What are you talking about . According too Edmonton nail yakopav is the next gertzkey. How dare you defile his name like that just kidding . Theodore is going to be our best d man in my opinion . But how do i know drisallie is going to be a #1 center . You have to take a chance . And you can't get something for nothing . Like when Nashville traded seth jones to Columbus . Some times drastic measures need to be made .

What are you talking about . According too Edmonton nail yakopav is the next gertzkey. How dare you defile his name like that just kidding . Theodore is going to be our best d man in my opinion . But how do i know drisallie is going to be a #1 center . You have to take a chance . And you can't get something for nothing . Like when Nashville traded seth jones to Columbus . Some times drastic measures need to be made .
- Eman87654

Nashville traded Jones to Columbus in exchange for a proven #1 center with 300 NHL games and 200 points under his belt. No one said that Draisaitl is going to be a #1 center, but he was the Oilers' best center for a large stretch this season when McJesus went down with an injury. If he continues with his level of play from this season, then he will likely be the 2nd line center of the future for the Oil, and Nuge will get traded.

Shea Theodore has played a grand total of 19 NHL games averaging bottom-four minutes (19:06) and has proven exactly nothing. He has potential, but unless he comes in and unseats Lindholm this season at #1 defenseman, offering only Theodore for Draisaitl is a huge underpayment.

I would give Despres another year. He clearly wasn't the same all year after that hit. I think a long off season will do him wonders and he will be back a little better.

Teams can either protect 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, and 1 goaltender or 8 skaters at any position and 1 goaltender. Either way, you can only keep one goaltender. Players with NMCs will be required to be protected, while NTCs will be exposable (that means Bieksa will be required to be one of your 3 protections). Players on the first two years of their ELCs will be exempted, but players on their third and final year will not. Every team can only have one player claimed during the draft if there's only one expansion team, two if there's two expansion teams.

I think brosef's point was that since Andersen is a proven starting goaltender, he will be the prime goaltending target by any expansion team. So if you sign him and leave him unprotected, he will likely get claimed, meaning your deep defensive prospects will be spared. Bieksa is a required protection since he has a NMC, so your 2 remaining protections will probably be Lindholm and Fowler, meaning Theodore, Manson, Despres, and Vatanen (if he re-signs) will all be unprotected. It's not a bad strategy, but it's risky because if the expansion team does decide to go with a defensemen, then you're on the hook for two goaltenders. Andersen's next contract will likely not be a cheap one either.
- tkecanuck341

The more I think about it I think the Ducks will go this route. they will have to have Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, and Bieksa on the list but then they could protect 4 defensemen. i can't see Vegas wanting any of our other forwards, maybe Rackel but I doubt it. The big question is who's going to be on the list and what the Vegas GM wants to do with his team. If Vegas wants to start winning ASAP I can see him taking a pass on all of the Ducks young D-men, there will surely be more proven players available. The only good thing about this draft is teams only lose one player.

The more I think about it I think the Ducks will go this route. they will have to have Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, and Bieksa on the list but then they could protect 4 defensemen. i can't see Vegas wanting any of our other forwards, maybe Rackel but I doubt it. The big question is who's going to be on the list and what the Vegas GM wants to do with his team. If Vegas wants to start winning ASAP I can see him taking a pass on all of the Ducks young D-men, there will surely be more proven players available. The only good thing about this draft is teams only lose one player.
- duxcup07

Assuming there's only one expansion team. If both Vegas and Quebec City get franchises, every team will lose two.

Under the rules, Nick Ritchie will be subject to the draft as well. That would be another player worth protecting.

If you go the 8/1 route, I imagine it will be the following:
Getzlaf
Perry
Kesler
Ritchie
Bieksa
Lindholm
Theodore
Manson
Gibson

Fowler would be in the final year of his contract before UFA, so he'd not be worth protecting as the Ducks could always pursue him through free agency again if he were taken.

The largest bait would be Silfverburg, Rackell, Despres, Fowler, Vatanen (if resigned), and Andersen (if resigned) if the Ducks were to go this route.

