I like the idea of a deal with Buffalo, what can you say about Larsson and Morand? I'm just a fan of Buffalo and I don't know your players very well.

Both have solid draft pedigrees and should definitely be full-time NHL'ers in the next few years. Larsson (2015 1st rounder) played almost 50 games with the Ducks this year and looked fairly decent, given he just turned 22. I don't think he has too much offensive upside, but he can move the puck pretty well. I think he'll be a 4-6 D-man in a few years. Morand (2017 2nd rounder) has looked pretty good in juniors on a really good team. He definitely will never be anything more than an average goal scorer, but he's projected as a good/great playmaker. I can easily see him being an average 2C/fantastic 3C in the near future. Could also see him playing on the wing too.

Thanks for the information. I can see a deal like this.

buffalo trade is lopsided in their favor.

Couldn't agree less. Even being inherently biased as a Ducks fan, I still feel that if anything, its a little light for Ristolainen. He's been a lock for 40+ points on some marginal Sabres teams. Comtois at best will be a 30 goal guy. Larsson and Morand will both be solid NHL'ers, but are nothing to write home about. Even with throwing in an early second, I'm not entirely sold it's enough for a right handed D-man that consistently puts up points. I'd do this in a heartbeat as a Ducks fan, but could easily see it taking more to get him out of Buffalo.

In a heartbeat? You're talking about trading away a former 1st round pick, two former second round picks (one of whom is playing more like a first rounder) and the 39th overall pick in this year's draft for a d-man who is a career -143. Yes he puts up a lot of points and he's actually on a pretty good contract but that's mortgaging a huge chunk of our future for a player we don't need THAT badly. I'm in favor of a move to get someone like Zaitsev because the apparent cost is minimal. This team isn't a d-man away from contending. We're at least two years away from contending again (i.e. when Getzlaf and Perry have moved on and we've hopefully drafted well enough to replace them). We could have a legitimate star in Comtois and I'm not eager to trade him for anybody at this point, not while we're still rebuilding/retooling/re-whatever-the-hell-we're-doing.

do you know much about Buffalo? The majority of Buffalo fans hate Ristolainen with a passion because he sucks defensively, the dude can put up points but can defend to save his life. This is a massive overpay, you don't know much about trade values it appears. I'm not giving up a pure goal scorer in Comtois. Why would I give 3 players that will most likely be solid NHL'ers for a defender who can't defend with a medium cap hit. Also another draft pick like wtf. San Jose didn't even have to give up super top prospects for ****in Erik Karlsson lol. Thank god you are not a GM.

Shore, Larsson and Morand are adequate compensation for Ristolainen. Trading Maxime Comtois is an extremely bad idea, as Martin Erat would tell you.

Sunk-cost fallacy at its finest. If you're going to use draft position to value players, I'll raise you Nic Kerdiles/Logan Macmillan/ Peter Holland/Etem/DSP (and the list goes on); those guys ended up all being great NHL players, right? Larsson has not lived up his draft pedigree as a first round pick and is very likely to be a bottom pairing guy. Morand has been solid, but still hasn't improved significantly on his point totals in the Q. I think he'll be a NHL player, but certainly won't be anything spectacular. He's likely a middle 6 winger, as he isn't good enough in the dot or defensively to play C at the next level. I'm a fan of Comtois, but it's also reasonable to wonder what his ceiling is. I'm a big fan of Corey Pronman, and he didn't even have him ranked in his mid-season prospect rankings.While it certainly isn't the end-all-be-all for prospects, it's fair to wonder how productive he'll be. I believe he'll be a 50-55 point guy, but that could be his upside.

I'll trade all three of these guys (and a pick) for Ristolainen in a heartbeat, as it is a minimal price to pay. Plus/minus is an antiquated stat that doesn't come close to showing the full picture, so I'm not sure how you're valuing him here. I'm also not sure how this is even close to "mortgaging a chunk of the future" when it keeps 4/5 of the Duck's top prospects (Terry, Steel, Lundestrom, and whoever goes at 9) in the pipeline (not to mention that other than whoever goes at 9, no one projects to be an elite player in the NHL). At a certain point, there will be more mouths to feed than food available. Might as well get a return for a couple of the kids while their value is high.



