Says the man whose team was swept from the playoffs, two of those were shutouts.
- ducks31

3 cups since 2010. I wonder if double J wrote an excuse for losing blog and blamed injuries.

3 cups since 2010. I wonder if double J wrote an excuse for losing blog and blamed injuries.
- leonkennedy

The Ducks lost for a variety of reasons, but injuries played a part. Questioning the pertinence of this blog on this website is folly. It boils down to reporting the news while turning the page onto what's next. Someone as well read as yourself should be able to see that.

3 cups since 2010. I wonder if double J wrote an excuse for losing blog and blamed injuries.
- leonkennedy

This is what happens when you suck hard for 10 years. You get good pretty fast. Unless you're Edmonton, then it takes a little bit longer.

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

In this scenario, Bieksa waives and he's gone. The only other eligible players are Boll, Tokarski, and whoever is acquired in the Vatanen trade. So it's either two defensemen gone or you've given Vatanen away for free anyway. It's possible that the Ducks protect whoever they get in the trade,or only get a draft pick back, but then they lose Vermette. A trade for less than value doesn't help the team at all. So, no I don't think the Ducks would rather trade him. They would rather let him walk to Vegas for nothing so they can maximize the rest of the roster.

In this scenario, Bieksa waives and he's gone. The only other eligible players are Boll, Tokarski, and whoever is acquired in the Vatanen trade. So it's either two defensemen gone or you've given Vatanen away for free anyway. It's possible that the Ducks protect whoever they get in the trade,or only get a draft pick back, but then they lose Vermette. A trade for less than value doesn't help the team at all. So, no I don't think the Ducks would rather trade him. They would rather let him walk to Vegas for nothing so they can maximize the rest of the roster.
- sniper11

Why would Vegas want Bieksa? Total waste of a pick. Maybe they lose Vermette, more likely Logan Shaw. But to suggest the Ducks would prefer to lose Vatanen to Vegas for nothing vs trading him for an asset is absurd.

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hoc...-trade-bait-list-1.203546

Even with his injury, Vatanen is considered the top player available in a trade. The Ducks are only losing one player to Vegas, and I guarantee Vats isn't that player. If he is, Murray should be fired.

Why would Vegas want Bieksa? Total waste of a pick. Maybe they lose Vermette, more likely Logan Shaw. But to suggest the Ducks would prefer to lose Vatanen to Vegas for nothing vs trading him for an asset is absurd.

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hoc...-trade-bait-list-1.203546

Even with his injury, Vatanen is considered the top player available in a trade. The Ducks are only losing one player to Vegas, and I guarantee Vats isn't that player. If he is, Murray should be fired.
- quackup

Yeah I don't follow the Vats or Manson to Vegas for free thing - My faith in BM has been somewhat restored after he pulled the 47/67 double - there is no way after that he is going to lose Vats or Manson for nothing .. none - he either has deals in place with McPhee or other teams on deals involving said players or prospects to minimize the damage - I think he feels Brandon and Larrson are both good to go in the lineup and that he can afford to trade Vats for picks - prospects or player - I think he values Manson way more than Vats - because of the physical aspect of his game and his ability to complement any of the more offensive D men -

3 cups since 2010. I wonder if double J wrote an excuse for losing blog and blamed injuries.
- leonkennedy

double j ia a double d

Why would Vegas want Bieksa? Total waste of a pick. Maybe they lose Vermette, more likely Logan Shaw. But to suggest the Ducks would prefer to lose Vatanen to Vegas for nothing vs trading him for an asset is absurd.

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hoc...-trade-bait-list-1.203546

Even with his injury, Vatanen is considered the top player available in a trade. The Ducks are only losing one player to Vegas, and I guarantee Vats isn't that player. If he is, Murray should be fired.
- quackup

Vatanen had a lot of PP time, so it's kind of lame he only put up 3 goals all year. Prior to last year the guy was finding his way onto the score sheet every other game. I do agree that losing one of the Ducks prized defensemen for nothing wouldn't be good management.