If I were the GM of an expansion team, I would exclusively target young prospects, then grab a couple overpaid veteran contracts to fill up to the salary floor. No one expects an expansion team to be great right away, and young talented prospects can always be traded for better players that were protected during the draft.

Assuming there's only one expansion team. If both Vegas and Quebec City get franchises, every team will lose two.

Under the rules, Nick Ritchie will be subject to the draft as well. That would be another player worth protecting.

If you go the 8/1 route, I imagine it will be the following:
Getzlaf
Perry
Kesler
Ritchie
Bieksa
Lindholm
Theodore
Manson
Gibson

Fowler would be in the final year of his contract before UFA, so he'd not be worth protecting as the Ducks could always pursue him through free agency again if he were taken.

The largest bait would be Silfverburg, Rackell, Despres, Fowler, Vatanen (if resigned), and Andersen (if resigned) if the Ducks were to go this route.

If I were the GM of an expansion team, I would exclusively target young prospects, then grab a couple overpaid veteran contracts to fill up to the salary floor. No one expects an expansion team to be great right away, and young talented prospects can always be traded for better players that were protected during the draft.
- tkecanuck341

Entirely agree in terms of who they'll most likely end up protecting. Although, admittedly I lack much of an informed opinion in regards to Ritchie. How highly touted is this guy? I've always thought it's an incredibly dangerous game to invest too much expectations wise in a guy who has played less than half a single season at the NHL level (33) unless they're a "can't miss" type prospect. My point being I'm not so sure I wouldn't go with a guy like Vatanen over Ritchie, who at this point, is more of a known commodity as an NHL player.

Entirely agree in terms of who they'll most likely end up protecting. Although, admittedly I lack much of an informed opinion in regards to Ritchie. How highly touted is this guy? I've always thought it's an incredibly dangerous game to invest too much expectations wise in a guy who has played less than half a single season at the NHL level (33) unless they're a "can't miss" type prospect. My point being I'm not so sure I wouldn't go with a guy like Vatanen over Ritchie, who at this point, is more of a known commodity as an NHL player.
- Woodysdemise

At this point in their careers, it's going to be about perceived value versus actual value since an expansion team will not have to give up anything in return for the players they draft. Anaheim is only going to lose one or two players, but you can be sure that if Ritchie is left unprotected, he would be the guy that they take for one simple reason... he'll be restricted for another 6 years. An expansion team would get 6 years of inexpensive potential vs only 2 from Vatanen. If you leave Vatanen unprotected, it's unlikely that he'll get claimed since there are younger guys that would be available and price-controlled for longer. If he does get claimed, you can always offer him a contract in a few years when his final RFA contract expires.

Assuming there's only one expansion team. If both Vegas and Quebec City get franchises, every team will lose two.

Under the rules, Nick Ritchie will be subject to the draft as well. That would be another player worth protecting.

If you go the 8/1 route, I imagine it will be the following:
Getzlaf
Perry
Kesler
Ritchie
Bieksa
Lindholm
Theodore
Manson
Gibson

Fowler would be in the final year of his contract before UFA, so he'd not be worth protecting as the Ducks could always pursue him through free agency again if he were taken.

The largest bait would be Silfverburg, Rackell, Despres, Fowler, Vatanen (if resigned), and Andersen (if resigned) if the Ducks were to go this route.

If I were the GM of an expansion team, I would exclusively target young prospects, then grab a couple overpaid veteran contracts to fill up to the salary floor. No one expects an expansion team to be great right away, and young talented prospects can always be traded for better players that were protected during the draft.
- tkecanuck341

Replace with Rakell. Ducks don't have C depth at all. Really can't risk him to the expansion draft. imo. I could even see the team exposing Ritchie and keeping Brandon Montour.

