be right about Tangradi? The kid is 22. He just got his first shot at the NHL last year, and got knocked out by a very dirty hit. I mean, if he scores 15 goals this year, am I right? 20? 100 hits? 22 isn’t old for a hockey player. It’s a player who’s just been developing. If a guy leaves the NCAA as a senior, he’s 22. Justin Schultz might be 22 by the time he finally wears a Ducks sweater, does that mean he isn’t a good prospect? Dealing surplus is typically how you make a trade, so why not trade Bobby Ryan. He would have brought in a much higher return, possibly even a star defenseman. Finally, I know the Visnovsky trade worked out, but on paper. It’s a bad trade. It was basically a salary dump for Edmonton. I’m glad Lubo has worked out here, but Murray traded a younger, cheaper, larger defenseman, for an older, more expensive, smaller defenseman. I don’t really see how that’s a good change in terms of value. So, the real question is, are Kunitz and Tangradi worth Visnovsky and the time we wasted with Whtiney, because we can’t get that back either. I don’t think it was.
Pahlsson: I think you’re forgetting the 13 games he played with Chicago, after we traded him. He only missed 43 games over those 2 years after the Cup. As for the -16, it happens. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a veteran center who understood how Carlyle works. I don’t remember Murray saying anything about Pahlsson’s stock diving, I remember him saying that he was concerned about him deciding to test the free agent market. It sounded more like he just didn’t want to negotiate a contract. Something Murray does frequently. Ummm…No one can convince me Wiz has the decision making capacity of a top 4 d-man. The guy gets caught up ice way too much. I’m glad we agree that the hacks Murray got to replace Beauchemin were key contributors to us not making the playoffs. But, anyway you look at it, the only guy on that D that was doing his job that year was Niedermayer, and the biggest reason he had a tough time was because Wiz was constantly out of position. Wiz has great offensive potential. He’s a terrific asset on a PP unit. Although, I think CBJ might see an increase in shorthanded opportunities against.
GMs I’d rather have…I’d love to have Burke back. He acts like a winner and I appreciate that. He makes moves that are bold. I think Shero has done great work in Pittsburgh. The Malkin contract is looking like a problem, but if that’s the worst, then I can live with that. Stan Bowman did a great job retooling Chicago. Granted, getting that helping hand from Tallon on that Campbell contract. I’ve also been impressed with Lombardi’s work in LA and Chiarelli in Boston. Finally, Poile has done fantastic work on Nashville, with a smaller budget than what we work with in Anaheim.
I think the problem I have with Murray is that he doesn’t gamble. He plays it safe. The only gamble I think I’ve seen Murray make is the Whitney trade, and that failed miserably. Letting Beauchemin walk was a safe move for a budget team. Trading Pahlsson and Moen were safe moves. Trading random picks for bottom 6 guys is safe, because you aren’t stuck with a contract. He threatens to trade people, but he never trades anyone. The guy doesn’t follow through with what the says. I don’t have faith in him.
can i restate that taking emery was a gamble (a cheap one that didnt cost anything, but a gamble none the less). Also Maroon, may work out and hes had a checkered past. More recently taking a punt on Bell…Different type of gambling, but as a team struggling with funds to spend, they might be the type we can afford. I know their relatively safe in that if they dont work out then we dont get burnt, but someone still has to take the chance, and murray has taken them, where others have not. And may i say, id have preferred if emery was resigned…
If your concerned about really gambling on a trade, then id like to see him deal getzlaf for someone who actually looks like they care about playing every single night.
by BennyLightning on Sep 11, 2011 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the whole point of a gamble is that there’s a risk of being burned. If Emery doesn’t work out, the Ducks don’t really lose anything, because he cost no money and we didn’t trade anything for him. The Ducks moved a surplus Syvret for Maroon, so I don’t know if it’s a gamble. It’s an AHL guy for an AHL guy. Maybe one of them actually works out for the other team. I think you get where I’m going. Those aren’t gambles.
Hmmm….Trading Getzlaf is a bad idea. Trading Bobby Ryan makes sense. He’s a winger, who hasn’t reached the point where people think he’s maxed his potential, even though the ceiling might not be too far away for him. More importantly, if the Ducks trade Getzlaf it would be a nice reminder of the last time we traded half of an incredible combination, and that time hurt. Bobby is literally the third wheel and that makes him the best trade bait. If Doughty is seriously considering not signing in LA, the Ducks should see if a Bobby for Drew straight up deal can happen. In terms of years, they’d get the same amount of service, but they’d get a Norris caliber defenseman instead of a 30 goal scorer.
P1: “Dealing surplus is typically how you make a trade” If a surplus includes bobby ryan than it must also include kunitz. He was expendable according to your logic. We traded ‘surplus’ for a guy that could’ve been the cornerstone of our d for the future. That is a gamble I would take. Too much of a ‘gamble’ you might respond. Well, you want a GM thats going to gamble don’t you?… ‘Murray traded a younger, cheaper, larger defenseman, for an older, more expensive, smaller defenseman.’ I thought you said whitney didn’t fit here? We got a guy that was a Norris contender for gods sake… Does having Kunitz instead of whitney get us in the playoffs in ‘10, I doubt it. Does having Lubo instead of Kunitz get us in the playoffs last year? I would say we don’t get into the playoffs last year if we don’t trade lubo for whitney. So in the past 2 years, that trade has helped us rather then hurt us. Going forward; Kunitz becomes UFA after he makes 4 mil this season, tangradi makes .85 mil this year then becomes rfa, Lubo makes 5 this year and 3 next year. Would you swap those 2 for Lubo right now? I definitely would not… So, the past 2 years that trade has worked out to our advantage and going forward it still looks to be to our advantage.
P2: “I don’t remember Murray saying anything about Pahlsson’s stock diving, I remember him saying that he was concerned about him deciding to test the free agent market. It sounded more like he just didn’t want to negotiate a contract.” Again (as I point out in a comment below), you aren’t in the room when these deals are going down, don’t claim to be. See my wiz comments below as well.
P 4: It’s not smart to gamble when you’re rebuilding a team in a cap world in which you cannot compete with the spending. Thats all I will add.
