SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

LeBrun Interviewed Verbeek

Created by: Salzy
Team: 2021-22 Anaheim Ducks
Initial Creation Date: Feb. 28, 2022
Published: Feb. 28, 2022
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
“I think going into this, I’m looking at it like we could make the playoffs, we could miss the playoffs,’’ Verbeek said. “At the end of the day, there’s no guarantee I can get those three free agents back. I’m going to attempt to sign them, if it doesn’t happen, I just can’t let them walk out the door free.’’

That’s as clear as it gets. Either Lindholm, Manson and Rakell are signed to extensions before the deadline or they’re getting dealt for assets.

Verbeek has approached the Lindholm camp and started talks on a potential extension. Whether it gets done or not remains to be seen.
Trades
1.
ANA
  1. Mikheyev, Ilya
  2. Niemelä, Topi [Reserve List]
  3. 2022 1st round pick (TOR)
  4. 2023 3rd round pick (TOR)
Additional Details:
Niemela or Roberston
TOR
2.
ANA
  1. DeBrusk, Jake
  2. Moore, John
  3. 2022 1st round pick (BOS)
BOS
  1. Rakell, Rickard ($1,894,722 retained)
  2. Steel, Sam
3.
ANA
  1. Honka, Anttoni [Reserve List]
  2. 2022 3rd round pick (CHI)
Additional Details:
This possible with the TDA injury?
CAR
  1. Manson, Josh ($2,050,000 retained)
Buyouts
Retained Salary Transactions
Buried
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2022
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the BOS
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the NSH
2023
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
2024
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
Logo of the ANA
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$81,500,000$66,339,541$0$3,282,500$15,160,459
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$1,700,000$1,700,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
C, LW
RFA - 2
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$1,450,000$1,450,000
RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Boston Bruins
$3,675,000$3,675,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$3,000,000$3,000,000 (Performance Bonus$1,500,000$2M)
C
NMC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$1,456,250$1,456,250
LW, C
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$2,037,500$2,037,500
LW
RFA - 2
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$874,125$874,125
C, LW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$5,250,000$5,250,000
RW, LW
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$1,645,000$1,645,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$750,000$750,000
C, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$1,500,000$1,500,000
LW, C
UFA - 2
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$6,500,000$6,500,000
LD/RD
M-NTC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$3,900,000$3,900,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$6,400,000$6,400,000
G
M-NTC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
RD
RFA - 2
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$950,000$950,000
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$809,166$809,166 (Performance Bonus$82,500$82K)
LD
RFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$750,000$750,000
RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Boston Bruins
$2,750,000$2,750,000
LD
UFA - 2
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$800,000$800,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$6,875,000$6,875,000
C, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$750,000$750,000
LD/RD
RFA - 2
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$1,295,000$1,295,000
LW, RW
RFA - 3
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$750,000$750,000
RW
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:25 a.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 19,650
Likes: 8,773
Boston accepts.
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:26 a.m.
#2
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2018
Posts: 5,135
Likes: 5,933
Quoting: Gofnut999
Boston accepts.


Tried to alter my trade last week based off what you said, happy to see it improved haha
Gofnut999 liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2020
Posts: 3,605
Likes: 915
Toronto Declines but stay in negotiations
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 19,134
Likes: 4,979
Canes don't have the cap for Mason, even half retained. So no, it's not possible... wouldn't really want to give up Honka either.
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
#5
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 459
Leafs easily decline, EF confirmed that Dubas isn't giving up a top end prospect for a rental. Leafs counter with Dermott and a 2nd for Lindholm. If Lindholm doesn't want to re-sign, Ducks will have no leverage in a trade
palhal liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:31 a.m.
#6
Roster Architect
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 2,643
Likes: 909
Friedman also reported that Toronto isn’t interested at all in giving up this years 1st or their top prospects for a rental, and would highly desire to keep their top prospects in general - that list included Niemela, Knies, and Robertson.

