Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - KW Sluggo

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25
Bergevin is whistling past the graveyard now.

Weber is 3 years older than Subban and at age 30, that is when the decline often starts.

Chiarelli wins this trade because without it, he would be roasted on a spit and justifiably so.

NHL Transactions / Re: Devils acquire Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson
« on: June 29, 2016, 04:54:39 PM »
Two GMs and one player went mental today.

Unbelievable and insane.

Chiarelli blew this trade just as did Bergevin in Montreal. Stamkos, well I guess he decided not to help the other players by taking less money, the same amount he was offered months ago.

Suddenly, its okay today ???

Crazy, just crazy.

General NHL News & Views / Re: Ron MacLean returning to HNIC
« on: June 27, 2016, 10:49:08 PM »
I stopped watching HNIC specifically because I didn't like Strombo. He was not a true hockey dude. I also wasn't impressed that he was a Habs fan!

At first, I didn't like MacLean when he replaced Dave Hodge, however, Ron's hockey knowledge, hockey involvement, and his professionalism, quickly turned me into one of his fans.

He wouldn't be my 1st choice as a hockey commentator, but, I can live with Kypreos.

I think Dave Hodge was one of the best there was.

As for Maclean, he's probably the best we continue to have now.

Strombo?  He went from the entertainment world, (for which he was one of the best with the show he previously hosted), to the sports world.  Quite a difference between the two genres.  Strombo excelled in the former not the latter.

I really don't know what Rogers' problem is in any of this.

They were the ones who knew Strombo's work, his approach and his on air persona and hired him because of it. Strombo delivered exactly what was expected of him.

Perhaps they should be dismissing the person who misunderstood the marketplace when Strombo was hired since that is where the fault lies.

I realize I am in the minority here in liking Healy but the fact is that in cliche yes man industry, he expressed a more independent point of view that most do. Exiled to a perch between the players benches was not the best deployment for Healy. I prefer Healy to Kelly and Nick but that is not a major point. As for John Shannon, well here is a television sports director that was dumped out of that world after years of being the angry guy in the truck only to be gifted an on air job by his friends at Rogers. Yet he remains despite these changes.

My real gripe is that once again Rogers has missed the bigger picture.

Ratings were never going to rise of fall based on the presence of Strombo -- and most certainly not based on who was chirping occasional comment from between the players benches -- and to think that moving these pieces around will cure the ratings slide is risible.

Ratings are down because Canadian hockey teams as a group are miserable, boring and only marginally watchable.

One of the first rules of economics is scarcity.

Rogers ignored that rule and provide hockey seven days, often with multiple games alight on multiple channels. When there is an overabundance of a product, particularly one of low quality, that product becomes a commodity. It is no different than when Montreal opened the Bell Centre. Suddenly seat availability soared and getting tickets ceased to be the big thing it had been when the Forum held several thousand fewer customers.

Certainly the multiple panels with different combinations of participants did not help, but to blame the personalities and not the people who dreamt up the format that management bought into, is ridiculous.

Naturally with no Canadian teams in the playoffs, ratings dropped and advertising targets were missed. Perhaps the geniuses who overpaid for the hockey rights monopoly should be called to account rather than throwing others overboard.

Based on this latest move (among others) I cannot agree with TBLeafer's assessment that the "think-tanks over at Sportsnet" are "finally starting to grow a brain.

The people who set this format up are still calling the shots.

I'm pretty sure Rychel asked for a trade out of Columbus around Christmas of last year. Maybe that helped grease the wheels a bit.

From what I have heard, it was his Dad and agent that asked for the trade!  They were unhappy with where he was slotted in their depth chart.

Tomato, tomahto.

Not really... there is a distinct difference between a player asking for a trade than their representatives asking.

Are you saying that his representation went behind his back to demand a trade? If not, there's no difference.

The difference is in the perceived character of the player.  Teams understand that agents are motivated by earning their clients top dollars, and thus, earning themselves more money.  So, the idea to request a trade may have originated from his Dad, and, his agent.

We really don't know if the trade request was directly initiated by the player in this case.  It may not have been Kerby himself who asked his Dad, and agent, to request the trade.  He may have approved of the move, but, it may not have been his idea.

Big difference IMHO.

I would agree with you in most cases however here the "agent" is the player's father so I fail to see any difference between a player request and one made by his agent.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: June 25, 2016, 05:12:18 PM »
Well, I guess it depends on the size of the bust and who it's attached to. ;)

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: New Jerseys leaked
« on: June 25, 2016, 05:10:56 PM »
White jersey still looks . . . not right.

I've said all along I basically just wanted the 62/63 jerseys back:

If the new white one had the blue on the shoulders like those did I'd have been extremely happy.

I concur completely.