1) By your rationale, all surplus pieces are the same. So the Ducks could have plugged any forward in that deal and gotten the same return. Even you have to thunk that’s ludicrous. Not all surplus parts are created equally. Kunitz offered a unique set of intangibles, which Pittsburgh took advantag of, you know 2 runs to the finals including a Cup victory and all. When it comes to the point about Whitney for Lubo, your ability to miss the point is truly amazing. Whether or not Whitney fit here in no way alters his value as a trade asset. In other words, just because a guy doesn’t play well doesn’t mean you should sell on the cheap. If you look at that trade in a void, it’s not a great deal for the reason i stated. As for making the playoffs, we’ll never know. The Ducks might have been better if they kept Kunitz, they might not have. There’s no way to know. What we can do is analyze the merits of each particular deal. Again, I’m not sure if the Lubo trade is to our advantage, Kunitz was on another Cup winning team after all.
2) leading into the deadline a lot of the talk was about whether or not Murry would trade Pronger and what he would do with his pending UFAs like Pahlason and Moen because the checking line was such a key component of anaheim’s success. This was everywhere. I don’t know if you weren’t reading about the Ducks then, but this isn’t stuff I make up. Also, your comment about me being in the room is laughable. First, Murray does talk tithe press so anything that he mentions there is fair game. It’s funny that you always think I’m just making this stuff up. Second, the room comment is non unique, unless you’re in the room. If you are, then you have the right to say something. If you aren’t in the room, your analysis is based on as much speculation as mine is. Being in the room has nothing to do with this discussion, you just like ti thunk that it does.
P4) if Murray wants to get out of the first round, he’s going to have to gamble eventually. A team of rookies isn’t going to get it done. It’s one thing to cower behind the cap, but at some point he’s going to have to back up that “making th playoffs isn’t enough” shit he’s always talking. The way he’s operating now, his best hope is a hot Hiller.
by Daniel AC on Sep 12, 2011 5:02 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
No, there are varying degrees of surplus. I never said that all surplus gets the same return. Not sure where you got that from… Ya, kunitz won that cup for them, it had nothing to do with those other guys… Kunitz is a nice addition to a team who can taste the cup. He was an expendable piece for a team looking to rebuild. You fail to admit that we had to rebuild.
Whitney and Lubo: I think it is you who are missing the point. If that trade is done in a void, now pay attention, we wouldn’t have made the playoffs last year! Remember, that top pairing of ours? and that PP unit that won so many games for us? Combine that with the fact that Whitney makes 2.5 million dollars more over the next 2 years, and you have yourself a DISTINCT winner. Keep putting that trade in a void, it only supports my argument. I want you to find 1 other person who agrees with you that whitney for lubo was a bad trade, just 1.
Pahlson: You think Murray is going to come out and say Pahlssons stock was diving? I don’t think thats a good negotiating practice for any GM. Simple fact is, WE don’t know why pahlsson was traded. Couldv’e been his stock was tumbling, coulve been his illnesses, couldve been his pending UFA status. I really don’t know… FYI, he wasn’t and still is not the player he was for us in ’07. Murray made a call on a player who was on the decline for a player who was very much on the incline, that much is certain.
P4) I maintain that we will get out of the first round. Guys like Cogs, Mac, Sbisa, and Beauch will be a very big part of that… Time will tell.
I’m going to end this argument now, debating with you is an exhausting ordeal. I have to hand it to you.
You claimed that Kunitz was expendable by my logic. I think you took my response to Kevin out of context. I maintained that not all surplus pieces are the same. I was arguing that Bobby was more expendable than Kunitz. I don’t know how you missed that. I’m not saying that Kunitz directly caused the Pens to win the Cup, but I think his experience as a Cup winner was a key component. There are always guys that tend to hang around winners and no one really understands why. I think Kunitz is one of those players.
Ummm…You realize what I mean when I say in a void. That means to remove the context of the season. It means to only look at the players in terms of value as trade pieces. Now pay attention: When you add the context of the playoffs you are no longer talking about the trade in a void. You are adding context. Let me propose a hypothetical trade to you: I will give you a younger, larger, cheaper defender with all star potential for an older, smaller more expensive former all star who’s best years might be behind him. Do you take that deal? Don’t think of names. There are no names because the trade is taking place in a void. Do you take the deal? Moreover, the Oilers saved 1.5 million over the life of the deals. In other words, from the moment of the trade the Ducks have spent 1.5 million more to have Lubo than they would have had if they hadn’t made the trade. The reason is that when we made the trade, Lubo was in the middle of a7 million dollar season, and Whitney was in the middle of a 3.5 million dollar season. You can say they save money at the end, but overall they have spent more money. I’ve never said it was a bad trade. I’ve said it was a lucky trade. Murray is lucky that Lubo got happy and became his old LA self instead of staying his gloomy Edmonton self. If anything, the Lubo trade demonstrates how Murray failed in the Whitney the trade. He got a player who fit. If he could have done that a season earlier, maybe the team would have been in better shape to make the playoffs in 2010.
Pahlsson: Just so we’re clear, I say Selanne will never admit to the press that he doubts Murray’s offseason moves, and I’m crazy. You say that Murray will never admit to the press that a player’s stock is diving and it’s obvious. Your double standard is encouraging. If by “We don’t know why Pahlsson was traded” you mean Murray explicitly told the press he thought Pahlsson was dead weight, then sure. If you mean that it’s impossible to infer by Murray letting the press know that Pahlsson was going to test the FA market and that he didn’t want to lose players in the offseason for nothing that summer, then you’re wrong. The writing was clearly on the wall that deadline. I don’t know why you weren’t reading it.
P4) Time will tell. I maintain that Hiller is the Ducks best chance of getting out of the first round, like he was in 2009.
I apologize, i didn’t understand what you meant by in a void…. I disagree with how you are describing the players in the void, if they are indeed hypothetical Whitneys and Lubos. Size means almost nothing when comparing these two…. I did the math, Lubo will have made 300,000 dollars more in cash over the 3.23 seasons of the deal. So neither is really cheaper. In a void I would trade an older norris candidate for a younger all star.
Fine, I don’t know what Selanne is saying about the offseason moves, just as you dont know how much Murray took into account Pahlssons declining play when he traded him…. What I will say is that when Teemu comes back, you wont have much to stand on. We will never know in regards to Pahlsson, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you seem to be very sure.
