With Vegas being forced to meet a minimum of 60% of the cap through the expansion draft, I wonder if maybe Lupul or Bozak might actually be more appealing to them. Or, if they're really just looking for a cap acquisition, maybe even Horton - though, that is, admittedly, a long-shot.
With Vegas being forced to meet a minimum of 60% of the cap through the expansion draft, I wonder if maybe Lupul or Bozak might actually be more appealing to them. Or, if they're really just looking for a cap acquisition, maybe even Horton - though, that is, admittedly, a long-shot.
I think there's a decent chance both Carrick and Marincin will finish their current contracts in Toronto as far as expansion goes. How many defencemen are we talking about being exposed?
Edit: Also, the only way it really matters is if they both knock it out of the park, if one is clearly the one to protect, ok, if they are both at that level, a trade should be possible.
Would they even look at our non Rielly/Gardiner defense if Bozak and Komarov were exposed?
I think there's a decent chance both Carrick and Marincin will finish their current contracts in Toronto as far as expansion goes. How many defencemen are we talking about being exposed?
Edit: Also, the only way it really matters is if they both knock it out of the park, if one is clearly the one to protect, ok, if they are both at that level, a trade should be possible.
You protect three defensemen. I'm assuming Zaitsev is exempt so two of the three spots will be Gardiner and Rielly. So one of those two will almost certainly be exposed.
And it only matters in the sense of projecting who will be on the team next year.
I meant how many will be exposed league wide, I get the reasoning behind the three you noted.
Did a quick go through GeneralFanager's expansion draft tool, and assuming every team protects 3 defencemen (some might opt to go the 8-skaters route instead of course), this is the pool of potential defenceman available:
Despres/Fowler/Stoner
Schenn
McQuaid/Miller
Pokka/TVR
Zadorov/Wiercioch
R. Murray/J. Johnson
M. Green/J. Eriksson
Fayne
Pysyk/Petrovic
Spurgeon/Scandella
Hickey/de Haan/Pulock
Klein
Cole/Pouliot/Dumoulin
Braun/Dillon
Coburn/Garrison
Orlov/Orpik
Enstrom/Stuart
I did that pretty quickly, in some cases it's an either/or pick per team or a team has to expose 2 of them.
That might be a big enough pool of decent-to-good NHL defencemen that Marincin or Carrick (whoever plays worse this season) goes unclaimed.
Thanks for that Carlton. That's what I was thinking about...like is Marincin or Carrick really that enticing when compared to what will be exposed?
Looking at that list, for example, I'm not so sure.
edit: Then again, they have to pick SOMEBODY from the Leafs. So if the forward options aren't appealing (which they might not be) then they'd go with a defenceman by default.
I think that as things stand right now, the Leafs will protect the following players: Kadri, JVR, Bozak, Komarov, Martin, Brown, Leipsic, Rielly, Gardiner, Carrick, AndersenHere's hoping that Rychel develops this year and he would be protected.
That would leave the following players exposed: Horton, Lupul, Holland, Rychel, Leivo, Marincin, Loov, Corrado. With the assumption that Lupul, Holland, and Marincin all meet the GP requirement.
I think that as things stand right now, the Leafs will protect the following players: Kadri, JVR, Bozak, Komarov, Martin, Brown, Leipsic, Rielly, Gardiner, Carrick, Andersen
That would leave the following players exposed: Horton, Lupul, Holland, Rychel, Leivo, Marincin, Loov, Corrado. With the assumption that Lupul, Holland, and Marincin all meet the GP requirement.
I think that as things stand right now, the Leafs will protect the following players: Kadri, JVR, Bozak, Komarov, Martin, Brown, Leipsic, Rielly, Gardiner, Carrick, Andersen
That would leave the following players exposed: Horton, Lupul, Holland, Rychel, Leivo, Marincin, Loov, Corrado. With the assumption that Lupul, Holland, and Marincin all meet the GP requirement.
That would leave the following players exposed: Horton, Lupul, Holland, Rychel, Leivo, Marincin, Loov, Corrado. With the assumption that Lupul, Holland, and Marincin all meet the GP requirement.
That would leave the following players exposed: Horton, Lupul, Holland, Rychel, Leivo, Marincin, Loov, Corrado. With the assumption that Lupul, Holland, and Marincin all meet the GP requirement.
Which GP requirement? The only GP requirement I know of is that a couple of exposed players have to exceed a GP total but not all of them do.
2 FW and 1 D have to meet the requirement
2 FW and 1 D have to meet the requirement
Ah, with the assumption that those three are the guys who meet it. Understood.
I don't think that Trouba has a high enough upside that you'd want to trade Nylander for him.
I doubt any sort of package where Dermott is the most valuable asset gets it done. This is where the Leafs not holding onto their late first round picks/reaching with their high seconds the last two years hurts them. They don't really have any of those A-/B+ sort of prospects outside of maybe Kapanen. If they had a Konecny or Gabriel Carlsson or someone like that it may be the basis of an offer
Kapanen and Dermott might not be too bad an offer for Winnipeg to chew on for Trouba.
lots of teams have spoken with #nhljets about a trade for Jacob Trouba. Ask is very clear - left hand D of same calibre and age
— gary lawless (@garylawless) September 25, 2016
Can someone elucidate me on the allure of Trouba?
Checks: young, RHD, Rielly-esque numbers
Nopes: looking mildly expensive, Rielly-esque numbers against lesser opponents
Is he worth the princely ransom the Jets have outlined?
Garret Hohl @GarretHohl 16 hours ago
Stuart last 2yrs:
w/ Trouba: 51% Corsi, 45% Goals
w/o Trouba: 45% Corsi, 47% Goals
Trouba w/o: 55% Corsi, 63% Goals
I was wondering if it was Gardiner that they would target as a LD who is on a reasonable $4 MIL contract. Add a Kapanen and it might close the deal.
That leaves a hole on the Leafs LD so I would try to get Lindholm, another RFA holdout. JVR would be the center piece. A young dman like Corrado would be added as well as a 2nd prospect.
That would leave Rielly, Trouba and Lindholm as the dmen the Leafs protect in the Las Vegas expansion draft
This article/tweet by Garret Hohl at JetsNation might be helpful: http://jetsnation.ca/2016/6/6/don-t-let-point-totals-fool-you-trouba-has-been-getting-better-and-betterQuoteGarret Hohl @GarretHohl 16 hours ago
Stuart last 2yrs:
w/ Trouba: 51% Corsi, 45% Goals
w/o Trouba: 45% Corsi, 47% Goals
Trouba w/o: 55% Corsi, 63% Goals
What an asinine request from the Jets. Same age, position and calibre? What team would make that trade? Another team in a similar position with that particular type of defensemen requesting a trade as well? Good luck Jets!
so gardiner for trouba?
They want a young LHD back for Trouba? Fine. If we're looking to shore up our top 4 with this deal, they ain't getting Gards.
We also need to clear cap to sign Trouba.
Ehlers and Laine, isn't exactly Ladd and Laine
JVR + Marincin for Trouba.
I was wondering if it was Gardiner that they would target as a LD who is on a reasonable $4 MIL contract. Add a Kapanen and it might close the deal.
That leaves a hole on the Leafs LD so I would try to get Lindholm, another RFA holdout. JVR would be the center piece. A young dman like Corrado would be added as well as a 2nd prospect.
That would leave Rielly, Trouba and Lindholm as the dmen the Leafs protect in the Las Vegas expansion draft
I don't think they want just any LHD for Trouba. Certanly not a fairly limited bottom pairing guy. They want someone comparable.
That might be their initial ask. But if the Leafs are offering up JVR as the main piece, that may lower the LHD expectation that goes along with him, some.
Plus by the end of the season, Marincin was partnered on the top pairing with Rielly. Babs obviously saw something there.
That's only if nobody else offers them something more in line with what they're after. That seems fairly unlikely given how valuable someone like Trouba figures to be.
The "something" probably being Auston Matthews.
Always a possibility given that 28 other teams are still out there. But is a lateral move that doesn't actually improve either team's overall situation worth it?
Always a possibility given that 28 other teams are still out there. But is a lateral move that doesn't actually improve either team's overall situation worth it?
It certainly can be if the "lateral move" means that you have a LHD instead of a RHD and the LHD is more open to signing a long-term deal than Trouba seems to be(or is already under contract).
Winnipeg is a team with reasons to be optimistic. They have a bunch of good young players like Ehlers and Scheifele and some potentially really good rookies in Laine and Connor. Maintaining an equilibrium on defense(but with everyone playing their natural side) seems like a pretty good outcome.
I know it's into fantasy hockey territory, but that was my thought as well, some sort of three way trade centred around Trouba, JvR and Fowler.I was wondering if it was Gardiner that they would target as a LD who is on a reasonable $4 MIL contract. Add a Kapanen and it might close the deal.
That leaves a hole on the Leafs LD so I would try to get Lindholm, another RFA holdout. JVR would be the center piece. A young dman like Corrado would be added as well as a 2nd prospect.
That would leave Rielly, Trouba and Lindholm as the dmen the Leafs protect in the Las Vegas expansion draft
I don't think Anaheim is looking to move Lindholm, but that might get you Fowler, I wonder if there's any interest in some sort of Trouba for Fowler + deal.
Always a possibility given that 28 other teams are still out there. But is a lateral move that doesn't actually improve either team's overall situation worth it?
It certainly can be if the "lateral move" means that you have a LHD instead of a RHD and the LHD is more open to signing a long-term deal than Trouba seems to be(or is already under contract).
Winnipeg is a team with reasons to be optimistic. They have a bunch of good young players like Ehlers and Scheifele and some potentially really good rookies in Laine and Connor. Maintaining an equilibrium on defense(but with everyone playing their natural side) seems like a pretty good outcome.
Lindholm for Trouba. Straight up. ;)
Don't even joke about that! I want them both with the Leafs!
;D
I like all of those guys but I don't think the Leafs are ready to be paying RFA compensation yet.
I like all of those guys but I don't think the Leafs are ready to be paying RFA compensation yet.
Weren't we pretty ready to offer sheet Jones earlier in the offseason?
I like all of those guys but I don't think the Leafs are ready to be paying RFA compensation yet.
Weren't we pretty ready to offer sheet Jones earlier in the offseason?
Fair point. Still, I'm more sold on Jones' potential to really be a #1 guy than I am any of those guys. That was also before I knew our defensive cupboard would still look as bare post-draft as it did pre-draft.
Of the bunch, I'm most sold on Lindholm, but he's basically Swedish Rielly. I just thought that knowing there were these big ticket RFAs out there for teams with budget/cap issues that the Leafs should've opted for flexibility rather than locker room presence.
Of the bunch, I'm most sold on Lindholm, but he's basically Swedish Rielly. I just thought that knowing there were these big ticket RFAs out there for teams with budget/cap issues that the Leafs should've opted for flexibility rather than locker room presence.
Don't get me wrong. Cap wise I agree with you 100%. If I had my way the team wouldn't have Andersen, Martin or Polak on the books and would have done more to clear up one of the bigger salaries on the roster. I'd much rather have that flexibility then what those guys bring.
I just don't think you can look at the team's farm system right now and write off any sort of drafting of a high value D or G prospect next year.
Say the Leafs draft 1st overall again next year. Do they take Nolan Patrick if he is still the consensus #1, or do they take Timothy Liljegren if he is still the top rated d-man? This is where the whole "take the best player available" strategy starts to get iffy for me. If there isn't that much of a drop between Patrick to Liljegren, then I say take Liljegren, or trade out of the #1 spot to #2 and Liljegren. I just think that you aren't going to get that much to drop to #2 in a trade.
Say the Leafs draft 1st overall again next year. Do they take Nolan Patrick if he is still the consensus #1, or do they take Timothy Liljegren if he is still the top rated d-man? This is where the whole "take the best player available" strategy starts to get iffy for me. If there isn't that much of a drop between Patrick to Liljegren, then I say take Liljegren, or trade out of the #1 spot to #2 and Liljegren. I just think that you aren't going to get that much to drop to #2 in a trade.
So the subtext I'm taking from this is our mystifying offseason is already biting us in the buttocks.
I'm going to lay this at the feet of Lou. Honestly so long as we are talking mystifying I still don't quite understand that particular hire.
If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?
If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?
What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.
If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?
What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.
Hard to say until we get there, depending on cap circumstances, but by and large, I agree with your assessment when you put it so succinctly.
Of the bunch, I'm most sold on Lindholm, but he's basically Swedish Rielly. I just thought that knowing there were these big ticket RFAs out there for teams with budget/cap issues that the Leafs should've opted for flexibility rather than locker room presence.
Don't get me wrong. Cap wise I agree with you 100%. If I had my way the team wouldn't have Andersen, Martin or Polak on the books and would have done more to clear up one of the bigger salaries on the roster. I'd much rather have that flexibility then what those guys bring.
I just don't think you can look at the team's farm system right now and write off any sort of drafting of a high value D or G prospect next year.
Roman Polak: In what is perhaps the least surprising thing of this tournament, Polak was not good. Actually, that's underselling it, he was bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was very bad. Actually, thats' underselling it, he was extremely bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was terrible. Actually, that's underselling it, he was on another level of terrible that I was frankly unaware existed. Actually, that's underselling it, he was horrific in the same way that most horror movies are also horrific, just scary bad, but also still frightening to watch if you have a rooting interest for the characters involved. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an actual train-wreck. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions. Actually, that's underselling it, he was a perfect analogy for ice hockey's version of the Titanic. Actually, that's underselling it, he was worse than the Raycroft for Rask trade. Okay on second thought, that last one went a bit too far. The point is that Polak did not play well. He had the worst Game Score at the tournament thanks to the worst Corsi differential there at -36. The next worst player was a three-way tie at -24. The difference between Polak and the next worst Corsi performance is the same as that guy and the guy 34 players below him. That bad. Polak was also a -4 in 5-on-5 goal differential, also last, but this time, he had company as it was a five-way tie with four players on Team USA. But hey, at least he got an assist and blocked six shots. It is honestly impressive how bad Polak was, I didn't think it could be done, but it was done, and it was done by a member of the 2016-17 Toronto Maple Leafs.
Say the Leafs draft 1st overall again next year. Do they take Nolan Patrick if he is still the consensus #1, or do they take Timothy Liljegren if he is still the top rated d-man? This is where the whole "take the best player available" strategy starts to get iffy for me. If there isn't that much of a drop between Patrick to Liljegren, then I say take Liljegren, or trade out of the #1 spot to #2 and Liljegren. I just think that you aren't going to get that much to drop to #2 in a trade.
If the difference between the two isn't significant, then you take Liljegren - because, it means there really isn't a consensus #1, just a strong preference. If there's a clear gap, you probably can get a reasonable amount to trade down to 2. If not, you take Patrick, and, if you can't work out a deal you like for another young top pairing defenceman, you build your team like Pittsburgh.
TheLeafsNation: What Game Score Says About The Leafs At The World Cup (http://theleafsnation.com/2016/9/23/what-game-score-says-about-the-leafs-at-the-world-cup)QuoteRoman Polak: In what is perhaps the least surprising thing of this tournament, Polak was not good. Actually, that's underselling it, he was bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was very bad. Actually, thats' underselling it, he was extremely bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was terrible. Actually, that's underselling it, he was on another level of terrible that I was frankly unaware existed. Actually, that's underselling it, he was horrific in the same way that most horror movies are also horrific, just scary bad, but also still frightening to watch if you have a rooting interest for the characters involved. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an actual train-wreck. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions. Actually, that's underselling it, he was a perfect analogy for ice hockey's version of the Titanic. Actually, that's underselling it, he was worse than the Raycroft for Rask trade. Okay on second thought, that last one went a bit too far. The point is that Polak did not play well. He had the worst Game Score at the tournament thanks to the worst Corsi differential there at -36. The next worst player was a three-way tie at -24. The difference between Polak and the next worst Corsi performance is the same as that guy and the guy 34 players below him. That bad. Polak was also a -4 in 5-on-5 goal differential, also last, but this time, he had company as it was a five-way tie with four players on Team USA. But hey, at least he got an assist and blocked six shots. It is honestly impressive how bad Polak was, I didn't think it could be done, but it was done, and it was done by a member of the 2016-17 Toronto Maple Leafs.
“He’s our heart and soul,” Czech general manager Martin Rucinski said. “He plays hard, blocks shots. He’s a difficult player to play against. With our situation in Czech hockey, he was an easy choice for our team.”
Don't get me wrong. Cap wise I agree with you 100%. If I had my way the team wouldn't have Andersen, Martin or Polak on the books and would have done more to clear up one of the bigger salaries on the roster. I'd much rather have that flexibility then what those guys bring.
I just don't think you can look at the team's farm system right now and write off any sort of drafting of a high value D or G prospect next year.
But you don't have your way.
You can't build an NHL team entirely on skill.
Any of those guys? Andersen's a gritty player?
Polak's only on a one year. I'm just saying, let's not INVENT problems before they actually establish themselves as problems.
Any of those guys? Andersen's a gritty player?
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.Polak's only on a one year. I'm just saying, let's not INVENT problems before they actually establish themselves as problems.
The whole point of this thread is to talk about what we might do as the GM of the team. That's not "inventing problems". It's a hypothetical exercise.
Hypothetical or not, to me Armchair GM means you take the team that exists today and move forward with it 'hypothetically'. Saying you'd take back moves already made, isn't Armchair GM'ing. Its complaining. Like the trade for Kessel when Burke gave up 2 unprotected 1sts and a 2nd when the team obviously needed rebuilding.
Let's Armchair forward, not back.
If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?
What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.
If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?
What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.
Huh. I always sort of though talent-for-talent from the big three would be the way the Leafs grabbed an upgrade of defense. Maybe not fully emerged, "established" but someone on the cusp of prospect and NHLer.
That wouldn't be a sure shot at a top-pairing defenseman, but it might be a pretty valuable contribution to the defense all the same.
2) That right now defensemen are valuable to the point that I think the forward-defense drop-off value is as sharp as established/prospect.
While some of the scouts surveyed by TSN do not discount Patrick evolving into that role, the consensus view is Patrick is projected more as a second-line NHL centre and doesn't have the same “wow” factor as McDavid, Eichel and Matthews.
"He's going to be a good, maybe very good, NHL player," one scout said, "but he isn't a dynamic player. His skating isn't bad but he's not dynamic like those others [McDavid, Eichel and Matthews]."
...
Patrick's birthday is Sept. 19, so he was just four days off being eligible for last season's draft. Had he been available last June, where would he slot amongst the best players of a very strong draft class, like Matthews, Patrik Laine, Jesse Puljujarvi and Pierre-Luc Dubois, among others?
