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 - mr grieves

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 108
1
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Contracts for the Big-3
« on: Yesterday at 09:47:22 PM »
Yeah, I've wondered about this too.
If I were an agent looking to get the best deal for my player, I'd do this.
If I were another team looking to make a rival club sweat, I'd do this.
Probably comes down to way GMs collude to keep salaries low.

Because compensation is too low. In order for an offer sheet to have any real chance of succeeding they basically have to make the compensation more valuable than the player they're signing.

Compensation's irrelevant, as I'm expecting the Leafs to match. "Success" here is screwing up the cap situation of a rival, one slight overpay at a time.


Effectively, saying you'd do it as a GM is either saying you'd drive up the price of your own RFAs for no real benefit or it's saying you'd be out there signing RFAs to salaries they can't justify to put pressure on other teams. Regardless, you probably wouldn't be GMing for long.

Yeah, I acknowledged in the initial post that a league-wide desire to keep RFA contracts as low as possible is what's stopping GMs from doing this -- they probably worry that the price of their own RFAs would be driven up.

But we all agree fair compensation for Nylander is in that $7.5-8m range. That's the sort of offer sheet I thought the OP had in mind. The Leafs aren't offering that because they want him at a number better for their long term salary structure, that'll keep them maximally competitive for as long as possible. If I were a rival GM -- call me, say, Lou -- and I wanted to put pressure on the Leafs now or limit their ability to keep all their pieces together in the future, I'd offer Nylander a fair contract, one which wouldn't necessarily drive up the costs of my own players -- at least not beyond what I could afford since I'm not among the league's contenders.

Leafs match. So I don't get him, I keep the picks, but I get to console myself in the "failure" by knowing that I've made Kyle Dubas's job a bit harder in a few years and made the league a bit more competitive down the line.

2
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Contracts for the Big-3
« on: Yesterday at 03:34:37 PM »
Why don't RFA's use offer sheets? I'm sure the agent could get it out there that his client would be willing to sign an offer sheet with another team if one is presented. If someone offers $8M Nylander gets what he wanted even if the Leafs match.

Yeah, I've wondered about this too.
If I were an agent looking to get the best deal for my player, I'd do this.
If I were another team looking to make a rival club sweat, I'd do this.
Probably comes down to way GMs collude to keep salaries low.

3
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Contracts for the Big-3
« on: September 17, 2018, 11:22:27 PM »
So Darnell Nurse just signed a 2-year bridge deal.   2 years, $3.2M per.

As Zeppelin would say about Nylander:

Ah, excuse me
Oh will you excuse me
I'm just trying to find the bridge!
Has anybody seen the bridge?
Please!
(Have you seen the bridge?)
I ain't seen the bridge!
(Where's that confounded bridge?)

What would a Nylander bridge look like? Kucherov's contract, roughly?

That's, like, $5.5 x 2 (say 7% of cap), then 8x 12% of the cap. In 2 years, that'll likely be 85-90m, or $10.5m/year or so...

I think the worst cap crunch will be next year, so the relief might be nice, but I'm sure Dubas &c. have gamed it out and would much rather Nylander making $3-4m less in year 3.

I doubt there's a bridge on the table.

4
General NHL News & Views / Re: Official Ottawa Senators Thread
« on: September 14, 2018, 01:38:56 AM »
On the fourth hand, isn't everyone upset that their own team couldn't beat that?

Maybe, but I think the trade condition makes it pretty clear that he wasn't getting dealt to the Eastern Conference no matter what.

Also, legitimately, there are some teams where it wouldn't have made much sense(Nashville, for instance).

Yeah, but it's still pretty astonishingly bad a return, isn't it?

Obviously Karlsson wasn't going to get traded within the conference, but it'd be like the Kings trading Doughty to us for, like, Grundstrom, Brooks, and the two Connors. Plus the picks. -- You'd think Dallas, say, would've been able to make something a bit better than that happen.

Doug Wilson is really good at finding suckers.

5
Marlies & Prospect Talk / Re: Ranking Prospects 2018-19
« on: August 19, 2018, 02:03:02 PM »
I mean, for the next 4 years we'll have Kadri, Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Tavares -- that's our core, all relatively young (Kadri and Tavares will be 31 at the end of 4 years)  Kadri might go after 4 but we'll have the rest presumably for a few more seasons after that. 