Is there any betting allowed on this site? No money, just something creative. Lets just make a bet and end the speculating about what type of team we have. What do you think?
When Lubo was traded, he wasn’t a Norris candidate. I’m not sure he had ever been a Norris candidate until he came here. I can concede that size isn’t as important to two players like Whitne and Lubo, but it’s still something to take into consideration. Over the final 3 years of the deal the Ducks save a straight .5 million. I’m not sure how players get played in the NHL, so maybe you’re right, but if it’s on a per game average, it’s more like .6 more that the Ducks spent. My original number was based on something I read.
That’s not true. My argument was that Teemu was delaying his decision because he was unhappy with Murray’s moves. One might contend that the longer he waits to decide the more right I become.
The bet is the refuge of the under confident. Do you really need more vindication than being right? I know I don’t. I don’t know why you’d need a bet to prove you’re right. I can appreciate your frustration, but I don’t think machismo is the answer.
So, you were arguing this entire time that Selanne is just being a sourpuss? Ah, the good ol’ sourpuss defense… No, your Et Tu Murray post makes it pretty clear that the ducks should either spend or lose selanne. Not that if they don’t spend hes going to pout.
Machismo? I’m just trying to have fun dude. You keep convincing yourself your right.
Please don’t confuse what I want for Selanne with what I think Selanne is doing. More importantly, that is not what my post says at all. You are literally making that up. I know because I just reread it. Nowhere do I say that the Ducks should spend or lose Selanne. If anything the article should be seen in two points: that Murray hasn’t made a major impact move in two summers, and that he should make such a move for the sake of giving Selanne one last shot at the Cup.
As for the pouting, I never say he’s going to pout. That’s a term you use to try and discredit a very straight forward argument. If I may quote myself
If I was Teemu Selanne, I’d be doubting this organization’s commitment to winning, and that might make me wonder how much pain my knee should suffer for it.
The point I was making was that the lack of quality moves might be making Teemu wonder if he should suffer through another year.
Yeah, it’s Machismo. I’d call it the internet equivalent of “wanna fight about it?”
I don’t have to convince myself I’m right, I am right :)
I think fish and you are on the same page about your previous article about Selanne. I think by saying “spending” he meant making acquisitions, which is essentially what you were trying to argue. Also personally I think betting is a fine way to go back and look at things without people playing revisionist history.
Just a few things I would like to add to the conversation. First, I don’t think Kunitz is less expendable than Bobby Ryan. Bobby Ryan is an ELITE talent, Kunitz is a good top 6 forward. I know Daniel would rather see us go out and get a top Dman with Ryan, but I just don’t think this team needs that as is. I like our D, and I think one more move makes it very good. I don’t think every team that has a great Dman is going to compete for a cup. And as much as everyone loves to praise Doughty, I will wait until I see something worth the hype. Don’t get me wrong, he’s got some great skills, but I just don’t see that desire to be better or to win that I see with Ryan. Call me crazy. Lastly I still think you are overrating guys like Kunitz and Paulsen due to the fact that they played their roles well during the cup year. And don’t get me wrong, players like that are key and the Ducks need to find some this season (im still holding out for Beleskey, Sexton, Bonino). But the fact is some teams are willing and capable of overpaying for those types of players and its better to get something before they go and sign unmatchable contracts. Kunitz has performed well (playing next to the greatest Center of this generation), but I think fish is right in saying that Sammy was a trade that I think was the right decision. Not finding an adequate replacement has been a mistake though.
I think you’re really stretching to make Fish’s interpretation of my article stick. I NEVER say that Selanne is going anywhere. That is a complete fabrication. The main contention of my article was that Murray’s moves might not have been enough to convince Selanne to ride out another year on his knee. A secondary contention was that Teemu was worth the cost in terms of assets. Come on Kevin, you know as well as I do that what he said about that article is ludicrous. Maybe you should go back and read it too.
You say you want to be convinced by Doughty, well I want to be convinced by Ryan. I don’t know what everyone else sees, but Bobby has thoroughly unimpressed me. He’s a goal scorer. That’s it. He made the biggest mental mistake of the post season by stomping on Blum with his skate and getting suspended. He continues to carry to the center of the ice and try to take on multiple defenders when he should take the puck to the boards. It’s great when it works, but the percentage is low. I’m going to start keeping a running tab in gameday threads for everybody. Bobby Ryan is a very over rated player.
I’m not overrating those players based on their Cup performance. I’m overrating them based on their value to THIS team. I would make the same arguments about Kunitz and Pahlsson that I would make about Beauchemin. They knew what was happening with the culture of the Anaheim team, and they fit that culture. By moving them, Murray has altered that culture in a way that has never fully recovered. He traded away the attitude of the Cup winning team, and has not sufficiently replaced it. When I was competing for my speech team, I used to tell people that my teammate Jeremy was the star and I was the points. He went around, talked to people and got patted on the back; I made sure that everyone was doing what was necessary, had their events on point, and represented the team well. That’s not to say I was more important. I think we were both necessary, and core elements of our team. I think we’ve gotten it into our head that the “core” of a team is just its most talented players and I think that’s the incorrect way of looking at it.
I don’t know if I came into a longer argument with the other article, but based off of that one comment I don’t think what he was saying was completely off base. From what I remember that article was arguing that Selanne deserved better than what the team currently has (I don’t disagree). Based off of Fish’s interpretation of it: “the ducks should either spend or lose selanne” is a very condensed version of what you were arguing. Unless I misread the article it seemed that you were suggesting that unless the ducks “reward” selanne with a better team, then we shouldn’t be surprised or angry if he decides to sign else where or retire. Granted he missed some points, and im doing a lot of assumptions but I dont think his assessment was that off base.
I think Ryan has done more than Doughty to prove his talent as of now. Ryan has had one goal since coming to Anaheim: score goals. He’s scored over 30 each season in the NHL. I understand you want to see him branch out and control his own line but his lack of success (or opportunities) is not his fault. I don’t think the Ducks have the adequate talent to replace his top line spot and give him weapons for his own line. So instead he’s been asked to play with the twins, and he has helped make that the best line in hockey. I think the stomp showed he cared and was into it at least (I can’t say the same for Getzlaf). I think you could argue that besides Perry he was the best forward we had that series. As far as his play style goes I would ecourage you to read Perry’s comments in his recent Puck Daddy interview as he sums up my thoughts on why those 3 are so effective together and why Bobby’s style is key to there success. Doughty on the other hand plays in a very defensive system, with great goaltending, good defensive forwards, and great depth at D. I’ve never seen him in a season and thought that he WAS an elite player. I think he can and probably will be, but he has yet to impress me.
