DA01: Impending doom
Patrick: Let’s talk about Bobby Ryan, more specifically, the media circus that has begun to surround the Ducks concerning his availability.
Which camp do you fall in? Trade or keep?
Alex: We’ve only scratched the surface of what Bobby Ryan can do in this league. He’s scored 30 goals each year for the past 3 years, and he’s primed to add at least 10 or 20 more points to his yearly average once Selanne retires.
Not only that, but based on the interviews I’ve seen from him and his general demeanor, this guy looks like a leader. I think he’ll be a huge component of this locker room in the future as well. If there’s one guy (besides Teemu, of course) that you can tell is having fun, it’s Ryan. I love seeing him jump straight into the glass after he scores goals.
Patrick: If the Ducks are seriously considering it, the concern I have is about Bob Murray’s motivation. Trading Ryan is an immediate blow to the organization’s future.
Alex: He’s also become a fan favorite in Anaheim. He’s right up there alongside Getzlaf, Perry, Selanne and Fowler. I think it’d be a huge hit to the morale of the average Anaheim fan.
Patrick: I don’t see the logic in mortgaging the future to save one season.
What piece could he possibly acquire that replaces Ryan’s production both in the short and long terms?
Alex: Is that rhetorical?
Patrick: Unless you have an answer, because I don’t… and that’s what worries me.
Alex: Well, I mean I don’t see much of an improvement unless there’s a team lining up to overpay for him.
Three of the teams expected to go hard for him that I’ve seen are Toronto, Boston and Philadelphia.
Patrick: I wonder if the Ducks would be better served with the depth Ryan could bring back in a trade or with a player of commensurate skill.
Ryan is a face for the franchise, and dealing him for two or three lesser players is not the best move to make in a crowded sports market.
I hate bringing the business of hockey into this discussion, but Samueli’s budget has already made that an unfortunate component of the equation.
Alex: It’s a shame that someone purchased a hockey team but is unwilling to spend more to make said team better. I don’t know his finances, thus his budget…
Patrick: I think certain legal entanglements have, eh hem, handcuffed him a little bit?
Alex: It’s dumb that he got a team in the first place if he’s not going to spend to win.
Patrick: So bottom line, what incentive does Murray have to make a deal involving Ryan? I see very little in the way of potential net positives and plenty of pitfalls.
Alex: Well, if the reports are true, we’d be trading him for a second line center, a young top four defenseman and a high draft pick.
Patrick: Best case is either adding depth or an equivalent player, just to shake up the chemistry.
Those reports are predicated on Anaheim’ asking price and the fact that Anaheim is gauging interest rather than actively shopping him, so I’m not sure they’d bear out if a trade were to occur.
Alex: We don’t have a second line center to start off next year for starters (there’s still the possibility that Ryan could be converted into that though). Our defense is hurting bad right now, we can hardly transition out of our own zone. Many people complain that we don’t need another offensive defenseman, but I think that’s a ridiculous statement when I watch our d-men fumble the puck constantly.
And as much as we’re hurting on offense (albeit it’s been better lately), more offense from the blueline could pay huge dividends. And the high pick? This is a very deep draft.
Patrick: So based on that I would rule Toronto out of the running — if Murray shares your thoughts.
Schenn is probably the only defenseman Toronto has that Murray would want, and I’m given to understand he’s a stay-at-home type.
Alex: Of course we have Maple Leafs fans shoving down our throats that he can be more than that.
Patrick: But are we trying to fix the present or the future? All this speculation reeks of Murray hedging his bets, in which case I’d rather he hang onto Ryan and tackle a different issue first (like coaching, perhaps?).
It’s what worries me about Murray.
Alex: Agreed.
Patrick: This situation is a microcosm of his faults, not committing to a plan. He either has to go all in on the future or double down on the cards he has in play because the Ducks have been in a perpetual rebuild-but-stay-competitive phase since he took over.
I feel like the Ducks are stuck on a treadmill, and dealing Ryan won’t get them off of it.
Alex: Like I said earlier, with the potential overpayment for Ryan, it might. But I don’t want to take that risk. As far as Murray goes, I really hate how much flak the guy gets. Everyone thinks he intentionally tries to acquire soft players, underachieving players, and to an extent that’s true.
But people need to lay off of him for a few reasons. One, he’s handcuffed by this stupid budget that is set.
Two, Burke left this team in sort of a bad place. Murray has ended up restocking our prospect pool and the future is looking bright (at least, past this season). If guys like Palmieri, Etem, Schultz and Vatanen pan out, we’ll be singing a different tune about him in a few years.
