14 Mar 2017 23:29:59
Anaheim: Josh Manson, Jacob Larsson, 1st round pick.

Colorado: Gabriel Landeskog

This would be off season now obviously. It wouldn't happen unless ducks convinced bieksa to waive to be traded or waive to be exposed. Because if they still have to protect him, they will lose fowler, vatanen or lindholm and then would have to have these guys still available.

It gives ducks another gritty winger that can score and play an Anaheim style. Also gets him there without losing one of the big 3 D or montour/ Theodore which seems to be what guys are asking for when JVR/ Landy trades are offered.

Gives the avs 2 young D. One with a bit of experience and a mean streak and one with a good amount of upside along with a pick that should be later in the first round that they can draft a power winger to help losing landeskog or another D to help the depth there.

Also it MIGHT mean they can relax and wait on moving duchene for now if they potentially get 3 young D in this deal.

1.) 15 Mar 2017
15 Mar 2017 04:27:59
They would have to expose Rakell then.

2.) 15 Mar 2017
15 Mar 2017 12:09:21
massive over payement by anaheim.

3.) 15 Mar 2017
15 Mar 2017 15:26:33
To much for Landeskog. and if that's the case, as Stamkos16 said, Rackel is better than Landeskog.
Maybe Landeskog and a 2nd for Fowler. Then that might change the way Anaheim protects its roster? .
If I was Bieksa. i'd feel a little embarrassed. Lol. he's a washed up player that is putting his team in a bad situation.

4.) 16 Mar 2017
16 Mar 2017 05:16:59
Why would they have to expose rackell? They can protect 7 F. Obviously getzlaf, Perry, kesler, landeskog would be. Who else would they protect over rackell? I said if bieksa waived meaning they could keep vatanen, lindholm and fowler and not have to do 8 skaters, but 7F, 3D and 1G.

5.) 16 Mar 2017
16 Mar 2017 06:08:53
I'm confused why rackell would be exposed still. After the big 3F and landeskog, they could still protect rackell, cogliano and silferberg if they wanted.

6.) 16 Mar 2017
16 Mar 2017 13:05:23
Because if they can't get Bieksa to waive then they are screwed.

7.) 16 Mar 2017
16 Mar 2017 16:04:38
Well that's why I said this trade doesn't happen until he waives either to be traded to a team or to be exposed. But obviously rackell at his age and on a new contract on a 30+ goal pace is a priority to protect.

8.) 16 Mar 2017
16 Mar 2017 16:19:14
And for the ones saying it's an overpayment, that's possible, I respect the opinion. How I was looking at it like this: the biggest piece ducks have been looking for over the last year+ is a power winger. If they could do that by trading 2 players and a late first in a weak draft and keep fowler, lindholm, vatanen, montour and Theodore, I think it's pretty good. To fill a void in your team while dealing from a position of strength and still hang on to the best 5 at that position, I'd call a success.

9.) 17 Mar 2017
17 Mar 2017 21:04:06
I misread it Jim. my bad.
Like you said. all depends on Bieksa.
I personally think that Avalanche are going to want an eatablished yong dman for Landeskog. however, your proposal seems fair.