In my prior posts I mentioned Stoner and Despres wouldn't be protected, but with the games played clause are they even eligible? All I know is that this logjam is unrealistic. Having 9 guys capable of starting opening night of next season would be a distraction.

Vatanen had a lot of PP time, so it's kind of lame he only put up 3 goals all year. Prior to last year the guy was finding his way onto the score sheet every other game. I do agree that losing one of the Ducks prized defensemen for nothing wouldn't be good management.

In my prior posts I mentioned Stoner and Despres wouldn't be protected, but with the games played clause are they even eligible? All I know is that this logjam is unrealistic. Having 9 guys capable of starting opening night of next season would be a distraction.
- IGotTheMemo

Yep. I agree. Bob got lucky last year with the salary cap and ended up having to trap shea theodore on the 405 freeway. Basically purgatory. Really wondering where simon depres is at in his rehab. His 3.5 million would put us at the cap. And I don't like losing sami vatenan but his 4.5 millon cap hit would help give us some wiggle room to sort out things. Things like a back up goalie or a 3rd line foward. Bob put himself in this mess by not trading a dman last year. Lets see if he gets out of it.

Yep. I agree. Bob got lucky last year with the salary cap and ended up having to trap shea theodore on the 405 freeway. Basically purgatory. Really wondering where simon depres is at in his rehab. His 3.5 million would put us at the cap. And I don't like losing sami vatenan but his 4.5 millon cap hit would help give us some wiggle room to sort out things. Things like a back up goalie or a 3rd line foward. Bob put himself in this mess by not trading a dman last year. Lets see if he gets out of it.
- Eman87654

I think GM Bob Murray had trades on the table in the second half of the season. He even made a very un-Murray move with his comment to the media about his young defensemen a couple weeks before the trade deadline. Ultimately, he dealt a 1st rounder for a guy that got injured.

Next year there are a lot of guys due for a pay raise. Fowler, Cogliano, Manson, Theodore and Montour will all be due for a pay raise. Some contracts expire at that point as well, but the time is now to plan for that.

I feel bad speculating so much about Vatanen on his birthday no less, but with the expansion draft the clock is ticking. As I've said before, as long as contract negotiations are moving along with Fowler it boils down to Vatanen or Manson for the final protection spot.

Bob Murray is as stingy a deal hunter as it gets. Dude probably tears up Ebay on the regular when he's not drafting diamonds in the rough. Are Theodore, Montour or Manson slated to make as much as Vatanen? Murray could probably work out a Wal-Mart blue light special with the 5% discount debit card with those guys.

Can this team win with Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, Despres, Theodore and Montour as their defensive group? They are young, but after this year the experience is there. With the right coaching via Carlyle and Niedermayer the foundation and the pieces are there for this to be a formidable defensive group.

Meanwhile, there is the forward situation, which could use some bolstering. Call me two-faced, but I'm hoping Murray can finagle a deal with Eaves. That, plus a LW and the continued development of Ritchie, Rakell and Silfverberg should put this team in the SCF. Nevertheless this isn't going to figure itself out, and with the expansion draft looming the time is right now to make some judgement calls.

In this scenario, Bieksa waives and he's gone. The only other eligible players are Boll, Tokarski, and whoever is acquired in the Vatanen trade. So it's either two defensemen gone or you've given Vatanen away for free anyway. It's possible that the Ducks protect whoever they get in the trade,or only get a draft pick back, but then they lose Vermette. A trade for less than value doesn't help the team at all. So, no I don't think the Ducks would rather trade him. They would rather let him walk to Vegas for nothing so they can maximize the rest of the roster.
- sniper11

I assume the plan is to trade Vats (or another D) for a forward who would be protected, so Vermette would be exposed. I would think that between Vermette and Bieksa, Vegas would take Vermette.

I think they would rather lose Vermette for nothing than lose Vats or a d-man for nothing. Other than faceoff prowess, Vermette has been largely invisible since his suspension.

