I know this trade would never happen, but according to the Flames blogger, the Ducks have interest in Sam Bennett. Would you guys trade Vatanen straight up for Bennett. I know I wouldn't, because Bennett is only going to get better.

Thoughts?
- FlamesFan1230

Sure. And Vats is only going to get better too. A young, slick PMD who isn't afraid to throw his body around doesn't come along very often. And he's signed for another 3 years.

What are you adding to get Vats?

Sure. And Vats is only going to get better too. A young, slick PMD who isn't afraid to throw his body around doesn't come along very often. And he's signed for another 3 years.

What are you adding to get Vats?
- quackup

You are way off here - generally I agree D man more valuable than forwards but in this case NO way .. Sami gets bullied off the puck constantly - is worthless in front of the net is easily replaceable by Brandon - Sam is a highend 2nd line at worst center with tons of skill - size - finish - and some nasty thrown in - he is 20 yrs old - he trumps Sami hands down -
If Calgary was stupid enough to offer this - Murray should pull the trigger so fast -

I know this trade would never happen, but according to the Flames blogger, the Ducks have interest in Sam Bennett. Would you guys trade Vatanen straight up for Bennett. I know I wouldn't, because Bennett is only going to get better.

Thoughts?
- FlamesFan1230

Done. If Todd said it, I say the Flames should do it.

I agree. I also lived it and remember the "hysteria." But to just say it's "fake" and accuse me of lying is mind boggling. The indoctrination is much worse than I ever imagined. Trust me, I'm not letting this go. (You know he would slam your reference because of its source.)

Anyway, should be an interesting offseason for both clubs.
- quackup

I don't know what to expect from the Kings, I'll set expectations low and hope they begin to change to a style more conducive to today's NHL. The Ducks will be right at the top for years to come. Look forward to the battles!

You are way off here - generally I agree D man more valuable than forwards but in this case NO way .. Sami gets bullied off the puck constantly - is worthless in front of the net is easily replaceable by Brandon - Sam is a highend 2nd line at worst center with tons of skill - size - finish - and some nasty thrown in - he is 20 yrs old - he trumps Sami hands down -
If Calgary was stupid enough to offer this - Murray should pull the trigger so fast -
- dozerD10

I'm not so sure Vats is as ineffective as you make him out to be. But to each his own. I think the chance of this trade happening is next to zero. So I was being a little sarcastic with my response. Thus my "wink" emoji at the end.

I don't know what to expect from the Kings, I'll set expectations low and hope they begin to change to a style more conducive to today's NHL. The Ducks will be right at the top for years to come. Look forward to the battles!
- arh777

Welcome to my world. Makes the season bearable if things don't work out.

I'm not so sure Vats is as ineffective as you make him out to be. But to each his own. I think the chance of this trade happening is next to zero. So I was being a little sarcastic with my response. Thus my "wink" emoji at the end.
- quackup

Ok - missed that - I do like Vats but as you say - zero percent chance of this happening - Sam B. would be dream addition -

Ok - missed that - I do like Vats but as you say - zero percent chance of this happening - Sam B. would be dream addition -
- dozerD10

I think something might be brewing with Toronto. They seem to be our dance partner on a regular basis, and both Babcock and Lamoriello were spotted at a couple of the Ducks/Preds games. If given a preference, I think Murray would like to keep any key player traded (Vats or Fowler) in the East. My wish would be Nylander (no to JVR). Notice I said "wish."


Getzlaf, Kesler, Nylander down the middle. I just drooled on myself.

I think something might be brewing with Toronto. They seem to be our dance partner on a regular basis, and both Babcock and Lamoriello were spotted at a couple of the Ducks/Preds games. If given a preference, I think Murray would like to keep any key player traded (Vats or Fowler) in the East. My wish would be Nylander (no to JVR). Notice I said "wish."


Getzlaf, Kesler, Nylander down the middle. I just drooled on myself.
- quackup

What he said. No JVR. No way. No how

I think something might be brewing with Toronto. They seem to be our dance partner on a regular basis, and both Babcock and Lamoriello were spotted at a couple of the Ducks/Preds games. If given a preference, I think Murray would like to keep any key player traded (Vats or Fowler) in the East. My wish would be Nylander (no to JVR). Notice I said "wish."


Getzlaf, Kesler, Nylander down the middle. I just drooled on myself.
- quackup

Nylander /

- glove_was_stuck

I too enjoyed the "excuse for losing, looking for sympathy because no other teams ever play through injuries in the playoffs" blog.

If that happens Murray should be fired.

And why would a D have been traded last year? Makes zero sense. Montour and Theodore weren't NHL ready last year. My gosh, this is just basic stuff.
- quackup

Murray spent most of the offseason trying to trade Fowler, but no teams matched his price. He's not going to come off his price for Vatanen/Manson now just to lose a player he would like to protect. Theodore was absolutely seen as NHL ready after the short stint he had in 2016. How do you not remember this? I don't see a scenario where trading D for less than his value makes any sense. You can't stop Vegas from taking a player. For the Ducks, they lose quality either way. Nothing justifies a trade like that.

I too enjoyed the "excuse for losing, looking for sympathy because no other teams ever play through injuries in the playoffs" blog.
- leonkennedy

I'm not seeing how it was an excuse for losing. It's more an 'oh no, we might be without some guys to start next season because their injuries were so bad'.

Every team has injuries but I don't think it's helped by the way the refs in the playoffs seem to just let a lot of bad hits and stick work go. Case in point, the hit on Matt Cullen last night - he was clearly checked from behind, could have been seriously injured, yet there wasn't even a minor penalty on the play. I'm for 'letting them play' as long as it's not dangerous, but it's gotten to the point where the safety of the players is at issue.

Murray spent most of the offseason trying to trade Fowler, but no teams matched his price. He's not going to come off his price for Vatanen/Manson now just to lose a player he would like to protect. Theodore was absolutely seen as NHL ready after the short stint he had in 2016. How do you not remember this? I don't see a scenario where trading D for less than his value makes any sense. You can't stop Vegas from taking a player. For the Ducks, they lose quality either way. Nothing justifies a trade like that.
- sniper11

I'll disagree on the Fowler trade comment. Rumors float around with every player. It was also rumored Murray wouldn't be able to sign both Vats and Lindholm AND keep Fowler. I would need to see actual trades (for Fowler) that Murray vetoed because the price was too low. Not those rumored.

I'll agree with the Theodore comment. He was thought to be ready with us fans, but evidently the coaches thought differently.

Regarding the draft, here's what you wrote, "he's not going to come off his price for Vatanen/Manson now just to lose a player he would like to protect." He wants to protect both. So you're saying he's willing to lose one to Vegas in the draft for nothing, vs lowering his trade price? I don't get it. Please elaborate.

note: I think Murray is going to go 7/3/1 vs 8/1 for the draft. Also think Bieksa waives his NMC.

Done. If Todd said it, I say the Flames should do it.
- Ed Stein

Go take a cold shower, it aint gonna happen!!

Go take a cold shower, it aint gonna happen!!



- Kevin R

I didn't say it. I went along with it.

I'll disagree on the Fowler trade comment. Rumors float around with every player. It was also rumored Murray wouldn't be able to sign both Vats and Lindholm AND keep Fowler. I would need to see actual trades (for Fowler) that Murray vetoed because the price was too low. Not those rumored.

I'll agree with the Theodore comment. He was thought to be ready with us fans, but evidently the coaches thought differently.

Regarding the draft, here's what you wrote, "he's not going to come off his price for Vatanen/Manson now just to lose a player he would like to protect." He wants to protect both. So you're saying he's willing to lose one to Vegas in the draft for nothing, vs lowering his trade price? I don't get it. Please elaborate.

note: I think Murray is going to go 7/3/1 vs 8/1 for the draft. Also think Bieksa waives his NMC.
- quackup

You need to get the idea that the Ducks are losing a player for nothing no matter what they do. Also, it will probably be a defenseman no matter what they do. What you are talking about is giving away a player for free (expansion) AND trading a player for way less than value. Supposedly, you are only making that trade to avoid losing him in the draft, which doesn't make sense because you still lose him. Now you have to replace two defensemen(the trade is supposed to bring a forward) when you have not relieved enough cap space to make it happen because of the limited return from the trade. I don't think you want to see Nate Guenin play 60 games tho. It's better to let Vegas take one of Vatanen/Manson and use the cap space for a forward. The Ducks would still have a top 5 defence unit better than probably 28 other teams.

What you aren't seeing is that the plus side of not making a trade is that you get to keep that player, one of Vatanen/Manson, and some cap space. Bottom line is that keeping the player and having him on the roster is better than whatever return you get from a trade + expansion loss.

Here is a breakdown of my take on the Ducks expansion draft. Some things to consider: once Despres gets off LTIR that's going to make the cap situation tight. Furthermore, no significant contracts came off the books this season, and there are 6 defensemen making over $3 million not including Manson, Theodore or Montour. Also, Vatanen's shoulder isn't in good shape, so that's something to keep in mind.

Here is a summary of all of Anaheim's defense:

Lindholm 5.25m - Is having off season shoulder surgery, but is a keeper for sure.
Vatanen 4.875m - Is having off season shoulder surgery, and is a question mark.
Bieksa 4.00m - Is having off season knee surgery, and the word is he's waiving his NMC and won't be protected.
Fowler 4.00m - Reestablished his game this year, has 1 year left on his contract. Probably a keeper if contract negations are trending in the right direction.
Despres 3.70m - Has been on LTIR for nearly 2 years due to concussions. The word is he's giving the NHL another shot. Won't be protected.
Stoner 3.25m - Out for most of the season with abdominal problems. Probably #9 on Anaheim's depth chart. 1 year left on contract. Won't be protected.
Montour 0.925 - A young NHL defenseman who finds a way to make an impact. Protected since he's on his entry level contract.
Theodore 0.863m - A young NHL defenseman with a strong offensive game. Protected since he's on his entry level contract.
Manson 0.825m - Probably one of the most difficult players to play against on this team, and is a question mark.

There are a lot of great players here, but there are only 6 spots. For me, Despres is a wait and see situation. If he is back to 100% he could find himself on next seasons opening night roster. Obviously GM Bob Murray has all the reports and can better gauge that situation. Nevertheless, Stoner is the only guy here you kind of think . That leaves 8 guys, so is losing 2 defensemen really that outlandish of a possibility? This defensive situation is not sustainable, and management knows this.

You need to get the idea that the Ducks are losing a player for nothing no matter what they do. Also, it will probably be a defenseman no matter what they do. What you are talking about is giving away a player for free (expansion) AND trading a player for way less than value. Supposedly, you are only making that trade to avoid losing him in the draft, which doesn't make sense because you still lose him. Now you have to replace two defensemen(the trade is supposed to bring a forward) when you have not relieved enough cap space to make it happen because of the limited return from the trade. I don't think you want to see Nate Guenin play 60 games tho. It's better to let Vegas take one of Vatanen/Manson and use the cap space for a forward. The Ducks would still have a top 5 defence unit better than probably 28 other teams.

What you aren't seeing is that the plus side of not making a trade is that you get to keep that player, one of Vatanen/Manson, and some cap space. Bottom line is that keeping the player and having him on the roster is better than whatever return you get from a trade + expansion loss.
- sniper11

I understand the expansion rules. I know the Ducks are going to lose a player for nothing. Where we disagree is you think we're going to lose Vatanen or Manson for nothing, and I don't. We'll probably lose one (likely Vatanen), but not to Vegas. That's all.

If Bieksa waves his NMC, Ducks protect Fowler, Lindholm, and Manson. That means Vatanen would be exposed. You don't think the Ducks would rather trade Vatanen for a draft pick (worst case scenario) vs letting Vegas get him for nothing? It makes no sense.

And why would the Ducks lose a D? Not losing Bieksa. Vegas isn't going to draft him. Stoner is exempt because he doesn't qualify. Theodore, Montour exempt. Maybe Holzer. I don't think Despres is an option even if he's off LTIR since he hasn't played enough games. Please correct if I'm wrong.

I understand the expansion rules. I know the Ducks are going to lose a player for nothing. Where we disagree is you think we're going to lose Vatanen or Manson for nothing, and I don't. We'll probably lose one (likely Vatanen), but not to Vegas. That's all.

If Bieksa waves his NMC, Ducks protect Fowler, Lindholm, and Manson. That means Vatanen would be exposed. You don't think the Ducks would rather trade Vatanen for a draft pick (worst case scenario) vs letting Vegas get him for nothing? It makes no sense.

And why would the Ducks lose a D? Not losing Bieksa. Vegas isn't going to draft him. Stoner is exempt because he doesn't qualify. Theodore, Montour exempt. Maybe Holzer. I don't think Despres is an option even if he's off LTIR since he hasn't played enough games. Please correct if I'm wrong.
- quackup

The main crux to all of this is if Cam can be signed to a fair contract, which I think will happen because Cam is seriously dating a Socal girl and they don't want to leave Socal, even for more money. IF for some reason that doesn't happen then Cam is gone and the Ducks will have someone like Drouin playing the wing. What everyone isn't taking into consideration is how bad Sami's injury is and how long it will take for him to recover. If it's as bad as Murray says he could be out for most of the year. Do you think McFee will take a player knowing he won't be able to use him? In any event, if Anaheim keeps him they'll be able to use his LTIR to sign somebody. Don't forget about Jacob Larsson, either. If there were no salary cap, Carlyle would have kept him last year.

The main crux to all of this is if Cam can be signed to a fair contract, which I think will happen because Cam is seriously dating a Socal girl and they don't want to leave Socal, even for more money. IF for some reason that doesn't happen then Cam is gone and the Ducks will have someone like Drouin playing the wing. What everyone isn't taking into consideration is how bad Sami's injury is and how long it will take for him to recover. If it's as bad as Murray says he could be out for most of the year. Do you think McFee will take a player knowing he won't be able to use him? In any event, if Anaheim keeps him they'll be able to use his LTIR to sign somebody. Don't forget about Jacob Larsson, either. If there were no salary cap, Carlyle would have kept him last year.
- duxcup07

I concur - the rumor mill has Cam looking 6 for 7 which is crazy if that is the case Ducks must trade him - No way Cam should get more than 5 maybe 5.2 - I think that must be Ducks limit for him - Larsson is right on the cusp of playing 15+ per night - so there is that going for Ducks also -

I too enjoyed the "excuse for losing, looking for sympathy because no other teams ever play through injuries in the playoffs" blog.
- leonkennedy

Says the man whose team was swept from the playoffs, two of those were shutouts.

I too enjoyed the "excuse for losing, looking for sympathy because no other teams ever play through injuries in the playoffs" blog.
- leonkennedy

he never strong armed a taxi driver either ? 88 should have been bounced and playing in the moscow leagues

It looks like the walrus, assistant coach Paul MacLean, has been let go. I thought the power play was better than it was during Lauer's stint, but it was too inconsistent. Good on management to get the ball rolling on this one.

The Walrus was a good guy. His first year here Anaheim was #1 in the league. This regular season Anaheim picked up where they left off, but it seems like MacLean lost his voice. By that I mean, the synergy wasn't where it needed to be. The exploitation of being up a guy should equate to goals, but the PP was as cold as it is beyond the wall. For a second postseason in a row too. Not gonna cut it. Not in this league.