So for that reason, Leafs pass.
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:35 a.m.
#7
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2018
Posts: 5,135
Likes: 5,933
Quoting: T0R
Toronto Declines but stay in negotiations


Quoting: TrueCanuck
Friedman also reported that Toronto isn’t interested at all in giving up this years 1st or their top prospects for a rental, and would highly desire to keep their top prospects in general - that list included Niemela, Knies, and Robertson.

So for that reason, Leafs pass.


Thats fair, I wouldnt read too much into the generic "We arent giving our best assets up for a rental" that every contending team says every year but I can see why TOR doesnt do this

I think the pressure of 1st round exits forces Dubas' hand to make a move he might not love
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:36 a.m.
#8
Roster Architect
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 2,643
Likes: 909
Quoting: Salzy
Thats fair, I wouldnt read too much into the generic "We arent giving our best assets up for a rental" that every contending team says every year but I can see why TOR doesnt do this

I think the pressure of 1st round exits forces Dubas' hand to make a move he might not love


Dubas is generally pretty honest with the media. He even said exactly what they were looking at last season and that his 1st was available - he then turned around and moved a 1st for Foligno. Unfortunately him being so open to the media is one of his greatest weaknesses
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:37 a.m.
#9
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2020
Posts: 3,605
Likes: 915
Quoting: Salzy
Thats fair, I wouldnt read too much into the generic "We arent giving our best assets up for a rental" that every contending team says every year but I can see why TOR doesnt do this


I think the pressure of 1st round exits forces Dubas' hand to make a move he might not love


I still see no reason for Lindholm, Imo i would prefer to get a Top 4 RD not LD, Ik Muzz is out but Brodie can slide into that 2nd line LD & Reilly can get a Demelo or DeHann as a partner for a bit & who knows maybe De Hann likes what the Leafs have & takes a discount it’s highly unlikely but still plausible
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:38 a.m.
#10
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2020
Posts: 3,605
Likes: 915
Quoting: TrueCanuck
Dubas is generally pretty honest with the media. He even said exactly what they were looking at last season and that his 1st was available - he then turned around and moved a 1st for Foligno. Unfortunately him being so open to the media is one of his greatest weaknesses


Funny thing is he is open about assets but not trades, cause he has had some moves come right tf out of no where
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:41 a.m.
#11
Hurricane Waddell
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 8,720
Likes: 3,588
Canes would accept that but don’t have the space to take Manson without a 3rd team to take more of the salary. Think that might be an option, but I think the extra assets required for more retention makes Manson less of an option. Canes probably just keep their assets and figure out the defense internally
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:48 a.m.
#12
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 459
Quoting: TrueCanuck
Dubas is generally pretty honest with the media. He even said exactly what they were looking at last season and that his 1st was available - he then turned around and moved a 1st for Foligno. Unfortunately him being so open to the media is one of his greatest weaknesses


Dubas even admitted himself (during the documentary) that Jarmo was fleecing him but it was a player the Leafs needed to round out the top 6. Also, I really liked Foligno during his tenure with the Leafs, he brought in something the Leafs didn't have a lot of
Feb. 28, 2022 at 9:48 a.m.
#13
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 19,650
Likes: 8,773
Quoting: Salzy
Tried to alter my trade last week based off what you said, happy to see it improved haha


Not crazy about trading a 1st and not getting a top 6 center but this is a pretty good trade for both teams.
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 10:24 a.m.
#14
LongtimeLeafsufferer
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 59,072
Likes: 22,465
The best thing for the Sharks might be.....sell those UFAs at TDL, and then resign them this summer.
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 10:36 a.m.
#15
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: Gofnut999
Not crazy about trading a 1st and not getting a top 6 center but this is a pretty good trade for both teams.


You think so? Seems meh to me in all honesty.