The consensus amongst scouts surveyed by TSN is that Patrick wouldn't have displaced any of the top four picks in last year's draft. Depending on the scout, they retroactively rank Patrick anywhere between No. 5 and 10, based on his 2015-16 season.
It's an interesting idea. I don't know how much it holds up though. In the seven drafts you mention there are/were 9 defensemen taken in the top 5. In the 7 drafts previous to those(2003-2009) there were 10 defensemen taken in the top 5. It's tough to compare as we don't really have a full idea of the newer guys careers but it seems like you have roughly the same percentage of busts/stars/ok players.
Go back another 7 drafts(1996-2002) and again it's roughly the same number of top 5 defensemen(11) but this time it's an absolute trainwreck in terms of quality. It's Jay Bouwmeester as unquestionably the best and then guys like Chris Phillips and Joni Pitkanen. Go back another 7 drafts and there are 12 top 5 defensemen although the quality improves with Niedermayer and Pronger.
So the number of defensemen picked in the top 5 seems pretty consistent. The quality of them too except for the awful 1996-2002 stretch. So changes in the draft seem like a tough sell. I think the value of defensemen is more just about coaches valuing the transition game and realizing how valuable the guys who can skate and play with smarts are. It used to be that the big slow physical guys were just as valued and (maybe) just as valuable. Now that's no longer the case. So the pool of highly sought after defensemen shrank and the guys in it became more sought after.
Some talk about Nolan Patrick and the draft here yesterday, last week Bob McKenzie released his pre-season rankings for the 2017 draft: http://www.tsn.ca/mckenzie-s-pre-season-ranking-the-nolan-patrick-draft-1.567410
What he wrote on Patrick was interesting:QuoteWhile some of the scouts surveyed by TSN do not discount Patrick evolving into that role, the consensus view is Patrick is projected more as a second-line NHL centre and doesn't have the same “wow” factor as McDavid, Eichel and Matthews.
"He's going to be a good, maybe very good, NHL player," one scout said, "but he isn't a dynamic player. His skating isn't bad but he's not dynamic like those others [McDavid, Eichel and Matthews]."
...
Patrick's birthday is Sept. 19, so he was just four days off being eligible for last season's draft. Had he been available last June, where would he slot amongst the best players of a very strong draft class, like Matthews, Patrik Laine, Jesse Puljujarvi and Pierre-Luc Dubois, among others?
The consensus amongst scouts surveyed by TSN is that Patrick wouldn't have displaced any of the top four picks in last year's draft. Depending on the scout, they retroactively rank Patrick anywhere between No. 5 and 10, based on his 2015-16 season.
Although the other way to look at it would be that the price of a top end d-man was always high, and then it could be tied to the draft.
*cut*
Although the other way to look at it would be that the price of a top end d-man was always high, and then it could be tied to the draft.
*cut*
I have to be honest, I'm not entirely sure where you went on this one. It seems like you're lumping in guys like Bourque and Leetch who got dealt after 15+ years with one team with guys who were traded multiple times in an entirely different era and trying to draw a particular meaning from it. I think it's probably fair to say that elite players at any position have always been highly sought after but what I'm talking about is the price of defensemen relative to forwards. Lots of elite forwards in the 80's and 90's switched teams too so I'm not sure what the contrast is you're seeing.
Interesting thought, if we had left Kessel alone and drafted Sequin and Hamilton, would we have been in a position to draft Matthews now?
Interesting thought, if we had left Kessel alone and drafted Sequin and Hamilton, would we have been in a position to draft Matthews now?
Interesting thought, if we had left Kessel alone and drafted Sequin and Hamilton, would we have been in a position to draft Matthews now?
Probably not but that seems like the sort of thing where there's just been too much distance between then and now and so many other moves made that it'd be impossible to say for certain what the team would look like now. I mean, if the team has Kadri/Seguin in the fold do they draft two C's with their first round picks in the '13 and '14 draft? What if that means that instead of Gauthier/Nylander they have Theodore/Ehlers? Or something lousy from both years?
Also, I don't mean to misinterpret the implication here but as excited as we all are for Matthews...I'd still rather have Seguin/Hamilton. Seguin is arguably just behind Crosby as the second best offensive C in the world. I don't know how the rest of you see Matthews but Seguin seems like a fairly reasonable goal for what he could eventually be.
I'd say McDavid is just behind Crosby and he'll show that this season should he stay healthy. He's better than Seguin. .PPG+ player in his rookie season when healthy. Its insane how good you have to be as a regular in the NHL to do that, let alone a rookie.
McDavid might very well vault himself right into the #1 spot this year but I'll need to see him do it over the course of a full season before I put him in that territory. Either way, the difference between Seguin and Crosby the last couple of years(1.08ppg for Crosby to 1.05 for Seguin) is so small that the main point there remains.
FORWARDS
J. Van Riemsdyk ($ 4,250,000) --- T. Bozak ($ 4,200,000) --- M. Marner ($ 894,166)
L. Komarov ($ 2,950,000) --- N. Kadri ($ 4,500,000) --- M. Michalek ($ 4,000,000)
W. Nylander ($ 894,166) --- A. Matthews ($ 925,000) --- Z. Hyman ($ 900,000)
N. Soshnikov ($ 736,666) --- P. Holland ($ 1,300,000) --- C. Brown ($ 686,667)
DEFENCE
H. Lindholm ($ 7,300,000) --- J. Trouba ($ 5,000,000)
M. Rielly ($ 5,000,000) --- N. Zaitsev ($ 925,000)
M. Marincin ($ 1,250,000) --- C. Carrick ($ 750,000)
GOAL
F. Andersen ($ 5,000,000) --- J. Enroth ($ 750,000)
Extras
M. Martin ($ 2,500,000) --- R. Polak ($ 2,250,000) --- M. Hunwick ($ 1,200,000)
2016 NHL Cap Limit: $ 73,000,000
23 Player Roster Cap Used: $ 72,324,165
Cap Buried in the Minors: + $ 5,250,000
Cap Hit from Buyout(s): + $ 683,333
2015 Bonus Overages: + $ 512,000
Cap Retained in Trades : + $ 1,200,000
Long Term Injury Reserve: - $ 8,300,000
Cap Space Available : $ 1,330,502
If it's Gardiner+ for Trouba I think that + is going to have to be pretty significant and, assuming we're offer sheeting Lindholm and without draft picks, we're probably saying goodbye to anything high value not in the NHL.
What do we have of 'high value' not in the NHL? Kapanen, Leipsic, Johnson, Timashov, Bracco, Soshnikov, all have high end potential, but you'd be lucky to get a 15-20g/45-50p, middle-6 NHL regular out of any of them. Gardiner, plus one of them, plus a pick (probably 1st), and we're still not at what WPG wants for Trouba -- and the offer sheet is out.
Rielly likes (prefers?) playing his off-side.
Rielly likes (prefers?) playing his off-side.
Do you have a reference for this? I've only seen that he plays there out of necessity and that Babcock prefers his defense on their strong sides. While he can handle it, his defensive numbers flag when he's on the right.
Phaneuf preferred playing on his offside and had trouble adjusting.
The three defensemen that Rielly played the most on his natural side with were Polak, Phaneuf, and Corrado. All three pairings were more offensively potent than any of Rielly's pairings where he played RD (with the exception of Gardiner, who is a total outlier on the Leafs defense in the best possible way). There's not enough data here to say this with certainty (I want to stress that - aside from Hunwick and Marincin, we're looking at pretty small TOI figures), but perhaps for Rielly, the handedness effect manifests itself mostly on the offensive side of the game. I’d like to explore this more in a future piece, because there’s a lot to unpack here. For now, it’s interesting to note how Rielly seemed to be disproportionately affected on offense by playing his off-side. If true, this would reduce the strength of the argument that Rielly’s poor defensive numbers are a result of him playing an unfamiliar side of the ice.
Interesting stuff. I guess what I wonder is whether the deficiencies in Rielly's game on the right are so great that you wouldn't want to add a LD of Lindholm's calibre. If he did well with Gardiner (magic) on the left, then things might work out with Lindholm. Maybe Trouba would be ideal, but I'm proceeding under the assumption that he's very unlikely to be acquired -- you can't just offer sheet him and there are probably other teams that have the pieces WPG wants for him (haven't Carolina and Anaheim been drafting good defensemen?).
Is Trouba better than Gardiner?
Is Trouba better than Gardiner?
In the immediate sense probably not. He's got some things going that make him roughly as valuable though(age, righthandedness).
Another question, how long are we giving Rielly to establish himself as the man on this team before looking for an upgrade?
I ask because I'm not sure that he's their Letang/Burns/Doughty/Keith.
Another question, how long are we giving Rielly to establish himself as the man on this team before looking for an upgrade?
I ask because I'm not sure that he's their Letang/Burns/Doughty/Keith.
1. Basically, the Hampus Lindholm situation comes down to this: Anaheim wants him under Rasmus Ristolainen’s $5.4M salary.
At the beginning of last week, word around the NHL indicated the two sides were $700,000 apart per season (Lindholm at $5.8M, the Ducks at $5.1M). I think that’s closed, but the critical sticking point remains that if it’s a six-year term (as it is with the Buffalo defender), that buys up two years of unrestricted free agency for Lindholm as opposed to one for Ristolainen. Anaheim has flirted with a five-year offer, but Lindholm’s camp doesn’t seem interested.
I guess of all Cup-winning #1 D-men of the last 10 years Boston getting Chara in a trade comes to mind.
I guess of all Cup-winning #1 D-men of the last 10 years Boston getting Chara in a trade comes to mind.
Chara was a UFA when he went to Boston, not a trade. Pronger is probably best defenseman to be traded in that time span and was effectively a #1 for Anaheim.
Quick question guys - if we successfully signed Lindholm via an offer sheet at a level that involves us needing to give up a first round pick, then at what point do we hand over this pick? If it's as soon as the signing is made, could we trade for another first rounder beforehand and hand that over in the Lindholm deal or would it always be the Leafs own pick unless they didn't own it?
Quick question guys - if we successfully signed Lindholm via an offer sheet at a level that involves us needing to give up a first round pick, then at what point do we hand over this pick? If it's as soon as the signing is made, could we trade for another first rounder beforehand and hand that over in the Lindholm deal or would it always be the Leafs own pick unless they didn't own it?
I guess of all Cup-winning #1 D-men of the last 10 years Boston getting Chara in a trade comes to mind.
Assuming Rielly is as good as we can get the only potential comparable I see in the list (Niedermayer [3rd]/Pronger [2nd], Lidstrom [53rd], Letang x2 [62nd], Keith x3 [54th], Chara [56th], Doughty x2 [2nd]) is maybe Letang? Some of those guys are in a league of their own (Niedermayer, Lidstrom), he's not going to be a defensive rock like Keith or prime Chara and isn't as skilled as Doughty (who was a stud on Canada's gold-medal blue line at 20!).
Actually Letang's first 3 years don't look much different from Rielly, at least offensively (+/- is bad but the Leafs especially goaltending have stunk). It kind of seems like unless we tank again or get a crazy lucky draft/trade (lottery win, Karlsson-like mid-1st pick, Chara trade) Rielly developing into a Letang-like player and then finding a solid defensive guy like 2010 Orpik or 2016 Dumoulin (?) is about all we can hope for?
While a UFA or trade for a proven commodity might offer the most obvious solution, it does seem the hardest, and high-volume drafting in later rounds, emphasizing defensemen there, might help things out. A bit weird they opted for the over-agers this draft, but, as a TLN article points out today, at their age, PK Subban (43rd) didn't look much different than Travis Dermott (34th) or Andrew Nielsen (65th).
While a UFA or trade for a proven commodity might offer the most obvious solution, it does seem the hardest, and high-volume drafting in later rounds, emphasizing defensemen there, might help things out. A bit weird they opted for the over-agers this draft, but, as a TLN article points out today, at their age, PK Subban (43rd) didn't look much different than Travis Dermott (34th) or Andrew Nielsen (65th).
We've talked about it before but of the defensemen who grew from being 2nd or 3rd round picks into those kinds of defensemen you're realistically looking at at least a Draft +4 or Draft +5 year until they actually are playing at that level.
I don't see how trading for Trouba really sets the Leafs back all that much. Assuming the trade is Gardiner + a forward prospect + whatever.
I don't see how trading for Trouba really sets the Leafs back all that much. Assuming the trade is Gardiner + a forward prospect + whatever.
I don't know if it really moves them forward though, unless an accompanying offer sheet for Lindholm goes up too. Losing Gardiner would make us pretty weak on the left-side. It'd be Rielly-Hunwick-Marincin as things stand right now. I don't want to be down on Dermott and Nielsen but we can't go pencilling them into top-4 spots.
Even then though it forces the question of how much do we want to sacrifice on the altar of Babcock's preference for LD/RD parity. If I remember Herman's posts on the subject there's some evidence that Rielly/Gardiner is an effective pairing despite them both being left-handed shots so assuming someone the quality of Lindholm does fall out of the sky and gives us Rielly, Gardiner and Lindholm on the Left side you really have to wonder how much it's worth to have a Rielly/Trouba top pairing vs. Rielly/Gardiner.
I mean assuming you're already losing a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for our hypothetical Lindholm do we want to pile on a few key prospects/picks on top of it for that gain? I know the team has a deep prospect base and it looks like their main pieces are set at forward but you'd like to keep a few bullets in the clip.
Even then though it forces the question of how much do we want to sacrifice on the altar of Babcock's preference for LD/RD parity. If I remember Herman's posts on the subject there's some evidence that Rielly/Gardiner is an effective pairing despite them both being left-handed shots so assuming someone the quality of Lindholm does fall out of the sky and gives us Rielly, Gardiner and Lindholm on the Left side you really have to wonder how much it's worth to have a Rielly/Trouba top pairing vs. Rielly/Gardiner.
I mean assuming you're already losing a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for our hypothetical Lindholm do we want to pile on a few key prospects/picks on top of it for that gain? I know the team has a deep prospect base and it looks like their main pieces are set at forward but you'd like to keep a few bullets in the clip.
That's true. Personally speaking if a Trouba trade opportunity did come up I wouldn't add much to Gardiner. The Jets are the ones with their back up against the wall here and we've seen time and time again that teams in that position don't usually come out looking like they won the trade. Gardiner will also come with probably about a $2mil-ish cap difference for the next 3 years vs. what Trouba likely signs for. Those two things are enough to make up for any perceived difference in trade value between the two.
Are you suggesting Trouba gets $6m?
Are you suggesting Trouba gets $6m?
I thought that at one point, although it's tough to tell since it doesn't seem like there's been any negotiations for awhile. But I guess after the Rielly and Risto contracts he probably comes in somewhere in that range.
Are you suggesting Trouba gets $6m?
I thought that at one point, although it's tough to tell since it doesn't seem like there's been any negotiations for awhile. But I guess after the Rielly and Risto contracts he probably comes in somewhere in that range.
Yeah, well, that was a stupid idiot thought for idiots.
Just how good is Trouba? The impression I've always held was that he currently isn't as good as Reilly and his ceiling isn't as high as Reilly either.
Is that accurate, and if so is he really worth paying more money and additional assets then just Gardiner?
So a little more comparable to Reilly than I thought, thanks.Just how good is Trouba? The impression I've always held was that he currently isn't as good as Reilly and his ceiling isn't as high as Reilly either.
Is that accurate, and if so is he really worth paying more money and additional assets then just Gardiner?
How good defensemen are isn't an exact science just yet but I've read some things that indicate he's a bit better than his numbers indicate with some real room for growth. Obviously his not being used on his preferred side complicates matters some but I think opinion is high that he can be a top pairing guy even if not a legit #1.
Don't know if it just me, but Brown is playing well but not great…He would clear waivers. I would love to see Kapanen get a few games
Don't know if it just me, but Brown is playing well but not great…He would clear waivers. I would love to see Kapanen get a few games
Don't know if it just me, but Brown is playing well but not great…He would clear waivers. I would love to see Kapanen get a few games
Don't know if it just me, but Brown is playing well but not great…He would clear waivers. I would love to see Kapanen get a few games
I bet the Leafs are pretty happy with the way he's playing for the Marlies, but I think he stays there. I see him as a guy who maybe comes up to stay after the trade deadline passes this year, assuming some movement of players. Depending on how things go, maybe Kapanen gets a look on Nylander's wing. 8)
One thing to keep in mind with Kapanen is that he's still pretty young. I mean, we just drafted 2 players in June who are actually OLDER than he is, plus a 3rd who is only 7 days younger. This will be his 4th season playing professional hockey, but he's never been the go-to player on any of his teams. Getting a chance to do that in the AHL for a year would likely be beneficial for his career.
Looking for a thread that contains Armchair GM ideas for who to protect and who to expose for the Las Vegas expansion draft. I thought I saw some ideas but wonder if they were in this thread. Anyone know?
| Forwards: Brooks Laich Milan Michalek Colin Greening Ben Smith | Defense: Roman Polak Matt Hunwick Stephane Robidas Andrew Campbell | Goalies: Jhonas Enroth | Exempt: Nathan Horton |
| Eligible Forwards Nazem Kadri JVR if he plays 7 more games Tyler Bozak Leo Komarov Matt Martin Peter Holland | Eligible Defense Morgan Rielly Jake Garderner Martin Marincin | Eligible Goalies Frederik Andersen Antoine Bibeau Garret Sparks |
| Forwards Joffery Lupul Nazem Kadri JVR Tyler Bozak Leo Komarov Matt Martin Peter Holland Kerby Rychel Connor Brown Brendan Leipsic Josh Leivo Byron Froese | Defense Morgan Rielly Jake Garderner Martin Marincin Connor Carrick Victor Loov Frank Corrado | Goalies Frederik Andersen Antoine Bibeau Garret Sparks |
I'd pass on Rychel there, Komarov would be likely more valuable in a trade, and currently I don't see the Leafs keeping Leivo over Martin. Otherwise, pretty much agree.
The expansion draft probably doesn't get talked about very much because there's still so much time between then and now and so much can change. Look at how many bodies we picked up in the 2nd part of last season. I don't know how they'll do it, but I'm pretty confident the Leafs will make sure all of Bozak/Martin/Komarov are protected. They'll pick up players to make sure they can exposed forwards who meet the criteria.
Per @Boogaard_2 #TMLeafs are interested in Vladimir Tkachyov from Ak Bars,the older one, he's not related to Tkachyov who signed with Oilers
— Igor Eronko (@IgorEronko) December 13, 2016
I'm gonna spitball a trade proposal of JVR, Kapanen, Polak for Jared Spurgeon. Too pricey?