I remember the Wednesday night road games in the 60's when the Leafs wore those jerseys and there were simply the best.

If anyone knows where I can get one, please advise, either here or by pm. Thanks.

I was hoping for Rachel in his draft year, so I'm a fan of the deal. That being said, with how his development has progressed, not expecting much from him.
You were not alone in hoping for Rychel when he was drafted.

As best I can recall, there are rumours that the Leaf management of the day had some interest in Rychel.

I have no idea what has transpired in his career to make him available but I see it as appositive move. Harrington was going nowhere --- but at least we can now dream that Lou is making room for Subban --- and perhaps a change of scenery will put this 1st rounder's career back on track. If not, there is no real downside as there are many young blueliners like Percy who can step into that roster spot.


I'm not sure how that fuels Subban speculation. If the Ducks add Jakob Silfverberg and a couple of 1st-round picks, maybe that fuels speculation.

I don't think the speculation is with respect to Subban being part of a trade to Anaheim for Fowler.

Rather I believe the theory is that if Montreal is looking for a defence man such as Fowler, it is perhaps simply because they have traded Subban away in another transaction thereby creating the need to replace him.

General NHL News & Views / Re: Ron MacLean returning to HNIC
« on: June 24, 2016, 01:41:41 PM »

In the end the newer HNIC failed not because Strombo was too much of a departure, it's that he wasn't a departure at all and didn't really add much in the way of a fresh perspective. He definitely wasn't the kind of guy who would challenge a stupid thing said by someone on the panel.

Traditionalists might be happy with the return of McLean but the show was just as bad under him. It was just "Here, boring ex-player A, you talk for 30 seconds before boring ex-player B does the same" with everyone on the panel directly tied into the NHL establishment so nothing all that interesting or challenging was being said. If everyone on the show is either an ex-player or an "insider" who relies on league sources no boats are getting rocked. Nobody is going to say "The NHL has its head up its own butt when it comes to suspensions" or "Marc Bergevin is doing a terrible job running the Habs" or whatever. It's going to be "Well, you know, when I played for Mike Keenan and things weren't going well he'd tell us to skate harder and boy did we!" and then "Some people in the public are saying Marc Bergevin isn't doing a great job but league sources say he's doing great and he smells really nice!". The show doesn't need people with more "insider information" or experience with the game. It needs compelling personalities and people, media or ex-players or whoever, who are willing to stake out interesting positions.

I get people seeing a big change to a bad product as reflexively a reason for optimism but anyone who thinks that a major problem with the show was the non-traditional cut of the suits the host was wearing probably isn't going to be making interesting choices going forward.

Agreed... and you illustrations were spot on.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks
« on: June 21, 2016, 07:14:16 PM »
Andersen AKA Raycroft 4.0 AKA Andrew Raycroft the 4th. Hard for me to optimistic about this one, trading a 1st and 2nd is very far out of comprehension for me. A last place team trading a 1st and 2nd round pick? Really? I mean really? Mind blown by this one.

What's the similarity to Andrew Raycroft?  That they are both goalies who were traded?


Both highly regarded (around here you would have thought Raycroft invented the position, he was a Calder winner don'tcha know!!) but based on too small a sample size. Raycroft, if anything played more regularly that did Andersen.

Boston had already signed two goalies and Raycroft could have been had for a song, but the Leafs threw away whatever they could to get him. Similarly, now LL is saying the cost for Andersen does not matter. This time, knowing Anaheim had decided to re-sign Vatanan (sp approx.) and being fully aware that the Ducks had to move a goalie for cap and expansion deraft reasons, we again jumped in rather than be patient.

Like Raycroft, we trade then we sign long term, without any first hand experience as to whether he can shoulder 70 or so games per year.

In getting Raycroft, we decided that keeping our drafted goalie, Rask, was not good enough. This time, rather than drafting and developing a goalie we decided to trade for someone else's part-time goalie (in this respect it is more like Bernier and Toskala).

Finally, just as when Raycroft arrived as the Calder Cup laureate,  the arrival of Andersen does not come at appoint in the rebuild where he will make any difference.

The idea is not to make it so that we finish fighting for one of the top non playoff spots but to rebuild with the best young talent we can get.

Sorry, but this is not a deal I would have made and most certainly not at this price and at tis time.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks
« on: June 21, 2016, 07:01:53 PM »
How long does it normally take for a goalie to develop? Unless he's at the top of the draft as a blue-chipper, 2 years seems a bit brief.

Matt Murray is 21, nest-ce pas?

So it does happen.

Reimer's stats are about the same and he will be a UFA on July 1st and can be negotiated with 5 days before that.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks
« on: June 21, 2016, 08:52:12 AM »
Not sure why so many are bent out of shape by this deal?