Last 3 seasons
DeBrusk - 0.45 PGP
Rakell - 0.58 PGP

^The difference in production over 82 games is about 10 points. That's a 10pt difference with DeBrusk being pretty meh the last 3 seasons, playing mostly with bottom 6 guys and getting little PP time. Rakell obviously a pending UFA while DeBrusk is a pending RFA. DeBrusk over the last 3 years has 3 less goals in 9 less games and roughly 4 years younger. Not saying I wouldn't take Rakell, in fact I think he'd do well with Begeron & Marchand. I just wouldn't give up much more than DeBrusk for Rakell. So that leaves a 1st + Moore for Steel, which is an awful swap for Boston. We have enough bottom 6 forwards and Moore isn't stopping the team cap wise from making a move.
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 10:44 a.m.
#16
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2018
Posts: 5,135
Likes: 5,933
Quoting: ON3M4N
You think so? Seems meh to me in all honesty.

Last 3 seasons
DeBrusk - 0.45 PGP
Rakell - 0.58 PGP

^The difference in production over 82 games is about 10 points. That's a 10pt difference with DeBrusk being pretty meh the last 3 seasons, playing mostly with bottom 6 guys and getting little PP time. Rakell obviously a pending UFA while DeBrusk is a pending RFA. DeBrusk over the last 3 years has 3 less goals in 9 less games and roughly 4 years younger. Not saying I wouldn't take Rakell, in fact I think he'd do well with Begeron & Marchand. I just wouldn't give up much more than DeBrusk for Rakell. So that leaves a 1st + Moore for Steel, which is an awful swap for Boston. We have enough bottom 6 forwards and Moore isn't stopping the team cap wise from making a move.


Out of curiosity what would you give for Rakell with 50% retention ?
Feb. 28, 2022 at 10:46 a.m.
#17
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2018
Posts: 5,135
Likes: 5,933
Quoting: palhal
The best thing for the Sharks might be.....sell those UFAs at TDL, and then resign them this summer.


I think that’s what happens with Manson, he’s made it clear he wants to remain in Anaheim

Lindholm if he hits FA I think he walks he should get a good payday, I think if he makes it to free agency he gets at least 8x8, and at that price he doesn’t really make sense for the Ducks imo.

Rakell could go either way I’m not too sure what ends up happening with him
Feb. 28, 2022 at 10:58 a.m.
#18
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 19,650
Likes: 8,773
Quoting: ON3M4N
You think so? Seems meh to me in all honesty.

Last 3 seasons
DeBrusk - 0.45 PGP
Rakell - 0.58 PGP

^The difference in production over 82 games is about 10 points. That's a 10pt difference with DeBrusk being pretty meh the last 3 seasons, playing mostly with bottom 6 guys and getting little PP time. Rakell obviously a pending UFA while DeBrusk is a pending RFA. DeBrusk over the last 3 years has 3 less goals in 9 less games and roughly 4 years younger. Not saying I wouldn't take Rakell, in fact I think he'd do well with Begeron & Marchand. I just wouldn't give up much more than DeBrusk for Rakell. So that leaves a 1st + Moore for Steel, which is an awful swap for Boston. We have enough bottom 6 forwards and Moore isn't stopping the team cap wise from making a move.


I look at as 1st for Rakell with 50% retention. Fair.

Debrusk & Moore for Steel. Debrusk is not coming back next year and his trade value is not commensurate with his production. Dumping Moore off the books and getting a forward back who has not hit his potential and under team control. I have seen worse ideas. Especially if they extend Rakell which should be doable.

Is it ideal. No of course not. But it’s better than most ideas on here. If they don’t extend Rakell then it’s a loss.
Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 11:08 a.m.
#19
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: Gofnut999
I look at as 1st for Rakell with 50% retention. Fair.

Debrusk & Moore for Steel. Debrusk is not coming back next year and his trade value is not commensurate with his production. Dumping Moore off the books and getting a forward back who has not hit his potential and under team control. I have seen worse ideas. Especially if they extend Rakell which should be doable.

Is it ideal. No of course not. But it’s better than most ideas on here. If they don’t extend Rakell then it’s a loss.


I wouldn't rule out JDB coming back if the B's can't find a deal they like.