Three, people criticize him for these high risk/high reward waiver wire pickups and free agent signings, but what else can he do within our budget restrictions? Look at the Cogliano trade and signing this summer. Most people criticized that throughout the summer and up until recently. Cogliano has been a very bright spot on this losing team.
Four, I always like to point out last year’s “GM of the Year” voting. Bob Murray finished 4th in the league. As far as I’m concerned, that alone should shut a lot of these armchair GMs up.
Patrick: But I feel like you’ve only underscored my concerns. Yes, the future of the club is bright, and that’s great news. How does dealing Ryan jibe with that?
He as much as anybody else, is a reason for such optimism, and unlike a lot of those names, he’s a proven quantity at the NHL level.
But all the justification Murray has for shaking things up by dealing him is based on how poorly the team is doing now, which means he thinks salvaging the season is important enough to deal a major piece like Ryan.
Alex: Right, that’s why I don’t agree with the idea of trading Ryan either. And that’s why I think, ultimately, he won’t be traded.
Patrick: It doesn’t make him a bad GM for considering all of his options, but trading Ryan for a band-aid fix would make him one.
Alex: Someone will have to offer him something huge to move Ryan, in my opinion.
Patrick: What’s your timeline for a Ryan deal, if it were to happen?
This debate about Murray could be settled once that’s clarified.
Alex: Well, the team has been given chances through December now. That leads me to believe he’s not going to be quick to pull a trigger on any deal. I’d imagine if Ryan was going to be dealt, it’d happen in Janurary. We have to remember that we still have injuries (Parros, Visnovsky, Blake) and we’re not seeing the full potential of this team. I think Bob would wait until we’ve been healthy for more than a few games.
Patrick: If I had to pin a guess, I’d say if a deal isn’t done this week, we won’t see anything until closer to the trade deadline when the Ducks’ fate should be clearer. Teams have historically overpaid on deadline day, and if Murray is intent on maximizing his asset management with Ryan, that could be the time to move him.
Realistically, however, I would expect Carlyle to be long gone if the Ducks continue their downward spiral into the new year, which could conceivably give Ryan a second chance.
Alex: Exactly. Even if we stick it out with [assistant coach Dave] Farrish due to budget concerns, I still think that’d be the first choice for the franchise.
Patrick: If I’m Samueli and you’re Murray and I come to you with an ultimatum: “Ryan or Carlyle has to go”, who gets the ax?
Alex: Carlyle. No way I deal a star rather than cut off a coach.
Patrick: I think that’s the answer you’d get from most everybody right now.
What will the Ducks do when Blake returns? What place does he have on this team, and will it help them in any measurable way?
Alex: Well, I know he’ll have a spot on this team for sure. I don’t care if we stick him on the third or fourth line, he’s going to have an impact. I love Blake. He’s one of my favorite Ducks. He’s the only Ducks player I’ve seen in a long time that gives 110% effort every single shift. I don’t care what anyone says, that rubs off of everyone in the locker room.
I know we won a couple games after he went down to injury, but I still think his presence wouldn’t have allowed us to go into this panic mode where we lose games as soon as we go down a goal.
People can complain about him all they want, but he’s an integral part of this team in my mind. Even in the playoffs last year he stepped up with some huge assists and a couple of big goals. Only baby Jesus knows how he put up 40 goals at some point in his career, but it’s no mystery why he’s still in the NHL.
Patrick: I appreciate the admiration for a player’s intangible contributions — it’s one of the reasons I was a fan of Todd Marchant — but at what point should the team and the fans start demanding tangible results on the score sheet?
I know it’s not Bob Murray’s fault that Blake is signed to a ridiculous contract, but the Ducks need timely offense, and nobody, not even Blake, has provided that this season.
The failings of the first line become the problems of the second line when neither is producing, and I don’t see how Blake fixes that to any appreciable degree, despite his can-do attitude.
Not that he should be expected to fix everything on his own, but a lack of secondary scoring has always dogged the Ducks and he could be part of the solution.
Alex: If tertiary assists were counted, we wouldn’t have any problems with Blake. The guy made room for Koivu and Selanne, and I suspect he’ll do the same for the third line when he comes back from his injury. His biggest assets are his speed and tenacity. The guy goes down more than [Scott] Hartnell, but he’s always winning board battles and distributing the puck to his linemates.
Our biggest problem with the bottom six has been puck control, and that’s one of the reasons Beleskey was almost axed this season. Blake thrives at that part of the game. I think the addition of him to the bottom six would make them consistently better and a consistent threat (as opposed to their streaky play now).
It’s unfortunate he went down, because who knows how much he could’ve helped our bottom six? For all we know, he might’ve clicked with some of the guys and we wouldn’t have ever had an offensive drought.
