TMLfans.ca

Maple Leafs News and Views => Main Leafs Hockey Talk => Topic started by: disco on September 19, 2017, 05:48:05 PM

Title: Jake Gardiner
Post by: disco on September 19, 2017, 05:48:05 PM
This quote inspired me to give him his thread. Jake's come a long way in two years. I'm sure there'll be an offensive play or two to put here during this Stanley Cup winning season ;)
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: disco on September 23, 2017, 09:35:36 PM
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Downtown Connor Brown on September 24, 2017, 09:53:41 AM
Not only will I skate by you, but I'll do it backwards.

Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Frank E on September 24, 2017, 01:13:23 PM
No disrespect to Gardiner, but that player "checking" him was absolutely brutal in his attempt.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Bullfrog on September 24, 2017, 02:43:14 PM
Not the defender's fault. Jake's smooth skating mesmerized him and lulled him to sleep.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zee on September 25, 2017, 09:13:47 AM
Not the defender's fault. Jake's smooth skating mesmerized him and lulled him to sleep.

I approve of this message.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Crucialness Key on September 25, 2017, 09:31:38 AM
No disrespect to Gardiner, but that player "checking" him was absolutely brutal in his attempt.

I think Gards sold the "I'm passing it back to a teammate" act so well that he caught the guy flat-footed, honestly.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Arn on September 25, 2017, 11:06:27 AM
No disrespect to Gardiner, but that player "checking" him was absolutely brutal in his attempt.

I think Gards sold the "I'm passing it back to a teammate" act so well that he caught the guy flat-footed, honestly.

Like the Ryan Goins of the NHL
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: disco on October 08, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Bullfrog on October 09, 2017, 08:36:50 AM
My favorite goal of the game. Just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: nutman on October 31, 2017, 09:54:01 AM
I watched the SJ game last night and wow!! Gardiner looked really bad, I mean he just sucked. this guy is not playing his game. also, a note The defense as a whole are not getting the puck out to take advantage of the fast offense, and nor are they holding the blue line. as for our offense, we are being out hustled
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on July 17, 2018, 08:39:11 AM
https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2018/7/16/17570146/stop-trying-to-trade-jake-gardiner-toronto-maple-leafs-speculation-analysis-markets-seriously-stop

Article on why the Leafs shouldn't trade Jake Gardiner.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Bullfrog on July 17, 2018, 10:37:56 AM
My take-home from that article is: we're going to win the Stanley Cup, soon.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 12:37:36 PM
That is a wonderful article and whatnot, but the fact is that he was all-caps AWFUL in the one game where it counted most.  So no, PPP, people aren't going to seriously stop criticizing him and wanting to trade him until he is not awful in a G7-type situation.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Coco-puffs on July 17, 2018, 12:40:42 PM
That is a wonderful article and whatnot, but the fact is that he was all-caps AWFUL in the one game where it counted most.  So no, PPP, people aren't going to seriously stop criticizing him and wanting to trade him until he is not awful in a G7-type situation.

And when he gets traded, they will wonder why we can't even make it to Game 7 in Round 1.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: TML fan on July 17, 2018, 12:41:53 PM
Ah yes...Gardiner is the glue that holds the whole thing together.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 12:42:47 PM
That is a wonderful article and whatnot, but the fact is that he was all-caps AWFUL in the one game where it counted most.  So no, PPP, people aren't going to seriously stop criticizing him and wanting to trade him until he is not awful in a G7-type situation.

And when he gets traded, they will wonder why we can't even make it to Game 7 in Round 1.

OK, right, Gardiner is irreplaceable, the linchpin to ... getting to G7 and then getting beat?
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 17, 2018, 12:45:57 PM
OK, right, Gardiner is irreplaceable, the linchpin to ... getting to G7 and then getting beat?

Would you be happier if they'd been knocked out in 6?
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: bustaheims on July 17, 2018, 12:46:45 PM
That is a wonderful article and whatnot, but the fact is that he was all-caps AWFUL in the one game where it counted most.  So no, PPP, people aren't going to seriously stop criticizing him and wanting to trade him until he is not awful in a G7-type situation.

The whole team was awful in that game. They all basically disappeared after the first period. Only Gardiner gets singled out for it. Yes, he was bad, and he was victimized (by the Bruins and by some shaky goaltending), but, the amount of blame he gets for that game is disproportionate to his actual impact.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
OK, right, Gardiner is irreplaceable, the linchpin to ... getting to G7 and then getting beat?

Would you be happier if they'd been knocked out in 6?

Would you?
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Frank E on July 17, 2018, 12:52:48 PM
I think Gardiner's skill set is important to the team's fortunes this year, and he certainly isn't easily replaceable.