Why it makes sense:
The Wild could really use some offensive help to secure a playoff spot and JVR would be an offensive upgrade to both Parise and Zucker in their top six LW situation.
They also get the benefit of a blue chip RW prospect in Kapanen and a functional RHD shutdown replacement in Polak until season's end.
Leafs secure their top 4 with Rielly, Spurgeon, Gardiner, Zaitsev.
I'm gonna spitball a trade proposal of JVR, Kapanen, Polak for Jared Spurgeon. Too pricey?
Why it makes sense:
The Wild could really use some offensive help to secure a playoff spot and JVR would be an offensive upgrade to both Parise and Zucker in their top six LW situation.
They also get the benefit of a blue chip RW prospect in Kapanen and a functional RHD shutdown replacement in Polak until season's end.
Leafs secure their top 4 with Rielly, Spurgeon, Gardiner, Zaitsev.
I think it's an overpayment.
If they acquire a dman I suspect it'll be a #4-#6 type who is on an expiring deal, I don't think they'll risk losing a top 4 dman to expansion.
Aren't we allowed to protect 7F and 4D?
Yup, 3, but I believe Zaitsev is exempt.
Yup, 3, but I believe Zaitsev is exempt.
Yeah, so adding another non-exempt defenseman would mean exposing Carrick.
Would you mind exposing Carrick if we added Spurgeon?
I can't pretend to be an expert on Spurgeon. At a very quick glance I'd say these are my quick hits:
1. I'm not wowed by his numbers, conventional or otherwise
2. He's got a good contract but he's a little old for my tastes in terms of fitting in with this current core
3. Eitherway, exposing Carrick should be reflected as an element of the trade and if it could cost us JVR, Kapanen and Carrick I'd probably want a slightly bigger prize.
He's become Boudreau's TOP pairing all situations D in every sense of the word, on a defensive juggernaut team, paired with Suter and trusted both on PP and PK.
The point is add an all situations true #2 D, which is what Spurgeon has developed into and solidify our top 4 for future contention.
I guess I would wonder why Minnesota would be looking to trade him. I get that they've got a decision to make in regards to their defence and the expansion draft, but I don't see them making Spurgeon available because of that.
I'm not particularly enthused by Spurgeon, either. The Leafs need a guy who can be a real #1 type defenceman, and, while Spurgeon is good, he's more of a 2/3. Don't be fooled by the fact that he plays for a Minnesota team with very good GA numbers. They're not a good possession team - middle of the pack for score & venue adjusted CF%, SA/60, etc, (bottom 1/3 when not adjusted) though, like the Leafs, doing well in terms of chance against % - with exceptional (and, likely, unsustainable - that 5-on-5 Sv% is going to drop 15-20 points by the end of the season) goaltending. Being one of the most relied upon defenceman on a team with those numbers is honestly not super impressive - never mind the fact that being on a good defensive team, even as one of the most heavily used defencemen on such a team, is not a good indicator of personal defensive ability, as defence is very much group effort rather than an individual one. I wouldn't give up anything close to what you're suggesting to for Spurgeon. Heck, I don't think I'd trade JvR straight up for him.
Why am I not surprised? You look to debunk every idea or opinion that isn't your own. I trust Boudreau's useage of him over your off the cuff, little knowledge of the player quick analysis.
Why am I not surprised? You look to debunk every idea or opinion that isn't your own. I trust Boudreau's useage of him over your off the cuff, little knowledge of the player quick analysis.
Why am I not surprised that you dismiss any opinion that opposes your own as coming from someone who isn't knowledgeable about the player, is combined with rhetorical fallacy - in this case, an appeal to authority - and, in no way attempts to address or refute the counterpoints being put forward?
In Busta's defense, I had much the same reaction, I just chose to label it an overpayment because arguing a point with you is the forum equivalent of banging your head against the wall.
I'm sure you're a good guy though, nothing personal.
Yup, 3, but I believe Zaitsev is exempt.
Yeah, so adding another non-exempt defenseman would mean exposing Carrick.
I guess I would wonder why Minnesota would be looking to trade him. I get that they've got a decision to make in regards to their defence and the expansion draft, but I don't see them making Spurgeon available because of that.
I imagine if they keep Spurgeon, I can see them exposing a guy like Dumba. Maybe the play for Spurgeon is too bold, but Parise is declining and JVR is more productive than any LW they currently possess and with the way Dubnyk is playing, I imagine them to be a defensive juggernaut even without Spurgeon and could really benefit from JVR's added offence.
I can't pretend to be an expert on Spurgeon. At a very quick glance I'd say these are my quick hits:
1. I'm not wowed by his numbers, conventional or otherwise
2. He's got a good contract but he's a little old for my tastes in terms of fitting in with this current core
3. Eitherway, exposing Carrick should be reflected as an element of the trade and if it could cost us JVR, Kapanen and Carrick I'd probably want a slightly bigger prize.
Thinking a little more heavily on it, I'd probably take Kapanen out and replace him with a 2nd.
The point is add an all situations true #2 D, which is what Spurgeon has developed into and solidify our top 4 for future contention.
We're good on offence moving forward.
Right now true #1, 2 NHL D men are valued higher than top six highly productive wingers. The is a fact of the league. You may personally see more value in JVR than Spurgeon and that's fine.
I would much prefer to solidify a true top 4 NHL D for the foreseeable future because that's what we'll need if we want to contend over JVR's goal scoring.
Spurgeon excels at making sure the puck doesn't go in the Wild goal, while he is out on the ice. He is relied on for both PP and PK. The Wild is a poor Corsi team, because they lack offensive depth. Not one of their players has registered 10 goals yet this season. We have 3 scoring 10 or more already.
It would, but then I suppose part of the equation would be looking to move him in that case.
It would, but then I suppose part of the equation would be looking to move him in that case.
Maybe but the Leafs need to expose one defenseman who meets the GP criteria.
The Leafs are not 'good' on offence moving forward, less so if they trade JVR ( which I'm ok with, generally, if they're moving him for a good young dman ).
As much as I completely understand the temptation to want to trade JVR, especially for a defenceman, let's not pretend that he wouldn't leave a pretty big hole in our forward group. Without him our LW is Komarov-Hyman-Leivo-Marin.
*coughLeipsiccough*
That seems like a bizarre definition of depth. Like you say, the Leafs have three players with 10+ goals, the Wild have none but the Leafs as a group aren't outscoring the Wild by a particularly significant amount. The Leafs are at 2.89 gpg and the Wild at 2.82. I don't think you can attribute CORSI differences to the tune of a .07 Goals per Game difference.
I think you're right that with the current market for defensemen JVR might only be worth someone like Spurgeon but to me that seems like a much better argument to not try and trade for D when the market seems a little out of whack. Seems like the perfect example of selling low and buying high.
More to the point though, I think you're glossing over the question of Spurgeon vs. Carrick. Without getting into your claim that Spurgeon is a huge upgrade in spite of the numbers, the reality is that Carrick is 4 and a half years younger which puts him in line for some potentially serious development the way defensemen tend to get better as they hit their 24-25 year old seasons. Combine that with the age of the forwards we want to build around and Carrick might be the way I lean even before you start throwing some of the Leafs' best trade chips into the mix.
In fact it's hard not to see parallels between Carrick and Spurgeon. Both undersized a bit on the back end, both with good mobile games that haven't translated into NHL offense much. When Spurgeon was Carrick's age he was used pretty similarly, getting 15 minutes a night with no SH time and a little bit of PP time. It's hard not to look at Spurgeon as the sort of player Carrick can become. So why jump the gun?
Admittedly he did slip my mind. Boy it sure would be nice if we had a roster spot for him so we could see if he's the real deal before making a decision on JVR. Too bad that left side is crowded with such great playe... oh wait.
Admittedly he did slip my mind. Boy it sure would be nice if we had a roster spot for him so we could see if he's the real deal before making a decision on JVR. Too bad that left side is crowded with such great playe... oh wait.
Subconciously I kind of think that the readiness/willingness to trade JVR comes from the fact that we're coming off a free agency year where pretty good LW's were readily available. Of the Leafs' major pieces, JVR strikes me as the one who you can peel off with some sort of confidence you can replace what he brings(at least in part) with cash when the team needs it.
I assume they'd still have Corrado but Babcock doesn't seem that interested in giving him a shot so you'd have to question whether keeping him around makes sense unless he'd be getting a regular shift.
I assume they'd still have Corrado but Babcock doesn't seem that interested in giving him a shot so you'd have to question whether keeping him around makes sense unless he'd be getting a regular shift.
I'm inclined to think that Corrado is being kept around precisely for expansion insurance. He did have a good camp.
I'm inclined to think that Corrado is being kept around precisely for expansion insurance. He did have a good camp.
Subconciously I kind of think that the readiness/willingness to trade JVR comes from the fact that we're coming off a free agency year where pretty good LW's were readily available. Of the Leafs' major pieces, JVR strikes me as the one who you can peel off with some sort of confidence you can replace what he brings(at least in part) with cash when the team needs it.
That is an interesting take, although I'm not so sure many of us really want to spend money in free-agency on wingers. At least not consciously.
I'm inclined to think that Corrado is being kept around precisely for expansion insurance. He did have a good camp.
I don't know if I see that. If you figure that, absent a trade, the Rielly, Gardiner, Zaitsev, Carrick group is fairly safe going forward then Corrado would only be along as a bottom pairing guy and if Babcock were inclined to use Corrado as a bottom pairing guy...well, I think you can see where I'm going with this.
I don't think he's really been talked about too much yet, but I'd like to get the Shattenkirk ball rolling. I'd seriously pursue him on July 1st if he makes it there (which as long as St. Louis doesn't trade him prior to that he probably will). With Burns getting $8mil x 8 years I'd do 7x7 for Shattenkirk.
I don't think he's really been talked about too much yet, but I'd like to get the Shattenkirk ball rolling. I'd seriously pursue him on July 1st if he makes it there (which as long as St. Louis doesn't trade him prior to that he probably will). With Burns getting $8mil x 8 years I'd do 7x7 for Shattenkirk.
Either way, isn't it insurance for a bottom pairing D that we can freely expose, even with those you mentioned protected?
Especially if Polak is moved for a and no D came back. He won't have had enough NHL games in this season to be desirable once exposed to Vegas. Which would mean no Leafs D going to Vegas and they Leafs avoid losing Corrado on waivers, so that next season, they basically still have all the D they want still in the system.
I don't think he's really been talked about too much yet, but I'd like to get the Shattenkirk ball rolling. I'd seriously pursue him on July 1st if he makes it there (which as long as St. Louis doesn't trade him prior to that he probably will). With Burns getting $8mil x 8 years I'd do 7x7 for Shattenkirk.
Depending on how the trade deadline and draft play out, yeah, Shattenkirk should probably be the team's top UFA target this summer.
You've lost me. The Leafs can only protect 3 defensemen and right now that figures to be Rielly, Gardiner and Carrick. Keeping Corrado around doesn't mean they don't have to expose Marincin. If Vegas wants Marincin(or Polak or Hunwick if they're re-signed) though, exposing Corrado won't affect that.
How is Corrado not insurance?
How is Corrado not insurance?
I guess what I'm not really seeing there is this idea that Corrado would fill a need Babcock sees him as being suitable for because, if that were the case, I can't help but feel he'd occasionally play him now and sort of be interested in his development. I guess to me there's a disconnect between "This guy can really play for us next year" and "Enjoy the pressbox for a year".
It seems to me like if you were really worried about the bottom pairing next year you wouldn't really need insurance so much as a willingness to make the sort of minor deals that brought Hunwick, Corraddo, Polak, Marincin and Carrick to the Leafs in the first place.
But he's still in the room and practising on the team. I just feel if they weren't mutually on the same page he'd have requested a trade like Holland or been waived by now. I certainly don't see it as ruining his career based on how long it can take a D to develop at the NHL level, anyway.
But he's still in the room and practising on the team. I just feel if they weren't mutually on the same page he'd have requested a trade like Holland or been waived by now. I certainly don't see it as ruining his career based on how long it can take a D to develop at the NHL level, anyway.
That length of time it takes for D to develop typically happens over a period of time when said defensemen are playing competitive hockey games. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say that "playing hockey" is important to the development of hockey players.
This season, Corrado has been more vocal about his current situation. He hasn’t demanded a trade, but he has made it pretty clear he is unhappy that his season was limited to one game while all of the Leafs other seven defencemen have played at least 16 times.
“Everyone on our back end gets a chance to play except me,” Corrado said. “I’d love to play. I had a good camp. I put on ten pounds in the summer. I sacrificed a lot to earn a job here when there might not have been one for me. I’m sure Holly’s situation was similar in ways, but for me, it’s really frustrating right now.”
Corrado’s situation has made clear that there is a divide between management and the coaching staff.
“I talked to Lou and he’s been supportive with me,” Corrado said. “He told me he likes me, and he wants me here. It does make me feel better about the situation, but at the end of the day, the coach is the one who makes the lineup and if the coach doesn’t like you, then you’re not going to play. And that’s where I’m at right now.”
Coincidentally David Alter just posted a Corrado article on the Athletic moments ago:QuoteThis season, Corrado has been more vocal about his current situation. He hasn’t demanded a trade, but he has made it pretty clear he is unhappy that his season was limited to one game while all of the Leafs other seven defencemen have played at least 16 times.
“Everyone on our back end gets a chance to play except me,” Corrado said. “I’d love to play. I had a good camp. I put on ten pounds in the summer. I sacrificed a lot to earn a job here when there might not have been one for me. I’m sure Holly’s situation was similar in ways, but for me, it’s really frustrating right now.”
Corrado’s situation has made clear that there is a divide between management and the coaching staff.
“I talked to Lou and he’s been supportive with me,” Corrado said. “He told me he likes me, and he wants me here. It does make me feel better about the situation, but at the end of the day, the coach is the one who makes the lineup and if the coach doesn’t like you, then you’re not going to play. And that’s where I’m at right now.”
https://theathletic.com/30064/2016/12/15/corrado-happy-for-holland-but-laments-living-in-no-mans-land/
Babcock really is stubborn to a fault. It makes no sense that he hasn't gotten more than 1 chance considering all the issues the Leafs have had (and continue to have) on defense. It appears Babcock really doesn't like him for whatever reason.
The Jason Smith thing really bugged me at the time. You could tell he was going to be a good defenseman and they totally gave up on him.Babcock really is stubborn to a fault. It makes no sense that he hasn't gotten more than 1 chance considering all the issues the Leafs have had (and continue to have) on defense. It appears Babcock really doesn't like him for whatever reason.
I think this is a general coaching situation and not something limited to Babcock. Think back to the days when the Leafs gave up Jason Smith and Steve Sullivan during the Quinn era.
For whatever reasons, coaches end up going with the guys that they "like".
The Jason Smith thing really bugged me at the time. You could tell he was going to be a good defenseman and they totally gave up on him.Babcock really is stubborn to a fault. It makes no sense that he hasn't gotten more than 1 chance considering all the issues the Leafs have had (and continue to have) on defense. It appears Babcock really doesn't like him for whatever reason.
I think this is a general coaching situation and not something limited to Babcock. Think back to the days when the Leafs gave up Jason Smith and Steve Sullivan during the Quinn era.
For whatever reasons, coaches end up going with the guys that they "like".
Babcock really is stubborn to a fault. It makes no sense that he hasn't gotten more than 1 chance considering all the issues the Leafs have had (and continue to have) on defense. It appears Babcock really doesn't like him for whatever reason.
I think this is a general coaching situation and not something limited to Babcock. Think back to the days when the Leafs gave up Jason Smith and Steve Sullivan during the Quinn era.
For whatever reasons, coaches end up going with the guys that they "like".
I'm not particularly bothered that Babcock doesn't play him, but it isn't fair to let him languish in the box eating popcorn at his age for as long as he has -and that's as much a managerial decision as a coaching one.I'm wondering why his agent hasn't pressed the issue. He's basically been unused since last season.
He's not even the 7th D, so the right thing to do is waive him.
For me I think it'd be Hunlak obviously and then one of Komarov or JVR to get Leipsic into the lineup. Bozak would be in the discussion but until we have a better sense of who his replacement would be I don't think it's as pressing.
Since we're all in agreement re: Hunlak I guess the interesting thing there is what they'll be worth. It's crazy to think about but Polak did get two 2nd rounders last year. Could dealing those guys yield, say, a 2nd and a 3rd?
I assume S Stick is Jake "Silver Stick" Gardiner, and T. Lil is Timothy Liljegren.
I assume S Stick is Jake "Silver Stick" Gardiner, and T. Lil is Timothy Liljegren.
If that's true and this is for the 2018-2019 season wouldn't Gardiner still be at 4.05?
I assume S Stick is Jake "Silver Stick" Gardiner, and T. Lil is Timothy Liljegren.
If that's true and this is for the 2018-2019 season wouldn't Gardiner still be at 4.05?
If that is true, then yes #ThankDubas
10. A year ago, teams asked about James van Riemsdyk and were told he was not available. Now they’re being told, “If you’re serious, ante up.” What it comes down to is this: van Riemsdyk is an unrestricted free agent after next season, and can be extended July 1. At some point, the Maple Leafs will decide if they are going to meet his price.
Van Riemsdyk is a scorer, he’s going to cash in somewhere. Toronto’s cap situation is pretty good for a couple of years, until the likes of Auston Matthews, Mitch Marner and William Nylander need their next contracts.
So that will be the decision. If they decide to deploy their wealth elsewhere, it’s going to be on the blueline. Van Riemsdyk could get you that help. But his value drops if you’re trading him with free-agency looming. So that’s why I think it’s gone from “No,” to “What have you got for us?”
Was hoping we may be able to trade for a defensive prospect from the past draft or two. Provorov particularly (although I guess that's unrealistic now). Are there any others we may he able to get in a trade?
Other than the Anaheim route, I would also venture Nashville as a pretty good trading option. Their window with Rinne is closing (some would say closed, thanks to Juuse Saros) but the West is significantly weakened this year. They are currently the only team in the West with a positive goal differential on the outside looking in, so an injection of a scoring winger could very well move them up to where they'd like to be. Their left side is currently Forsberg/Wilson/Arvidsson. Any one of Arvidsson, Saros, Girard, or even Ellis would interest me.
If that is true, then yes #ThankDubasPrevious administration.
"The long-term wasn’t something we thought of originally," said Nonis. "But (we) talked about it the past week and they had interest and once we did it, came together pretty quickly."