Sam Steel is pending RFA (like DeBrusk) and he's only a year younger than DeBrusk. Could you also say then that DeBrusk has not hit his potential and under team control? Over the last 3 years DeBrusk in the same amount of games as Steel has 20 more points. So we're downgrading a forward to gain an extra $1.6 million in cap space by moving Moore?

Could the re-sign Rakell? sure, but he could also walk. Like you said if that happens then its a loss and what we have to show for a 1st + DeBrusk + Moore is.....Sam Steel
Snowball and Salzy liked this.
Feb. 28, 2022 at 11:11 a.m.
#20
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: Salzy
Out of curiosity what would you give for Rakell with 50% retention ?


Honestly not much more than DeBrusk. In a DeBrusk for Rakell swap the Bruins wouldn't "need" ANH to retain on Rakell to make the cap work, so no extra juice value wise there. Maybe a mid pick or prospect with DeBrusk, but nothing that will get ANH fans excited.
Snowball and Salzy liked this.
Mar. 1, 2022 at 7:55 a.m.
#21
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 462
Quoting: MrDinkiee
Leafs easily decline, EF confirmed that Dubas isn't giving up a top end prospect for a rental. Leafs counter with Dermott and a 2nd for Lindholm. If Lindholm doesn't want to re-sign, Ducks will have no leverage in a trade


Yeah, because a deal for Lindholm will only involve TOR and ANA right? I mean, its not like he's a desirable talent playing a position of need for many teams in the league. Are you serious?

Your offer would get quickly turned down and we'll speak to other teams regarding Lindholm... or, what is more likely, is we'll just re-sign him (he's playing hard ball with ANA, as he should, to maximise his contract. ANA has a history of low-balling RFAs under GMBM, but Lindholm is worth every penny of $8m per year and I hope Pat Verbeek sees that. Term could be a sticking point, but I'd suck it up and give him the 8 years if he demanded it).

Quoting: ON3M4N
You think so? Seems meh to me in all honesty.

Last 3 seasons
DeBrusk - 0.45 PGP
Rakell - 0.58 PGP

^The difference in production over 82 games is about 10 points. That's a 10pt difference with DeBrusk being pretty meh the last 3 seasons, playing mostly with bottom 6 guys and getting little PP time. Rakell obviously a pending UFA while DeBrusk is a pending RFA. DeBrusk over the last 3 years has 3 less goals in 9 less games and roughly 4 years younger. Not saying I wouldn't take Rakell, in fact I think he'd do well with Begeron & Marchand. I just wouldn't give up much more than DeBrusk for Rakell. So that leaves a 1st + Moore for Steel, which is an awful swap for Boston. We have enough bottom 6 forwards and Moore isn't stopping the team cap wise from making a move.


Funny how you picked the last 3 years, basically when ANA sucked and BOS didn't. I appreciate that DeBrusk has gotten worse minutes than Rakell over recent years, but Rakell thrived on a winning team when he had a good version of Getzlaf (or Bergeron and Marchand perhaps) giving him time and space. I'm not saying Rakell is a superstar player or anything. In fact, he's pretty much to definition of a complimentary winger. However, I think he and DeBrusk are very similar (inconsistent scorers who are poor off the puck), but Rakell is a better performer (as demonstrated by his 2 x 30+ goal seasons) and has the ability to go full god-mode the way DeBrusk doesn't.

All that said, I think Rakell would be an excellent upgrade on DeBrusk. Something BOS should be looking to do going into a playoff run looking to go deep. Not trying to suggest the deal presented is good for you (it certainly would work for me). Just fighting from Rakell's corner.
Salzy liked this.
Mar. 1, 2022 at 8:33 a.m.
#22
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: mytduxfan
Yeah, because a deal for Lindholm will only involve TOR and ANA right? I mean, its not like he's a desirable talent playing a position of need for many teams in the league. Are you serious?