I believe I echoed a similar feeling above about them being important pieces that the Ducks have yet to successfully replace. That being said, I think trading them was the right thing to do. But to say they were part of the “core” implies that they are pieces that would be impossible to replace, and that they are crucial to the teams winning and future success. Well we lost Kunitz, Sammy, and Beachemin and we still managed to make the playoffs most years. I think those guys were crucial to us winning before, but I also think that the cost to keep them, and their future performances prove that moving them was the right idea. There are cheaper alternatives and many players that can fill roles on a team, I just don’t think Murray has found them yet. That being said Daniel, I think you tend to focus to much on modeling this team off of the one that one the Cup. I can’t remember who, but someone did a post on this site about what types of teams have won the cup in recent years and how their philosophies differed. We were a very strong defensive team the year we won, and the team was built that way because we had two elite defensemen and a fairly pedestrian offense. Well now we have 3 elite forwards and a pretty pedestrian goaltender. That’s not to say we can’t win with a different strategy, it just means we need to find players who can fit with this team’s current identity and support those elite players we have now. A lot of people say you need elite D to win a cup but I don’t remember Tampa, Carolina, or Pitsburgh having ELITE Dmen. If some of these guys can become the next Kunitz or Paulson then Murray will look like a genius. If not I have a feeling he will at least attempt to find guys who can at the deadline.
by Kevin Riach on Sep 13, 2011 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn’t mean pedestrian goaltender, I meant pedestrian defense. My apologizes.
by Kevin Riach on Sep 13, 2011 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Kunitz was a good for us, but I feel that he was on the decline. the year we won the cup, he had 60 pts or .74 pts per game. the next year he dropped 10 pts or .61 pts per game. When he got traded he was at 35 pts and .56 pts per game. Since he has been traded he worked back up to .72 pts per game last year. Also I feel like they tried to play him with the twins and I really don’t remember him looking that good. The major difference that I see was like Kevin said, we went from a Elite D and pedestrian Offense to relying on a more powerful offense in a developed Perry, and Getzlaf. I don’t feel that McDonald, Kunitz, and Selanne played the cycle game that we depend so much on now. I miss Kunitz but I understand moving him. Still that doesn’t mean Murray moved him for the right player. But I don’t know what the market looked like so he may have gotten the Best D-man he could for him. I have to imagine that Kunitz would look loads better than Blake on the wing though.
Kevin, go back and read the article, then I’ll respond to you. Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The article never mentions Selanne leaving, ever. In the comments, I got into hypotheticals with Robby about the standards fans have with players, but those assessment were not limited to Selanne. They used Selanne as an example to prove a point. To claim those hypotheticals are part of the article is a bald faced lie. I’m sorry you refused to reread the article, but Fish’s assessment and your agreement with it couldn’t be more off base if they were in a different solar system.
As for Doughty, I recommend going to battle of cali and searching Drew Doughty. Rudy Kelly makes great arguments, using advanced statistics as to why Doughty is one of the best defenseman in the game. People are willing to get on Getzlaf for taking a slashing penalty and say he’s being stupid, but Bobby Ryan uses a skate, which is much more of a lethal weapon, gets himself suspended, and he’s just showing how badly he wants to win. That makes no sense to me. One act costs a team two minutes; the other costs the team 120. More importantly, stomping on another player with a skate is one of the stupidest thing a hockey player can do. It is beyond reckless. As for best forward in that series, no. Getting suspended should automatically disqualify him from that discussion. But if you want to have it, I won’t even consider him until after Perry, Selanne, Koivu and Getzlaf, who, you know, played the whole series.
Robby did that post on the different teams who won the Cup. In the comment section I pointed out that defense was a primary factor for pretty much every team that won the Cup since the lockout except the Penguins. All those teams had at least one guy who had either won or been nominated for the Norris, except for Pitt and Carolina, I think. All of them had a player who had or would be nominated for the Selke. Pittsburgh and Carolina were the only ones not to finish in the top 10 in GA/G, which is a commonly used stat for defensive proficiency. I also think that Boston, Anaheim, and Chicago ranked higher in team D than team O. You can go back and look up the comment. The facts there are accurate. I don’t think that D is the best way to win championships. The people who have been winning championships think that good defensive players are the key to winning championships.
What is the team’s current identity? Because, I’m not sure we have one. We used to be the team that would wear people down physically, and play a responsible defensive game. There used to be a time when you could recognize what Ducks hockey was. We don’t have that anymore. That identity is gone. I don’t know what the Ducks are doing. Going young is not an identity; it’s a means to achieve an identity. You can go get any type of young player, that doesn’t mean they make an identity.
David, I’m replying to you in a different post for the sake of sanity and condensing things. Kunitz, McDonald and Selanne did play a small variation of that cycle game. Kunitz was the guy who fetched the puck and got it to Andy and Teemu. He was great in the corners which was why Randy tried to play him on the top line after McDonald was moved, but he just never meshed with the twins. I think part of the reason Kunitz has seen a decline is that his crash and bash approach doesn’t work as well in the East, which actually supports more of a finesse game. Sidney Crosby needs a Teemu Selanne to fly on his wing, not a Chris Kunitz to feed him the puck and settle into an empty space. I suppose you could say Shero made a similar mistake to Murray, except he got a player who had won the Cup and a well touted prospect for his mistake.
Sorry I might not have been clear. His failing numbers resulted before he got moved. Probably around the time McDonald left. They actually increased after he was traded. I will agree that we lack an identity and that I feel a lot of our issues stem from that.
No, I was conceding the decline on the Ducks. He did have problems scoring when he was playing with the Twins.
You have made a very clear correlation between Murrays off season moves and the likelihood for Selanne to return.
“The main contention of my article was that Murray’s moves might not have been enough to convince Selanne to ride out another year on his knee.”