I gotta say that maybe the leafs have just as much a need at centre than on defence. After matthews, kadri and bozak they have NOBODY of note.
I gotta say that maybe the leafs have just as much a need at centre than on defence. After matthews, kadri and bozak they have NOBODY of note.
While he wasn't directly involved in the negotiations, I'm pretty sure Dubas had some input at the table when Nonis and Shanahan were discussing their decision on how to handle Gardiner (and Carlyle's issues with him).
I gotta say that maybe the leafs have just as much a need at centre than on defence. After matthews, kadri and bozak they have NOBODY of note.
I think they view Nylander as a centre, long term.
Just cannibalize their last draft. JVR for Fabbro, Girard and Allard.
You don't want Rem Pitlick too?
I gotta say that maybe the leafs have just as much a need at centre than on defence. After matthews, kadri and bozak they have NOBODY of note.
How many do they need? If Matthews/Kadri are pretty set as 1 and 2 for the long term and Gauthier is in the mix for a #4 spot then having a good #3 doesn't really seem like a position of urgent need.
And that's before, as Deebo says, the long term question of where Nylander plays comes up.
yeah but if theres injuries...basically their only 2 viable callups right now are gauthier and froese. all of there other centres are juniors or overseas.
I gotta say that maybe the leafs have just as much a need at centre than on defence. After matthews, kadri and bozak they have NOBODY of note.
I think they view Nylander as a centre, long term.
What makes you think that? the only times that they have used them there at the nhl level has been when they have had no other options.
yeah but if theres injuries...basically their only 2 viable callups right now are gauthier and froese. all of there other centres are juniors or overseas.
I don't get it. Are we talking about immediate need or organizational depth? Because they're fine for right now with Bozak around and Laich in the minors and Nylander able to slide over and so on and organizational need isn't the sort of thing you worry about spending real assets on. You can pick up that sort of depth for the minimum or on the waiver wire.
I'm saying both I guess. That I am at least, if not more worried about their strength at centre as on defence. So if JVR is going out I would be ok with a good to great young centre OR a good to great young dman as a centrepiece coming back.
I'm saying both I guess. That I am at least, if not more worried about their strength at centre as on defence. So if JVR is going out I would be ok with a good to great young centre OR a good to great young dman as a centrepiece coming back.
Right. And I'm just saying that long term, realistically, the team's fine at C. "What if there are injuries" is a question for immediate depth. Going forward having Matthews/Kadri/Gauthier is a good enough foundation that there are much simpler ways to add a #3 or organizational depth without using the team's biggest trade chip on it.
Right now it's probably the organization's biggest strength.
I'm not sure how you could argue that the organization's biggest strength is anywhere but on the wing and by a long shot.
IMO having more natural centers on your roster than having roster spots for them all, is a very good problem to have.
Babs doesn't seem to have any problem with it, coaching Team Canada.
Kadri is much better than a third liner.
Kadri is much better than a third liner.
My thoughts exactly. It's also not super unusual for a team to have their best two-way C on the 2nd line. I mean, to be really effective against the other team's best offensive players, you need to be good on both sides of the puck.
Seems to me that by going with the first one you have a real chance of having three effective lines, none of which really deserve to be called a third line the way we think of it.
The question to me really becomes how do you juggle the wingers in that first scenario. I put Hyman and Leipsic there in as place holders but between them, Sosh, Kapanen, guys like Bracco and whoever you might acquire as a free agent or via trade you have more question marks than you do down the middle.
IMO having more natural centers on your roster than having roster spots for them all, is a very good problem to have.
Babs doesn't seem to have any problem with it, coaching Team Canada.
What in the world does that have to do with anything anyone's said?
The talk was around Nylander on the wing, no?
Babcock is just weird with how he deals with these roster decisions. Like nylander only getting a shot at 4th line C and being up and down the lineup all year. It makes me question whether or not he wants him at C long term because of how stubborn he is with other players not playing well but staying put (Hunlak, corrado not getting a shot, the marner bozak jvr line, Hyman with matthews, komarov with kadri.)
I don't mind nylander as the #2C but unless its happening after the deadline this year I don't have any reason to believe its babcocks plan.
https://theathletic.com/31051/2016/12/23/mirtle-yes-the-leafs-should-probably-trade-james-van-riemsdyk/
Not much by way of trade ideas, but Mirtle lays down the logic behind spinning off JvR at his peak value for assets to ensure cap room for our actual core.
https://theathletic.com/31051/2016/12/23/mirtle-yes-the-leafs-should-probably-trade-james-van-riemsdyk/
Not much by way of trade ideas, but Mirtle lays down the logic behind spinning off JvR at his peak value for assets to ensure cap room for our actual core.
I'm not convinced selling JVR now is a slam dunk better choice than waiting til next year, unless the Leafs really are willing to keep bottoming out and maybe retains now to make it a more attractive option.
I'm not convinced selling JVR now is a slam dunk better choice than waiting til next year, unless the Leafs really are willing to keep bottoming out and maybe retains now to make it a more attractive option.
Considering how team-friendly his contract is and how likely he is to be looking for a raise when it's over, I'm really to struggling to see how trading JVR at any point other than ASAP could possibly be the one where he's at his highest value.
So long as we generally agree that the Leafs have long odds to make the playoffs this year or the next then the term of JVR's deal plus sliding a spot or two in the draft(potentially in both years) seem to be a pretty clear win-win.
Likewise, there's the real possibility that next year's team is closer to the playoffs than this one's probably stands to be and so trading JVR becomes a question of whether the team is "giving up" or not.
So the equation on trading JVR seems pretty straight forward. It's trading him when his remaining term makes him most valuable + his absence could create the greatest draft benefit vs. turning him into a rental and potentially creating a PR problem by dealing him.
Unless preliminary discussions have JVR wanting to stay and willing to do so for a team friendly contract. Not optimistic of that but if any Leaf would offer it I suspect it would be JVR.
Unless preliminary discussions have JVR wanting to stay and willing to do so for a team friendly contract. Not optimistic of that but if any Leaf would offer it I suspect it would be JVR.
Even then, you're talking about passing up on what JVR could fetch in a trade and the "team friendly" cap space(that they're really not even allowed to be discussing the specifics of).
Correct but then you hope for performance from the acquisitions and start searching for a JVR.Unless preliminary discussions have JVR wanting to stay and willing to do so for a team friendly contract. Not optimistic of that but if any Leaf would offer it I suspect it would be JVR.
Even then, you're talking about passing up on what JVR could fetch in a trade and the "team friendly" cap space(that they're really not even allowed to be discussing the specifics of).
Correct but then you hope for performance from the acquisitions and start searching for a JVR.
I'm not convinced selling JVR now is a slam dunk better choice than waiting til next year, unless the Leafs really are willing to keep bottoming out and maybe retains now to make it a more attractive option.
Considering how team-friendly his contract is and how likely he is to be looking for a raise when it's over, I'm really to struggling to see how trading JVR at any point other than ASAP could possibly be the one where he's at his highest value.
In any normal year I'd say you are 100% right that his value would be highest before this years trade deadline than at any other point. However, with the Expansion Draft approaching and teams already worried about losing NHL assets as it is, I think his trade value will be the highest AFTER the Expansion draft.
In any normal year I'd say you are 100% right that his value would be highest before this years trade deadline than at any other point. However, with the Expansion Draft approaching and teams already worried about losing NHL assets as it is, I think his trade value will be the highest AFTER the Expansion draft.
I guess we will see how many teams approach this deadline with concern over losing assets in the draft vs going for it this year before the lose some assets. For a team like the Wild, who are probably going to lose a good asset no matter what, maybe trading for JvR now makes sense. Just don't expect them to trade one of their NHL defencemen. At this point the Wild will lose a good player, so whats it to them to add another one and go for it.
I think the longer you sit on JVR, the lousier the return.
He's healthy, he's producing, and he's relatively cheap for the next season and a half.
Turn him into defense prospects now.
Correct but then you hope for performance from the acquisitions and start searching for a JVR.
Sure but let's remember that between Leipsic, Kapanen, Bracco, Korshkov, Grundstrom, Johnson, Timoshov, etc the team is so much stronger in terms of non-NHL talent on the wing that anywhere else that it's a serious concern going forward. If none of those guys already in the system can provide contributions that are roughly on par with JVR we might as well go home because our scouting staff/development system is in trouble.
Likewise, as I've mentioned, pretty good wingers are probably the easiest adds to make come UFA time. So the avenues for potentially replacing JVR are pretty numerous whereas the avenues for adding what he could fetch are basically just him and a bunch of guys we really don't want to trade.
If a JVR is so easy to find and add why would another NHL team give us a hard to find D stud for him?? Hard to follow that logic.
In any normal year I'd say you are 100% right that his value would be highest before this years trade deadline than at any other point. However, with the Expansion Draft approaching and teams already worried about losing NHL assets as it is, I think his trade value will be the highest AFTER the Expansion draft.
There hasn't been a whole lot of talk about teams concerned about being able to protect all the forwards they want to. It's been almost entirely about defencemen and goalies. Since teams can basically protect their entire top two lines, JvR may be exactly the type of asset a team would identify as the prime target to acquire as a part of a deal for a good young blueliner they risk losing for nothing in the expansion draft. He's an upgrade for most team's top 6, and isn't likely to put a team in a situation where they now have to expose someone they really wanted to hold on to.
If a JVR is so easy to find and add why would another NHL team give us a hard to find D stud for him?? Hard to follow that logic.
Not especially. First off, I don't think anyone but the super duper optimistic thinks that JVR will get dealt for someone who's already a top flight NHL defenseman. So you're talking about prospects/developing defensemen. So the "logic" as it were is just about teams who are making an immediate push willing to trade some future for the present which is something we see all the time.
Likewise, if you go back to Herman's link to the column about possible returns you'll see that a lot of the emphasis is on teams with an abundance of D prospects but with a need upfront making that swap. So Philadelphia who already has Provorov and Gostisbehere in the lineup could part with Sanheim and still have an abundance of D talent in the lineup and in the system.
Additionally there's nothing "easy" about the talent the Leafs have been building up at wing. The guys I listed are the result of the team making multiple trades, using multiple 2nd round picks...that's not something a team can do overnight. The Leafs are in that position of advantage.
Finally, adding a JVR equivalent in free agency is easy in a sense in that good wingers are usually available but for a team with immediate cup hopes the problem isn't the difficulty, it's the cap. Adding guys like Lucic, Eriksson, Okposo or Backes this off-season was relatively painless for the teams that did it but it wasn't cheap. The Leafs are in a position where, in a few years out, they can spend that money to bolster their line-up. JVR at 4.25 million for this year and next represents a particular opportunity that isn't of much use to them but to the right team could be super valuable.
I brought up the Wild specifically because they have 6 quality NHL defensemen. It appears they are losing one of them without a doubt (I doubt they trade 3 of them just to avoid losing any of them in expansion), so they probably aren't going to bother trading one of them for JvR.
But if JVR is willing to accept a contract with a moderate raise we could also try to trade some of those prospects into D prospects as we have a position filled for a few years with a proven scorer.
I'm not convinced selling JVR now is a slam dunk better choice than waiting til next year, unless the Leafs really are willing to keep bottoming out and maybe retains now to make it a more attractive option.
Considering how team-friendly his contract is and how likely he is to be looking for a raise when it's over, I'm really to struggling to see how trading JVR at any point other than ASAP could possibly be the one where he's at his highest value.
So long as we generally agree that the Leafs have long odds to make the playoffs this year or the next then the term of JVR's deal plus sliding a spot or two in the draft(potentially in both years) seem to be a pretty clear win-win.
Likewise, there's the real possibility that next year's team is closer to the playoffs than this one's probably stands to be and so trading JVR becomes a question of whether the team is "giving up" or not.
So the equation on trading JVR seems pretty straight forward. It's trading him when his remaining term makes him most valuable + his absence could create the greatest draft benefit vs. turning him into a rental and potentially creating a PR problem by dealing him.
I brought up the Wild specifically because they have 6 quality NHL defensemen. It appears they are losing one of them without a doubt (I doubt they trade 3 of them just to avoid losing any of them in expansion), so they probably aren't going to bother trading one of them for JvR.
I don't understand this thinking at all. Right now the Wild appear to have a pretty set top 4 of Suter, Spurgeon, Dumba and Brodin(all over 20 minutes a game) and then have Scandella and Folin as a pretty clear bottom pairing getting 16 a night.
So, for the sake of argument, assuming they internally value their defensemen by ice time at:
1. Suter
2. Spurgeon
3. Brodin
4. Dumba
5. Folin
6. Scandella
You're saying there's no reason for them to actually reap the value of someone like Dumba in a trade and lose Folin or Scandella in the draft vs. letting Vegas take who they want? In that scenario they're losing their most valuable expansion draft eligible defenseman for nothing vs. losing their second most, someone who's clearly on their bottom pairing.
They have an aging team with a windows thats closing, and a goalie who's been lights out for the last couple of years. Now is not the time to trade one of those three for JvR. Despite their difference in minutes played, I don't see a huge difference in talent between them either. If you are going to lose one or the other anyways, why trade one of them and hurt your chances THIS year. They are better off trading prospects/picks for JvR and letting the chips fall as they may come expansion draft time.
I think the longer you sit on JVR, the lousier the return.
He's healthy, he's producing, and he's relatively cheap for the next season and a half.
Turn him into defense prospects now.
This.
www.twitter.com/LeafReport/status/814245468343562240Get set for tonight's @MapleLeafs/@FlaPanthers game w/ @jonassiegel/@mirtle's latest @LeafReport!https://t.co/SrFIYOQWSt
— Leaf Report Podcast (@LeafReport) December 28, 2016
Didn't realize that it was Connor Brown's contract year...
Didn't realize that it was Connor Brown's contract year...
I put him in at 1.2 mil but I don't know how realistic that is. Hyman is coming up too.
www.twitter.com/LeafReport/status/814245468343562240Get set for tonight's @MapleLeafs/@FlaPanthers game w/ @jonassiegel/@mirtle's latest @LeafReport!https://t.co/SrFIYOQWSt
— Leaf Report Podcast (@LeafReport) December 28, 2016
Here's the discussion on JvR I was hoping Mirtle's article would get into. Kicks in around the middle.
If you're concerned about where our replacement LW might come from if JvR goes, I would offer up the suggestion of Nylander as our sheltered scoring LW until such time that he takes over centering the sheltered scoring line. We've got young RWs in the pipeline (and Hyman is a righty too).
Didn't realize that it was Connor Brown's contract year...
I put him in at 1.2 mil but I don't know how realistic that is. Hyman is coming up too.
If he keeps playing with Matthews and puts up 30-40 points, he may get a bridge around $2m.
I'd love to see a big trade as much as the next fan but ATM I think the thing to do is stand pat on JVR.
Bozak is the one it's time to move on from and maximize his value.
Except Bozak's value is probably a 2nd round pick. Which is nice, but it doesn't exactly address a need.
I don't think they'd trade one of the better #2 defensemen in the league for someone who's maybe their #3C when everyone is healthy (He's a marginal upgrade on Filppula at best). Especially when right now their problems are more defensive than they are offensive.
Except Bozak's value is probably a 2nd round pick. Which is nice, but it doesn't exactly address a need.
Yeah. I mean, another 2nd round pick would be great. There are still usually a few pretty good players available, and it helps the Leafs to continue to build and fill the pipeline, but it doesn't do anything for the team in terms of the very near future.
I think you guys are light on Bozak. He's a pretty consistent 40-50 point producer on some pretty bad teams, and he's on an affordable contract.
It think he's worth a first round pick, or the equivalent prospect.
EDIT: We got 2nds for Polak. Lee Stempniak went for a second and a 4th.
I think you guys are light on Bozak. He's a pretty consistent 40-50 point producer on some pretty bad teams, and he's on an affordable contract.
It think he's worth a first round pick, or the equivalent prospect.
EDIT: We got 2nds for Polak. Lee Stempniak went for a second and a 4th.
Hudler, coming off a 30+ goal, 70+ point season and producing at a similar level to Bozak went for a 2nd and a 3rd. The extra season on Boak's contract makes things interesting. To some teams, it will be an asset, to others, it's a cap issue ($4.2M is a decent contract for what he brings, but teams are facing the real possibility of a flat cap, making Boak's cap hit just enough to cause a potential issue). Even still, I'd say a 1st round pick is pretty much off the table unless the market has drastically shifted from last year. Most likely, we're talking, at most, a 2nd and an equivalent prospect who is still a couple years away, or a pair of 2nds in different drafts.
EDIT: We got 2nds for Polak.
I think you guys are light on Bozak. He's a pretty consistent 40-50 point producer on some pretty bad teams, and he's on an affordable contract.
It think he's worth a first round pick, or the equivalent prospect.
EDIT: We got 2nds for Polak. Lee Stempniak went for a second and a 4th.
Hudler, coming off a 30+ goal, 70+ point season and producing at a similar level to Bozak went for a 2nd and a 3rd. The extra season on Boak's contract makes things interesting. To some teams, it will be an asset, to others, it's a cap issue ($4.2M is a decent contract for what he brings, but teams are facing the real possibility of a flat cap, making Boak's cap hit just enough to cause a potential issue). Even still, I'd say a 1st round pick is pretty much off the table unless the market has drastically shifted from last year. Most likely, we're talking, at most, a 2nd and an equivalent prospect who is still a couple years away, or a pair of 2nds in different drafts.
Was working on another Leafs brass 'speed up the process' pov and wondered if some of the beneficial by product might be added value to minus one year ufa contracts at the following deadline, Komarov, JVR, Bozak
FORWARDS
L. Komarov ($ 2,950,000) --- A. Matthews ($ 925,000) --- W. Nylander ($ 894,166)
J. Van Riemsdyk ($ 4,250,000) --- N. Kadri ($ 4,500,000) --- C. Brown ($ 1,200,000)
N. Soshnikov ($ 736,666) --- T. Bozak ($ 4,200,000) --- M. Marner ($ 894,166)
K. Kapanen ($ 863,333) --- F. Gauthier ($ 863,333) --- Z. Hyman ($ 900,000)
...
That's a LTIR team, but, between Horton and Lupul it could be interesting. I'm not convinced selling JVR now is a slam dunk better choice than waiting til next year, unless the Leafs really are willing to keep bottoming out and maybe retains now to make it a more attractive option.
Bozak is one of those players that teams tend to pay a lot for at a deadline. Very much like an Antoine Vermette, who went for a 1st round pick. Bozak is not as good at faceoffs as Vermette is, but is much more offensively inclined. I would say a late 1st is definitely fair value for him, or at the very least, a 2nd + something...