I assume the plan is to trade Vats (or another D) for a forward who would be protected, so Vermette would be exposed. I would think that between Vermette and Bieksa, Vegas would take Vermette.

I think they would rather lose Vermette for nothing than lose Vats or a d-man for nothing. Other than faceoff prowess, Vermette has been largely invisible since his suspension.
- niedermayer27

Still haven't heard anything about bieska. Im sure hes gonna get something for waving his no movement clause. Like a one year extension, or and bag of money.

Still haven't heard anything about bieska. Im sure hes gonna get something for waving his no movement clause. Like a one year extension, or and bag of money.
- Eman87654

There isn't any word because there is nothing to be said. This was taken care of last summer internally. By that I mean, GM Bob Murray had a sit down with Mr. Bieksa. The secretary brought them both a coffee and they talked about the long term semantics of his NMC and the long term implications the expansion draft would have on the Ducks if he didn't waive his protection spot. Stop feeding a false narrative.

I don't know where you get this entitlement from, but I think just doing the right thing for the future of this franchise will be enough for Kevin. You know, the guy probably went under the knife last week and is confined to a bed and wheelchair. The Golden Knights and George McPhee are thinking about one thing, and one thing only: youth. To even suggest such heresy after this topic has already been beaten to death is folly.

There isn't any word because there is nothing to be said. This was taken care of last summer internally. By that I mean, GM Bob Murray had a sit down with Mr. Bieksa. The secretary brought them both a coffee and they talked about the long term semantics of his NMC and the long term implications the expansion draft would have on the Ducks if he didn't waive his protection spot. Stop feeding a false narrative.

I don't know where you get this entitlement from, but I think just doing the right thing for the future of this franchise will be enough for Kevin. You know, the guy probably went under the knife last week and is confined to a bed and wheelchair. The Golden Knights and George McPhee are thinking about one thing, and one thing only: youth. To even suggest such heresy after this topic has already been beaten to death is folly.
- IGotTheMemo

Oh sorry. There is a process to things. And as i said he should be compensated. Wasn't tring to say something bad about bieska. In fact you kinda answered my question.

Addendum: whats wrong with asking questions. I think it shows my passion and commitment to my team. If anything i wish more people were like me and more engaged.

Oh sorry. There is a process to things. And as i said he should be compensated. Wasn't tring to say something bad about bieska. In fact you kinda answered my question.

Addendum: whats wrong with asking questions. I think it shows my passion and commitment to my team. If anything i wish more people were like me and more engaged.
- Eman87654

Yeah, there is a process and if GM Bob Murray is doing his job it was taken care of last year. There is a difference between critical thinking and being a parrot. Although, as someone who consistently misspells players' names, I'm sure this comment is falling on deaf ears.

I guess it just gets down to difference of opinion. When looking at the big picture Bieksa's chances of being drafted are probably a fraction of 1%, if that, and throwing ideas around that now he's entitled to an extension doesn't make sense to me. I can think of a half-dozen hypotheticals, but this is professional sports management and not A Song of Ice and Fire.

The only questions worth exploring right now are what defenseman is getting the final protection spot, what trade options are out there for the even defender out, and will Stoner be bought out? The expansion draft happens on June 21, 2017. After that it'll be business as usual with the regular draft and free agency. More than one person reads these boards, so lets not stir the pot on theoretical nonsense.

Murray handled the Bieksa situation. Just leave it.

Yeah, there is a process and if GM Bob Murray is doing his job it was taken care of last year. There is a difference between critical thinking and being a parrot. Although, as someone who consistently misspells players' names, I'm sure this comment is falling on deaf ears.

I guess it just gets down to difference of opinion. When looking at the big picture Bieksa's chances of being drafted are probably a fraction of 1%, if that, and throwing ideas around that now he's entitled to an extension doesn't make sense to me. I can think of a half-dozen hypotheticals, but this is professional sports management and not A Song of Ice and Fire.