He is the #1 now, but not necessarily when this team is ready to compete. Most are saying we are years away, probably close to the 5 years, so Andersen may just be a bridge goalie (or not depending on his play).
Also, if he plays awful there is nothing to say we are stuck with him for the entire 5 years, trades are always a possibility, as proven by moving Clarkson.
I'm not sure why some are saying Andersen is too old or unproven, but then want Reimer back who is older and seemingly not as talented? No thanks, been there done that, time to move on!

This deal on its own is not going to significantly increase the pace of the rebuild. We needed a capable NHL goalie for next season, so why not go out and get one? Bernier isn't the answer, maybe Andersen is?
I don't take great joy in watching this team tank, would rather this team do a little better next year and get to watch some entertaining hockey.
The Leafs aren't going to be a playoff team next year due to this move, but likely won't finish dead last either and I'm just fine with that.

I am not so much bent out of shape as I am concerned that this is the wrong move at too high a price when it was unnecessary to do so.

I am puzzled by the history of trading for a part time goalie on a reasonably successful team with the expectation that he will be able to translate that into similar, if not better, numbers on a full time basis with a Leaf team that has an acknowledged less than average defence. Then, as usual, we sign him to a long term contract without any assurance he will achieve the forgoing.

Frankly, the numbers Andersen had last year are roughly comparable to those of James Reimer.

Reimer played behind a significantly worse defence it must be remembered. Andersen was supported by better forwards and better defence men  -- to the point where the availability of a Duck blue liner as a free agent was one most Leaf fans' wish list.

And what did we get for Reimer?

Not much; certainly not a first and a second.

It is arguable then that we would have been better off re-signing Reimer, keeping the picks and using one of them to draft a goalie prospect to develop over the next two years when we then actually need him.Finally, I see this as a departure from the otherwise consistent patient "Shanaplan" rebuild.

Those are my concerns.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks
« on: June 20, 2016, 10:22:42 PM »
Trade for a goalie and then sign him immediately to a long term contract.

I have seen this movie before and I don't like how it ends.

Beyond the obvious historical parallels, IMO we have not developed to the point at which we needed to do this. Next year is going to be about the same as last year given the fact that the team will have so many rookies and younger players and fewer veterans on expiring contracts. So what is the hurry to shell out another $5M+ for a 26 year old goalie for 5 years. I just do not see the need.

The cap is likely to remain fairly static and with many teams at or near the cap and facing an expansion draft that will require one goalie to be exposed, so on that account too,I would have waited.

Finally, it is my opinion that we overpaid. LL's comment that the price is immaterial tells me that he knows we overpaid.

I sincerely hope I am wrong because 5 years is a long time to put up with Raycroft/Toskala II.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Goaltending Options
« on: June 17, 2016, 08:02:42 PM »
Sign and trade was mention a few posts back.

Sign and trade deals are NBA transactions under that league's CBA; they really do not occur in hockey because they confer no particular benefit. The NBA allows a team to re-sign it's own free agents for more money than other teams in the league are permitted. Hence if the Raptors, for example, knew they were going to lose a player for nothing, they could re-sign him to a larger contract (pre-arranged by the player and the other team) and them trade the player to that other team and thereby realize some return.

Returning to the issue at hand, namely a goaltender, I do not see this as a pressing matter quite yet. Next season will be better but essentially will be more of the same.

With an expansion draft coming next year, some teams will have to move quality goalies in order to avoid losing them in the draft. Plus there are teams like Tampa that may have to cut loose a goalie they might otherwise wish to keep due to a salary cap crunch. It seems that if Tampa wants to retain Stamkos, one or more of the bigger salaries will need to be moved.

A team with two decent goalies is better off moving one of them instead of a position player of  similar quality and pay scale.

We have the luxury of waiting.

Besides I cannot think of a goalie trade we have made (to acquire a goalie that is, we gave away a decent one in Rask) in the last 10 years or more that has worked out all that well for us. Toskala and Raycroft spring readily and appallingly to mind. The horror, the horror.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Other draft day targets
« on: June 17, 2016, 07:44:10 PM »
Yeah Lucic was traded for the 13th overall pick in 2015 and Martin Jones (who was later turned into a 1st round pick in 2016) before the draft last year. He had 1 year left on his deal too. I think you might be able to argue that Lucic is a better player, or at least that he might have more trade value, but the gap isn't that big.

I think the thing is though that the closer a player is to being really among the best in the league at a position or even the best of a type their value will grow exponentially. Rightly or wrongly, I think Lucic is seen as one of the very best power forwards in the league.

JVR is a good player but I don't think he's got the same cache.

I don't know if JVR has the same cache as does Lucic but I don't think JVR has the same cachet.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25