He had a bad game 7, really bad, and may have been a big reason they lost that game, but I don't think he's the reason they lost the series. 

I'm very curious to see how Dubas handles the situation of Gardiner coming up on UFA.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
That is a wonderful article and whatnot, but the fact is that he was all-caps AWFUL in the one game where it counted most.  So no, PPP, people aren't going to seriously stop criticizing him and wanting to trade him until he is not awful in a G7-type situation.

The whole team was awful in that game. They all basically disappeared after the first period. Only Gardiner gets singled out for it. Yes, he was bad, and he was victimized (by the Bruins and by some shaky goaltending), but, the amount of blame he gets for that game is disproportionate to his actual impact.

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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: bustaheims on July 17, 2018, 12:55:40 PM
I think Gardiner's skill set is important to the team's fortunes this year, and he certainly isn't easily replaceable.

He had a bad game 7, really bad, and may have been a big reason they lost that game, but I don't think he's the reason they lost the series. 

I'm very curious to see how Dubas handles the situation of Gardiner coming up on UFA.

He was probably the team's best defenceman in games 1-6, so, you're absolutely right that he's not the reason they lost the series. In fact, he's a big part of the reason they even made it to game 7.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 17, 2018, 12:55:57 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 12:57:44 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 17, 2018, 01:04:05 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: bustaheims on July 17, 2018, 01:04:19 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.

If you're looking to build the best possible team, they're right. You have to ignore the one game sample instead of ignoring everything else he brings to the table.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 17, 2018, 01:09:05 PM
Ah yes...Gardiner is the glue that holds the whole thing together.

I mean, he led the team in ice-time this past season, so yeah he's pretty critical to the teams success.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 17, 2018, 01:10:39 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: mr grieves on July 17, 2018, 01:10:45 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.

But Game 7 isn't really relevant to the Gardiner situation. The author skips right past the best reason to trade him -- that he's UFA and they may lose him for nothing -- by suggesting that they'll win a Cup with him this spring... which seems a bit optimistic.

I'd see how the season goes and whether he wants to re-sign. If things aren't looking great and he hasn't signed an extension, get a pick, prospect, and whatever.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Nik the Trik on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: mr grieves on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Frank E on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Coco-puffs on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Bill_Berg on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Frank E on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: mr grieves on July 17, 2018, 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."
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: bustaheims on July 17, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Average Joes on July 17, 2018, 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. 
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Coco-puffs on July 17, 2018, 04:20:25 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.

There were two schools of thought last season when it came to pleading that the three guys who were on expiring deals get dealt (well, two anyways... Komarov was a different case because some wanted him gone no matter what because he wasn't performing well):

1.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them NO MATTER what it does to our current opportunity.  Can't lose guys for nothing, ever.
2.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them BECAUSE I don't think they are a contender yet.

I think the difference now is, most of us think we are contenders now after adding Tavares.  To that point, almost anyone who in the latter group would say "we keep Gardiner at the deadline" assuming the season goes as expected.  They may argue they'd prefer to trade him NOW (in the offseason) and try and address the defense with the return which I'm on board with- but don't think there is much reality in it happening so I expect things to stay status quo.

Then there is the group who believed in the former position.  To that group: if we are contenders and our window is NOW you don't subtract *a good player* from your team at the deadline worrying about losing him for nothing.  For example:
If we still had JvR this season (in addition to our current team) and we had no intention of re-signing him I still don't think you trade him at the upcoming deadline.  Again, you can argue we should move him NOW for assets and I wouldn't be against that- but not at the deadline. 
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Bullfrog on July 17, 2018, 05:26:06 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.

Agreed. It was pretty clear that it was unlikely JvR and Bozak were staying. Gardiner is someone they should be actively looking to sign.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: mr grieves on July 17, 2018, 05:33:19 PM

There were two schools of thought last season when it came to pleading that the three guys who were on expiring deals get dealt (well, two anyways... Komarov was a different case because some wanted him gone no matter what because he wasn't performing well):

1.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them NO MATTER what it does to our current opportunity.  Can't lose guys for nothing, ever.
2.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them BECAUSE I don't think they are a contender yet.

I think the difference now is, most of us think we are contenders now after adding Tavares.  To that point, almost anyone who in the latter group would say "we keep Gardiner at the deadline" assuming the season goes as expected.  They may argue they'd prefer to trade him NOW (in the offseason) and try and address the defense with the return which I'm on board with- but don't think there is much reality in it happening so I expect things to stay status quo.