For argument, how about a poor man's Vermette for 2.1 per for the rest of this year and next.
Was working on another Leafs brass 'speed up the process' pov and wondered if some of the beneficial by product might be added value to minus one year ufa contracts at the following deadline, Komarov, JVR, Bozak
FORWARDS
L. Komarov ($ 2,950,000) --- A. Matthews ($ 925,000) --- W. Nylander ($ 894,166)
J. Van Riemsdyk ($ 4,250,000) --- N. Kadri ($ 4,500,000) --- C. Brown ($ 1,200,000)
N. Soshnikov ($ 736,666) --- T. Bozak ($ 4,200,000) --- M. Marner ($ 894,166)
K. Kapanen ($ 863,333) --- F. Gauthier ($ 863,333) --- Z. Hyman ($ 900,000)
...
That's a LTIR team, but, between Horton and Lupul it could be interesting. I'm not convinced selling JVR now is a slam dunk better choice than waiting til next year, unless the Leafs really are willing to keep bottoming out and maybe retains now to make it a more attractive option.
Maybe someone can weigh in on this, but Matthews is definitely hitting some of his bonuses and will have a higher cap hit.
If the plan is to put Nylander at center at some point, doesn't Bozak make more sense than Kadri in the #3 spot, with a solid D acquisition to boot?
Maybe someone can weigh in on this, but Matthews is definitely hitting some of his bonuses and will have a higher cap hit.
One time I want to see a guy blow his bonus's into Space. Worth every dime and we will be losing some big contracts at the end of this year. I believe Laitch and Greening are gone aren't they?
If the plan is to put Nylander at center at some point, doesn't Bozak make more sense than Kadri in the #3 spot, with a solid D acquisition to boot?
Only if you're as comfortable giving Bozak some of the defensive assignments Kadri has handled this year. Personally, I don't think Bozak has that kind of range to his game.
Maybe someone can weigh in on this, but Matthews is definitely hitting some of his bonuses and will have a higher cap hit.
One time I want to see a guy blow his bonus's into Space. Worth every dime and we will be losing some big contracts at the end of this year. I believe Laitch and Greening are gone aren't they?
Robidas, Polak, Hunwick, Smith, Laich, Michalek, and Greening are all off the books after this year.
www.twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/816834629852348420Over the weekend, at least one team inquired to see if it was on JVR's no trade list. Media speculation promotes these calls...
— Darren Dreger (@DarrenDreger) January 5, 2017
Toronto's most opportune time, should they choose to go that route, will likely be at this year's draft. Teams will likely be scrambling after Las Vegas' expansion selections, and with Alexander Radulov likely to be extended by the Montreal Canadians far before then, van Riemsdyk will likely be the best winger with the best contract value on the market for acquisition. This way, as well, Toronto doesn't have to worry about exposing Connor Carrick to said Vegas Draft, which any trade for a big-minutes defenceman will do, unless they choose to go for the just-as-risky "eight skater" protection list.
32 million is not chump change
32 million is not chump change
It's also not mad money. That's Matthews + Marner + Nylander + Gardiner extension money. Realistically the Leafs will have some of it to use on a key UFA or two but good cap management but that's about it.
| Roster Size | Salary Cap | Cap Hit | Cap Overage Penalty | Bonuses | Cap Space |
| 23 | $73,000,000 | $65,026,666 | $512,000 | $5,702,500 | $7,973,334 |
I'm pretty sure a team can only retain salary on two players and the Leafs are already doing so on Kessel.
Likewise, something to keep in mind is that if the Leafs plan on protecting 4 defensemen(which in that scenario would be Gardiner, Reilly, Zaitsev and Manson) they'll need to expose either Bozak or Komarov in the expansion draft(assuming JVR, Kadri and Kane are guys you'd then protect).
Personally, I don't think the potential benefits of Kane living up to his "potential" come anywhere close to the the downsides of having him around a young/developing club. Especially not if the trade for him involves some of the team's better prospects and depth players.
In addition, Leipsic would have to be protected in the expansion draft, and is not waiver exempt next season.
In addition, Leipsic would have to be protected in the expansion draft, and is not waiver exempt next season.
True but in the above scenario we've traded Leipsic to Anaheim already.
Which, and I haven't had time to look at it, probably raises the issue for Anaheim of losing a good player in the expansion draft anyway.
I'm pretty sure a team can only retain salary on two players and the Leafs are already doing so on Kessel.
Likewise, something to keep in mind is that if the Leafs plan on protecting 4 defensemen(which in that scenario would be Gardiner, Reilly, Zaitsev and Manson) they'll need to expose either Bozak or Komarov in the expansion draft(assuming JVR, Kadri and Kane are guys you'd then protect).
Personally, I don't think the potential benefits of Kane living up to his "potential" come anywhere close to the the downsides of having him around a young/developing club. Especially not if the trade for him involves some of the team's better prospects and depth players.
In addition, Leipsic would have to be protected in the expansion draft, and is not waiver exempt next season.
In addition, Leipsic would have to be protected in the expansion draft, and is not waiver exempt next season.
True but in the above scenario we've traded Leipsic to Anaheim already.
Which, and I haven't had time to look at it, probably raises the issue for Anaheim of losing a good player in the expansion draft anyway.
32 million is not chump change
It's also not mad money. That's Matthews + Marner + Nylander + Gardiner extension money. Realistically the Leafs will have some of it to use on a key UFA or two but good cap management but that's about it.
Yeah. It sounds like a lot of money, but it gets used up awfully quickly. If you figure an average of $5.5M per on the 4 extensions you reference, that's already $22M gone.
| Left Wing | Centre | Right Wing |
| Kane, Evander | Matthews, Auston | Brown, Connor |
| $5,250,000 | $7,500,000 | $2,500,000* rfa |
| 28 | 22 | 25 |
| Van Riemsdyk, James | Nylander, William | Marner, Mitchell |
| $6,000,000 | $4,500,000 | $6,500,000 |
| 30 | 23 | 22 |
| Komarov, Leo | Kadri, Nazem | Kapanen, Kasperi |
| $2,950,000 | $4,500,000 | $3,500,000 |
| 32 | 29 | 23 |
| Martin, Matt | Gauthier, Frederik | ELC or UFA?? |
| $2,500,000 | $1,250,000 | $1,500,000 |
| 30 | 24 | 21 |
| Left Defense | Right Defense | Goaltender |
| Rielly, Morgan | Zaitsev, Nikita | Andersen, Frederik |
| $5,000,000 | $5,000,000 | $5,000,000 |
| 25 | 28 | 30 |
| Gardiner, Jake | Manson, Josh | Bibeau, Antoine |
| $5,000,000 | $3,500,000 | $950,000 |
| 29 | 28 | 25 |
| Nielsen, Andrew | Carrick, Connor | |
| $686,667 | $1,500,000 | |
| 23 | 25 | |
| Dermott, Travis | ||
| $894,167 | ||
| 23 |
Acquiring exposed players for exempt ones
As currently positioned, the Leafs have more forward protection slots than they need, and if you can envision a team that’s likely to have more forwards than it’s able to protect—for example, Anaheim looks positioned to lose Jakob Silfverberg, and Nashville has too many depth forwards—there might be a deal to be made there. The Leafs also have several expansion-exempt wing prospects, headed by Kasperi Kapanen, who could be appealing to a team caught in this kind of position.
As I’ve written elsewhere, the expansion draft exposes defenders more so than forwards, and here the Leafs have a bit more of a bind—acquiring another expansion-available defender would likely force them to expose Connor Carrick, so it would have to be a definitive upgrade. (Brief reminder—the Leafs are likely to be able to protect three defencemen. Jake Gardiner and Morgan Rielly are obvious choices, and Nikita Zaitsev is exempt. If the Leafs get another d-man, they’ll probably want to protect the guy they acquired with their final protection slot, which means they can no longer use it to shield Carrick.)
Evander Kane is going to be Chris Stewart all over again, isn't he?
For serious though, I think you might want to re-evaluate Nylander. Right now he's scoring at a 59/82 pace while getting tossed around the line-up.
For double serious, no Evander Kane. If a guy with those attributes is important, the Leafs should develop one. Or sign one. If the complaints against him in the Nightclub incident are true I would rather the Leafs be a less good hockey team than a better one with him on it.
so if the leafs make the playoffs does babcock win the adams?
so if the leafs make the playoffs does babcock win the adams?
I doubt it. It's pretty hard right now to imagine any scenario in which Tortorella doesn't have it sewn up.
Beyond him there's Boudreau and, if we're going to make a deal about a team doing better than expected, there's Desjardins.
Today, when the Toronto Maple Leafs consider trading a winger like James van Riemsdyk for a much-needed defenceman, they won’t be looking at the Subban for Weber deal as a comparable.
The deal that set the bar for the Leafs — and any other team that is rich in forwards but desperate to shore up an Achilles heel blue-line — was the Taylor Hall-for-Adam Larsson trade between the New Jersey Devils and Edmonton Oilers.
[...]
If Leafs fans thought Chiarelli got fleeced in the Hall deal, at least one scout we spoke with said Toronto won’t get a player as good as Larsson in return for the older van Riemsdyk, who has a modified no-trade clause and is one season away from becoming an unrestricted free agent.
“There’s no comparison between Hall and JVR,” said the scout, who thinks the Leafs will have to sweeten the pot. “You’re not trading (Mitch) Marner, so (William) Nylander has got to be the guy. He’s skilled, but how good?”
The Leafs are exactly where Edmonton was a year ago: Stocked with young talent up front, but with a blue-line corps that needs at least two quality NHL defencemen. Chiarelli knew he could deal from strength, though even he must have been surprised when he found himself trading a 70-point winger for a 15-point defenceman.
| To Calgary | To Toronto | |
| Tyler Bozak | Matt Stajan | |
| Brandon Bollig or whatever cap dump | ||
| Rasmus Andersson (http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=86137) |
Considering the market, our playstyle, and the assets that we have to deal with, I think we should be targeting an on-the-cusp defenseman from an on-the-cusp team (think Carrick with Washington), probably from the Western Conference, with an already stable-ish top-6.
How does this sound?
To Calgary To Toronto Tyler Bozak Matt Stajan Brandon Bollig or whatever cap dump Rasmus Andersson (http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=86137)
Calgary is a bit thin in the middle and Bozak is going to be a scoring upgrade, pushing either Bennet or Monahan down to the 4th line. Stajan gets to come home (vet presence who has done the Leafs dance) and can anchor the 4th line with skill and class. Bollig is a cap dump they've already buried; this could flex to a higher number (Wideman) if mid-range picks come back our way.
You can do better than that herman, I expect more from you.
http://www.tsn.ca/landeskog-duchene-could-be-on-the-table-as-avs-rebuild-1.649580
OK boys and girls, anyone think they should try to get Shattenkirk before July 1?
http://www.tsn.ca/landeskog-duchene-could-be-on-the-table-as-avs-rebuild-1.649580
OK boys and girls, anyone think they should try to get Shattenkirk before July 1?
If, and only if, he comes with an extension already signed.
http://www.tsn.ca/landeskog-duchene-could-be-on-the-table-as-avs-rebuild-1.649580
OK boys and girls, anyone think they should try to get Shattenkirk before July 1?
If, and only if, he comes with an extension already signed.
FINE...and the problem with trading with the Avs is that they're obviously going to want futures in return, and I don't think the Leafs are ready to start trading away picks/prospects at this point.
I know that article herman posted was suggesting that the Leafs just hold off until the market adjusts, but JVR and Bozak have a best-before date with their contracts and stuff, so I'm not sure that "just wait" is really a viable option.
I'm all for patience with developing the young talent, but this is still a rebuild, and assets need to be converted. I think they should want to make a move by this deadline with those guys.
http://www.tsn.ca/landeskog-duchene-could-be-on-the-table-as-avs-rebuild-1.649580
OK boys and girls, anyone think they should try to get Shattenkirk before July 1?
If, and only if, he comes with an extension already signed.
FINE...and the problem with trading with the Avs is that they're obviously going to want futures in return, and I don't think the Leafs are ready to start trading away picks/prospects at this point.
I know that article herman posted was suggesting that the Leafs just hold off until the market adjusts, but JVR and Bozak have a best-before date with their contracts and stuff, so I'm not sure that "just wait" is really a viable option.
I'm all for patience with developing the young talent, but this is still a rebuild, and assets need to be converted. I think they should want to make a move by this deadline with those guys.
You know Shattenkirk plays for St. Louis, right?
If you figure on what St. Louis would want in terms of a rental for Shattenkirk...no?
Unless, I mean, if you could work out a JVR for Shattenkirk thing with an extension agreed to beforehand then I suppose so but even then I'd rather deal JVR for futures and then try to just sign Shattenkirk.
Damn it...
Prospects/picks for Tyson Barrie? Anything we can realistically offer that they would take without giving up any of Marner, Matthews and Nylander?
^ that's kind of why I wondered. We give up some prospects and picks for a defenceman and then look to shift Bozak, Komarov and JVR to other teams to restock.
^ that's kind of why I wondered. We give up some prospects and picks for a defenceman and then look to shift Bozak, Komarov and JVR to other teams to restock.
For the right defenseman, I'd bite, but the ones I want are currently on contending teams. Additionally, the teams we'd be moving those expiring players to are generally higher up in the standings and therefore lower on the draft order, so that might be considered a downcycle even if we replenished picks round for round.
The type of crazy gamble trade I'd like to see are the ones where we move a vet to a flash-in-the-pan team that has not assessed their future correctly for 2018 1st rounders (Rasmus Dahlin pls). Then when they inevitably crash and burn the next season, everything comes up Milhouse. Jim Benning and the Canucks might be such a target.
Damn it...
Friday :D
What would Down go for? I wouldn't give up much, but what a story to have Down and Matthews head into a playoff series together.
What would Down go for? I wouldn't give up much, but what a story to have Down and Matthews head into a playoff series together.
I don't want Lou involved in the overpaying for vets syndrome that plagues GM's at the deadline.
Not a priority, though. Again, this isn't the year you go for broke. Keep as many picks as possible and keep building the team through the draft.
Myers (D)
Myers (D)
An almost Dr. Seuss title: Who's Myers on the Flyers?
Myers (D)
An almost Dr. Seuss title: Who's Myers on the Flyers?
Philippe Myers. A Flyer prospect from 2015.. Not on the roster right now. He plays defence for the QMJHL's Rouyn-Noranda Huskies, and was a Silver medallist for Team Canada at the 2017 WJHC.
That's who.
P.S. What's laughable is your username. An almost Dr.Seuss-ish title, indeed. ::) 8)
I don't know. In light of the underwhelming return the Oilers got for Hall, I'd wager that JVR might net us a defenseman like, say, Luke Schenn.
1. Initially, the plan was to give Las Vegas 48 hours with the protected list before the expansion draft. That is being increased to 72. At the GM meetings, the Golden Knights’ George McPhee let everyone know that once the lists are handed to him, it’s an auction for any unprotected player another team might want. This has outstanding potential.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-whats-delaying-nhls-olympic-decision/Quote1. Initially, the plan was to give Las Vegas 48 hours with the protected list before the expansion draft. That is being increased to 72. At the GM meetings, the Golden Knights’ George McPhee let everyone know that once the lists are handed to him, it’s an auction for any unprotected player another team might want. This has outstanding potential.
Great opportunity for something interesting to happen.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-whats-delaying-nhls-olympic-decision/Quote1. Initially, the plan was to give Las Vegas 48 hours with the protected list before the expansion draft. That is being increased to 72. At the GM meetings, the Golden Knights’ George McPhee let everyone know that once the lists are handed to him, it’s an auction for any unprotected player another team might want. This has outstanding potential.
Great opportunity for something interesting to happen.
I find it weird that they give them such a small window. Why not make it a full week or something? What's the harm?
I find it weird that they give them such a small window. Why not make it a full week or something? What's the harm?
My guess is the league is concerned the lists will be leaked, and they're trying to protect the players who may or may not be on those lists from . . . something, I guess.
I find it weird that they give them such a small window. Why not make it a full week or something? What's the harm?
My guess is the league is concerned the lists will be leaked, and they're trying to protect the players who may or may not be on those lists from . . . something, I guess. Honestly, though, 80%+ of those lists are pretty much givens already, so it's not like they'll need a ton of time to figure out what they want to do. For the most part, they probably already know.
My guess is the league is concerned the lists will be leaked, and they're trying to protect the players who may or may not be on those lists from . . . something, I guess. Honestly, though, 80%+ of those lists are pretty much givens already, so it's not like they'll need a ton of time to figure out what they want to do. For the most part, they probably already know.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-whats-delaying-nhls-olympic-decision/Quote1. Initially, the plan was to give Las Vegas 48 hours with the protected list before the expansion draft. That is being increased to 72. At the GM meetings, the Golden Knights’ George McPhee let everyone know that once the lists are handed to him, it’s an auction for any unprotected player another team might want. This has outstanding potential.
Great opportunity for something interesting to happen.
I find it weird that they give them such a small window. Why not make it a full week or something? What's the harm?
I find it weird that they give them such a small window. Why not make it a full week or something? What's the harm?
My guess is the league is concerned the lists will be leaked, and they're trying to protect the players who may or may not be on those lists from . . . something, I guess. Honestly, though, 80%+ of those lists are pretty much givens already, so it's not like they'll need a ton of time to figure out what they want to do. For the most part, they probably already know.
What would be the point of extending it? Giving McPhee a week to extort as much as he can?
What would be the point of extending it? Giving McPhee a week to extort as much as he can?
I'm fine with the short window, and I'll bet the rest of the teams would rather it be 2 minutes.
Well, other than giving a team a reasonable amount of time to scout/discuss the players that will form the bulk of their organization going forward?
Not really going to be any opportunity to scout, as the lists won't be finalized until after the Finals. As for discussions, as noted above, for the most part, they have a pretty solid idea of what's going to be available to them. An extra few days isn't going to improve things much in that regard.
Well, other than giving a team a reasonable amount of time to scout/discuss the players that will form the bulk of their organization going forward?
Not really going to be any opportunity to scout, as the lists won't be finalized until after the Finals. As for discussions, as noted above, for the most part, they have a pretty solid idea of what's going to be available to them. An extra few days isn't going to improve things much in that regard.
The point of the longer window is to allow Vegas to work out deals with other teams for players available. If I was McPhee that extra 24 hours might be very handy as you'll have lots of teams calling offering stuff for players on the expansion list. If I was McPhee, I'd maximize the number of defensemen I pick (and there will bmore- since they come at a premium on the trade market. Knowing what you can get back for some of these players will go a long way to help decide who else to pick from other teams.