2 sentences deep and I can already tell you know minimal about hockey. I'm sure a player's trade value is directly correlated with how his fans perceived him, and has nothing to do with his play on the ice, so you're definitely right that Buffalo would dump Ristolainen at below face value. With respect to Buffalo, Ristolainen has had an assortment of traffic cones serving as d-partners since coming into the league. He has decent advanced metrics for someone who gets >50% DFS and is a lock for 40+ points. With how bad the power play has been the past 2/3 years, he provided an immeadiate upgrade. His cap hit is also very manageable, considering what the market value is for right-shot PP guys (Kevin Shattenkirk says hello). Risto is also still 24 and hasn't hit his ceiling, yet.

Using a Pierre Dorion deal as a litmus test is also asinine, considering 1) Karlsson was on an expiring deal 2) Prior to this past deadline, Ottawa consistently got below market value in trades (Duchene, Mika Z for Brassard, trading for a declining Alex Burrows, etc.). Having a bunch of guys that will be "solid NHL'ers" doesn't win you cups, just ask Minnesota. The Ducks will have to make moves at some point to return to contending status, and Ristolainen provides a great opportunity to add a guy to the core for the foreseeable future.

I'm genuinely curious as to how much Ducks hockey you know; I'm going out on a limb here because you don't seem to be overly familiar with the team, but there's a guy named Lubomir Visnovsky who was a defensive sieve but was great on the power-play for the Ducks (and has had the most point for a d-man post Pronger/Niedermayer). Ristolainen is a younger and better version of him. If I would make a bad GM, I couldn't even begin to imagine what that would make you.



Botterill laughs and hangs up immediately at this. I'm not sure if comparing 31-year-old Erat to 24-year-old Ristolainen (not to mention they play two different positions) or comparing Comtois to Forsberg is a worse comparison, but they are both horrendous. Take off your orange-tinted glasses and try again.

I'll see your Kerdiles/MacMillan/Holland/Etem/etc. and raise you a Gardiner/Karlsson/Theodore (I was going to include Schultz but that wasn't our fault). That door swings both ways. And I'm way more bullish about trading young assets for the betterment of the team but we're in a rebuild. This team was terrible last season and a major reason why is our core players are getting old and you want to trade away so many quality assets before we have a good read on how they'll turn out?

No, plus/minus isn't an antiquated stat. It's not a tell-all stat, same as possession stats, but it can give you a reasonable look at a players contributions when the numbers are so striking in one direction, particularly if a player leads their team in even-strength ice-time as Ristolainen does. Now I admit plus/minus factors in all five guys on the ice so went through the entire league and compiled every teams goal differential at even-strength and compared it to their even-strength ice-time leader's plus/minus. (ex. the Ducks were -18 at even-strength but Lindholm was a -5) 22 teams' top ice-time player had a positive number (Colton Parayko was the lone even) and only 9 had negative numbers with the average being +9.48 (I will cite my numbers if you insist but you can easily do this math too). Buffalo was -31 at EV and Ristolainen's plus/minus was -41. I know this isn't perfect science but this data suggests to me the Sabres are more likely to give up more goals than they score at even-strength when Ristolainen is on the ice.. In a vacuum plus/minus can be very misleading but when used in a context that can actually isolate a player's impact I think it can be quite telling as I've just laid out. For comparison Drew Doughty, a former Norris trophy winner and a consensus great d-man, was a -34 but his team was -30 at EV. So for someone like me who hasn't watched Ristolainen play much beyond the two times the Sabres play the Ducks each year this suggests to me this player is very bad in his own zone. Pass.

