Author Topic: Jake Gardiner  (Read 1599 times)

Significantly Insignificant, mr grieves, Coco-puffs and 24 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 14080
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #30 on: Today at 01:11:40 PM »
Would you?

No. I want the team to get as deep in the playoffs as they can. That's why I generally think it's good to have 50 point defensemen kicking around.

So long as they don't blow it in G7s.  Which he may well never do again, in which case, as I said, there's no more reason at all to call for trading him.

All players have the capacity to have bad games. As busta has pointed out though Gardiner was A) not as bad as you're making it out and B) instrumental in the team getting there in the first place.

Gardiner is absolutely a guy who will help a ton in some games and much less in others. But the trade-off is that someone else might be steadier from game to game but less likely to be a major contributor to a win.

Unless you're arguing that Gardiner has something inherent in him that makes him bad in big games, which has no basis in fact, then you're arguing that you'd rather go with someone who is less likely to help the Leafs get to that game 7. Which, you know, your call but it's pretty reasonable for people like PPP to not see it that way.

The point of my comment is not to debate Gardiner's value.  It was to criticize the PPP article, and others like it, that say it's completely irrational to latch onto the one-game sample.  Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:16:20 PM by Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate »

Offline Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 14080
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #31 on: Today at 01:14:30 PM »
The subject here is Gardiner and PPP's attempt to just cut off discussion of trading him.  Articles like that are at best disingenuous if the author thinks that a flood of analytics is going to simply override the fact that the player had his worst game of the season at the worst possible time.

Andersen was just as bad as Gardiner in that game (and had a worse playoffs on the whole) and nobody has even remotely talked about moving him.

PPP could write the same kind of article about him and my argument would still apply.  And yes, Andersen was worse than Gardiner in that series.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 23115
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #32 on: Today at 01:20:55 PM »
Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

Only if there's a reason to think that it's an inherent issue rather than a one-game sample which can swing wildly. But that notion is completely undercut by what we actually saw. Gardiner has played in elimination games before and played well in elimination games before. The idea that he can't, that playing badly in that game is indicative of some sort of deficiency to be concerned with going forward, simply has no legitimate case.

And absent that case to be made, this is "We should be open to trading him because he played badly in that one game" regardless of when that game was.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 14080
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #33 on: Today at 01:35:59 PM »
Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

Only if there's a reason to think that it's an inherent issue rather than a one-game sample which can swing wildly. But that notion is completely undercut by what we actually saw. Gardiner has played in elimination games before and played well in elimination games before. The idea that he can't, that playing badly in that game is indicative of some sort of deficiency to be concerned with going forward, simply has no legitimate case.

And absent that case to be made, this is "We should be open to trading him because he played badly in that one game" regardless of when that game was.

Has he in fact played well in elimination games before?  Can't recall G6 against Washington.  In any event, since we haven't won the Cup he by definition hasn't played spectacularly well enough in elimination games to offset the recency bias of his spectacularly bad game against Boston.

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

Online mr grieves

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1611
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #34 on: Today at 01:37:36 PM »
I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

Online Frank E

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3818
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #35 on: Today at 01:57:27 PM »
I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Online Coco-puffs

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • TMLfans Rocks!
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #36 on: Today at 02:33:18 PM »
I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Disagree here.  If they are in a position to contend (ie, no long term injuries to stars, a top 5 team in the league) they aren't trading him. 

If they haven't had the season they've expected and are sitting on the playoff bubble (or have some long term injuries to stars), that is when Dubas is going to be up against it.

Online Bill_Berg

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #37 on: Today at 02:40:41 PM »
I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Disagree here.  If they are in a position to contend (ie, no long term injuries to stars, a top 5 team in the league) they aren't trading him. 

If they haven't had the season they've expected and are sitting on the playoff bubble (or have some long term injuries to stars), that is when Dubas is going to be up against it.

The biggest question is if the team can re-sign him in 2019. Can they afford him? If they need to decide they can't afford him, will they trade him? It's the JVR situation again. Game 7 and next year's Feb standings are both far less important.  If they are out of a playoff spot somehow, trading him becomes a much easier decision at one level, but it still depends firstly on if they plan on re-signing him.

Online Frank E

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3818
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #38 on: Today at 02:45:09 PM »
I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Disagree here.  If they are in a position to contend (ie, no long term injuries to stars, a top 5 team in the league) they aren't trading him. 

If they haven't had the season they've expected and are sitting on the playoff bubble (or have some long term injuries to stars), that is when Dubas is going to be up against it.

Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

Online mr grieves

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1611
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #39 on: Today at 03:04:56 PM »
EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

That would be how to avoid being "up against it."

Online bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 20132
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #40 on: Today at 03:16:03 PM »
Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

While I was all aboard trading JvR, Bozak, etc., at this past deadline, I disagree about Gardiner. For the guys we let walk this summer, it didn't appear as though the intention was to ever really attempt to retain them. I don't think that will be true with Gardiner. Unless he makes it crystal clear he has zero intention of even considering extending his time as a Leaf (which seems unlikely), you hold on to him as long as you can to get as much time to negotiate a new contract. If you can't come to an agreement, so be it - but, you're not holding on to a player you don't see is part of the future, like the team did with JvR, Bozak, etc. You're giving yourself the best opportunity to retain a player you want as part of your team long-term.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Online Average Joes

  • Prospect
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • TMLfans Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #41 on: Today at 03:17:57 PM »
If they are well within the playoffs at the trade deadline I cannot imagine why they would trade him.  I thought the goal was to make as many good runs as possible in as many years as possible.  Between now and the next few years your forward group is probably in its best condition before some gradual decline (Tavares) or you loose players like Kadri due to salary cap issues.  Weakening the defence by trading Gardiner weakens one of your better years to compete.   

In hindsight trading JVR and Bozak would probably have been wise. I somewhat hesitate to say that in the slight risk that without them they would have performed poorly against Boston and Tavares would have been less confident in Toronto's future success. 

TMLfans.ca

Re: Jake Gardiner
« Reply #41 on: Today at 03:17:57 PM »