If you’re argument is that Selanne is delaying signing, BUT WILL NOT RETIRE, due to murrays moves; then I have no idea what your point is. You are saying selanne is signing regardless of what murray does. I agree with this.
The question is this: to what end are you saying Murrays offseason moves/spending are affecting Selanne decision?
I’m saying they are delaying his signing. The recent revelation in the OC Register supports this too. I’ll link when I’m not in my phone, but Selanne has mentioned that he would consider signing a tryout contract going into camp rather than sign a real deal. It would be a great way to get up close and personal and observe this team without committing to it. If he doesn’t like what he sees, he can say his knee wasnt up to it, and everyone saves face.
by Daniel AC on Sep 14, 2011 2:00 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
No need to send, I’ve read it. If indeed he is ‘scouting’ the team rather than testing his knee…well… i’d be very disapointed. I think the Teemu we all know wouldn’t do this.
If he is indeed healthy and only wants to play for a team that is guarenteed to be in contention, why doesnt he just go sign elsewhere?
It just doesn’t add up to me.
I think he hasn’t gone anywhere because he really want to be here. I think at his age and with his knee, he’d like to be convinced that he isn’t just playing for the fans but for a team that can do some serious damage in the playoffs. Maybe going to camp and playing with the guys he can get a sense for what the team will really be like. Something none of us know at this point. There a whole lot if emptiness in that bottom 6, a whole lot of “someone please earn a job”.
I don’t see what’s Wong with a player wanting to see what a team is really all about before signing is something to be disappointed in. It would be diappointing if he didn’t care enough about winning and just signed on the dotted line. Your views on loyalty are very militaristic.
by Daniel AC on Sep 14, 2011 4:09 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
At least we don’t need to speculate about this anymore! Hes back!
I really want to see he and cogs play together. That is my hope. Can you imagine the speed!?
No, but I can definitely imagine the lack of depth.
by Daniel AC on Sep 16, 2011 11:46 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It could be argued that it would move Blake to the third line where he probably should be. That said we still wouldn’t have the real bottom 6 center…
It’s not just that, but the purpose of getting Cogliano was to get some sort of depth. Sadly, he’s the most proven option we have for anchoring a third line. We need him to have a 40 point season in the bottom 6.
First, Selanne signed yesterday, I responded this morning. Second, I didn’t put a negative spin on anything. You keep spinning my comments into negative ones because you don’t like them. It’s not my fault Murray’s only depth move was acquiring Cogliano and that you keep insisting on putting him on the second line where he wouldn’t count as a depth player. The Ducks have 2 scoring lines. They need a third one. You have a gift for blind optimism.
We should have a weekly Daniel vs Fish segment on the front page.
It would be a hit.
Contributor - Anaheim Calling
by light_the_lamp on Sep 16, 2011 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
im still gunning for bonino as the third line centre. Assuming that happens you can move cogliano, blake or ryan where ever you want….
but my assumption would be bonino, cogliano, mcmillian. Debatable whether or not they could provide much scoring, but would be defensively responsible, and theyre young enough that you could grow them together, and try to get them to compete against each other and improve as a line.
Also, what reason would you give for the top two lines to change? each seem to work well enough together, and there has been no big name additions to come in to take a spot. I know RC tends to line swap, but he always goes back to those ones anyway, so why would he change now?
by BennyLightning on Sep 16, 2011 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Whitney: If were going to continue to talk about context, do you remember what happened once the ducks acquired Wiz and Whitney? From the date they aquired Whitney they went 12-5-2 to sneak into the 8th spot in the playoffs, then went on to stun S.J. Exciting wasn’t it? Gave them a pretty good jump start there, eh?… I’m not going to say that Whitney fit, I wont. You’re right. But, you take the gamble on a young, big, puck-moving d-man who up until that point had 150 pnts in his first 253 NHL games. This guy was considered to be a potential franchise D-man when he was being shopped, and you’re saying he shoulda been had cheaper? You’re honestly going to sit here and say that other teams weren’t actively pursuing him (I think you meant to say buyers market above, right)? Since traded to edmonton he has had more points then games played. Was he worth the gamble, fuck yes. Was it wise to ship him out, double fuck yes.
I don’t have time to finish responding to all, but I would like to respond to one thing you said briefly…
“Wiz isn’t a top 4 guy. He’s a bottom pair guy who should be used on the PP.” Really? James Wizniewski is not a top 4 guy? It’s comments like this that drive me nuts about you. So the 3 teams that have had him after the Ducks were misusing him by playing him on their top pairings? The Blue Jackets are paying a guy 5.5 mil a year and parading him around town to play on the bottom 2? Holy shit, somebody please tell all these NHL coaches and gms that they have no idea how to evaluate talent! Daniel says this guy is bottom 2 material! What are all you experienced NHL people thinking!?… This is outrageous, c’mon man…. If anything Murray discovered a guy that was previously just an ‘extra defensman’. No doubt wiz is over-paid, but the guy can play the game.
I do remember the run we went on. I also remember a ridiculous Hiller frustrating the shit out of San Jose. I even remember some if the guys in the locker room saying Wiz’a intensity was helpful in turning the team around. What I don’t remember, is when you went from a guy who likes to be patient and see what happens into someone who thinks trading key pieces is worth a quick run to the second round of the playoffs. So, it’s cool to make bad trades for a playoff run when you are supporting Murray, but when I point out that a good trade now would make us a better team now, it’s a bad idea.
Again, I’ve never said Whitney wasn’t a good player; I said he was a bad fit here. I’d also like to note that atthe time of the deal, it was pretty well known that Shero was shopping the hell out of Whitney, and not finding a ton of takers. The money in his contract was going up, and Pittsburgh needed cap space. Whitney was a salary dump for Pitt, like Vis was a salary dump for Edmonton. Murray still managed to give up 2 quality forwards, remember Tangradi was a highly touted power forward prospect when he was dealt, for a defenseman that Pitt couldn’t wait to get rid of and who everyone knew didn’t have a physical game. That’s a huge oversight, by a GM who should know better. Instead we get a year of Whitney. Finally, did you forget those guys also contributed to the Ducks missing the playoffs the next year? So I guess you could say they helped one season and ruined another one.