All you needed to say; your argument is null. I'll spare you the spiel on +/-, even though you're way off. Just do me a favor and check out some names like Nathan Beaulieu, Marco Scandella and Viktor Antipin on hockey reference and tell me that they wouldn't tank anyone else's stats. Playing as a 3/4 D-man with Fowler or Lindholm instead of being overly relied on as a makeshift #1 D would be a Godsend for Ristolainen's career and would allow him to focus on his offense.



First off, bizarre examples to use considering Gardiner also didn't play a single game for the Ducks (and helps my case more than anything, considering the unpredictability concerned with prospects). I also don't think you understood my point about the guys who didn't pan out; I mentioned them specifically because none of them came close to hitting their draft pedigree (a concept which you used when evaluating Larsson/Morand/Comtois). How high or low a guy is picked doesn't have any effect on how he plays on the ice, so thinking that Larsson/Morand/Comtois are more valuable because they were early picks is a false narrative. Comtois is an A-/B+ prospect, while Morand and Larsson are B-/C+ level prospects; losing these three would not substantially hurt the Ducks long-term. If anything, the Ducks farm system has been knocked for having too much decent depth and not enough high-end talent. Regardless of what you think of his all around game, Ristolainen is a great puck mover and is excellent on the power play. Moving a few pieces in an area of strength (middle 6 wingers and bottom pairing defenseman) to address a critical area of need (right-side D) for the future is the smart thing to do.

I'm also not sure why you think that this trade is "trading away so many assets", only Comtois has a real shot of being an impact player at the next level. At a certain point, there is diminishing returns with prospects. We've already seen guys get stuck in the purgatory between the show and the A, and have lost all trade value because of it. Not all three of these guys are sure fire bets to have long careers; it makes perfect sense to trade them if their value is high and and even more so since their path is blocked by guys ahead of them (as is already the case with Larsson and Morand). As it stands already, there are more guys in the system who can play than there are spots available. Making space is almost a necessity, as it makes no sense to have guys develop playing on the 4th line, being scratched, or being over-ripened in San Diego.

You'll spare me? I'm a patient man and I like you read so I insist, indulge me. I complied data and found interesting points that supported my argument and I'm supposed to just accept your rebuttal of "you're wrong because I said so"? And I'm sorry but if we're trading away four quality assets and taking on almost $6 million in salary, I'd prefer a d-man who doesn't need a quality partner to hide his deficiencies. At that price he better be our top RHD, not "3/4" guy.





We're discussing the merits of trading away young assets before they've either hit their potential or busted. You cited players we drafted, and held onto, that busted. I cited players we traded away in deals that didn't work who have flourished with other teams. Not sure what's so hard to understand.



Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime? You seem awfully confident these players won't pan out (I hope Jason Botterill isn't following this thread, he might back out of this trade!). Comtois and Morand are 20, Larsson is 22 and that pick will be for a teenager. We're a long way away from having a real idea how good these kids are going to be, even Larsson with whom I have my reservations but d-men do take longer to develop. Personally, I think Comtois is going to be dynamic. I have no interest trading him away before he has a real chance to shine in Anaheim. He could be our top winger in a year two. I could care less what Corey Pronman thinks. Based on what promies he showed this year with the Ducks I think it would be criminal to trade him away at this stage.

But this all beside the main point I was trying to get across in my initial response. If we were still contending, which we're not, then this kind of trade would be welcome. But we're not, we're rebuilding. We were a miserably inept team offensively and we should be cultivating our best young forwards like Comtois and Morand. And we desperately need to restock our defensive depth. The only d-man prospect we have right now is Mahura. That's it and he may very well be on this team next season. (and to head off a debate in semantics, I don't consider Larsson a prospect. He spent the majority of the season with the team and is no longer a rookie) I don't want to trade away that second because we have a chance to draft a couple of quality d-men having three picks in the first 39 spots. Why make such a move when we'll be struggling to make the playoffs at best as our leaders continue to get older?