Worrying about replacing Brown and/or Hyman in 2 or 3 seasons seems like small potatoes to me when you have your core forwards locked up.

Agreed that having a core in place leaves us with no too much to worry about. The Leafs have done the hard part of getting a contender built... so, when looking at the prospect pool, the main question is whether they have the pieces to sustain it. That's "small potatoes," sure.

6
Marlies & Prospect Talk / Re: Ranking Prospects 2018-19
« on: August 14, 2018, 01:15:10 PM »
Besides the overall farm ranking, Pronman's write up is worth a look. I like his categories and added my own interpretation of what they probably mean (based on his description of each player) in the coming years.

Very Good NHL Prospect = Top 6F / Top 4D projection
1. Liljegren

Legit NHL Prospect = Top 6F / Top 4D Upside
2. Johnsson
3. SDA
4. Bracco
5. Grundstrom
6. Sandin
7. Korshkov

Have a Chance = Bottom 6 / Bottom Pair / Backup Upside
8. Woll
9. Durzi
10. Rasanen
11. Engvall
12. Gordeev
13. Sparks
14. Rosen
15. Timashov

Depth Notes = Probable AHLers
16. Holl
17. Ozhiganov
18. Nielsen
19. Stotts
20. Brooks
21. Gauthier

Reads to me like we have a replacement for Gardiner should he leave (though maybe D takes a step back in the short term) and have 2 (Johnsson, Grundstrom) or 3 (if we count Korshkov) guys who could replace Brown and/or Hyman in the next 2 years. The others in that tier are farther out. I'd rate that as... not quite good enough? Replacing Gardiner will be hard, so some time for Liljegren to grow into a top-4 role is fine, but we really should have more than 2 guys as options to replace Brown and Hyman before their contracts are up.

So... once again, thanks for holding tight to JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, Lou.

7
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« 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. 


8
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« 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.

9
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« 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.

10
Marlies & Prospect Talk / Re: Ranking Prospects 2018-19
« on: July 17, 2018, 03:19:22 PM »
I don't subscribe to The Athletic, but is Wheeler right a lot?

I can't speak to this particular writer but it's pretty rare to write an evaluation of prospects where any one outcome for those players makes the writer "right" or not. It's usually "he may do this" or "if he can develop X, he'll be Y".

Yeah, he doesn't really make pronouncements about what players will be. But I think, since he's a younger guy who's attracted to speed, skill, agility, etc., he's pretty attentive to the tools they have and what they might be if they develop. And, as they age and approach the point of graduating, he's been pretty good about predicting what they'll do in the NHL. He was, at the beginning of last season, pretty confident that Dermott, Johnsson, and Kapanen would be useful contributors, and they were.

So, if he says the Marlies don't have under-23 players ready for the Leafs, I believe it.

11
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« 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."

12
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« 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.

13
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Jake Gardiner
« 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.

14
Please name some options for acquisition that would actually be worth acquiring without costing a roster player; I'm open to transactions that provide value. Right now I only see options that are cost-prohibitive or non-needlemovers. I'd argue our right side D these last couple of seasons were only known for 'playing strong' and couldn't do enough of the other things.

Gudas. Pysyk. Petry. Tulloch had a column with a several options.

Anyhow, I'd be happy with
Reilly - Gardiner
Dermott - Zaitsev
Hainsey/Rosen/Borgman - Holl/Carrick/Hainsey

15
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: The Donald
« on: July 16, 2018, 05:39:12 PM »
Your intelligence agency indicts a dozen Russian for election tampering and hacking and Trump's response is to call them liars and tell everyone how big and strong Putin is.  How broken is the US political system that there isn't a revolt over this?

I don't think it's very likely in a mass-democratic political system, broken or not, that there'd be much of a popular revolt over dismissing the state intelligence services and special prosecutor or saying nice things about (a brutal, autocratic) foreign leader. Watergate didn't inspire any giant street protests either.

If, by "revolt," you mean an uprising of the government in power, his own party... well, he's dismantling the ACA, gutting regulations that inhibit GOP donors' worst business, environmental, and labor practices, signed a law to transfer wealth to those same donors, and appointed Supreme Court justices that'll insulate them from any democratic repercussions. So, on balance, he's still serving their interests pretty well.

What's to revolt against?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 108