I don’t know if I’d say those teams were misusing him so much as they didn’t have many other options. The Islanders needed any D upgrade they could get their hands on, and so did Montreal after some very critical injuries. Columbus only really cares about upgrading their PP and Wiz should help with that. Personally, I don’t know why guys in the NHL don’t listen to me. I think I’d be a great help :)
NHL GMs make mistake all the time. If they didn’t, everyone of them would have life time jobs. Even good GMs make mistakes. Wiz offers some offensive skills that are a good addition for a team, I can see why a team would overpay for those skills in an offseason where there weren’t a lot of options, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a defensive liability made of gingerbread. The guy is indecisive and that can mean death for a defender. It was certainly awful for Niedermayer’s career. There will always be players who are over valued. Wiz is one of those guys because he plays hard. When he was in Anaheim, I saw plenty of comments from people who claimed they sent mind all the mistakes simply because he played hard every night, which is foolish.
What really bothers me about you is your desire to live by an argument that I constantly point out is fallacious: the appeal to authority. I’m sorry, but, saying a guy is a GM in no way makes my analysis less valid. Just because you think NHL GMs never make mistakes doesn’t mean the rest of us have to believe that. Seriously though, you need a puppy.
by Daniel AC on Sep 9, 2011 10:43 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m going to get a puppy and name him Murray….
P1: What trade are you are you referring to that would make us a better team now? The fantasy hockey ones to which you keep proposing? Ya, LA is going to give up Doughty for Ryan, that’s a feasible trade. You discredit yourself.
P2: You continue to say that Viz and Whitney fell into our lap, insinuating that no one else was in on those trades. You weren’t in those rooms when the the talk was happening, stop acting like you were. Claiming to know what was going on in those rooms has to be some sort of fallacy, right? Kunitz is a top-6 forward, we have/had our money committed to that core group. I love the guy, hes great, but you have to pay a price for a guy as talented as whitney. Jury is still out on Tangradi. In the meantime we have drafted/traded/pickedup guys to replace him. The jury is still out on those players as well… Wiz and Whitney ruined the ’10 season? I seem to remember a whole team of olympians who helped ruin that.
P3 and P4: I will respect you’re opinion that Wiz isn’t a top 4 guy, as long as you respect mine saying that he is…. We’ll throw out my appeal to NHL coaches and GMs abilitly to judge talent (authority).
I suppose the beginning is always a good place to start: Congratulations on your new puppy. I’m a little jealous. Although, I can’t say I care for the name.
P1: You’re making another fallacious argument: the red herring. You’re trying to say that whether or not I can think of a good trade is somehow related to whether or not Murray should have made or could have thought of a trade. The two things are in no way shape or form related. I will say this, as I always do when someone asks this question, Murray is paid to be the GM of this team and has 29 other GMs phone numbers; he should be able to come up with his own deals. For the sake of argument though, Setoguchi, Burns, Heatley, Havlat, Carter and Richards were all moved this summer. I think any of those guys would have helped our team. So, there are 6 players who were moved. Murray decided that he either couldn’t or wouldn’t pay the price. Either way, this proves there was definitely a trade market out there that he could have gotten in on. Given his relationship with Wilson in San Jose, you’d think Setoguchi would have been a real possibility. Look, I understand that the ad hominem is the safe road for the person who refuses to see the argument that’s right in front of him/her, but please refrain from discussing my credibility, at least until you learn to avoid fallacious arguments.
P2) You really need to stop jumping to this “in the room” conclusion. I’ve pretty much operated under the banner of “it’s my understanding” in reference to the Visnovsky call. The former editor of this blog, who was known for being a meticulous fact checker, told me that Murray got a call from Tambellini to say that Lubo was available. I believe him. If that is in fact the case, that Murray was contacted by Tambellini, then he didn’t start negotiations and the move can’t really be considered his brain child. I still think that Murray was the beneficiary of a salary dump. It just so happened that two teams had two defensemen with whom they were unhappy. Edmonton wanted to save the money on Lubo so they shipped him out for Whitney and a pick. Also, even if I was claiming to be in the room, which I have never done, it wouldn’t be a fallacy, it would be a lie. A fallacy is a form of faulty logic. In your example of me being in the room, no faulty logic is taking place. I agree, you have to pay the price to get talent, but you should also try to pay a good price and get the talent that fits your system. If Murray went out and got Alex Semin, I’d probably be pissed. Again, I think the prudent move would have been to keep Kunitz and use Bobby Ryan to get an even better Defender, but that’s just me. Kunitz has shown great intangibles; Bobby really hasn’t. I suppose at the time we were hoping for Bobby’s potential, but I liked Kunitz. I think it’s disingenuous to only refer to the core as the most talented players, which is what the Ducks seem to be doing. The real core of that Cup team was McDonald, Kunitz, Niedermayer, Pronger, Pahlsson, Selanne and then PPG. The Duck are missing the heart and soul of that core, and only have the talent. Yep, Jury is still out on Tangradi. Yes we have drafted some great player since then. But none of that changes the value of what Tangradi was when we traded him. If you lose a 100$ on a bet, you can’t get THAT money back. You can get replacement money from somewhere else, but you can’t get THAT exact 100$ back. It’s kind of like when you drive a car off the lot and it’s value instantly drops. Ummm… in 2010, Getzlaf had 69 points in 66 games, Selanne had 48 in 54, Koivu had 52 in a full season of work, Perry had 76, even Bobby Ryan had a very respectable 64. See what you did, you’ve got me saying nice things about Bobby Ryan. I can concede that they weren’t the only cause, but I would say that investing in them as half of the top 4 defense was the most impactful factor that affected our season. Were there other causes? Sure. But I don’t think that there was a bigger cause than those two. They were awful.
P3 and P4) I’m giving a rationale for my opinion, you aren’t. What’s your reasoning as to why Wiz is a top 4 guy, and don’t say because other GMs and Coaches think he is. That’s cheating.
P1: The core of our team is in place. Which is to say, we are spending the majority of our money on that core and won’t be trading for any big pieces. I still don’t get why you continually ignore the budget… Also, please stop telling me to quit the ad hominem attacks until you do. Thanks. I am not ignoring any argument so please stop claiming that I am. This is your only move. When I say, this team is on a budget and their core is in place. Thats what I mean to say. That is my argument. And unless you want to propose trading one of our core pieces for another, then just stop. Again, Ryan for Doughty does not count. You have made it clear to me that you do not understand the value of puck moving defensmen in the new NHL.