You're wrong because you hold a belief that is discredited by numerous people in the industry. +/- is great if your hockey sense resembles that of Don Cherry's, but its not useful at all in 2019. This article is a few years old but still a great insight as to why there are much better barometers for evaluating a player. And once again, you've completely failed to understand my argument. Rasmus Ristolainen has been stuck with dudes that wouldn't see the ice on my juniors team throughout his career so far. My point is that Hampus Lindholm makes Nate Beaulieu look like Nick Lidstrom; It's not rocket science that a player will always play better with a better defense partner, so whoever Ristolainen would play with would automatically be an upgrade. I never once said anything about "hiding deficiencies", so please don't try to put words in my mouth. Regardless of if he's playing with Lindholm or Fowler, he'd be playing 22-23 minutes a night and would be a tremendous asset for an abysmal power play. If that isn't worth $5.4 mil to you, I would love to know what is.


Once again, that wasn't my intended point, but you keep airballing, so I'll walk you through this. Your original post stated that Comtois, Larsson, and Morand were all valuable because of their draft positions. Where a player is drafted is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with their on-ice play. With your logic, Ken Holland should trying to convince other GMs that Puljujarvi is still worth an exceptional return because he was the 4th overall pick, even though he's barely developed since then. Prospects are a crap shoot; some pan out, some don't. Trading some (especially when there are guys ahead of them in pecking order) is a great way of hedging bets so you don't end up empty handed if a farm doesn't pump out any players in a given timeframe (once again, not saying this will happen, but not saying it won't happen either). This concept seems to be foreign to you.

My point is that, quite frankly, only Comtois has exceeded his draft position. Larsson has somewhat busted since being taken in 2015. He'll be in the league, but certainly won't be the top-4 guy everyone was expecting after the draft. The fact that he got leapfrogged by Pettersson/Mahura/Welinski/Megna/Guhle at different points during the year makes me hesitate when considering his long-term value. Morand has barely improved on his stats and hasn't put up more than 80 points in an inflated Q. I'd easily say that both of those guys have lost value and certainly aren't worth where they were drafted at, making them expendable in the grand scheme of things. It's prospect darwinism 101: if you can't progress to the next level or someone will leapfrog you and take your place. Both Larsson and Morand are very much in danger of that happening. It makes plenty of sense to move on and get something for them while they still have some value.



3/3 on misinterpreting my arguments. I've made it abundantly clear that these guys (Larsson and Comtois) will be NHL players. I just don't see them being impact players for us, especially when there is a log-jam ahead of them. Prospects are very much like lottery tickets; you're basically hoping that you can at least make back your investment with the chance you get something more. These guys are rapidly approaching the point where you don't get your money back. If these guys were traded today, they would bring back a decent return. There is no guarantee that they will do so in a few years. I could not possibly care less about what you think of Corey Pronman. I will add that his opinion is highly respected in the scouting community. He also scouts for a living and knows what he's doing. I trust his opinion exponentially more so than "TheJoeMan".

You clearly failed to read the first excerpt, because I clearly state "this team is still a few years away from being contenders". This move is made for the future, not present. Rasmus Ristolainen is 24 years old and immediately becomes part of the core moving forward (and gives us the option to move on from Fowler/Manson, if needed). You write "We were a miserably inept team offensively", which is something I couldn't agree more on. But in 2019, offense starts with your defense. The best teams in the league right now all have at least one guy on the blueline who can move the puck and put up points. While I won't as far as to comparing Ristolainen to a Karlsson/Doughty/Burns/Hedman, he certainly would become the teams best offensive d-man and will be a mainstay in the lineup for the next 7-10 years. You also write "And we desperately need to restock our defensive depth", which trading for Ristolainen certainly does. Why take a chance on a prospect who might not pan out when you can get an established commodity with the potential to grow (a la Rasmus Ristolainen). Econ 101: buy low, sell high. Not super hard stuff to comprehend, guy.