Won't be able to scout in-person, no, but they will be able to watch tape and a "pretty solid" idea is one thing but having the actual list and being able to put together a real strategy in terms of potential team building seems like the kind of thing that should be done with at least some prep time.
The point of the longer window is to allow Vegas to work out deals with other teams for players available. If I was McPhee that extra 24 hours might be very handy as you'll have lots of teams calling offering stuff for players on the expansion list. If I was McPhee, I'd maximize the number of defensemen I pick (and there will be some good ones available) and start trading some of them for more- since they come at a premium on the trade market. Knowing what you can get back for some of these players will go a long way to help decide who else to pick from other teams.
Even in terms of tape, there's nothing that's stopping them from having watched and analyzed game film on all the players that have a possibility of being available. A few more days isn't going to really provide much more information there.
McPhee was interviewed around the All Star Game, and said he and his front office team had already been going a wide range of scenarios based on potential availability lists. It's probably fair to say that, barring any massive surprises, they'll have done more than enough prep by the time they get the official lists. At that point, the discussions will be which already developed strategy they'll choose to follow.
Honestly, outside of some extra time to negotiate trades, anything that can be accomplished in those extra few days can and should be in the process of being accomplished already - to the point that the benefit of those extra days is pretty minimal - and opens up more possibility of paralysis through analysis.
Is this where we offer JvR and Bozak to them as a set? Built in 1st line right there. Short term hits at great value, for the measly cost of draft picks that they won't be putting to immediate use anyway, which can also be recouped or spent from expansion draft deals.
Or a JvR for a defenseman deal using VGK as a bounce pass point where there wasn't a direct fit with the other team.
They're not going to be trading a first round pick so they seem like a bad team to target with high value guys. Personally I can't see a JVR trade that doesn't return a 1st or a prospect from the 1st.
I had silly hopes they'd part with their 1st (or two) for pieces that could expedite their competitiveness. Nevada, like Florida, doesn't have that pesky state income tax, so they could potentially squeeze JvR in at a lower cap hit long term.
The point of the longer window is to allow Vegas to work out deals with other teams for players available. If I was McPhee that extra 24 hours might be very handy as you'll have lots of teams calling offering stuff for players on the expansion list. If I was McPhee, I'd maximize the number of defensemen I pick (and there will bmore- since they come at a premium on the trade market. Knowing what you can get back for some of these players will go a long way to help decide who else to pick from other teams.
If I'm McPhee I'd be very careful about trading some of the better players available to him as part of the expansion draft if the return is draft picks who won't materialize for 4-5 years. I think part of the reason the Expansion draft is shaped the way it is is because the NHL sees the follies of going into a new market, one that's very sketchy as a hockey market and may very well have to compete with the NFL, and being absolute garbage for 4-5 years.
He's not going to be able to put together a good team immediately but if he's not looking at the expansion draft primarily as a way to take players who'll actually play minutes for him then I think he'll have badly misjudged the market he's in.
In theory that makes some sense. In practice, we've had first row seats to JVR and Bozak being on a team's first line and what that does for competitiveness.
I can't see Las Vegas giving up many draft picks. Considering they'll be last in the league (or near it), these are valuable picks.
In theory that makes some sense. In practice, we've had first row seats to JVR and Bozak being on a team's first line and what that does for competitiveness.
I totally agree, personally, but this is where a GM/owner might be emotionally sold.
Semi-seriously, but not really:
We could, theoretically, point to how well they still produced without Kessel, and how well the rookie on their line is producing "thanks to them", and what exemplary leadership/dressing room influences they are. Instant 'star power' of an American Olympiad and semi-local star (Bozak/Denver?) for their team to put bums in seats and money in the coffers, but not so cost prohibitive or long term that they gum up a build.
Things I'm sure about:
X-Matthews-Marner
X-Nylander-Kapanen
X-Kadri-Brown
X-X-X
Gardiner-Zaitsev
Rielly-X
X-X
Andersen
X
Everything else is negotiable.
Are there any young Matt Niskanen type defense in UFA this year? He was more the type of player I think the Leafs could conceivably make a pitch for, and kind of the characteristic opposite to Shattenkirk.
Lower goal scoring = cheaper, but defensively sound puck mover (i.e. Who I hope Zaitsev will be long term).
Are there any young Matt Niskanen type defense in UFA this year? He was more the type of player I think the Leafs could conceivably make a pitch for, and kind of the characteristic opposite to Shattenkirk.
Are there any young Matt Niskanen type defense in UFA this year? He was more the type of player I think the Leafs could conceivably make a pitch for, and kind of the characteristic opposite to Shattenkirk.
Brendan Smith is probably the closest there is:
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p205/CarltonTheBear/Story%201%201_1.png)
Good skater, but basically no threat offensively. Could form a good 2nd pairing with Rielly to help get his shots against numbers down or with Carrick to get a stabilizing 3rd pairing.
Karl Alzner would be high on my wish list. Not flashy but has a lot of what the Leafs need. Minute crunching defensively sound D-man.
His career does consist of 2 games... he plays close to 20 minutes most night and is usually quite dependable.Karl Alzner would be high on my wish list. Not flashy but has a lot of what the Leafs need. Minute crunching defensively sound D-man.
He was quite possibly their worst defencemen through 2 games and the team was almost definitely better off with Nate Schmidt in the line-up over him.
His career does consist of 2 games... he plays close to 20 minutes most night and is usually quite dependable.
I know that this won't exactly be popular, and no I'm not basing it entirely on his performance in the playoffs, but I really think that trading Zaitsev for a quality left-winger might be something that the Leafs should look into this offseason. I don't think that we'll get as lucky as New Jersey did with Larsson for Hall, but if we can get anything close to that it's something we should at the very least explore. I'm also just not convinced that his value will ever be higher than it is right now.
I will add the one condition being obviously that we need somebody to replace his minutes on the right side for next season if we want to still compete. But since this is an armchair GM thread I'm going to armchair GM.
-Trade Zaitsev for 'mystery top-6 left winger for Matthews'
-Sign Shattenkirk and Brendan Smith
-Clear cap space where necessary, starting with Bozak. While his play has absolutely won me over, I think his value too is at the highest it will ever be
-If we end up losing Martin in the expansion draft or trading him, I'd bring back Boyle for the 4C
-*shudders* bring back Hunwick. If it's a cheap deal, the extra depth can't hurt. I just hope he doesn't get guaranteed minutes again
(Zaitsev)-Matthews-Marner
Leipsic-Nylander-Kapanen
Komarov-Kadri-Brown
Hyman-Boyle-Soshnikov
Leivo
Gardiner-Shattenkirk
Rielly-Smith
Marincin-Carrick
Hunwick
Andersen
-Trade Zaitsev for 'mystery top-6 left winger for Matthews'
-Sign Shattenkirk and Brendan Smith
I have two problems here. One, and I've said this before, I think scoring wingers are probably where you can best use the UFA market. Using a commodity like Zaitsev in search of one seems like a bad use of assets.
Two, I think you're almost certainly paying a heavy premium for defensemen on that market. I think Shattenkirk is better than we saw in this series but I think we have to be realistic about the fact that signing him probably means committing to pay him in the area of 7 million a year for his 34-36 seasons.
I think that my general feeling here is that if we're going to use the UFA market to improve our team we have to accept that whoever we get is almost certainly going to be overpaid. That's just how that market works. So I'd rather overpay for a top-3 defenceman than a top-6 forward.
That's sort of my point though. I think there's lots of evidence that you can use the Free Agent market to add a scoring winger without paying a huge price(Justin Williams, for instance) and there's not much to suggest the same with top 3 defensemen.
www.twitter.com/mirtle/status/856334161577226244JVR says he wants to stay in Toronto long term. Can sign extension in July.
— James Mirtle (@mirtle) April 24, 2017
are Hunwick or Marincin under contract for next year ?Hunwick no, Marincin yes.
are Hunwick or Marincin under contract for next year ?Hunwick no, Marincin yes.
I guess it all depends on who that winger is. I mean last year we saw Backes, Ericsson, Lucic, Okposo, and Ladd all get $6mil with varying degrees of term. If those are the type of options available to us I think Shattenkirk at $7mil with term would probably be better for our team.
JVR strikes me as the one player (short of breaking up the big three rookies) who gives the Leafs the shot of adding a defenseman via trade.
Are there any young Matt Niskanen type defense in UFA this year? He was more the type of player I think the Leafs could conceivably make a pitch for, and kind of the characteristic opposite to Shattenkirk.
Brendan Smith is probably the closest there is:
Good skater, but basically no threat offensively. Could form a good 2nd pairing with Rielly to help get his shots against numbers down or with Carrick to get a stabilizing 3rd pairing.
I guess it all depends on who that winger is. I mean last year we saw Backes, Ericsson, Lucic, Okposo, and Ladd all get $6mil with varying degrees of term. If those are the type of options available to us I think Shattenkirk at $7mil with term would probably be better for our team.
Well, yeah, it depends on who the winger is. Sure we saw all of those guys last year but we also saw Radim Vrbata go for 1 year/3.25 or Vanek get 1 year, 2.6 or Perron get 2 years, 3.75 aav.
Sure, none of those guys necessarily fit all our needs and they're not sure things but my point, again, is we have evidence that teams can go into the UFA market and find decent scoring wingers for reasonable prices and it happens just about every year. Let's keep in mind that with Matthews and Nylander and Marner driving things the Leafs don't need to hit homeruns, some solid doubles will do the trick.
As for Shattenkirk, let's wait and see if he does get 7 million.
I might be in the minority here but I don't think Shattenkirk is the style of player we need with Rielly and Gardiner already on the roster.
I feel that paying B Smith and a Manson/Gudbranson a combined $7 MIL will be better for the Leafs in playoff hockey.
I might be in the minority here but I don't think Shattenkirk is the style of player we need with Rielly and Gardiner already on the roster.
I feel that paying B Smith and a Manson/Gudbranson a combined $7 MIL will be better for the Leafs in playoff hockey.
I might be in the minority here but I don't think Shattenkirk is the style of player we need with Rielly and Gardiner already on the roster.
I feel that paying B Smith and a Manson/Gudbranson a combined $7 MIL will be better for the Leafs in playoff hockey.
One of these is very much not like the others...
We should also be careful with lusting after defensemen who have good numbers in their play slot, and hoping they will have the same positive effect on the game at a higher TOI.
Did you see the bad stats of Gudbranson in Florida and continued in the few games in Vancouver? I was hoping you wouldn't catch that...
I also think we should try to pry Columbus' 2018 1st round pick... I still think they implode next year.
I also think we should try to pry Columbus' 2018 1st round pick... I still think they implode next year.
I also think we should try to pry Columbus' 2018 1st round pick... I still think they implode next year.
Really? They've got solid goaltending and a really good young defense. Strikes me as a team with room to grow.
I don't really know that eating half of JVR's final year adds a ton to his value. Anyone trading for him is going to want to re-sign him and he's probably due for a significant raise.
I don't really know that eating half of JVR's final year adds a ton to his value. Anyone trading for him is going to want to re-sign him and he's probably due for a significant raise.
maybe, but a team like carolina who have the cap space to resign him but money makes a difference might want savings this year and still be able to sign him long term.
I'm still going with option 6. Target teams looking to be competitive now and going after some of their Draft +1 or Draft +2 defensive prospects. Philly, Anaheim, Nashville...
I'm still going with option 6. Target teams looking to be competitive now and going after some of their Draft +1 or Draft +2 defensive prospects. Philly, Anaheim, Nashville...
Unofficial (multiple choice) poll time:
[] Pony up for Shattenkirk (7M+)
[] Trade whatever (south of Nylander/Marner) for Josh Manson/Jonas Brodin
[] 2-3 years of Brendan Smith at 3M
[] 1-2 years of Cody Franson at 1.75-2M
[] Do nothing
Any interest in Brandon Montour? He's a real smooth skater. He's the guy I'd target instead of Manson. I guess you could say he's more of the same with Rielly and Gardiner but I like him.
He's exempt from the expansion draft, so it'd take more than I'd be interested in giving to acquire him at this time.
He's exempt from the expansion draft, so it'd take more than I'd be interested in giving to acquire him at this time.
And, yet, you include giving up the farm for Josh Manson in your list of possible options...
Seemed like a lower threshold to fulfillment. If Anaheim is stupid, I'd be down for Lindholm.
Seemed like a lower threshold to fulfillment. If Anaheim is stupid, I'd be down for Lindholm.
Lindholm, I'm down with. Manson? That there is a prime overpayment option.
EDIT: I'm much more interested in exploring the rumours that Justin Faulk may be available...
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2017/5/7/15568890/toronto-maple-leafs-evgeni-dadonov-nhl-free-agent-target-khl-vadim-shipachev-evgeny-russia
Colour me intrigued to see a potential Dado - Papi - Nylander line.
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2017/5/7/15568890/toronto-maple-leafs-evgeni-dadonov-nhl-free-agent-target-khl-vadim-shipachev-evgeny-russia
Colour me intrigued to see a potential Dado - Papi - Nylander line.
Just to be critical of your hypothetical line configuration here...wouldn't that line be lacking in defensive prowess?
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2017/5/7/15568890/toronto-maple-leafs-evgeni-dadonov-nhl-free-agent-target-khl-vadim-shipachev-evgeny-russia
Colour me intrigued to see a potential Dado - Papi - Nylander line.
Definitely going to come down to price on this one. If he's asking near what Shipachev got, I'd be inclined to pass. If he's willing to come over on a cheaper short-term "show me" type deal, I'd go for it.
The other KHL player we were in on, from earlier in the season: Vladimir Tkachyov (http://Vladimir Tkachyov).
Probably most well known for this: https://streamable.com/x4ps
Should come in handy seeing as how we were nearly goose eggs on the shootout.
I believe he signed a KHL deal a few days ago.
EDIT: He did - 2 year deal.
http://www.letsgoleafs.com/2017/05/03/vladimir-tkachyov-re-signs-in-the-khl/
People keep talking about the big three rookies and their pay day. I wonder if all three take shorter term deals for mid tier money in the interests of remaining on a deeper, more competitive team.
All three could take 4-6 million on 2-4 year deals and take Toews and Kane money on their third deals?
Probably a pipe dream, we shall see.
People keep talking about the big three rookies and their pay day. I wonder if all three take shorter term deals for mid tier money in the interests of remaining on a deeper, more competitive team.
All three could take 4-6 million on 2-4 year deals and take Toews and Kane money on their third deals?
Probably a pipe dream, we shall see.
Paying 3 players market rate second contracts isn't really an impediment to a team being competitive. In fact, if you look at what Kane/Toews got on their second deals the length of keeping them signed at those relatively low rates(which still would be a higher % of the cap than the numbers you're talking about) was probably was a major reason why Chicago was able to build the team they did.
If Matthews, Marner and Nylander's next deals pay them a combined 15 million as opposed to say 22.5-25, it would allow the team to be more competitive for longer, no?
I'm probably missing what you're saying. Sorry.
If Matthews, Marner and Nylander's next deals pay them a combined 15 million as opposed to say 22.5-25, it would allow the team to be more competitive for longer, no?
I'm probably missing what you're saying. Sorry.
Well, you said they would be 2-4 year deals after which they'd get Kane/Toews money on their third deals(I'm assuming this doesn't mean Kane/Toews 2nd deal money).
So assuming their third deals pay them an average of 8.5 each is this total combined cap hit:
Years 1-3: 15
Years 4-6: 25.5
Really make the team more long term competitive than
Years 1-6: 22.5
It seems to me like the only savings you're talking about would be in the early years, when the team doesn't really need to save it, and in years 7+ but even then the long term savings only figure to be the difference of whatever you figure the difference would be between combined cap hit of the third deals they sign in each scenario.
I don't really have a counter-argument because I guess I'm just not getting your point. It seems like you're saying that somehow structuring deals so that the financial advantage the team gets is as soon as possible(the first few years after the Marner/Matthews ELC deals are up) somehow provides a longer term benefit than deals where the financial savings would be down the road. Aren't they better served long term to pay less in the long term rather than the short?
Also if you get the three of them signed to second deals where they have a combined cap hit of 21 million or so I guess I don't see that as automatically resulting in depth problems. Especially considering they don't have any particularly expensive pieces anywhere else.
I think they'll be dynamic offensively enough that a number of guys will be looking for around the $4million mark after their ELC's and over time that's too much to be paying depth parts of your lineup, they'll be forced to cut parts off via trade and hope that what's coming in the pipeline will be able to replicate the production, as Chicago and L.A. discovered this inevitably over time catches up with you and it means you're surrounding you stars with guys like Richard Panik instead of Brandon Saad.
So basically, the less you pay the triplets in years 1-5/6, the deeper the rest of your lineup can be in terms of real talent you've developed and potentially some supplemental impactful free agent/trade acquisitions.
The triplets are going to get paid, the lower you keep their salary, the better the rest of your lineup can be.
So obviously we'll have to wait and see how things shake out but if there's sort of a vague plan to move JVR this year, I'd definitely explore TJ Oshie or Justin Williams as short term replacements who could be open to team friendly deals.
Marleau - Thornton - Marner
Could be a pretty good line, assuming Marleau and Thornton still have gas in the tank.
Marleau - Thornton - Marner
Could be a pretty good line, assuming Marleau and Thornton still have gas in the tank.
Marner could circle the rink twice before Thornton got out of the defensive zone.
Is he actually that bad now, or is it just exaggeration for comedic effect?
(I know he was never fast, but he wasn't ever Jason Allison slow either)
Dallas has said that they will move the 3rd overall pick for help now. Leafs should be interested in that.
Dallas has said that they will move the 3rd overall pick for help now. Leafs should be interested in that.
Problem there is Dallas' biggest needs by far are in net and on the blueline.
Dallas has said that they will move the 3rd overall pick for help now. Leafs should be interested in that.
Problem there is Dallas' biggest needs by far are in net and on the blueline.
Dallas has said that they will move the 3rd overall pick for help now. Leafs should be interested in that.
Dallas has said that they will move the 3rd overall pick for help now. Leafs should be interested in that.
Problem there is Dallas' biggest needs by far are in net and on the blueline.
Although apparently I missed that they've signed Ben Bishop so just the blueline then.
Nill indicated that Bishop was not even his first choice, let alone giving a 30+ goalie 6 years at that AAV. His window was forced open and now he has to dump more assets into making it count.