P2) Good argument; Tambellini made a call saying Lubo was available. Do you not think he made that call to several other teams? Who gives a shit if it was murrays idea? whats your point? My contention is that Lubo was being shopped to more than one team; hence, there was more than one offer. Can you disprove this? No, you can’t. I think it is safe to assume that there was more than one team in on a player of Lubo’s caliber. You’ve If you watched the Olympics he made it pretty clear how good he still was, despite being hung up in edmonton for a few years… Bottom line is Murray got a Norris Candidate. If the other 29 GMs didn’t make a play, then that is an error on their part. Regardless of who made what offer, he made the team a heck of a lot better at that moment. How you fail to realize this I am not getting.
Kunitz vs. Ryan: At that time, no GM is trading Ryan over Kunitz. You saying, ‘I think the prudent move would have been to keep Kunitz and use Bobby Ryan to get an even better Defender, but that’s just me.’ is just cheap. Were you saying this when Kunitz was traded? If you were’nt, then stop acting as if you knew something that no one else did.
Team Character: I will agree with you on this, it is something we have lacked a bit. You know who has character… wait for it…. Cogs has Character. We have some young gritty guys coming up. Perry has shown an unparralled compete level…. There is one guy we need more from here, and this could make all the difference to this team, getzy. If getzy plays with the heart he did the last twenty games of the season for 82 games, we are in good shape. I think Perry has paved the way for him here a bit, and only good things will come of their competitiveness against one another.
Money analogy: I maintain that we didn’t lose that original 100 dollars, we got 200 back in the form of lubo (even if it sat in a negative earning CD for a year…).
Wiz: You’re rationale is that he is terrible defensively and gets caught up ice too much? You admit to his offensive gifts…. I won’t sit here and say he doesn’t get caught chasing the puck, that happens too often. But he is strong on the walls, wins puck battles, moves the puck quickly, moves guys from the front of the net in a nasty way, hes tough, and he competes. He also reads the play pretty well coming into his own zone and he doesn’t get beat very often 1 on 1. He recognizes his mistakes and is willing to correct them…. I contend that he is better in his own end then you do, I guess we are just watching different games again…. We should probably tell these NHL guys they’re watching the wrong games too, they probably feel foolish.
P1) I don’t ignore the budget. I’m very conscious of it. I would argue that Murray ignores the budget until he’s right up against it, as demonstrated in his inability to spend creatively to get quality players. I think you’re misinterpreting my observation of your fallacious arguments as ad hom attacks. Except they aren’t ad hom attacks, they’re attacks on your arguments. Yes, you ignored my argument. I said that Murray should make trades to make us better now. Your counter was to say that I should come up with a trade. My argument had nothing to do with me thinking of a trade. It had to do with Murray thinking of a trade. If you’re going to argue that Murray knows more than I do because he’s a GM, then you should also yield that he should be able to make a trade of which I cannot think. At that point the burden to think of a trade shifts to Murray. I give plenty of examples of players he could have gotten in on, but he elected not to. If you want to argue that the Ducks couldn’t “afford” those players, then I would argue that is further proof of Murray’s inability to make money move. Personally, I think 3 million for Setoguchi is better than 2.39 for Cogliano. But that’s a different argument for a different time. “The team is on a budget and the core is in tact” isn’t really an argument, at least not a very clear one. Do you mean the team is on a budget and we’re spending all our money on RPG so we can’t get any more good players? That’s a much clearer argument. I’m sorry you don’t see the value of the Bobby Ryan for Drew Doughty deal. A norris caliber defenseman for a 30 goal scorer is a good idea. I think Doughty would cost a little more than Bobby, but it is the foundation of a doable deal. Doughty is great at carrying the puck out and moving it forward. He can hit, he’s defensively responsible and a phenomenal PP quarterback. Doughty and Fowler on the first PP unit for 5 years would be so dangerous. You give no reason as to why the Ducks shouldn’t trade a “core” player. You just tell me not to talk about it. Sorry, but you not liking me talking about trading Bobby Ryan doesn’t make it any less of a good idea. Philadelphia just unloaded 2 core players, San Jose unloaded 1 too. Only fans think certain players are untouchable.
On the Lubo trade, my point is that Murray shouldn’t be given creativity points for a trade he didn’t work to manufacture. What if Murray was Tambellini’s first call. What if Tambellini called and said, “I hear you’re unhappy with Whitney, I’m looking to move Visnovsky.” What if Murray then said “Yeah, that could work.” What if Tambellini then said, “Good, throw in a sixth rounder and you’ve got a deal.” I can appreciate that Murray happened to walk into the store during a fire sale, but don’t look at it as anything more than Murray walking into a store during a fire sale. You contend that Lubo was shopped to more than one team, but you can’t prove that either. So what we have are two contentions that can’t be proved. I will contend that the last minute nature of the deal might support my view more than yours in that, everyone seemed to be really surprised when they heard about it. People thought Whitney would be moved, but not Lubo. I think Tambellini got Murray to play ball on a salary dump. Let me put it to you this way. If a kid guesses right on every question on a test and gets a C, is that a good thing? yes, Murray made the team better. However, it was more accidental than deliberate. Good for Murray that he got lucky. But getting lucky doesn’t prove that you are good or know what you are doing. It proves you are lucky.
Kunitz v. Ryan: Well, I’m a fan and Murray’s a GM. He should have that kind of foresight. Everyone thought that no GM in the league would trade Brayden Schenn, but that seems to have happened. Again, there’s really no such thing as an untouchable player. You know if Minnesota was willing to offer Mikko for Getzlaf, I’d consider it, then ask for more. I don’t see why my comment is cheap. You give no reason to justify it as so. Again, I don’t have a problem with you saying it’s cheap if you say why. When Kunitz was traded, I was very vague about it. I thought it was a necessary trade, but the wrong trade. I knew the Ducks were probably going to move a forward piece for a defenseman because people were talking about how Pronger and Niedermayer wouldn’t be affordable for much longer. I was never a fan of Bobby Ryan, but I did like Kunitz. I imagine I would not have missed Bobby nearly as much as I miss Kunitz. Again, Murray is the professional it’s his responsibility to find the better deal.
