Anaheim Ducks protect Deslauriers and Silfverberg, Leave Fleury Exposed

cut (12).jpg

The NHL released the expansion draft protection lists for all 30 teams part of the expansion draft this morning, and as it turns out my prediction from back in May was not accurate. I thought the Ducks would go the 8 skater route to ensure that Haydn Fleury would be protected, but Bob Murray had other ideas. Here is the Ducks protection list along with the players available to be selected by Seattle:

Protection list (7-3-1):

Nicolas Deslauriers

Max Jones

Isac Lundestrom

Rickard Rakell

Jakob Silfverberg

Sam Steel

Troy Terry

Cam Fowler

Hampus Lindholm

Josh Manson

John Gibson

Exposed Players:

Andrew Agozzino

David Backes

Sam Carrick

Chase De Leo

Ryan Getzlaf

Derek Grant

Danton Heinen

Adam Henrique

Vinni Lettieri

Sonny Milano

Andrew Poturalski

Carter Rowney

Nick Sorensen

Alexander Volkov

Trevor Carrick

Haydn Fleury

Brendan Guhle

Jacob Larsson

Josh Mahura

Kevin Shattenkirk

Andy Welinski

Ryan Miller

Anthony Stolarz

The big surprises are that Fleury was left exposed along with the fact that both Jakob Silfverberg and Nicolas Deslauriers were protected. Bob Murray probably was not too happy with the idea of losing one of Sam Steel or Max Jones, which lead him to utilize the 7/3/1 protection list in lieu of the 8 skater protection list that I projected. The issue with going that route is that they could not protect Haydn Fleury.

I fully expect Seattle to select Fleury unless a side deal is made. Ron Francis, the Kraken GM, was the General Manager of the Hurricanes when they selected Haydn Fleury 7th overall in the 2014 NHL entry draft. The only reason they might go a different route without a side deal is if they want a more proven commodity, like a Kevin Shattenkirk. Shattenkirk would help the Kraken more than Fleury in the now, but Fleury has the potential to be on the roster for a lot longer.

With all of that being said there are a few items that are puzzling from the Ducks protection list that are worth pointing out.

Alexander Volkov was given a 1-year extension yesterday prior to the roster movement freeze. This allowed him to fill one of the two 27/54 (games played) exposure slots required for forwards. The confusing part is that the Ducks exposed four forwards that met that requirement (Henrique, Milano, Grant, and Volkov). So why would Murray prioritize getting that extension done prior to the roster freeze when he already had plenty of guys to fill that role? Was he working on a deal that might have sent some of those players away?

The Ducks protecting both Silfverberg and Deslauriers is very odd. Neither player was likely to be selected by Seattle if they were left exposed. Silfverberg is coming off of hip surgery and has 3 years left on his deal with a $5.25 mil AAV, while Deslauriers is a below replacement level player. So why would the Ducks protect them?

By going the 7/3/1 route, the Ducks essentially had two extra protection slots to work with. There were not any additional forwards outside of Steel, Jones, Terry, Rakell, and Lundestrom that entered into the conversation for me as players that must be protected. Murray probably decided that he wanted to protect his guys with those final two slots. Murray has always commended Silfverberg and constantly said he is part of the solution in the locker room. While Deslauriers is a guy that Murray traded a 4th round pick for in the summer of 2019 and then extended midway through the 19-20 season, he also might be involved in some trade discussions this offseason, so Murray wanted to protect him to keep that trade chip.

The issue is that Seattle would likely not have taken either of them, and this provides some insight into how the organization values its players. Guys like Milano and Heinen and Volkov should be valued higher than someone like Deslauriers, yet the Ducks left all three of those guys exposed.

Barring a side deal, this expansion draft should not be a catastrophic loss for the Ducks, but it does feel suboptimal, if only for revealing the flawed evaluation process of the executive leadership.

Jake Rudolph1 Comment