This is where you're wrong big boy, I've been a ducks season ticket holder for 15 years, watched more games than you will ever in your life. You obviously missed the point about the fan perception, i'm not saying just because the fans don't like him that means he's bad. Ducks are not moving Comtois, they wouldn't have sent him back to Juniors to exempt him from the expansion draft if they wanted to trade him. I would obviously like to have Ristolainen but not at what the price you are putting him up to be. He's a weak defender, you say he had a bad partner this season, so you're saying a calder finalist, Rasmus Dahlin, is bad at Defense, ok gotcha. I would trade for Risto if you packaged Ritchie or Shore or Sprong.

Thank you for linking that article, he did provide some fascinating insight but it was mostly conjecture. I agree with him with most of it but the point I've been trying to make is when a player's plus/minus is so egregious (again -143 for his career) there's probably fire to that smoke. And I'm not saying Ristolainen isn't a good player, a 40+ point RHD is objectively a valuable piece to any team. What I'm saying is d-man who is strong in his own end probably shouldn't have a plus/minus that bad, even on a bad team, and that checked out with the data I collected. And you're not offering me anything in ways to prove his numbers are bad simply because of his defense partners. Well what about the other years? Has he had these same, terrible partners every game his whole career? And how much Buffalo hockey do you watch? Sabres fans seem more than okay trading him away. That seems like a red flag to me.




Draft position is not arbitrary. Every single pick brings with it intrinsic value. There's a reason Murray hasn't given up on Nick Ritchie yet. At 10th overall you have a very good chance of drafting an all-star and you're also passing on someone who could realistically be one too. That's an investment. Again, I'm not at all shy about trading away kids like that in order to improve your team because that extracts value from that pick still in doing so. You're talking like all 31 teams are just throwing darts at the wall and hope they stick. Yeah they are hits and misses but not to the degree you seem to be suggesting. And again, these kids are young. Morand hasn't even played a pro game yet. I don't totally disagree with you about Larsson but I'd like to see this kid get another, healthy year before we cut bait on him so we don't have another Theodore or even Pettersson situation on our hands (the latter being a player I was happy to deal away and now miss we hadn't).





No, trading away four key futures away for a player like Ristolainen is a win-now move. That's more assets than we gave up to acquire Kesler, when we were clearly in a win-now mode. This team could still be declining. As long as Getzlaf is the straw that stirs our drink, we're going to be mediocre at best. If things were different, if Getz were still a PPG player and we were one of the teams still fighting in the playoffs then I'd be okay-ish with this trade (again I think Comtois is going to be a stud). Though if we were we wouldn't be having this discussion because we already had a player like Ristolainen in Montour and we wouldn't have traded him away. Because the more I read up on Ristolainen, the more he just seems like a taller Brandon Montour. Which is great, I love Monty but we was traded for a reason.

First off, I commend you for actually providing a coherent counter-argument, unlike others on this site. I watch a fair amount of Sabres games (albeit mostly broken up into 1st line and 1st pairing shifts) and his play has been somewhat impressive, given the circumstances. He's been plagued with bad d-partners, bad goaltending, and bad coaching (especially Ted Nolan, who was the coach when he broke into the league) throughout his entire career up to now, so I'm not of the belief that the current iteration of Ristolainen is his peak. Ristolainen is definitely impressive when you consider that his best d-partner so far in his career was an 18-year-old kid. As for your last point, every fanbase has their whipping boy. They were expecting his to be the second coming of EK65, which he obviously hasn't become. That doesn't take away from the fact that he's been a good player for some atrocious teams. I would take a fanbase's opinion with a grain of salt.