Team Character: What makes you think Cogs is a character guy? Because he plays on the PK? So does Bobby Ryan sometimes and he’s not a character guy. it’s one thing to play with character and another to be a character guy. I love Corey Perry. I used to tell Arthur I thought he should be captain instead of Getz. I think there might be a comment on this website somewhere about it too. But I wouldn’t call him a character guy. Perry’s job is to score. Getzlaf’s job is to score. Everyone needs a job. Yes, those guys can lead by example, but they shouldn’t be recklessly blocking shots or getting into fights or spending shifts where their only concern is taking the body. More importantly, they are guys who have always enjoyed success. There’s something about a player who had to make it to the NHL as an undrafted free agent that really adds to a team. Blake has good character, but we need more. We need guys in the bottom 6 who can really set the tone when the big line isn’t on the ice. Honestly, I hope you’re right and that Cogs provides some of that character, but if he plays in the top 6 like you want, that character stays up top and doesn’t improve our depth.
Wiz: Let’s be fair. I’ve seen Wiz lose a lot of puck battles too. I’ve also seen him get with shots and take himself out of the play. He’s not that nasty in front of the net. I’d argue he pays nastier away from his own net, and Brent Seabrook would probably agree with me. Wiz does not read the play well coming into his zone, primarily because he over pursues the puck carrier, or chases the puck as you might say. I don’t know what mistakes he’s willing to correct. I guess time will tell on that one. I don’t think the NHL people are watching the wrong games. I think they have to throw their fans some bones. Wiz always looks good on paper. He plays with an edge, is intense, and has some good offensive skills. The problem is his defense. It has been and will be. He’ll probably wear out his welcome in Columbus shortly, but they’ll be stuck with him.
Just to clarify…
P1) I was saying that bobby ryan is a great trade asset, but he would never yeild the return of a guy like Doughty. Doughtys value is much much higher than Ryans. There are many more goal scoreres in this league then there are young, puck-moving, norris candidates.
Lubo: we simply don’t know the circumstances of the lubo trade. How many teams were in, were we the only ones, who called who, when the calls took place??? I’m happy hes on our team, thats all i know.
Kunitz vs. Ryan: Kunitz is undoubtably a character guy. I love what he brings to a hockey game. At that time his value was probably higher than that of ryans as a trade deadline deal to a cup contending team, precisely because of those intangibles. Thats what those teams are looking for to put them over the top… Ryan was still in his formative years, and still may be. At that time it was still unknown whether he could be a dominant force on his own. I don’t know if we have that answer yet. It is clear that 1 on 1 he could be the best in the league. I think Ryan has become more expendable today because we arent sure whether he can lead his own line. I think Kunitz was the right player to go at that time.
Team Character: Kunitz was and is a top 6 guy. He wouldnt solve the character issues you call into question on the bottom 6 either… But I will and have agreed with you that this is an issue. I would define a character guy as someone who does anything to win; someone who sacrifices their body night in and night out and leads buy example. By that definition I would say that we have a few ‘character’ guys (only forwards)- Perry, Koivu, Blake, Mac, and Cogs. Cogs is known for his tireless work ethic. He takes pride in what he does, and that translates to the ice. Pride is one thing I think we could call into question (true in almost all sports now) about this team in years past. With all that talent how did the ’10 team not get into the playoffs? I think Pride is your answer. Cogs is a good influence on and off the ice. Mac is a player that I also think fits this mold… What I think Kunitz brings that these 2 may not, is a fear element. He will bite your head off. I think DSP can and will replace this missing element to the 2nd and 3rd lines. Hopefully this year…. I think we agree on this topic as a whole.
Wiz: I’m just going to agree to disagree……….
Finally! You’ve done it Fish. That Kunitz vs. Ryan point is very well argued.
by Daniel AC on Sep 14, 2011 2:06 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It is not easy to defend my opinions against a professor who is obviously more practiced at arguing. Try and cut me some slack!
I did a like competitive debate when I was in college too. But in all sincerity, I thought it was a good point. You’ve gotten better, for what it’s worth.
by Daniel AC on Sep 14, 2011 4:12 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Benny
I think thats a a fair question, benny.
The top 2 lines were enormous for us last year, there is no doubting that. I love the effort Blake puts in night in and night out, hes my type of hockey player. Grinds it out. However, I think there were a lot of instances last year where you wondered if he and selanne were on the same page (see the amount of offsides as they enter the zone). I just think Cogs sees the game a bit better, and is a bit more of a playmaker. He can certainly keep up with Selanne, like blake can, but I think he adds more hockey sense.
All of this is completely contingent upon who steals the show in camp and preseason. If one of- Mac, Bonino, Bell, Macenour, or holland- can prove to be an NHL center, why the heck not move cogs up? Lets give these young guys a shot. There is certainly enough skill in the cupboard. Who will take that next step, is the question.
I understand the risk you take with an all sub-24 3rd line, but these guys need to play at some point. With the stability we have on defense on this years squad versus last years squad, I think we have the opportunity to test out these young guys.
If that presents too much inexperience on the ice at one time, throw Bobby on the 3rd line with some skill guys and throw Mac or Palmieri up to the 1st line. You could throw Blake on the 3rd line with some youngsters as well. There are options. All of which are feasible and could present headaches for other teams.
Again, this years team has far more stability than last years team to start of the year. The D is set and ready to go. There wont be that 1st quarter of the season of feeling each other out and running around like chickens with their heads cut off. We are a much better TEAM at the start of this year than last.
Why?
1) Less turnover- this is the same team that scorched into the home stretch last year.
2) Young guns have had another year of experience- I love that our bottom six will consist of at least 3 of these players: Mac, Bonino, Palmieri, Etem, Devo, Holland, etc. If 2 of these players rises to the occasion, look out. Having these young guys with huge talent step will be a huge addition to our team depth.
3) Better starts from our big guns- Some people like to point out that perry, selanne, and lubo had better than expected seasons for us as to why we got into the playoffs. If our top players start the year better, which I think they will due to stability, then that takes the pressure off the young guys.
All this will translate into a better start in the standings. Which will allow us to save our horses for the playoffs. That is what killed us last year. Having stability changes this team from the get go.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Anaheim Calling
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
CK Photo Galleries
