Avatar

Lenny7

Lenny7
Member Since
Jan. 18, 2017
Favourite Team
Anaheim Ducks
Forum Posts
10615
Posts per Day
5.4
Forum: Armchair-GM16 hours ago
Thread: Toronto
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MP55</b></div><div>Fun fact, the two “meh” prospects were essentially moved for Brett Kulak, who then played several solid seasons for the Habs and just fetched them a second round pick at the deadline.</div></div>

Funner fun fact: Kulak had been waived by the Flames two months earlier in the offseason. Some players get good'er in the right systems, some players don't.

Hockey is funny like that..just from a Ducks fan perspective, teams could have had Adam Henrique for nothing last year when he was waived...this year he had 42 points in 58 games, Milano was waived at the start of the year and put up excellent numbers with Zegras/Terry (though unfortunately Dallas Eakins is a poopoo head and prefers to play Zegras with Gerry Mayhew and Derek Grant).

I'm pretty sure the Flames waived Kylington at some point over the past year or so as well, which seems funny.
Forum: Armchair-GM16 hours ago
Thread: Toronto
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MP55</b></div><div>I amended my comment above. Weber will get moved for nothing to a team like Arizona trying to reach the cap floor. Knies/Neimela is to get the Habs, the leafs’ bitter rivals, to do them a favour in taking the Mrazek contract. There’s a Habs-Leafs premium there</div></div>

Going to take a wild stab in the dark here, but IMO, the alleged "Habs-Leafs premium" exists only in the minds of Habs and Leafs fans.

Do the two teams deal with each other often? Absolutely not. When they have, has their been some sort of hilarious "premium" put on deals? Not to my knowledge. The last trade between them was for the Leafs to acquire Habs lifer Tomas Plekanec at the deadline (when teams typically pay a premium). What did the Habs get? A 2nd, and two "meh" prospects.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 3:03 p.m.
Thread: Gibson
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Lambchopz</b></div><div>Oh I understand all that 100%. Ducks shouldn’t move Gibson for cheap, but I also don’t think the Leafs should spend a lucrative amount on him at all</div></div>

Yeah, I don't disagree with that at all. I think it's the hilarious "Kawhi" talk that probably started this. IMO Gibson &gt; Campbell with that D-core in front of him, but you can also *probably* get Campbell back cheaper by simply re-signing him, than trading for someone like Gibson.

Semi-off topic, but the whole "Kawhi" thing was just a terribly foolish thing for anyone to say, media or not, because that was the acquisition of a top 10 NBA player, which, if you compare it to hockey, is pretty much impossible. You (the Leafs) alread have 1 (Matthews), with another one very close (Marner), and when you think "top 10" or even "top 20", there's not really anyone like that that should be available. You guys were hilariously close to knocking off the back to back champs, and the only real difference was that Nick Paul snuck a couple through in game 7. It wasn't depth, it wasn't skill, it wasn't goaltending, it wasn't leadership, it was simply that Tampa scored more goals in game 7 than the Leafs. A couple of decent depth moves and the Leafs stay at the top of the Atlantic.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 11:40 a.m.
Thread: Gibson
As a Ducks fan, there are a number of factors that should be taken into account, but the main one that I'd point to when people say "But if the D-core/system is so bad, what about Stolie?", we shouldn't skip over the fact that 11 of Stolie's 12 wins came against non-playoff teams. It's such a small sample size that is being referenced as well...consider that Gibson played in almost as many games this year as Stolarz has his entire career (56 gp vs. 62 career).

I don't know...I certainly don't want to dump on Stolie because he's been a solid backup for us for the past couple of years, but I also wouldn't be buying on those kind of numbers having any more upside than they currently do.

With Gibby, trades that involve him never seem to take into account that there's really no reason for the Ducks to trade him unless there's an overpay. Moving a player to simply move him is typically an ill-fated way to run a hockey team. He's also got a 10 team NTC, which, if we've learned anything, typically cover Canadian teams.
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 12:24 p.m.
Thread: Offseason
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ritzy</b></div><div>Or, TOR could sign Campbell at that money and keep their prospects and picks.</div></div>

But, Ka-whi would you want to do that!

As a Ducks fan, I get that Gibby's name is out there a bit right now, but don't see him being moved anyway. Gotta be an overpay for it to make sense for Anaheim, and that seems unlikely given the market for goaltenders. There's really no gun to Verbeek's head saying "You gotta trade 'em!", so again, unless someone does something hilariously stupid, Gibby will be with the Ducks to start the season next year. I also think it's worth keeping in mind that he has a 10 team NTC, which, if we've learned anything about NTC's, more than likely covers every Canadian team.

Also: This isn't just an overpay, it's an extreme overpay. I'll take it though...
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 10:29 a.m.
Thread: Offseason moves
These Nylander-Chychrun trades that have been on here make very little sense to me. Don't get me wrong, Nylander is an excellent player, but if you were guaranteed to be a bottom 5 team next year with or without Nylander, would you:
A) Trade Chychrun for the pick/prospect haul that he should command, giving you a whole bunch of team control over future players
Or,
B) Trade Chychrun for Nylander, who is under contract for 2 years before he walks as a UFA?

Sure, with B, you could always flip Nylander down the road, but why not just skip that step? There's about a 0% chance that Nylander's value is going to improve playing down there, especially as the contract gets closer to the end, which ends up just being extremely poor asset management on Arizona's part. Any combination of a decline in offence, an injury, poor usage, etc. turns this gamble into a huge L.
×