Member Since
Jan. 25, 2017
Favourite Team
Anaheim Ducks
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 24 at 7:27 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 24 at 7:16 p.m.
Thread: The Dream
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 23 at 8:08 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 22 at 9:56 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 11 at 7:40 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 3 at 10:13 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 3 at 9:19 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TZ11</b></div><div>No, why would ARI add? For one, <strong>Lindholm's a UFA and will likely not re-sign there</strong>. Then, Chychrun is the better player, coming from a Ducks fan. Not having the best season, but look at his team and you'll realise that not many would be a true #1 D-man on that team. He is also on a bargain of a contract. Not a chance the Coyotes add.</div></div>

If that is the case then why would they be interested in Lindholm anyway? They're not a playoff team so the deal is basically for Larson + 1st + 2nd. In that case, I agree the deal is a little light (for what I think is a top 4 D-man). Having said that, we could move Lindholm to a team that will actually benefit from him and who may even sign him and get more value in return.

As far as Chychrun being the better player, have you got any evidence to support that? I'm asking this in the most unconfrontational way possible. I am totally open-minded to him being the better player. I just haven't seen it in what I've seen of him this season (a handful of games). My assessment would be that he's a high IQ player with a more well-rounded game than Lindholm and can play big minutes, but isn't elite in any one area and isn't particularly physical either. Hence, I question his top pairing potential. He also plays quite stiff and low energy, perhaps because of the big minutes he's doing/being forced to play. Anyway, that is just my opinion. Would love to add him to the team, but wouldn't want to sacrifice the elite shutdown skills that Lindholm brings in the process. Personally, I think losing Lindholm would be devastating for the team. He and Drysdale seem to have a working partnership and compliment each other in terms of their skillsets. However, happy to hear your opinion.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>No, but I suspect that you might momentarily have forgotten that Hampus is a UFA. Larsson looks to me like a bust, so this trade is Chychrun for a first and second (the premise being that we can't re-sign Hampus).

If Hampus had three seasons left on his deal, I wouldn't trade him for Chychrun.</div></div>

Again, based on Hampus being basically of no value to ARI, I agree we fleece ARI in that deal. However, IMO, ARI would be getting the best player in the deal. Of course, that means nothing if he doesn't re-sign, so I now completely understand your position.

I think the UFA status is getting overplayed personally. Any team acquiring a pending UFA with the abilities that Lindholm has is certainly going into it with (a) an understanding of Lindholm's contract wants, and (b) a strong indication that he'll re-sign. After all, it would be in Verbeek's interest to get that information across to an potential buyers to increase his value. So the value decline is just the risk that something awful happens and they either can't afford him or, in the 3 months he's with his new team, Lindholm decides he hates it and wants leaves. I think both are pretty low in terms of likelihood and so I don't buy into the narrative that Lindholm is only worth a late 1st + B prospect because he's a pending UFA. If he is moved, I'll be expecting a solid package in return. However, my preference is to re-sign him, even if we end up giving him that 8th year.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 2 at 8:09 p.m.
Rakell deal is awful for us. DeBrusk is equally as inconsistent as Rakell, but a weaker performer. The value difference between RFA vs UFA here is small, certainly not enough to have ANA adding to the deal. I'm fine with DeBrusk as a stop gap in a Rakell deal, but there better be at least a 1st coming with him or we'll look elsewhere.

The Lindholm deal is also bad for us. Anything involving our 1st is terrible.

PHI deal is awful for them. TK is a top tier talent and shouldn't be traded for picks and bubble players.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>Well, if you ask me, we're robbing all three teams blind. The Chychrun deal is particularly awful for them, and investing a 2023 first-round pick (which won't turn into an NHL player until 2025, in all likelihood) to get a guy with Konecny's term would be one of the great GM moves in Anaheim history.</div></div>

Genuinely interested on your thoughts of Chychrun. Personally, I think he's getting over-hyped. From what I've seen of him this year, he's still the same top 4 D-man of previous years. A solid all-rounder who can play both sides of the pucks, but who isn't particularly physical. IMO, Lindholm is significantly better, especially on the defensive side of the puck. I wouldn't add to Lindholm for anyone who isn't an out-and-out #1C or #1D under 25 years old. Chychrun is younger and a good option for us if Lindholm wants out. Having said that, I'd expect the additions (if any) to be from ARI, not us. Am I missing something with Chychrun?
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 1 at 7:43 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 1 at 7:55 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MrDinkiee</b></div><div>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, <strong>Ducks will have no leverage in a trade</strong></div></div>

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).

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ON3M4N</b></div><div>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 &amp; 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.</div></div>

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.