The only questions worth exploring right now are what defenseman is getting the final protection spot, what trade options are out there for the even defender out, and will Stoner be bought out? The expansion draft happens on June 21, 2017. After that it'll be business as usual with the regular draft and free agency. More than one person reads these boards, so lets not stir the pot on theoretical nonsense.

Murray handled the Bieksa situation. Just leave it.
- IGotTheMemo

No. I don't have def ears. And I'll endevor to spell names correctly. It just bothers me that when teams want fans to be passionate and spend money. But then they alao don't want us to say anything or have preferences. It seems like they want us to check our brains at the door and leave all our cash at the arena. You seem to be on the pro business side if things. Which is fine. Because there is a buisness side. But your never going to separate what a fan thinks or feels from what they do. In my case i spend lots of money and time. And then it causes me to think and feel. Im sorry I'm not your kind of fan. But like you said. I'm not going to change

No. I don't have def ears. And I'll endevor to spell names correctly. It just bothers me that when teams want fans to be passionate and spend money. But then they alao don't want us to say anything or have preferences. It seems like they want us to check our brains at the door and leave all our cash at the arena. You seem to be on the pro business side if things. Which is fine. Because there is a buisness side. But your never going to separate what a fan thinks or feels from what they do. In my case i spend lots of money and time. And then it causes me to think and feel. Im sorry I'm not your kind of fan. But like you said. I'm not going to change
- Eman87654

Thanks for the rough draft. I'm guessing the entitlement stems from the pseudo belief that feelings have a monetary price tag. Maybe I'll dumb up my diction, as I do try to write for my target audience. I forgot that I was on the internet.

Wait, scratch that ... I just don't tolerate mediocrity. I have to share the internet with the likes of you, and that's a two way street. Thanks though for the barbiturates-inspired post.

Thanks for the rough draft. I'm guessing the entitlement stems from the pseudo belief that feelings have a monetary price tag. Maybe I'll dumb up my diction, as I do try to write for my target audience. I forgot that I was on the internet.

Wait, scratch that ... I just don't tolerate mediocrity. I have to share the internet with the likes of you, and that's a two way street. Thanks though for the barbiturates-inspired post.
- IGotTheMemo

Wow. Why the attitude?

You better believe they do. As someone that spends a pretty penny on season seats (not counting playoff tix or concessions), I better "feel" that the team gives a damn about me as a SSH.

As far as #2 is concerned, why should he waive? To be a nice guy? He's an employee and the Ducks employ him. He negotiated a NMC for a reason. Want him to waive, make it worthwhile. I'm sure he'll endure the wrath of the fans just fine if he doesn't. 4M helps with any hurt feelings. Otherwise, buy him out.

That's like asking an employee to work overtime for a week, then expect it gratis.

Wow. Why the attitude?

You better believe they do. As someone that spends a pretty penny on season seats (not counting playoff tix or concessions), I better "feel" that the team gives a damn about me as a SSH.

As far as #2 is concerned, why should he waive? To be a nice guy? He's an employee and the Ducks employ him. He negotiated a NMC for a reason. Want him to waive, make it worthwhile. I'm sure he'll endure the wrath of the fans just fine if he doesn't. 4M helps with any hurt feelings. Otherwise, buy him out.

That's like asking an employee to work overtime for a week, then expect it gratis.
- quackup

If you tie emotions to money that says a lot about you. Good for me I can take the heat of a subconscious temper tantrum. Think you're the first rage-quitter to cop an attitude with me? Think again.

Why should he waive? To be a good teammate is a start. You seem to give zero acknowledgement of GM Bob Murray following up with some due diligence. I believe George McPhee is looking for value. More often than not that means youth (especially for #10 and #12 guys on a roster). Do you not think Murray and McPhee haven't had conversations?

It's funny watching you try to pose an argument just for the sake of being right in regards to completely discounting the vast importance of the third protection spot just so you can bask in your "intellectual" glory. That spot is worth 15-20M and a decade of a top 4 defender. Are you blind?