Nill indicated that Bishop was not even his first choice, let alone giving a 30+ goalie 6 years at that AAV. His window was forced open and now he has to dump more assets into making it count.
Maybe. The cynic in me though thinks that with a pretty clear cut top 2 there may be more of a drop off at #3 than we think.
It's definitely an interesting avenue to explore but I think sort of thing might be predicated on there being someone who is going to really value a #3 pick that may not contribute next year along the lines of Dubois last year.
Imagine the Leafs got Liljegren and Brannstrom.
Maybe. The cynic in me though thinks that with a pretty clear cut top 2 there may be more of a drop off at #3 than we think.
It's definitely an interesting avenue to explore but I think sort of thing might be predicated on there being someone who is going to really value a #3 pick that may not contribute next year along the lines of Dubois last year.
Imagine the Leafs got Liljegren and Brannstrom.
To some extent that's my point. That'd obviously be good for the prospect base but Liljegren has fallen quite a bit in some eyes. On Marek's draft rankings he's at #7 and McKenzie has him at #12. Heiskanen is now the top ranked defenseman it seems.
So you can build the prospect pool but the idea that you're going to be able to draft defensemen who'll make an immediate impact seems unlikely.
We’ve all assumed the Oilers will give their captain eight years at eleventy-billion dollars if necessary, but allow me to paint an alternate scenario. What if McDavid opts for the Sidney Crosby-Patrick Kane-Evgeni Malkin-Steven Stamkos-Jonathan Toews route? All five of those players took five-year terms on their second contracts, opening the door for another massive deal around age 25-27. Crosby’s second contract totalled $43.5 million, and his third is $104.4 million. (That one is 12 years, which can’t be done now. The others are eight, which does fit.) Malkin also did $43.5, then $76 million. Kane and Toews copied each other, from $31.5 million to $84 million. Stamkos went from $37.5 million to $68 million. We’ll see what McDavid wants, but don’t be shocked if this is the template.
Elliotte Friedman had some interesting thoughts on the potential McDavid extension, it might be worth keeping in mind regarding our triplets too.QuoteWe’ve all assumed the Oilers will give their captain eight years at eleventy-billion dollars if necessary, but allow me to paint an alternate scenario. What if McDavid opts for the Sidney Crosby-Patrick Kane-Evgeni Malkin-Steven Stamkos-Jonathan Toews route? All five of those players took five-year terms on their second contracts, opening the door for another massive deal around age 25-27. Crosby’s second contract totalled $43.5 million, and his third is $104.4 million. (That one is 12 years, which can’t be done now. The others are eight, which does fit.) Malkin also did $43.5, then $76 million. Kane and Toews copied each other, from $31.5 million to $84 million. Stamkos went from $37.5 million to $68 million. We’ll see what McDavid wants, but don’t be shocked if this is the template.
My post on it seems to have been swallowed up but there's also some good stuff in this week's 30 thoughts columns about the potential of the Leafs making a trade with Anaheim for a defenseman. Brown is specifically mentioned as potentially being a piece going the way.
My post on it seems to have been swallowed up but there's also some good stuff in this week's 30 thoughts columns about the potential of the Leafs making a trade with Anaheim for a defenseman. Brown is specifically mentioned as potentially being a piece going the way.
Poile had an interesting quote yesterday or the day before when someone brought up Nashville's past of making pretty big hockey trades:
"Sometimes we fall in love with our players. We probably overrate or overestimate our players. I really try with myself and our staff to be as honest as we can about the value of our players."
I think that this is something that the Leafs management (plus Babcock in particular) is going to have to overcome too.
Trouba would be my absolute #1 target to fill that void, but I'm really not sure Winnipeg trades him and if they do I don't think we really have the assets they'll be looking to acquire if they do.
Some of the other names on the potential D list like Tanev and Vatanen are good players for sure and they could obviously help our team, but I think that they're closer to being #4 defenceman than they are #2 and I feel like they'll be valued more like #2 defenceman in trade talks. So I'm wary about that.
Myers could probably give us about the same on-ice value as those guys for a couple of years while we still get to keep our bigger trade chips available for a more long-term solution to that hole.
How about Justin Faulk, as busta (and Mirtle) mentioned upthread?
I think Carolina is looking for a kingly sum there as well, but we've got more toys in the forward department that they'd be interested in. They're about to turn the corner and they've got their defense pairing of the future right now in Slavin and Pesce. If they keep Faulk, then Hanafin, while not Expansion eligible, is another piece they'd be open to moving for more consistent scoring *cough* JvR *cough*.
How about Justin Faulk, as busta (and Mirtle) mentioned upthread?
I think Carolina is looking for a kingly sum there as well, but we've got more toys in the forward department that they'd be interested in. They're about to turn the corner and they've got their defense pairing of the future right now in Slavin and Pesce. If they keep Faulk, then Hanafin, while not Expansion eligible, is another piece they'd be open to moving for more consistent scoring *cough* JvR *cough*.
I'd put Faulk right behind Trouba. Those 2, off the top of my head, are probably the only legit top-pairing defenceman "rumoured" to be available. I just didn't include Faulk because despite all the speculation I really can't understand why Carolina would move him.
I could see them moving Hanifin in a 'Jones for Johansen' type of trade. There's actually a lot of similarities between those two situations. Only problem is JVR isn't Johansen.
I also don't think Hanifin is Jones either.
I also don't think Hanifin is Jones either.
Their first 2 seasons were both eerily similar:
Jones, drafted 4th overall. First 2 seasons: 52 points in 159 games. 51.8 CF%, 44.7 GF%
Hanifin, drafted 5th overall. First 2 seasons: 51 points in 160 games. 50.4 CF%, 45.5 GF%
I don't think Jones really broke out until his 4th season (this year). Jones does have the size and handedness advantage though so that would bump his value a little higher. Still think Hanifin could bring someone closer in value to Marner than JVR. And we're obviously not trading them Marner.
Another possibility might be Demers? Seems Florida will have issues at expansion draft and he might be the odd man out.
Off-topic for a second, I wonder if Arizona goes hard after Hossa, Chicago is in a bit of a bind and Hossa only makes $1 million this year despite a 5.5ish cap hit.
Another possibility might be Demers? Seems Florida will have issues at expansion draft and he might be the odd man out.
Do they have a crunch? Ekblad, Demers, and Yandle (NMC)? Who else do they not want to lose?
You have never been to AZ, best place on the planet to live IMHOOff-topic for a second, I wonder if Arizona goes hard after Hossa, Chicago is in a bit of a bind and Hossa only makes $1 million this year despite a 5.5ish cap hit.
Does Hossa have a no-trade clause? If he does, not sure why he'd agree to go to Arizona ...
You have never been to AZ, best place on the planet to live IMHO
You have never been to AZ, best place on the planet to live IMHO
While I'm sure it's a lovely place to live, I'm pretty sure the question has more to do with the team than the location.
You have never been to AZ, best place on the planet to live IMHO
While I'm sure it's a lovely place to live, I'm pretty sure the question has more to do with the team than the location.
Although you never know, there may be a confluence of the two. He may want to spend his last years playing low pressure hockey and sampling the finest methamphetamine America has to offer.
You have never been to AZ, best place on the planet to live IMHOOff-topic for a second, I wonder if Arizona goes hard after Hossa, Chicago is in a bit of a bind and Hossa only makes $1 million this year despite a 5.5ish cap hit.
Does Hossa have a no-trade clause? If he does, not sure why he'd agree to go to Arizona ...
https://theathletic.com/64103/2017/06/01/dellow-maple-leafs-should-table-huge-offer-sheet-for-blues-defenceman-colton-parayko/
Hmm...
https://theathletic.com/64103/2017/06/01/dellow-maple-leafs-should-table-huge-offer-sheet-for-blues-defenceman-colton-parayko/
Hmm...
I was about to post this. He suggests the Leafs should go after this guy and give up 4 first round draft picks. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
https://theathletic.com/64103/2017/06/01/dellow-maple-leafs-should-table-huge-offer-sheet-for-blues-defenceman-colton-parayko/
Hmm...
I was about to post this. He suggests the Leafs should go after this guy and give up 4 first round draft picks. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The obvious drawback here? Making other General Managers angry and not want to make deals with you afterwards. At the same time, though, Lamoriello is heading to the last year of his deal with many expecting him to step down afterward, so he doesn’t have a lot of need to maintain clout for much longer, not to mention that Toronto doesn’t exactly have a lot of outside acquisition left to do before they hit the maintenance stage.
[...]
It’s a bit sociopathic.
When is the last time a team used an offer sheet and got the player? A simple trade seems like a more plausible route (a la Kessel).
Suggestions concerning offer sheets seem a lot like suggestions that NHL teams make 3-way trades. They never happen (at least not to my memory, but I'm happy to hear of counter-examples!)
https://theathletic.com/64103/2017/06/01/dellow-maple-leafs-should-table-huge-offer-sheet-for-blues-defenceman-colton-parayko/
Hmm...
I was about to post this. He suggests the Leafs should go after this guy and give up 4 first round draft picks. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I'm not a subscriber -- What contract does he suggest?
(I also don't know this guy ... he must be good, I guess ...)
Say, for the sake of discussion, that the Leafs extended an offer sheet worth $12-million to Parayko. In order to be under the salary cap going into the season while matching that offer sheet, the Blues would need to shed $9-million worth of contracts before considering the fact that they would need to replace those players on the roster. Even if they spent only $1-million on each replacement, which isn’t particularly realistic, it would mean that they actually needed to clear $11-million. When you look over St. Louis’ roster, it becomes clear that this would be awfully difficult for the Blues to do without blowing out a rather large chunk of their roster for next year.
Quote from: DellowSay, for the sake of discussion, that the Leafs extended an offer sheet worth $12-million to Parayko. In order to be under the salary cap going into the season while matching that offer sheet, the Blues would need to shed $9-million worth of contracts before considering the fact that they would need to replace those players on the roster. Even if they spent only $1-million on each replacement, which isn’t particularly realistic, it would mean that they actually needed to clear $11-million. When you look over St. Louis’ roster, it becomes clear that this would be awfully difficult for the Blues to do without blowing out a rather large chunk of their roster for next year.
He's suggesting a 1 year deal @ 12million.
Then sign him to a 'Seth Jones' $5.4 MIL x 6 year bridge deal.
Unfortunately Arizona could offer:
2017 1st Pick (7th overall), Duclair, Strome and Calgary's 3rd pick which I feel is a better offer
Then sign him to a 'Seth Jones' $5.4 MIL x 6 year bridge deal.
But unless Parakyo is saying he absolutely won't sign with St. Louis (which he isn't), why wouldn't the Blues just sign him to that contract?
Currently St Louis needs to sign 2 forwards and 2 defence (including Parayko) with only $4.5 MIL cap space. They need around $0.7 for performance bonuses so they have about $0.9 MIL per player.
To sign Parayko to a $5.4 MIL contract the Blues would have to move 2 or 3 of:
Schwartz, 24, $5.35
Lehtera, 29, $4.7
Sobotka, 29, $3.5
Gunnarsson, 30, $2.9
Reading on TSN that St Louis *may* consider trading a first to get rid of two years left on Lehtera's contract. If so, perhaps worth the Leafs pursuing, even if it is later in round 1? That first is then either another young asset or something in the bank to put towards a d-man in a trade.
Anyway, the armchair GM in me wonders if that can be expanded to a point where JVR for Fabbro is worked in too. St. Louis could use some help on the left side it seems as well. Maybe we take Gunnarsson's contract back too in addition to Lehtera's.
edit: Sorry, not Fabbro. He's of course in Nashville. I could have sworn there was a defensive prospect that St. Louis picked that I liked recently, but it appears I was mistaken.
What about a 3 way trade that is something like :
St Louis gets JVR
Leafs get Tanev, Lehtera and one of STL's 1sts
Vancouver gets the other St Louis 1st, Gunnarsson and a prospect from St Louis and maybe a later pick from the Leafs.
Feasible or cloud cuckoo land?
Anyway, the armchair GM in me wonders if that can be expanded to a point where JVR for Fabbro is worked in too. St. Louis could use some help on the left side it seems as well. Maybe we take Gunnarsson's contract back too in addition to Lehtera's.
edit: Sorry, not Fabbro. He's of course in Nashville. I could have sworn there was a defensive prospect that St. Louis picked that I liked recently, but it appears I was mistaken.
Anyway, the armchair GM in me wonders if that can be expanded to a point where JVR for Fabbro is worked in too. St. Louis could use some help on the left side it seems as well. Maybe we take Gunnarsson's contract back too in addition to Lehtera's.
edit: Sorry, not Fabbro. He's of course in Nashville. I could have sworn there was a defensive prospect that St. Louis picked that I liked recently, but it appears I was mistaken.
Jake Walman, maybe? Or, maybe I'm overrating him because of how much his cousin was pumping his tires on facebook.
What about a 3 way trade that is something like :
St Louis gets JVR
Leafs get Tanev, Lehtera and one of STL's 1sts
Vancouver gets the other St Louis 1st, Gunnarsson and a prospect from St Louis and a prospect from the Leafs.
What about a 3 way trade that is something like :
St Louis gets JVR
Leafs get Tanev, Lehtera and one of STL's 1sts
Vancouver gets the other St Louis 1st, Gunnarsson and a prospect from St Louis and a prospect from the Leafs.
JVR is a big bullet in the Leafs gun to try and land an upgrade on the blueline. If they're dealing him and a prospect I'd sure hope they could do better than Tanev, a low first and a bad contract.
I don't know. Could that be an overvaluation on JVR? He's bad defensively and doesn't seem to be a guy who has that extra gear to take over a game. He's a really good player but are we really going to get something better than tanev for him? Unless the prospect is of the Kapanen level I think 3/4 defender is the best we get
On the interest in Tanev, including potential inquiries from Toronto:
I know a lot of teams have asked about him… Tanev is from Toronto, so I don’t think he’d have a big problem coming East. I think Dallas would love to have him. I could even see a team like Toronto wanting to have him. Chris Tanev is not the biggest name in the world, but he’s a solid guy and he plays a very smart game.
But I think Vancouver has told teams he’s not coming out of here easily. They really need a lot, Vancouver. They need scorers. I think if you can get them a scorer, it would pique their interest. But I think it’s going to cost a lot, and there is a lot of competition. The thing that [Vancouver] told one team was that the moment we trade this guy, we’re going to need someone like him. I would think he’s only getting dealt if he we hear the trade and we go, “oh, okay. That’s why he’s getting traded, because he’s worth that much.”
That’s a big deal. That costs you a lot.
I don't know. Could that be an overvaluation on JVR? He's bad defensively and doesn't seem to be a guy who has that extra gear to take over a game. He's a really good player but are we really going to get something better than tanev for him? Unless the prospect is of the Kapanen level I think 3/4 defender is the best we get
I think our disagreement may be more centered around what Tanev is than what JVR's value is. I agree they shouldn't be expecting much more than an NHL-ready #3 or #4 but Tanev, at a glance, looks like a guy with 0 offensive game, ok but not special possession numbers and some inability to stay healthy(he's averaged 64 games over the last 4 years). Is he someone who bumps any of our top 3? Does he necessarily bump Carrick? Is he markedly better than someone the Leafs could sign as a mid-range UFA like Smith?
It's the last one that really prompts the question. I'd rather keep JVR than deal him for not much more than they could get via smart UFA moving. I may be woefully unfamiliar with Tanev and maybe he's an all-world penalty killer or some new stat has him as being really, really valuable but from an in the dark place it sure doesn't look like you're getting a #3 or even #4 that stacks up with where we want to be at those spots.
the injury risk combined with the purported asking price seems too high for Tanev to me. I think I'd rather pay 7 million for Shattenkirk, if that was an option.
Josh Manson seems like the guy I'd like the most.
It's the last one that really prompts the question. I'd rather keep JVR than deal him for not much more than they could get via smart UFA moving.
I think that's fair. I agree on the health issues with Tanev. That being said, I do think that his defensive play is probably of the level that puts him in the 3-4 range. If he could play a full season a #3 and with his health issues a #4.
It's the last one that really prompts the question. I'd rather keep JVR than deal him for not much more than they could get via smart UFA moving.
That's kinda where I'm at in terms of a trade involving JvR. The Leafs probably come out ahead by keeping him and signing someone like Smith instead of moving him for Tanev. I do think the Leafs can do a better in a deal, but, if the reality is that they can't, I'd rather see them move JvR for a highly thought of D prospect that's on the cusp of breaking into the league than move him in a deal that I don't think really moves the team forward.
Ok, so how about the previous Lehtera and a 1st from St Louis for a minor prospect if that was on offer and either draft a prospect or put it into the bank towards an alternative dman?
Given the options, I think my D-plan for the offseason is officially "sign Smith, trade for Demers, convince Vegas to take somebody other than Carrick in the expansion draft, *edit* fire Marchenko into the sun".
Rielly-Demers
Gardiner-Zaitsev
Smith-Carrick
Riely, Gardiner, Zaitsev, and Carrick can all handle PP duties. I get it'd be weird to shake up one of the best PP's in the league from last season, but I'd really like to see Rielly and Carrick become the primary guys in the 1-3-1 system. I don't know. Just a gut feeling really. I don't really think either of Gardiner or Zaitsev were really super key in our PP's success. They helped move the puck around, but Carrick and Rielly can both do that too and I think create a little more as well. I'd also just like to see Carrick used on the speciality teams in some way, and he's obviously not going on the PK probably.
Smith and Demers could eat up a bunch of PK minutes. They'd basically be the new Hunwick-Polak except they're actually top-4 defenceman. If Rielly gets moved to the PP then I'd like to see Gardiner get his PK minutes. Again, more of a gut feeling and something I've talked about in the past too. I think Jake would perform better on the PK than Rielly did/would.
What about the Swedes we just signed?
Quote from: DellowSay, for the sake of discussion, that the Leafs extended an offer sheet worth $12-million to Parayko. In order to be under the salary cap going into the season while matching that offer sheet, the Blues would need to shed $9-million worth of contracts before considering the fact that they would need to replace those players on the roster. Even if they spent only $1-million on each replacement, which isn’t particularly realistic, it would mean that they actually needed to clear $11-million. When you look over St. Louis’ roster, it becomes clear that this would be awfully difficult for the Blues to do without blowing out a rather large chunk of their roster for next year.
He's suggesting a 1 year deal @ 12million.
I am not sure why we would offer $12 MIL and lose 4 1st round picks when offering $9.8 MIL would only lose 2 1st round picks, a 2nd round pick and 3rd round pick.