Then there is the group who believed in the former position.  To that group: if we are contenders and our window is NOW you don't subtract *a good player* from your team at the deadline worrying about losing him for nothing.  For example:
If we still had JvR this season (in addition to our current team) and we had no intention of re-signing him I still don't think you trade him at the upcoming deadline.  Again, you can argue we should move him NOW for assets and I wouldn't be against that- but not at the deadline. 

I think, if it's clear by training camp that Gardiner doesn't want to extend at a number that works for the Leafs, then they should trade him, ASAP, so they have time to sort out defense during the season.

Their chances to contend are better, over the long term, if they trade one year of Gardiner for assets that will have value over the next several years. Picks and prospects can be developed into useful players that would elevate the team in years 4, 5, 6, etc. They can also be packaged and turned into something that could improve the team in years 2-6+. But if Gardiner is an expiring contract, he won't offer the team any value beyond this season, and they should move him now.

Of course, their chances to contend, over the long term, are best with Gardiner under a manageable contract, so re-signing him at a number that works with the upcoming commitments is my preference.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Joe S. on July 17, 2018, 07:27:16 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.

Game 7 wasn’t the only elimination game in the series.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 17, 2018, 07:29:47 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.

Game 7 wasn’t the only elimination game in the series.

Good point.  The "last game of series"?
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: freer on July 17, 2018, 11:11:21 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.

Game 7 wasn’t the only elimination game in the series.

Good point.  The "last game of series"?

I have never been a big fan of him, anyways. They got rid Cody Fransen after he was found to be the fall guy the last time we lost to BOS. I would not be disappointed either way.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Coco-puffs on July 18, 2018, 11:06:56 AM

There were two schools of thought last season when it came to pleading that the three guys who were on expiring deals get dealt (well, two anyways... Komarov was a different case because some wanted him gone no matter what because he wasn't performing well):

1.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them NO MATTER what it does to our current opportunity.  Can't lose guys for nothing, ever.
2.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them BECAUSE I don't think they are a contender yet.

I think the difference now is, most of us think we are contenders now after adding Tavares.  To that point, almost anyone who in the latter group would say "we keep Gardiner at the deadline" assuming the season goes as expected.  They may argue they'd prefer to trade him NOW (in the offseason) and try and address the defense with the return which I'm on board with- but don't think there is much reality in it happening so I expect things to stay status quo.

Then there is the group who believed in the former position.  To that group: if we are contenders and our window is NOW you don't subtract *a good player* from your team at the deadline worrying about losing him for nothing.  For example:
If we still had JvR this season (in addition to our current team) and we had no intention of re-signing him I still don't think you trade him at the upcoming deadline.  Again, you can argue we should move him NOW for assets and I wouldn't be against that- but not at the deadline. 

I think, if it's clear by training camp that Gardiner doesn't want to extend at a number that works for the Leafs, then they should trade him, ASAP, so they have time to sort out defense during the season.

Their chances to contend are better, over the long term, if they trade one year of Gardiner for assets that will have value over the next several years. Picks and prospects can be developed into useful players that would elevate the team in years 4, 5, 6, etc. They can also be packaged and turned into something that could improve the team in years 2-6+. But if Gardiner is an expiring contract, he won't offer the team any value beyond this season, and they should move him now.

Of course, their chances to contend, over the long term, are best with Gardiner under a manageable contract, so re-signing him at a number that works with the upcoming commitments is my preference.

Re-signing him, at a discount, would kinda be a no-brainer as long as you are willing to play one of Dermott or Rielly on the right side long term. 

However, I don't think the math jives at all with your proposition that prospects and picks give us a better chance long term.  They aren't getting as much as you think for Jake Gardiner with 1 year until he hits UFA.  Maybe a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick, or a late first round pick.  Late first round picks only have like a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player.  That decent prospect is probably not going to have much higher odds of becoming an impact player either.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Average Joes on July 18, 2018, 11:32:52 AM
I agree that a late 1st is probably a reasonable example of what you might get for Gardiner. I would not want to give up our 2nd best defenceman for a 30% or so chance of an NHL player in 3-4 years.  I think the time to accumulate prospects by trading away good roster players passed when the ink dried on Tavares' contract.


Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: mr grieves on July 18, 2018, 12:12:51 PM
However, I don't think the math jives at all with your proposition that prospects and picks give us a better chance long term.  They aren't getting as much as you think for Jake Gardiner with 1 year until he hits UFA.  Maybe a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick, or a late first round pick.  Late first round picks only have like a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player.  That decent prospect is probably not going to have much higher odds of becoming an impact player either.