Keep rationalizing quack!

If you tie emotions to money that says a lot about you. Good for me I can take the heat of a subconscious temper tantrum. Think you're the first rage-quitter to cop an attitude with me? Think again.

Why should he waive? To be a good teammate is a start. You seem to give zero acknowledgement of GM Bob Murray following up with some due diligence. I believe George McPhee is looking for value. More often than not that means youth (especially for #10 and #12 guys on a roster). Do you not think Murray and McPhee haven't had conversations?

It's funny watching you try to pose an argument just for the sake of being right in regards to completely discounting the vast importance of the third protection spot just so you can bask in your "intellectual" glory. That spot is worth 15-20M and a decade of a top 4 defender. Are you blind?

Keep rationalizing quack!
- IGotTheMemo

No you can't. And YOU copped an attitude with Eman. Thus my response.

I just don't get your "holier than thou" attitude. You want to be condescending, fine, it says more about you. Maybe this is Tanner in disguise.

Of course Murray has spoken to GMGM. If you've followed any of my threads, I've said over and over the Ducks won't be losing any player of value "for nothing."

You thinking Bieksa should waive "to be a good teammate" is no different than asking an employee to work overtime for a week gratis "to be a good employee." Zero difference. Fine. I can disagree if I chose without your disparaging retorts.

Time will tell won't it? If Bieksa waves and zero perks follow, I will be the first to apologize. If however, he's bought out, or waives his NMC and subsequently it's announced he's signed an extension, I won't expect an apology from you. Your righteous indignation won't allow for one.

It's possible that Murray negotiated the "waive" in his NMC when he traded for him. I don't know. Maybe you have some inside information. Great. Speak up. Not conjecture, but as a fact.

And a final note, to suggest money and emotion aren't tied together is really not thinking things out. Often times a major purchase is done on emotion. New car, home, expensive watch, etc. We're humans, not robots. To think otherwise is absurd.

No you can't. And YOU copped an attitude with Eman. Thus my response.

I just don't get your "holier than thou" attitude. You want to be condescending, fine, it says more about you. Maybe this is Tanner in disguise.

Of course Murray has spoken to GMGM. If you've followed any of my threads, I've said over and over the Ducks won't be losing any player of value "for nothing."

You thinking Bieksa should waive "to be a good teammate" is no different than asking an employee to work overtime for a week gratis "to be a good employee." Zero difference. Fine. I can disagree if I chose without your disparaging retorts.

Time will tell won't it? If Bieksa waves and zero perks follow, I will be the first to apologize. If however, he's bought out, or waives his NMC and subsequently it's announced he's signed an extension, I won't expect an apology from you. Your righteous indignation won't allow for one.

It's possible that Murray negotiated the "waive" in his NMC when he traded for him. I don't know. Maybe you have some inside information. Great. Speak up. Not conjecture, but as a fact.

And a final note, to suggest money and emotion aren't tied together is really not thinking things out. Often times a major purchase is done on emotion. New car, home, expensive watch, etc. We're humans, not robots. To think otherwise is absurd.
- quackup

Was I blunt with the future New Method Wellness patient? Perhaps. Do you have a habit of playing your SSH card whenever your opinion needs bolstering? Without question. I want to respect a fan of your caliber, but I don't tolerate nonsense nor the fact that you think your opinions have more merit just because you shell out cash.

When looking at the big picture. The chances of Bieksa being drafted are probably less than 1%. He is 35 and just underwent surgery to repair a tear in his MCL. He's only signed through next year. Given his age it could be his last NHL season.

This has nothing to do with overtime pay of an employee. It boils down to a well-calculated, one-time decision where all Bieksa has to do is sign a piece of paper. Have you looked at the players that need to be re-signed next year? Cogliano, Ritchie, Fowler, Theodore, Manson and Montour are all going to be getting a payday. Given that, and the logjam that Anaheim has on the blue line, it is absolutely baffling you suggest a contract extension.