Patrick: I’m being the skeptical one here because you’re never shy about whose side you’re on when it comes to discussing Blake, so I just wonder that if greater players (i.e. the entire first line) are buckling under the stress of Carlyle’s system, how does Blake avoid the same rut? Is this another issue that can be traced back to systemic coaching issues?
Alex: Blake doesn’t have to avoid it — he thrives on it. He’s a prototypical player for Carlyle’s system. I’ve never heard him complain, and all he’s done is succeed in his role.
As far as Carlyle’s system goes, no, I really don’t like it. I don’t think there’s a single player that does. Some just respond to it better than others (like Blake). Some are good enough that it doesn’t matter how they’re asked to play (Selanne), and some have their struggles with it (the rest of the team).
If you ask me, all of our problems boil down to our play in the defensive zone and our goaltending.
Patrick: On that note, is goaltending the real elephant in the room? Why is nobody talking about it with the same urgency they’re applying to Ryan and Carlyle?
Hiller’s play has been, at best, disappointing
Alex: Well, the way I see it, Hiller is a great teammate. The guys love him. The fans love him. And there’s a bit of a problem now that he’s delivering sub-NHL play.
We’re looking for scapegoats. We lose a game 5-4? “Why couldn’t we score two more goals!?!?”
It’s rather ridiculous, really.
Patrick: You could replace “Hiller” with “Giguere” and say the same thing you just did.
We still dealt Giguere because we had Hiller. All we have now is Ellis, so we should be more worried, if anything.
Alex: I think Hiller is lying about the symptoms of vertigo being gone.
Patrick: He does look a little off kilter at times
Alex: I still see him lose the puck all the time. He’s terrible at making side-to-side saves now. We need a technically sound goaltender right now. And like you mentioned, Giggy would probably be perfect.
I love Hiller, I really do. But we didn’t even make him go through a rehab assignment. That was a huge mistake.
Patrick: So what does Carlyle do? I would be in favor of getting a longer look at Ellis. He can’t be much worse than Hiller at this point, which is in and of itself a scary thing to say.
Alex: When it comes down to it, I’ve been more comfortable with Ellis in net instead of Hiller this season.
Patrick: Moreover, is this Carlyle’s play or Murray’s? Should [Murray] be seeking a trade or [Carlyle] giving him time to recuperate?
Alex: It’s a difficult decision, since we signed him for four years.
Patrick: If his level of play gets back to where it was last season, he’s a bargain at $4.5 million.
The problem I see is with the market: there is a goalie surplus, which makes shopping Hiller difficult and makes it equally likely we’d have to exchange him for more damaged goods.
Alex: I think we’ve got to be seeking another goaltender right now. We can’t afford to move forward with this core without a suitable goaltender. I don’t believe for a second that Hiller won’t get a chance behind the healthy team, but it’s been evident he’s not in form.
There are some prime candidates that are “on the block”, so to speak. [Sergei] Bobrovsky, [Cory] Schneider and [Steve] Mason are guys that have been overshadowed, or are underperforming.
If we don’t have to give up Hiller in a deal for them, I’d be happy to try and acquire any of them.
Patrick: I think this boils down to the same discussion as it did with Ryan. Do we take care of the present or the future?
Hiller is a little of each like Ryan, so Murray must commit if he deals Hiller. I think any Hiller deal will have to be assessed in tandem with any potential Ryan deal because they both have a discernible impact on where the team ends up five years from now.
Alex: All I know is every Ducks fan has to be hoping right now that Tarkii or Gibson pans out. If not, we might be royally screwed for a couple of years.
Patrick: If Hiller gets moved, which is a big if, how do the Ducks patch that leak? Get a veteran for the interim?
Alex: I don’t see Hiller getting moved without a goaltender coming back in the same deal, or another deal at the same time.
Patrick: I don’t want another Giguere for Toskala deal, if that makes sense.
Alex: I’d imagine we’d be going after a young guy who’s being overshadowed by a starter. Bobrovsky or Schneider.
Patrick: Schneider? How’s that for wishful thinking?
Alex: Or maybe another struggling goalie like Mason. We desperately need change in net though.
Patrick: I think Ellis can be that change for now, until the Ryan situation blows over or blows up. He’s in a contract year and with Hiller stumbling, he should be eager to prove something.
Alex: I agree. It wasn’t too long ago that he was backstopping Nashville to a win multiple times a year against us.
Patrick: But when we asked him to return the favor in April, the bastard failed us.
Any closing thoughts on any of this? Predictions, conjecture, speculation?
Alex: Well, I think Carlyle will be fired. And I think there’s a 40% chance Ryan gets traded. It will have to be a very, very nice deal.
Patrick: I think Ryan will stay put.
Carlyle exits stage left before Ryan, in any event.