One again, you missed my point. Draft position is arbitrary, in that it has no effect on how someone plays on the ice. I'm of the school of thought that maximizing assets is always the best call, regardless of what decision that entails. If it means trading a few prospects, so be it. I'm not a betting man, but would put money on Larsson/Morand being average/above-average players at best. Great guys to have, but not ones you win a cup with. I like Comtois, but sometimes you have to give a some to get some back. There's always a chance that he doesn't pan out, and I would rather sell high than be stuck with Emerson Item 2.0. Sunk-cost fallacy seems to be a major issue with fans who don't want to move on from high draft picks. Not everyone pans out, so trading a few that are lower on the pecking order for an established commodity is the best way to hedge bets. That's all I'm getting at here.


I'm going to harp on this until you give me a definitive answer: In what world are Larsson and Morand key parts of the future? I can understand the early 2nd and Comtois arguments, but the other two guys are above-average depth guys at best. I'm not sure why you value them so highly. I'll also add again that Ristolainen is 24 (younger than Lindholm, Fowler, and Manson) and plays a position where most guys don't peak until 27-30. This trade is made with the assumption that he becomes part of the long-term core. While yes, I would've loved to made this deal when we were still contenders, but this by no means sacrifices any part of our future. Someone is going to have to play with Steel/Terry/9th overall/etc, might as well add someone young to gel with the current core for the long-run.

As a side note, Bob Murray made a massive mistake in trading Montour before hiring a new coach. I have no qualms with trading him, it just was done at the worst time possible from an asset-maximizing POV. Whoever takes over as coach next year won't have a high-end QB for the PP1. Montour had his warts was never going to be that guy under Carlyle, but I could easily see him being a 50 point guy if Buffalo figures their **** out. I could see a guy like Ristolainen being a 50-60 point guy for us with the proper coaching staff and scheme in place. Fowler and Lindholm are great two way guys, but we lack a legit offensive d-man. Relying solely on our current crop of forwards for offense seems to be a recipe for disaster, so adding help via the blue line seems like a fair solution. Purely hypothetical obviously, but a calculated risk worth taking for the long-term.

I'm actually on your side with this philosophy, except for draft position being arbitrary at least the team valuing that spot's value but that's the besides the point. Where we're really disagreeing here is the necessity for such a move. I remember arguing with Ducks fans ****ing and moaning about trading away Lupul and all those picks for Pronger 13 years ago and Bonino and a first for Kesler. We were a position to pull the trigger on such moves. We're not right now. Would Ristolainen make our defense better? From an offensive standpoint, absolutely. From a defensive standpoint, maybe? I'm afraid we'll stifle whatever offensive potential he has, at least in the short run, and in the end we'll still be a struggling, declining team. And I just don't want to do that at the expense of these assets. Honestly, I want to retain our two firsts and our second as much as anything. Our depth at D was the envy of the a couple years ago and now cupboards are basically dry. Yes, I understand Ristolainen is a young d-man but the price for him creates more holes than it fills. If he were a truly transcendent player and we had assurances that we'd have him for more than three years, okay pull the trigger. But I just don't think he's worth it, not with the way this team is heading.




We don't know that Larsson and/or Morand are or aren't key pieces of the future yet. That's my whole point. This time last year I would have gladly shipped Max Jones for a blue-chip player but now I feel like he's going to be my favorite player now that Cogs is gone. For a rebuilding team it just seems crazy to me to give up on these players when we should be focusing and adding more young players around them. I'll admit, I'm about ready to give up on Larsson but considering he basically lost an entire year of his development to injury I feel like we should stick with him at least one more year.

I'll agree to disagree with you here, but definitely understand the hesitation in dealing away Comtois. I'm confident that Ristolainen will be fantastic if he can ever make it out of Buffalo, but people said the same for Tyler Myers, so oh well. Can't fault you at all here.


I think there's a goldilocks to this; you can't have too many young guys and you can't have too many old guys. Obviously we need to get younger, so there's no argument from me about that. However, there needs to be established vets in place, otherwise the young guys get baptized by fire (and look how that's gone for Edmonton/Arizona/Buffalo the past 5 or so years). It doesn't necessarily have to be Ristolainen, but I think we should also be looking for another young, established player to add to the core and take pressure off the prospects coming up to the show.