I already outlined the importance of that 3rd protection spot, and your feeble grasps to make something out of nothing is beyond me. GM Bob Murray is one of the best in the business. He knows what's on the line more so than anyone. At the end of the day Bieksa will either be handled amicably or by force, but it will be handled.

Was I blunt with the future New Method Wellness patient? Perhaps. Do you have a habit of playing your SSH card whenever your opinion needs bolstering? Without question. I want to respect a fan of your caliber, but I don't tolerate nonsense nor the fact that you think your opinions have more merit just because you shell out cash.

When looking at the big picture. The chances of Bieksa being drafted are probably less than 1%. He is 35 and just underwent surgery to repair a tear in his MCL. He's only signed through next year. Given his age it could be his last NHL season.

This has nothing to do with overtime pay of an employee. It boils down to a well-calculated, one-time decision where all Bieksa has to do is sign a piece of paper. Have you looked at the players that need to be re-signed next year? Cogliano, Ritchie, Fowler, Theodore, Manson and Montour are all going to be getting a payday. Given that, and the logjam that Anaheim has on the blue line, it is absolutely baffling you suggest a contract extension.

I already outlined the importance of that 3rd protection spot, and your feeble grasps to make something out of nothing is beyond me. GM Bob Murray is one of the best in the business. He knows what's on the line more so than anyone. At the end of the day Bieksa will either be handled amicably or by force, but it will be handled.
- IGotTheMemo

Nice pivot. Why would it be by "force" since he's going to waive because it's being "a good teammate?" Right? Nice of you to capitulate. I've said that all along.

Holzer is UFA now. Stoner is gone after next year. Despres may very well never skate again. We have a desperate need for a top LW that will be addressed by trading D. I don't think it's unreasonable to offer Bieksa a 1yr/1M extension (as an example) to waive. Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, Vatanen, Montour, Theodore, and Larsson. Someone will be gone (we're talking 2 seasons from now. Not next year, even though I think one will be traded for a LW), count on it. I don't think it's unreasonable to think Bieksa could return as a #7D at worst.

Nice pivot. Why would it be by "force" since he's going to waive because it's being "a good teammate?" Right? Nice of you to capitulate. I've said that all along.

Holzer is UFA now. Stoner is gone after next year. Despres may very well never skate again. We have a desperate need for a top LW that will be addressed by trading D. I don't think it's unreasonable to offer Bieksa a 1yr/1M extension (as an example) to waive. Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, Vatanen, Montour, Theodore, and Larsson. Someone will be gone (we're talking 2 seasons from now. Not next year, even though I think one will be traded for a LW), count on it. I don't think it's unreasonable to think Bieksa could return as a #7D at worst.
- quackup

Get your facts right. Despres was skating with the team regularly throughout the playoffs, which points to him possibly being in the lineup at the start of next year. If he can avoid concussion problems, and you include Larsson, but minus either Vatanen or Manson being traded for a LW. That's still 8 guys two years from now. Five of which needs to be re-signed within the next year. Four of which will be entitled to a raise.

Presuming one of the above is traded for a LW now that makes Bieksa, a starting player his entire career, a healthy scratch at 1M for the 2018-2019 season. I've read my fair share of fiction, but this is too outlandish even for me. Where he'll be on the depth chart is contingent on where Despres is at, because he is giving this thing another go, as well as Larsson's transition to the NHL. Nevertheless, for someone who already has it made to be "rewarded" to warm the press box when they could be spending time with their family doesn't make sense to me.

Money has your blinders on quackup. Keep rationalizing though!

Get your facts right. Despres was skating with the team regularly throughout the playoffs, which points to him possibly being in the lineup at the start of next year. If he can avoid concussion problems, and you include Larsson, but minus either Vatanen or Manson being traded for a LW. That's still 8 guys two years from now. Five of which needs to be re-signed within the next year. Four of which will be entitled to a raise.