Replace with Rakell. Ducks don't have C depth at all. Really can't risk him to the expansion draft. imo I could even see the team exposing Ritchie and keeping Brandon Montour.
- quackup

After this yr disaster - Trade that Gelding Perry for whatever if possible
Getzloaf... rip the C - Say what you want about Kes .. he plays his Ass off all the time..
Protect - 57/53/ Montour / 42 / JG / Kes / 47 / I guess 2, 15 /
offer the rest up to expansion -
Find a coach -

At this point in their careers, it's going to be about perceived value versus actual value since an expansion team will not have to give up anything in return for the players they draft. Anaheim is only going to lose one or two players, but you can be sure that if Ritchie is left unprotected, he would be the guy that they take for one simple reason... he'll be restricted for another 6 years. An expansion team would get 6 years of inexpensive potential vs only 2 from Vatanen. If you leave Vatanen unprotected, it's unlikely that he'll get claimed since there are younger guys that would be available and price-controlled for longer. If he does get claimed, you can always offer him a contract in a few years when his final RFA contract expires.
- tkecanuck341

Totally forgot about this fact. Yeah, based on him being a RFA for the next 6 years, I agree it's essentially a no-brainer. The only counter argument to this would be if Murray was absolutely convinced Vatanen was a bona fide top 2 pairing NHL defenseman. At which point you could justify holding on to him at all costs... even over a younger, potentially very good, less expensive player in Ritchie. But at this point, there's obviously no overwhelming proof of that being the case, so you simply go with the better bargain younger player. Especially on a team with an internal cap.

Replace with Rakell. Ducks don't have C depth at all. Really can't risk him to the expansion draft. imo. I could even see the team exposing Ritchie and keeping Brandon Montour.
- quackup

I made those picks on the assumption that you were going 8/1. If you're going to replace Manson with Rackell, then you should go the 7/3/1 route. Then you can protect an additional 2 forwards.

I made those picks on the assumption that you were going 8/1. If you're going to replace Manson with Rackell, then you should go the 7/3/1 route. Then you can protect an additional 2 forwards.
- tkecanuck341

Good call. My bad.

After this yr disaster - Trade that Gelding Perry for whatever if possible
Getzloaf... rip the C - Say what you want about Kes .. he plays his Ass off all the time..
Protect - 57/53/ Montour / 42 / JG / Kes / 47 / I guess 2, 15 /
offer the rest up to expansion -
Find a coach -
- dozerD10

Perry has a NMC. He is going nowhere. Period. He led the team in goals. I get he did nothing against Nashville. I get it. But he's still not going anywhere anytime soon. Accept it.

Assuming there's only one expansion team. If both Vegas and Quebec City get franchises, every team will lose two.

Under the rules, Nick Ritchie will be subject to the draft as well. That would be another player worth protecting.

If you go the 8/1 route, I imagine it will be the following:
Getzlaf
Perry
Kesler
Ritchie replace with Rakell
Bieksa
Lindholm
Theodore
Manson replace with Montour
Gibson

Fowler would be in the final year of his contract before UFA, so he'd not be worth protecting as the Ducks could always pursue him through free agency again if he were taken.

The largest bait would be Silfverburg, Rackell (replace with Ritchie), Despres, Fowler, Vatanen (if resigned), and Andersen (if resigned) if the Ducks were to go this route.

If I were the GM of an expansion team, I would exclusively target young prospects, then grab a couple overpaid veteran contracts to fill up to the salary floor. No one expects an expansion team to be great right away, and young talented prospects can always be traded for better players that were protected during the draft.
- tkecanuck341

Ritchie replace with Rakell
- quackup

If Ritchie is left unprotected, he's the guy that will get picked. No need to include any other names.

If Ritchie is left unprotected, he's the guy that will get picked. No need to include any other names.
- tkecanuck341

You're probably right. Ritchie > Montour > Manson.

I'm done. My head's spinning.

Perry has a NMC. He is going nowhere. Period. He led the team in goals. I get he did nothing against Nashville. I get it. But he's still not going anywhere anytime soon. Accept it.
- quackup

Usually you and I are on the same page - but for a one dimensional player making more than 8 mil - you need to score a helluva lot more than 34 goals - somewhere north of 45 or more -

On the expansion draft. I fully expect Murray to make a deal (prospects or DPs) to keep from losing a key contributor.

