Montour is getting more than 2.5. Try 4.5 or 5.

No way does Montour make more than Manson. $3.25 or $3.5 would be more likely.

I have no idea why we would trade Pettersson for a draft pick either.

I have no issues unloading Ritchie for some extra pucks at practice.

33 points for a defenseman under the age of 25 is impressive. Combined with being in the top 4 consistently and in important roles, he's due for more than that.

If you look back at Murray's RFA's, he definitely plays hard ball with them. Rakell was an all-star last year and only makes $3.789M. Hampus is only making $5.25M.

He's going to be under $4M for sure unless he signs like a 6-8 year extension and even then he isn't going to be close to $5M. Most likely gets the Sami Vatanen show me contract for a year or two.

Ritchie doesn't have great value right now, but packaging him and Petterson together helps recoup a 2nd and 3rd. Too many forwards and too many young defensemen so there is a logjam at both. Petterson is redundant with Laarson, Welenski, Mahura and Megna waiting. Plus Petterson is never going to be above Hampus, Manson, Fowler or Montour so might as well get a pick now.

Manson had 37 points, played against the other teams top line and a produced a plus 34. Montour is not getting above $3.5 a year.
Montour is one of my favorite players on the team but bargain Bob will get him to sign a bridge contract for $3.5 x 3 years.

its % based not total amounts... the salary cap will be going up so the % amounts will be greater. If Montour doesn't get 4-5 million I'll chop my arm off

He's 24 and coming off of his ELC ($925K). He has almost no bargaining power. If you look at almost every RFA negotiation with Murray, it will be much less. There is no reason to give him that much. It might be an unfair system, but no reason for Murray to give him that much for no reason.

You might want to figure out which arm you can live without.

lol you're crazy, its compairables and %, if he doesn't get paid he asks for a trade and that's all the leverage he needs.

please save this post and we'll revisit after his extention in done.
Also, Rakell was coming of a 20 goal 43 point season when he signed his extention (Oct. 2016)... he wasn't an All-star

Ha. Will do. And if you feel like keeping your arm, you can just venmo me $100.

petterson won't be getting moved and neither will Ritchie, Petterson isn't a top four D and he won't be for at the leastawother season or two... I like the signings but the trade is just pointless tbh

I think the reason you trade Petterson is exactly because he isn't a top four D. He won't pass up the four ahead of him and the defensemen below him need a shot as well (espcially Laarson). You package him with Ritchie to recoup some value. I don't think realistically Ritchie gets moved either, but if Murray really wants to get faster and more disciplined, he has to move on from one of the slower players who takes bad penalties. With Eaves coming back and Terry in line for some playing time, moving Ritchie helps with the cap to get some younger players in like Jones. There just isn't enough forward spots keeping Ritchie. I think Brown is the 4th line player the Ducks need. Not Ritchie.

understandable, why not trade him to the Isles for Dal-Cole and a third?

Because with Dal Colle, you are probably getting something similar to Ritchie anyway. A Top 10 pick from the 2014 draft who is underwhelming their lofty pre-draft expectations. Ducks need younger talent in the pipeline. Not saying Dal Colle can't turn things around, but Ducks swapping out Ritchie for another non-speedster project doesn't really help nor fit into the roster.

totally understand, just thought it might be a good change of scenary

I would be more interested in Ho Sang because of his speed. Not sure how overblown the "attitude" issues are, but he would be a player I would be interested in and could use a change from NYI.

honestly I think everyone could use a change from the NYI

So...the axe or venmo?

https://twitter.com/icemancometh/status/1021805979342524416

lol yeah, yeah, yeah... still a bit more then the 2.5 you offered. I just thought it made more sense for him to get 4-5 million for 5 or 6 years rather then 2 years at 3.387 then in 2 years have to sign him to potentially much more money... it just seems most teams are moving away from the 1-3year bridge deals and giving players with more upside longer deals.
Personally if it were me I would always want players with big upside that are coming out of their ELC's locked in until their last year of being RFA's which usually hits around age 26 so when they are looking for their big money 6-8 year deals it will end when they are still young enough to be good players.
ELC at 18/19
Last year of RFA 25/26 (no risk of asset walking for nothing) (UFA eligible = 7 years of service to team or age 27, whatever comes first)
6-8 year deal would bring them to 32-34
The thing is I thought Montour was around 22, not 24, so I was expecting that 3-5 year deal at around 4-5 million which is what would be market value. Murray seems to have the same idea I guess with the RFA status.
In any case your were partially correct, about the term yes, but about as far off with the money as my low end guess.
Alas, a deal is a deal
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Tvo6lxjB&id=2CBEA688F737A12D46EC9AB6BCB574260FDBE31C&thid=OIP.Tvo6lxjBF3G7Nb737odWMwHaFj&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fi.ytimg.com%2fvi%2fwWH3DN9cUyE%2fhqdefault.jpg&exph=360&expw=480&q=cutting+off+arm+meme&simid=608011017600697675&selectedIndex=50&ajaxhist=0