Presuming one of the above is traded for a LW now that makes Bieksa, a starting player his entire career, a healthy scratch at 1M for the 2018-2019 season. I've read my fair share of fiction, but this is too outlandish even for me. Where he'll be on the depth chart is contingent on where Despres is at, because he is giving this thing another go, as well as Larsson's transition to the NHL. Nevertheless, for someone who already has it made to be "rewarded" to warm the press box when they could be spending time with their family doesn't make sense to me.

Money has your blinders on quackup. Keep rationalizing though!
- IGotTheMemo

Reading comprehension. My gosh. I did not say Despres was finished. I said "may very well never." And just because he is skating with his teammates is hardly an indication "he's giving this thing another go." Please cite a source claiming that. Or is this another astute assumption on your part?

I'm still trying to figure out your claim Bieksa may be "forced" to waive his NMC, since I've been claiming this the whole time, and you've been arguing otherwise. And I never said Bieksa would be extended, I said I wouldn't be surprised if he was.

I think one of Vats/Fowler will be traded. I think Theo will be traded. I think Despres is probably done. Should the above occur, I don't think it's a stretch to think Bieksa would be back. Even if Bieksa comes back as a #7, who said he's a "healthy scratch" all season. Name one season where the top 6D stayed healthy all season. Otherwise, Carlyle would rotate the D on a regular basis. But instead you think #2 would rather stay home and "spend time with the family" vs playing another year and collecting an extra M.

OK. Fine. Whatever. We can agree to disagree. This is going nowhere.

Reading comprehension. My gosh. I did not say Despres was finished. I said "may very well never." And just because he is skating with his teammates is hardly an indication "he's giving this thing another go." Please cite a source claiming that. Or is this another astute assumption on your part?

I'm still trying to figure out your claim Bieksa may be "forced" to waive his NMC, since I've been claiming this the whole time, and you've been arguing otherwise. And I never said Bieksa would be extended, I said I wouldn't be surprised if he was.

I think one of Vats/Fowler will be traded. I think Theo will be traded. I think Despres is probably done. Should the above occur, I don't think it's a stretch to think Bieksa would be back. Even if Bieksa comes back as a #7, who said he's a "healthy scratch" all season. Name one season where the top 6D stayed healthy all season. Otherwise, Carlyle would rotate the D on a regular basis. But instead you think #2 would rather stay home and "spend time with the family" vs playing another year and collecting an extra M.

OK. Fine. Whatever.
- quackup

No quack. You can't have it both ways. Here is Simon Despres's RotoWorld page http://www.rotoworld.com/...nt/nhl/2990/simon-despres. As of May 10th he is back on skates. Therefore, you made a fake claim in pursuit of one of your "basking for glory" posts. You make it seem like all these dominoes are going to fall down just so Bieksa can get a 1M dollar contract in 2018-2019. Your argument is contingent on Despres being done and 2 regulars being traded. Moreover, I think it is actually very insulting to re-sign a veteran guy as a #7 on the depth chart. Furthermore, you completely neglect his agent looking for a retirement contract. Although maybe that hypothetical isn't unorthodox enough for the likes of you.

GM Bob Murray has a job to do, and the 3rd protection spot for a defenseman has been at the top of his list for over a year now. Murray wouldn't let something this paramount fester over the course of an entire season. A plan of action was put in place last summer to prevent any lunacy speculation. I believe this was handled amicably last year. For whatever reason, you have trouble wrapping your head around that.

Lastly, injuries do happen, but that whole aspect of your argument is just a ploy to make you look right. Only after 2 guys are traded, Larsson is ahead of Bieksa on the depth chart and a starter sustains an injury will that scenario take place. Oh, and I forgot, Despres, who is back on skates is now apparently done too. I feel like I'm talking to the fourth grader who is only capable of raising his hand and asking, "What if?" question. If management has even been paying attention this entire situation was already handled, yet I'm the bad guy for having faith in the management here. Unbelievable.