The comparison here is to Jake Gardiner walking on July 1st to sign a $6.5m contract in Minnesota or whatever.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Coco-puffs on July 18, 2018, 12:51:28 PM
However, I don't think the math jives at all with your proposition that prospects and picks give us a better chance long term.  They aren't getting as much as you think for Jake Gardiner with 1 year until he hits UFA.  Maybe a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick, or a late first round pick.  Late first round picks only have like a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player.  That decent prospect is probably not going to have much higher odds of becoming an impact player either.

The comparison here is to Jake Gardiner walking on July 1st to sign a $6.5m contract in Minnesota or whatever.

Let me clarify... when I say a better chance long term I'm essentially averaging our stanley cup championship chances over the next, say, 5 seasons.    Losing Jake Gardiner this year would probably hurt us to the tune of something like ~2%.  I would venture to bet the long term impact of the assets you'd acquire for him will be much less than +0.5% over the other 4 years.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Frank E on July 18, 2018, 01:45:35 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.

Not the first time you've been wrong, won't be the last...

I think if you've got to spend the season convincing Gardiner to stay, after he's been here for like 8 years, you've probably done something wrong.  But regardless, in my mind, to be a long-term contender, you've got to turn these expiring assets that have substantial value. Given the parity of the league, and associated odds of ultimate success (Cup), you need to maximize your return on assets to make sure you stay in contending position for many seasons, even if it costs you a little in the SR.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: mr grieves on July 18, 2018, 03:37:44 PM
Let me clarify... when I say a better chance long term I'm essentially averaging our stanley cup championship chances over the next, say, 5 seasons.    Losing Jake Gardiner this year would probably hurt us to the tune of something like ~2%.  I would venture to bet the long term impact of the assets you'd acquire for him will be much less than +0.5% over the other 4 years.

I get that, but I'm still with Frank on this. Losing Gardiner this year reduces your chances by ~2%, yes. And any pick or prospect would probably give you 0% improvement in the first couple years, but, if you scout prospects well (as we did when getting Gardiner, say), you get slightly better odds over years 3-6. In the end, you end up with more seasons when you're in it, even if you're not as in it as you'd be this season.

And there's also the possibility that assets acquired for Gardiner now could be used on a young, good defenseman who'd be on the team for another 3 or 4. 

Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Coco-puffs on July 19, 2018, 04:35:33 PM
Let me clarify... when I say a better chance long term I'm essentially averaging our stanley cup championship chances over the next, say, 5 seasons.    Losing Jake Gardiner this year would probably hurt us to the tune of something like ~2%.  I would venture to bet the long term impact of the assets you'd acquire for him will be much less than +0.5% over the other 4 years.

I get that, but I'm still with Frank on this. Losing Gardiner this year reduces your chances by ~2%, yes. And any pick or prospect would probably give you 0% improvement in the first couple years, but, if you scout prospects well (as we did when getting Gardiner, say), you get slightly better odds over years 3-6. In the end, you end up with more seasons when you're in it, even if you're not as in it as you'd be this season.

Man, in 3-6 years our window might be closing.  Rielly and Kadri's great deals end in 4.  Andersen's ends in 3.  Any of our Big 4 could have a career ending injury.  (I'm knocking on wood all over the place after saying that) 

There is no guarantee that the Leafs will be considered Cup Favourites that far out.  They SHOULD be, but there is no guarantee.  Right now, the Leafs are betting favourites- and while that is definitely based on the amount of action the Leafs are generating on the betting market- they are still in that upper echelon. 

Quote
And there's also the possibility that assets acquired for Gardiner now could be used on a young, good defenseman who'd be on the team for another 3 or 4.

I've already stated that I'm fine with this.  If you can trade Gardiner for assets that you parlay into Dumba or Trouba or someone like that, I'm all over it.  But you don't trade Gardiner until you know that other deal is done.  You don't trade him hoping you can parlay it.  It doesn't seem achievable at this moment.  Almost anytime someone says "lets go get that good young d-man over there" the answer is "it'll cost you Nylander or Marner"- Not Jake.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Zee on July 19, 2018, 05:45:15 PM
If we trade Gardiner what would be the Kawhi Leonard equivalent defenseman we could trade him for?
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: Bill_Berg on July 19, 2018, 08:19:45 PM
Urlacher in his prime.
Title: Re: Jake Gardiner
Post by: freer on July 19, 2018, 11:41:15 PM
If we trade Gardiner what would be the Kawhi Leonard equivalent defenseman we could trade him for?

For one thing Gardiner is far from the best player in TO history like Derozan was. So this question doesn't make sense. After games 7 we should get what we can because he is not going to be worth the 6 + mil he is going to ask for at the end of this season.