Your offer would get quickly turned down and we'll speak to other teams regarding Lindholm... or, what is more likely, is we'll just re-sign him (he's playing hard ball with ANA, as he should, to maximise his contract. ANA has a history of low-balling RFAs under GMBM, but Lindholm is worth every penny of $8m per year and I hope Pat Verbeek sees that. Term could be a sticking point, but I'd suck it up and give him the 8 years if he demanded it).



Funny how you picked the last 3 years, basically when ANA sucked and BOS didn't. I appreciate that DeBrusk has gotten worse minutes than Rakell over recent years, but Rakell thrived on a winning team when he had a good version of Getzlaf (or Bergeron and Marchand perhaps) giving him time and space. I'm not saying Rakell is a superstar player or anything. In fact, he's pretty much to definition of a complimentary winger. However, I think he and DeBrusk are very similar (inconsistent scorers who are poor off the puck), but Rakell is a better performer (as demonstrated by his 2 x 30+ goal seasons) and has the ability to go full god-mode the way DeBrusk doesn't.

All that said, I think Rakell would be an excellent upgrade on DeBrusk. Something BOS should be looking to do going into a playoff run looking to go deep. Not trying to suggest the deal presented is good for you (it certainly would work for me). Just fighting from Rakell's corner.


Not funny at all, I use the 3 pervious season frequently because I feel like it gives the best snapshot of how a player is performing currently and not 5,6,7,8,9,10 years ago. DeBrusk the last few years has been awful production wise, which is part of the reason he was demoted to the bottom 6 and also why he had asked for a trade earlier this season. Yes Rakell had a few 30+ goal season 5/6 seasons ago. Those two season btw also happen to be his two best seasons from a shooting% standpoint. Funny that you call me out for using the last 3 years when the team was bad, but you want to use his two best seasons to show he's a better performer than DeBrusk.
Mar. 1, 2022 at 7:43 p.m.
#23
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 462
Quoting: ON3M4N
Not funny at all, I use the 3 pervious season frequently because I feel like it gives the best snapshot of how a player is performing currently and not 5,6,7,8,9,10 years ago. DeBrusk the last few years has been awful production wise, which is part of the reason he was demoted to the bottom 6 and also why he had asked for a trade earlier this season. Yes Rakell had a few 30+ goal season 5/6 seasons ago. Those two season btw also happen to be his two best seasons from a shooting% standpoint. Funny that you call me out for using the last 3 years when the team was bad, but you want to use his two best seasons to show he's a better performer than DeBrusk.


He's a better performer based on your numbers as well... Lol. Also, you're dumping on DeBrusk, but then saying Rakell is no better. Rakell best seasons may have been 4-5 years ago now, but he still had them and DeBrusk hasn't. It still proves his capacity to have those high scoring seasons. Anyway, not going to waste anymore time trying to persuade you that Rakell is an upgrade on DeBrusk. He is and I'm confident most neutrals would agree. The question should really be what would the cost of that upgrade be, considering contracts, retention, etc. IMO, I think the deal above is fair, but you are of course welcome to disagree.
Mar. 1, 2022 at 11:03 p.m.
#24
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: mytduxfan
He's a better performer based on your numbers as well... Lol. Also, you're dumping on DeBrusk, but then saying Rakell is no better. Rakell best seasons may have been 4-5 years ago now, but he still had them and DeBrusk hasn't. It still proves his capacity to have those high scoring seasons. Anyway, not going to waste anymore time trying to persuade you that Rakell is an upgrade on DeBrusk. He is and I'm confident most neutrals would agree. The question should really be what would the cost of that upgrade be, considering contracts, retention, etc. IMO, I think the deal above is fair, but you are of course welcome to disagree.


Did the math as I said before, the p/gp gap over the last 3yrs is 10 points over 82 games. That's with Rakell getting prime toi and 1PP time, which DeBrusk hasn't. I'd think the gap would be much larger, but its not.

Bruins don't need retention to fit Rakell in so it can be taken out. Don't need to move Moore and can just bury him. No use for Steel either. I'm not going to debate if it's fair, but i will say it wouldn't be of interest to Boston as constructed by OP
mytduxfan and Salzy liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll