Off-season moves (based on "Why Give Up Theo" Team)

Ok, well forget the Thornton signing because we're not a cap team and wouldn't be able to afford him. So basically you'd be left with the same team we have now, but with a worst D i.e. Holzer playing 3rd RS D instead of Vatanen (Larsson replacing Theodore is fairly even swap IMO, especially compared to Holzer in for Vatanen). Meanwhile, we'd have 3.25M sitting on the bench in the form of Stoner, Theo would be still be stuck behind Lindholm and Fowler (hindering his development), and you'd have given a Stanley Cup contender a core piece that only makes them better for cheap.

I get why people are pissed about moving Theodore, but this was really the best option. Fans love to complain about Bob Murry never "going for it". Well, giving up Theodore to keep Vatanen was him "going for it". Just because it isn't as sexy as what people hoped for i.e. trading Theodore + 2018 1st/Vatanen for Drouin (if that was even a deal that TB were interested in - which I highly doubt because we're a contender and they don't want us to get better), which isn't even financially viable based on Drouin's new contract, doesn't mean that Bob Murray isn't making moves that will make us a better contender.

IMO, the team right now looks better than yours. I wouldn't mind seeing a 3C signed, but, given that we need a solid netminder and that's going to cost a solid amount, I doubt we see any big signings as we're not a cap team.

I agree with some of what you've said, but I have a few disagreements.
1. Holzer as 3rd RS D is only because I made this the "worst case scenario" by assuming Bieksa would refuse to waive, which I highly doubt would've happened. Therefore the D would be Bieksa in place of Vatanen (a downgrade for sure, but it allows Montour to take on a more prominent role as he continues to develop, and gives the team more of an edge with Bieksa. Additionally it would include Theodore in place of Larsson, who is wholly untested at the NHL level. Larsson may be able to work those minutes this year, but Theo certainly can.
2. Thornton. Yes, the Ducks have historically been a below-cap team, however after such a long playoff run (over 17,000 seats and average ticket sales over $100/seat per game, not including TV income, Ad income etc, and the millions that were paid to each team for Vegas to enter the league, the Ducks have additional money to spend right now. Not to mention this is not far off of their spend last season. 75 mil is not unreasonable for the Ducks this season.
3. Yes, 3.25M is sitting on the bench in Stoner. Is this preferable? Not at all. However, they still have the time to see if any teams would be willing to take on the salary without giving up as much as would've been necessary pre-expansion. Also, it's only for 1 year. Take the hit in the short-term, in order to better prospects for Long-Term success. More on this in the next point.
4. This is where I differ largely from most other people who look at management in the NHL. Potentially the Ducks are able to start a slightly better lineup this season by holding onto Vatanen. I'll agree that that's entirely possible, and even highly probable. However in the long-term, giving up assets for no return is a terrible strategy (I.E. a grade A prospect to simply remove a few bucks on the Balance Sheet). CEOs and executives of every major company in the world are held to the standard of "Long-term success," I just don't understand why NHL management has the right to be short-sighted.

I'm not arguing for some crazy trade for Drouin or anything. I'm arguing to get a pick for a great Dman.. something not very unreasonable to ask for. The decision is essentially this:
a. Lose a cheap, skilled, high ceiling prospect, with the only benefit being 3.25M off the cap (what happened)
b. Lose an expensive, skilled, likely at his peak value/skill Dman, with the benefit being a 1st round draft pick and over 5M off the cap (what I propose)

I just don't see how that doesn't make sense if you look long-term.

Ok, let me address those points individually:

1. Firstly, you can't use your belief that Bieksa would have said "yes" to waiving as evidence to support your argument. Based on the evidence we have i.e. BM trying to re-neg on Bieksa's NMC two seasons ago and failing, it's actually more likely that BM knew Bieksa and his agent wouldn't agree to anything. I'm not saying that's the case for sure, but I'm just saying that you can't say "I believe Bieksa would have waived" and use that to support your argument. Regardless, having Bieksa in would be worse than Holzer IMO. Bieksa is just straight up bad. Maybe BM has identified this and Bieksa becomes the 7th man once everyone is healthy? In your scenario, he's a core player. And let's not pretend he won't get significant minutes because ANA has always spreads the D minutes pretty evenly. Theo + Bieksa was quite easily the weakest D-pairing we had last year. Bieksa is slow and bad and Theo can't defend and reads/reacts to the game badly. Without a shadow of a doubt, Larsson + Vatanen or Holzer + Vatanen >>> Theodore + Bieksa or Theodore + Holzer or Stoner + Bieksa/Holzer.

As far as Montour, he'll still get the chance to take on that prominent role, he'll just have to compete for it alongside Vatanen. Even if he misses out, he'll be keeping Vatanen on his toes and we'll still have a fantastic player QBing the 2nd PP unit. Surely that's a better scenario for ANA, no? Montour isn't going anywhere. If he continues to progress at the rate he has been, he'll likely surpass Vatanen this season and then maybe Vats becomes expendable. However, outside a few games, Montour also remains largely untested. Retaining Vatanen reduces that risk significantly.

As far as Larsson, "yes" he's untested. However, he's looked solid over the short stints he's spent in ANA. Whilst his offensive game is weak, that's just not his game and his defensive game is leaps and bounds ahead of Theodore's. You also have to remember that Larsson has been playing against men in the SHL. He's not some big over-ager wasting his time in the junior leagues beating up smaller kids. Larsson has a tonne of experience and has grown a lot over the past season at a very high level. He's big, strong and physical. Whilst Theodore has a higher ceiling, I'd say Larsson has a higher floor. If Theodore doesn't improve his defensive game, his offensive game will need to be extremely good if he's to reach top 4 status. Otherwise, you're left with a Justin Schultz in EDM type situation. Meanwhile, Larsson's game is more solid. He's a cert to become an NHLer at some point and has a game that is always sort after i.e. mobile, stay-at-home D-man. I'll be surprised if Larsson doesn't make a claim for that final LHD slot, even if that's further along in the season. He just needs to get caught up on the NA style of hockey which can easily be done at the AHL level.

2. We'll see, but I suspect that BM has been asked to return the team to pre-expansion draft year levels in terms of money. We're not a cap team and never were until this past season. However, I'd argue that this year was pretty unique i.e. had to re-sign Rakell and Lindholm to long-term deals and we have an expansion draft. I suspect that owners were happy to spend a little more because of the situation and the fact that losing young guys like Rakell and Lindholm because you don't want to pay them reasonable deals isn't really the way forward. However, we'll see. A deep playoff run does change things. However, if I know BM like I think I do, he'll probably hold pat and see how this group does. Additions can always be made mid-season if things are really going badly and/or at the TDL if we're looking like a top contender again. For example, I'd rather see what this group can do and, assuming they do ok, I'd rather see BM spend a pick and prospect to acquire a guy like Neal or Bozak at the TDL. Why bother paying those salaries all year? Having no cap room can really hamper a team later down the line.

3. It probably would have cost us at least a 2nd to move Stoner. So you'd have moved Vatanen + Stoner for basically a late 1st round pick minus a late 2nd... so Vatanen basically gets sent to one of our biggest cup rivals for a late 2nd. That's even worse asset management than moving Theodore to keep Vatanen, move Stoner, not force a buyout of Bieksa (if that was necessary) and free up tonnes of cap space. Seriously, I really don't understand your logic here. Why are you so keen to keep an asset that wouldn't progress here. It's like the Palms trade. He was never going to get minutes ahead of Perry and Silf and, therefore, was never going to be the 30 goal scorer he was last season in NJ. It's called a logjam. In those situations, surely you're better off moving that asset for something of value. In this case that was freedom and cap relief. It's not sexy, but the team is better for it. Theodore may go on to be screaming success and very good top 4 D-man in LV. However, over the next 5 years, unless Theodore became a completely different player, he was never going to leapfrog Lindholm and Fowler. So why hold on to that asset? It's not fair on Theodore as he'd never be given the opportunity to flourish in the role he's working towards and it doesn't make sense for the team because we'd essentially be weakening our right side to overload the left. Why?

4. Errrr.... we had to lose something. It's called an expansion draft and everyone lost something. The options were:

a. Lose an expendable, young player with top 4 potential, but who is stuck behind two better guys for the near future to save 3.25M for 1yr, to not have 4M is dead cap space from buying out Bieksa, and to not weaken our right side for a late 1st round pick.
b. Lose a top 4 RS D-man and our 3rd best D-man that we need to compete for a late 1st round pick that likely yields a weaker player 3-5 years down the line unless we get really, really lucky to keep a LHD prospect who has a long way to go before he's relevant.

I know fans like having prospects because they can get the horn over how much potential they have, but potential doesn't win cups. If this Ducks team is going to win it, it's going to do it over the next 3 years whilst Getzlaf is still a top level C. As soon as he falls off, we're going to struggle, even with the likes of Steel coming through. Duck fans angry at this move need to realise that hockey is about winning game, titles and cups. It's not about hoarding prospects and having the most valuable "young assets". That doesn't win you anything. Keeping Vatanen and dumping salary and cap so that you can bring in guys that are going to make this team better now is exactly the type of move I want to see BM making. If that costs us a nice, young player logjammed behind 2 better players in Theodore then fine. I really don't have a problem with it.

I think you have a good perspective on management in the NHL, but I think we approach it differently, and I think some parts of what I said may not have been clear enough because I think you misunderstood.

1. You seem to be very keen on making the argument that Theo wouldn't ever have a chance to crack serious minutes as a 3rd pairing Dman in the short term in order to develop, yet also say that Anaheim spreads their D minutes fairly evenly, which is a pretty confusing argument to me. Especially when Montour, who you argue will get to continue developing, is going to have to battle Vats and Manson just the same in the short term. Are those RHD at the level of Lindholm/Fowler? No. But for the next year or two of development, it's highly likely that no matter what line/team these kids are playing on, neither will be better than the guys in the Ducks top 4, which is fine, and in line with my expectations. I agree, Theo isn't there defensively yet, but thats exactly why a 3rd line role is PERFECT for him right now. He needs seasoning, and a tough veteran Dman (whether its Holzer or Bieksa) makes for a fairly good partner there. Yes, Theo/Bieksa was our worst pairing last year, but that's why they were the third pairing.. that's supposed to be your worst. And you seem so certain, but with the tiny sample size on Larsson, there's no way anybody could actually KNOW that Larsson and X would be better than Theo and X. You just can't know that. Speculating so is similar to scouting in baseball 15 years ago based on perception, which has been thrown out the window for good reason.

I won't argue that Larsson is a good prospect, I agree. But to me I just don't get why you'd lose either of them, without a fair value return if there is another option. I have no qualms about trading Theo. But I see his value a lot higher than a 2nd round pick, which is what you're saying taking on Stoner's contract is worth. And their next best option if Vats were traded would be someone like Shaw, whose value is like a 6th.. so very little. Theo > 2nd + 6th

2. Is Thornton the guy? Probably not. Is he an option? I think so. The main question here is what can the Ducks spend? The reason they've perpetually increased spend over the last few seasons, propelling themselves above the "budget team" moniker last year is due to the success they've had, which has resulted in substantially higher revenues than they were receiving when they weren't participants in the playoffs year after year. Throw in the fact that it cost LV $500M to join the NHL, and that was distributed equally to all teams. That's almost $17M right there. The Ducks can easily be a cap team this year if they want a chance to win. Easily. I come from a finance background and this one is just a no-brainer from my perspective.

3. Okay, if the cost was a 2nd to move Stoner, then that's easy: Don't. Fortunately Vats for a 1st sheds over $5M/yr right there, so the Ducks would actually have more cap space keeping Stoner and shedding Vats than dropping Stoner. Not to mention, this provides long-term AND short-term cap flexibility, considering Stoner's contract ended in 1 year, while Vats's dragged on for years. Bite the $3M for a single season, and enjoy the additional flexibility for years to come. Vats is good, but his perceived value is definitely greater than actual value. And aside from his current injury, I'll bet you it'll never be higher..

Maybe Theo never would've leaped Lindholm and Fowler, but again, my point here isn't don't trade Theo. My point is if you're going to trade a high value asset like Theo, get a return of fair value. He's likely already worth a 1st + 3rd. Go ahead and make that deal and put Larsson in the fold. Just don't give him to the new Pacific rival to dump 1 year of another contract. That's poor asset management.

4. Yes, it was expansion and we had to lose something. But what put the Ducks in a tough spot was only 2 things: (1) Bieksa - easily mitigated with waiving or buying out (2) 1 too many eligible Dmen after that. If Vats could've been moved for a 1st (which I'm admittedly speculating about, however it seems to be a likely win-win with TB and Toronto's situations), I just don't see why any rational manager wouldn't chose the return of a 1st round pick for injured Vats and Shaw, over nothing at all for Theo and Stoner.