TheJoeMan

Membre depuis
4 fév 2016
Équipe préférée
Ducks d'Anaheim
Messages dans les forums
225
Messages par jour
0,14
Sujets de discussion
4
Forum: Armchair-GM 9 mar à 19 h 00
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AFOX10900</b></div><div>So you'd rather spend it on 28-29 year old UFA's that (based off most NHL GM's July 1 signings) will become cap dumps within a few years when the team is legitimately ready to win, but before then they just give us false senses of hope and ruin our chances at getting a high lotto pick, and unless we get like Petro or Hall, no UFA is gonna make that big of a difference to this team next summer... Every cap dump I took on was 1 year, and we got essentially a free first and a few other picks... And the first two trades aren't really necessary, I just would rather play the kids assuming they're ready, and it's not like Larsson is that valuable of a piece... He's a button pairing guy with LOW end top 4 ceiling... And on this team he's stuck behind Lindholm, Fowler*, and possibly Guhle and Mahura, along with LaCombe in a few years...</div></div>

I wouldn't spend it on any free agent. We're not in desperate need for draft picks. I mean I wouldn't say no to another first but not at the expense at being so capped out. You can only stockpile so many teenagers, we don't need another first that badly. As for Larsson, I'm entirely opposed to moving him, just not for futures. D-men take a long time to develop and I'm sick and tired of moving young d-men only for them to finally flourish elsewhere. Not saying Larsson is definitely going to go that route but if we are going to pull off that kind of trade again it should be to fill an immediate hole. Because what's the end game? Trade him for a pick to draft a kid that we have to wait and develop? I'd much rather package him, Boston's 1st and Ricky for a top-pairing d-man (if that could even get the job done). Unless we have a crystal ball and know he's not going to progress beyond his level of play right now but we don't. I was stoked about the Pettersson trade at the time because I thought we were cutting bait on a kid who would never be strong enough to handle this league and getting good value for him. Ha! I think it's still too early to give up on Larsson, especially considering his progress this year.

If Murray has the green light to spend money like you're suggesting he should try to actually improve this team. There's no reason this team can't be competitive next year. These kind of moves just signal another tank year and I think that'll be counter-productive.
Forum: Armchair-GM 9 mar à 14 h 37
Forum: Armchair-GM 5 mar à 14 h 25
Forum: Armchair-GM27 fév à 12 h 00
Forum: Armchair-GM26 fév à 18 h 51
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Christian17</b></div><div>Honka's stats in 2019 were much better than Larsson's have ever been. Djoos looked good last night and has offensive upside. Gudbranson doesn't fit into the long-term plans, might as well get assets for him. Djoos is a low-risk medium-reward type of signing. Honka doesn't want to play for Dallas, that's why he isn't playing in the NHL much like Dallas.

Don't get me wrong, i doubt this happens. But the Ducks would be much better positioned to compete for a Cup by 2023 if they went this direction.

Zegras is dominating in the NCAA on a very bad BU team, I think it's pretty likely that he gets into the NHL next year, especially when he hinted towards only doing one year at the beginning of the season.

Ducks aren't going to contend next year. They need to accrue assets that will be useful when they do contend, if they kept Henrique they'd likely lose him in the expansion draft.</div></div>

Murray is and has been accruing assets. At some point he needs to let them cultivate and supplement them with talent. This team can handle another awful season like these last two, the fan base is too fragile for that (they've hardly supported this team when we were contenders). It does him no good trading away some of the few good players he has. That's not to say Gudbranson is a stud or anything but he's perfectly fine for what he makes and for how much we spent to get him. And I'm not concerned about Rico and the expansion draft. If Murray is concerned he'll be lost to Seattle than he'll trade him elsewhere. At the very least it'll be worth it to hold onto to him for next season in order to actually be competitive.

I just don't see the logic in preferring Honka over Larsson. If his numbers were so good (and I'm sure you're referring to his shot-differential numbers which are terribly flawed when evaluating individual players, especially ones who don't get a ton of ice-time; they're no different than plus/minus) why doesn't anyone else want him? I'm sure Dallas would give him away. Plus Larsson is just starting to settle in. I am so over trading away young d-men we've spent years developing before they've settled into their roles as NHL players. Unless it's for a clear upgrade and that ain't Honka. I mean we could have them both, easily. Murray doesn't have a gun to his head to make room for Mahura, not until Josh proves he's worthy of such a move.

I want this team to be good next year. There's no reason why they can't. Our young core has had two years now to mature into quality NHL regulars, next year they'll have to show they're ready to prop this team up.
Forum: Armchair-GM26 fév à 16 h 15
Forum: Armchair-GM19 fév à 14 h 21
Forum: Armchair-GM13 fév à 14 h 11
Forum: Armchair-GM12 fév à 16 h 18
Forum: Armchair-GM 3 déc 2019 à 16 h 10
Forum: Armchair-GM 6 nov 2019 à 18 h 47
Forum: Armchair-GM31 oct 2019 à 16 h 10