Usually you and I are on the same page - but for a one dimensional player making more than 8 mil - you need to score a helluva lot more than 34 goals - somewhere north of 45 or more -
- dozerD10

For WINGERS, Perry was 15th in scoring, 6th in goals. This on a team that didn't emphasize offense, but defense instead. I get the frustration, but to expect him to lead the league in goals I don't think is reasonable.

On the expansion draft. I fully expect Murray to make a deal (prospects or DPs) to keep from losing a key contributor.
- Ed Stein

I guess the question Ed is to define "key" contributor. Based on the parameters of the expansion draft, I don't think the Ducks can help but lose somebody of value. Either we protect 3 D, 7 F and one G, or we protect 8 skaters and one G. Already we're forced to protect Perry, Getzlaf, Kesler, and Bieksa because of NMC's. In scenario A we can only keep 2 of Vatanen (if resigned), Lindholm (if resigned), Fowler, Theodore, Montour (those I consider key players, thus not even counting our other D).

Even in scenario B, where we can keep 8 skaters total, 4 are taken, which leaves 4 more. Say you add Lindholm and Theodore. Then we can keep 2 more skaters, say Rakell and Ritchie. That leaves Silverberg, Cogliano, Fowler, Vatanen exposed.

I guess the question Ed is to define "key" contributor. Based on the parameters of the expansion draft, I don't think the Ducks can help but lose somebody of value. Either we protect 3 D, 7 F and one G, or we protect 8 skaters and one G. Already we're forced to protect Perry, Getzlaf, Kesler, and Bieksa because of NMC's. In scenario A we can only keep 2 of Vatanen (if resigned), Lindholm (if resigned), Fowler, Theodore, Montour (those I consider key players, thus not even counting our other D).

Even in scenario B, where we can keep 8 skaters total, 4 are taken, which leaves 4 more. Say you add Lindholm and Theodore. Then we can keep 2 more skaters, say Rakell and Ritchie. That leaves Silverberg, Cogliano, Fowler, Vatanen exposed.
- quackup

When is the draft tho? The Ducks only have to protect Bieksa if expansion happens next summer. If it comes prior to the 18-19 season, which is a good possibility, it gets easier for Anaheim. Even more so if Andersen and Vatanen are traded. Protect Perry, Getz, Kesler, Rakell, Ritchie, Silfverberg, and hopefully the new LW they bring in, Lindholm, Theodore, Montour and Gibson. They wouldn't have to protect Fowler as he would be pending UFA.

When is the draft tho? The Ducks only have to protect Bieksa if expansion happens next summer. If it comes prior to the 18-19 season, which is a good possibility, it gets easier for Anaheim. Even more so if Andersen and Vatanen are traded. Protect Perry, Getz, Kesler, Rakell, Ritchie, Silfverberg, and hopefully the new LW they bring in, Lindholm, Theodore, Montour and Gibson. They wouldn't have to protect Fowler as he would be pending UFA.
- sniper11

IF Las Vegas gets a team, they want the team to play season 2017-18. Everything I've read has the draft next year. You're absolutely correct if it's a year later. I could see Bieksa bought out if it meant losing one of our kids. Otherwise, take Montour off the protected list also.

Still, we're talking about a team going forward without Fowler, Vatanen and possibly Montour. I'm already assuming Andersen is traded. That's a hit to the D. Probably explains why Murray said we'll see changes this offseason. Let's hope they don't add two teams.

Does anyone else think its about time bargin bob chose a head coach? Also . Put me down for wanting to trade up to get patrick Laine . I know its a gamble . But it would but a nice little present from bob murry to us i think .

I agree

Does anyone else think its about time bargin bob chose a head coach? Also . Put me down for wanting to trade up to get patrick Laine . I know its a gamble . But it would but a nice little present from bob murry to us i think .
- Eman87654

Trading up to #2 would cost a ton. You're looking at Lindholm, Ritchie, Montour, and a 3rd and 4th round pick in the draft. Winnipeg knows what they have, that there's huge demand, and to quote a disgraced Chicago mayor, "I've got this thing and it's f*&kin' golden. I'm just not giving it up for nothing."