Quote from: DellowSay, for the sake of discussion, that the Leafs extended an offer sheet worth $12-million to Parayko. In order to be under the salary cap going into the season while matching that offer sheet, the Blues would need to shed $9-million worth of contracts before considering the fact that they would need to replace those players on the roster. Even if they spent only $1-million on each replacement, which isn’t particularly realistic, it would mean that they actually needed to clear $11-million. When you look over St. Louis’ roster, it becomes clear that this would be awfully difficult for the Blues to do without blowing out a rather large chunk of their roster for next year.
He's suggesting a 1 year deal @ 12million.
I am not sure why we would offer $12 MIL and lose 4 1st round picks when offering $9.8 MIL would only lose 2 1st round picks, a 2nd round pick and 3rd round pick.
Plot thickens in how insane it would be to offer another teams player to a ridiculous offer sheet....an RFA has to be qualified at 100% of the previous contract to keep his rights.
Getting locked in at $12 MIL or even $9.8 MIL is impossible to maintain. This is a broken system for offer sheets.
[Something like 6×6] is my sense, too. I guess what I would wonder is if they established the market by signing Zaitsev to a seven-year contract extension? The money would be less, of course, in the Zaitsev case, but I’m talking about the term here. They recognize that Nikita Zaitsev is part of the core going forward. Well, William Nylander has to be in that core.
I can tell you that, in the time I spent with Mike Babcock in Paris, the players he talked about were pretty obvious — of course Auston Matthews, of course Mitch Marner, but he brought up William Nylander and how well he thought he played, how far he thought his development curve spiked. That doesn’t sound like a player that the Toronto Maple Leafs are willing to dick around with in terms of trying to bridge or a shorter-term thing. They recognize the talent and the skill set of William Nylander and I’m sure they’ll do everything they can to get him into that five, six, seven-year term area.
If Toronto is going to acquire a defenceman — and they still feel they should add to their blue line — what is the piece? Who are the pieces they’re going to use? Even from an age perspective, and contractually, it’s going to be James van Riemsdyk or Tyler Bozak or pieces like that. We can stop — and should’ve stopped long ago — if we’re talking about William Nylander and the younger guys.
http://www.tsn.ca/golden-knights-leafs-in-trade-talks-as-deadline-nears-1.784337
what do you guys think about Leafs acquiring Methot?
http://www.tsn.ca/golden-knights-leafs-in-trade-talks-as-deadline-nears-1.784337
what do you guys think about Leafs acquiring Methot?
On the one hand, sens fans would be really mad.
On the other hand, Leafs fans would be really mad.
http://www.tsn.ca/golden-knights-leafs-in-trade-talks-as-deadline-nears-1.784337
what do you guys think about Leafs acquiring Methot?
I'd rather just bring back Hunwick, and that's saying something.
I'd rather just bring back Hunwick, and that's saying something.
I'd rather just bring back Hunwick, and that's saying something.
But Hunwick shoots left. Can we just make him play on the backhand all the time so he's a righty?
based on the article ... maybe Colin Miller ?
Louis JeanVerified account @LouisJean_TVA 12 minutes ago
Told @MapleLeafs interested in @GoldenKnights Nate Schmidt. Would 2nd rounder get it done?
Asked GM GM about Nate Schmidt, says he's not trading any of his young players. Keeping Schmidt.
— Pierre LeBrun (@PierreVLeBrun) June 22, 2017
Pierre LeBrun ✔ @PierreVLeBrun
Asked GM GM about Nate Schmidt, says he's not trading any of his young players. Keeping Schmidt.
Methot it is!
So, Dreger wants us to know he believes the Leafs are in on Hamonic.
Oh, I agree.
HF Boards trade incoming! Next year's 1st, Bracco, and/or an expiring contract (JvR or Bozak?) for the best thing you can get from a team with lots of D, who might've traded picks, is desperate for scoring and/or to make the post-season (NYI, MIN, CAR, WPG)?
Reilly - Shattenkirk
Gardiner - [Hamonic/ Dumba/ Brodin/ Faulk/ Hanifin/ Trouba]
Dermott - Zaitsev
I like Hamonic but I'm worried of the rumoured high cost. Friedman keeps saying two 1st rounders. We'll see.
Would be fine with me. The only question is whether the leafs can afford Shattenkirk's 7-9 million/year contract 3 years from now when Matthews, Marner and Gardiner cash in. Can they?
I like Hamonic but I'm worried of the rumoured high cost. Friedman keeps saying two 1st rounders. We'll see.
Yeah. THat's a lot to give up for a 2nd pairing guy - a very good 2nd pairing guy, but still a 2nd pairing guy.
Would be fine with me. The only question is whether the leafs can afford Shattenkirk's 7-9 million/year contract 3 years from now when Matthews, Marner and Gardiner cash in. Can they?
Rangers just cleared cap space, and Shattenkirk is a "New Yorker at heart," so I don't think it'll matter.
Unless he goes for that big dollar 2-3 year deal so he can with a Cup with the Leafs before settling into his old age with Rangers.
So, Dreger wants us to know he believes the Leafs are in on Hamonic.
I like Hamonic but I'm worried of the rumoured high cost. Friedman keeps saying two 1st rounders. We'll see.
I like Hamonic but I'm worried of the rumoured high cost. Friedman keeps saying two 1st rounders. We'll see.
Yeah. THat's a lot to give up for a 2nd pairing guy - a very good 2nd pairing guy, but still a 2nd pairing guy.
I'm leery of the cost of Hamonic, but I think he'd be perfect for this team and as Rielly's partner.
Hamonic missed a great deal of last season, he's better than last year. I think he fits nicely in most teams 2/3 spot.
Not sure it would fit cap- and asset-wise, but seems kind of drool worthy to me.
JvR/Bozak traded.
With all the talk seemingly focused around getting an established top 4 defenseman. I don't think there should be a sense of urgency to get it done this summer, if there is a deal out there that makes sense then go for it but I'd also be happy to go into the season with what we have plus some depth accqusitions.
That way we see how the two swedish UFA defensemen work out as well as Dermott/Neilsen. We also get to see how Liljegren's D+1 year goes.
How important do you all think it is to get an established top 4 D prior to the season?
I agree that it shouldn't be a matter of urgent priority as another year of development for the guys on defense we have could yield some solid returns on its own.
That said, I think dealing JVR and Bozak is a priority and I don't know how much it makes sense right now to get back draft picks for them. So it seems like it makes a lot of sense to add a defenseman this summer. That said I don't think it needs to be an established defenseman.
I agree that it shouldn't be a matter of urgent priority as another year of development for the guys on defense we have could yield some solid returns on its own.
That said, I think dealing JVR and Bozak is a priority and I don't know how much it makes sense right now to get back draft picks for them. So it seems like it makes a lot of sense to add a defenseman this summer. That said I don't think it needs to be an established defenseman.
I agree that it shouldn't be a matter of urgent priority as another year of development for the guys on defense we have could yield some solid returns on its own.
That said, I think dealing JVR and Bozak is a priority and I don't know how much it makes sense right now to get back draft picks for them. So it seems like it makes a lot of sense to add a defenseman this summer. That said I don't think it needs to be an established defenseman.
The problem that might arise with moving JVR and Bozak for something other than futures is that the short term remaining on their deals would restrict the suitors to teams that aren't looking to move players that are ready to contribute at the NHL level.
What type of return do you see as a possible fit to our situation?
I struggle to see anything other than futures, and perhaps moving some of those futures for something to upgrade the current roster.
Hearing #Coyotes will not extend qualifying offer to center Peter Holland. Players who don't receive QOs become unrestricted free agents.
— Sarah McLellan (@sarah__mclellan) June 26, 2017
Back-up candidate?
http://www.tsn.ca/report-stars-set-to-buyout-g-niemi-1.789172
Stats aren't too hot though:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=94168
Hearing #Coyotes will not extend qualifying offer to center Peter Holland. Players who don't receive QOs become unrestricted free agents.
— Sarah McLellan (@sarah__mclellan) June 26, 2017
Looks like the Coyotes won't be qualifying Peter Holland.
So the Leafs won't get a pick for him as the condition was we receive the pick if he was traded or re-signed by the Coyotes.
Seth Griffith also did not receive a qualifying offer from the #leafs, making him a pending UFA.
— Chris Johnston (@reporterchris) June 26, 2017
Barring a good return, it might actually be more beneficial to hang onto Bozak/JvR, loathe as I am to think it, because it means another contender doesn't have them during our open window.
No qualifying offer for Griffith:Seth Griffith also did not receive a qualifying offer from the #leafs, making him a pending UFA.
— Chris Johnston (@reporterchris) June 26, 2017
Sorry herman.
Barring a good return, it might actually be more beneficial to hang onto Bozak/JvR, loathe as I am to think it, because it means another contender doesn't have them during our open window.
Why do we care if another team has Bozak or JVR?
They would be most tradeable to contenders willing to spend futures, who we are up against in the playoffs?
So the Leafs won't get a pick for him as the condition was we receive the pick if he was traded or re-signed by the Coyotes.
They would be most tradeable to contenders willing to spend futures, who we are up against in the playoffs?
Again, so what? If there's a contender out there looking to add a scoring wing or a centre then JVR or Bozak being off the market wouldn't change that and that same contender might go out and spend more futures and get players who, and I know this is hard to imagine, are even better than Bozak or JVR.
Meanwhile the whole point of moving those guys is improving the team, whether that's from adding players you receive for them or reallocating their cap space to more pressing needs or ideally both.
Haha, I'd like to think I understood that as a given.
What I'm trying to say is, there is value in keeping their value out of the competition's pool, and I couldn't see any obvious deal where we would get something useful back other than non-roster options. The freed up space and return, as you mention, being leveraged in a follow-up move is a good way to get around all that though.
Did they retain Sparks?
I understand what you're trying to say, I'm saying that it seems to be based on some pretty far fetched notions about how teams behave. Teams in contention trade roster players all the time if they're looking to upgrade or address balance issues or clear cap space. Plus, quite frankly, if this team is ever going to win anything they're going to have to go through players a lot better than JVR or Bozak so that "value" is almost entirely imaginary provided you're not at the point of thinking you're Christopher Walken in the Dead Zone predicting our eventual demise at the hands of a JVR overtime goal.
JVR and Bozak can be turned into assets, maybe immediate roster players or maybe just pieces that can be used for that purpose like we just saw Calgary do. The whole point of Lamoriello was supposed to be that he could work out trades the way, frankly, a lot of other teams are. You seem to be preemptively defending an inability to go out and do what should be some pretty basic stuff for a GM to do.
Purely from the Leafs' perspective, I was thinking we'd be chopping 50ish goals/105 pts from our roster, and putting those points into what we're up against, ostensibly towards stronger goal prevention.
I am not well-versed in contender-contender trade patterns; if you have a couple of examples to jog my memory, that'd be great!
JvR, and to a lesser extent Bozak and Komarov are weapons we should have wielded on the trade market the offseason before. It sounds like there is a strong hesitancy to throw in the 2018 1st to grease those wheels this year as the Leafs are both on the cusp of greatness and 1-2 key injuries away from the draft lottery.
Is Brian Elliot available?
I understand what you're trying to say, I'm saying that it seems to be based on some pretty far fetched notions about how teams behave. Teams in contention trade roster players all the time if they're looking to upgrade or address balance issues or clear cap space. Plus, quite frankly, if this team is ever going to win anything they're going to have to go through players a lot better than JVR or Bozak so that "value" is almost entirely imaginary provided you're not at the point of thinking you're Christopher Walken in the Dead Zone predicting our eventual demise at the hands of a JVR overtime goal.
JVR and Bozak can be turned into assets, maybe immediate roster players or maybe just pieces that can be used for that purpose like we just saw Calgary do. The whole point of Lamoriello was supposed to be that he could work out trades the way, frankly, a lot of other teams are. You seem to be preemptively defending an inability to go out and do what should be some pretty basic stuff for a GM to do.
Good points. I'd like to think I was merely gauging the market with my limited perspective, rather than making excuses for a lacklustre management performance, but I can see where my words would be interpreted that way. Purely from the Leafs' perspective, I was thinking we'd be chopping 50ish goals/105 pts from our roster, and putting those points into what we're up against, ostensibly towards stronger goal prevention. I am not well-versed in contender-contender trade patterns; if you have a couple of examples to jog my memory, that'd be great!
JvR, and to a lesser extent Bozak and Komarov are weapons we should have wielded on the trade market the offseason before. It sounds like there is a strong hesitancy to throw in the 2018 1st to grease those wheels this year as the Leafs are both on the cusp of greatness and 1-2 key injuries away from the draft lottery.
Is Brian Elliot available?
Elliott or Chad Johnson would be my top-2 picks. Although both might be in line to make more than the Leafs would want for their back-up position.
I mean, off the top of my head Nashville and Montreal traded #1 defensemen going into a year where they were both expecting to contend. Chicago, the #3 team in the league last year, just straight up swapped scoring wingers with the #4 team in the league. St. Louis traded Shattenkirk to Washington, Tampa traded Drouin to Montreal, the Zibanejad/Brassard deal, St. Louis trading Elliott to Calgary...
All cases where contenders, or teams who were certainly trying to win now, traded roster players off their roster to other contenders.
Yes, they should have been traded before now. That said, the Leafs going forward still aren't in a position to re-sign those guys if they're looking for anything approaching market value so where is the sense in not turning them into what assets you can? Provided you don't re-sign them, and I have to think you're not advocating for re-signing them, they're going to be out there in the league competing with the Leafs anyway so the "value" you're talking about in keeping them disappears when they leave as UFAs regardless.
Gotta say though, some of those trades were done for some silly reasons.
I'm curious what the locker room cost might be to lose so many big (and positive) influences at once, when the group is on the verge of crossing the proverbial Jordan. The metaphor does bring to mind that the previous generation must first pass.
Maybe but I don't think we're in danger of reaching a point where GMs stop making bad decisions. One of the things trading these guys would do is give the Leafs a warchest of sorts of picks prospects that could be moved if/when the need arises.
I'm curious what the locker room cost might be to lose so many big (and positive) influences at once, when the group is on the verge of crossing the proverbial Jordan. The metaphor does bring to mind that the previous generation must first pass.
I think any "but leadership?" cards the Leafs had to play probably got played when they protected Matt Martin.
McPhee seems to be giving out sweetheart deals for whatever reason (haha, Ottawa). I have yet to see us swindle Sweeney or Benning, for which I am disappointed.
McPhee seems to be giving out sweetheart deals for whatever reason (haha, Ottawa). I have yet to see us swindle Sweeney or Benning, for which I am disappointed.
I have yet to see this front office swindle anyone. Lou's not getting "fell off the truck" prices anywhere.
We haven't really been in position to make player-for-player hockey-trades until now. I've heard the Leafs reticence to move any of their medium forwards as they're still in valuation mode (e.g. Brown) might be holding some moves off the board, and that's fine.
We haven't really been in position to make player-for-player hockey-trades until now. I've heard the Leafs reticence to move any of their medium forwards as they're still in valuation mode (e.g. Brown) might be holding some moves off the board, and that's fine.
I'm not even going to begin to try and figure out what that second sentence means.
As to the first though, why would a team's situation preclude them from making good player for player deals? New Jersey did very well trading for Hall despite not being a team on the cusp of contender-dom.
1. Snow and Toronto GM Lou Lamoriello had a seven-minute conversation on the draft floor prior to Round 1. As has been reported, the name James van Riemsdyk came up. The Islanders felt Andrew Ladd and Anders Lee fit the same pattern, so they passed.
5. He’s staying low profile — and there is serious doubt he actually wants to leave San Jose — but there is a list of teams who want to peer inside Joe Thornton’s head. At the draft, there was a lot of talk it would take a three-year deal to lure him. Potential suitors include Columbus, Los Angeles, Montreal and the Rangers. I could see Toronto having interest, but I’m not certain... Toronto is quieter about its intentions, but don’t forget that Mike Babcock has plenty of Team Canada history with both Marleau and Thornton.
Jooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Jooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Jooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
As if he'd cut that beard to play for the Leafs.
Emelin appears to be available. Could we take a flyer on him or is he crap?
Jooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
As if he'd cut that beard to play for the Leafs.
Craig Custance @CraigCustance
Lots of interest in Patrick Marleau coming off 27-goal season. Toronto, Anaheim, NYR, SJ, Carolina, Nashville, LA all in the mix.
Jooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
As if he'd cut that beard to play for the Leafs.
Ah yes, that moment when you remember you cheer for this stupid team.
$10m X 2 between the 2?
Translation: the players other teams want to trade for are not available for trade (at least not for what they were offering), which relates to our pre-contention lack of player for player deals.
I agree that it shouldn't be a matter of urgent priority as another year of development for the guys on defense we have could yield some solid returns on its own.
That said, I think dealing JVR and Bozak is a priority and I don't know how much it makes sense right now to get back draft picks for them. So it seems like it makes a lot of sense to add a defenseman this summer. That said I don't think it needs to be an established defenseman.
The problem that might arise with moving JVR and Bozak for something other than futures is that the short term remaining on their deals would restrict the suitors to teams that aren't looking to move players that are ready to contribute at the NHL level.
What type of return do you see as a possible fit to our situation?
I struggle to see anything other than futures, and perhaps moving some of those futures for something to upgrade the current roster.
Well obviously the ideal situation would be JVR being amenable to signing an extension with whoever we dealt him to so that would be less of an issue.
But I guess what I'm thinking of is a team that's sort of in contend now mode but that has also drafted reasonably well in recent years. So I've mentioned Travis Sanheim or Jacob Larsson or Gabriel Carlsson as possibilities.
Translation: the players other teams want to trade for are not available for trade (at least not for what they were offering), which relates to our pre-contention lack of player for player deals.
We're still in pre-contending mode, no?
Tom Hunter @PuckDontLie
"They (The Leafs) are tying to do something very big to help them win in the next few seasons" - @FriedgeHNIC
QuoteTom Hunter @PuckDontLie
"They (The Leafs) are tying to do something very big to help them win in the next few seasons" - @FriedgeHNIC
There's also been a lot of talk about how Thornton wants to see if San Jose will re-sign Marleau before deciding what he'll do. They'd really like to keep playing together. If San Jose is out then there probably aren't a lot of other teams that can offer both of them deals.
LeBrun also said yesterday that he's pretty sure Demers will be traded, maybe even this week. If the Leafs could get all 3 of those guys while trading JVR and Bozak, they become contenders to win the East without needing to jeopardize the long-term future of the team.
edit: Ah man I completely forgot Demers played for San Jose too. I bet all 3 are best friends.
Who is Tom Hunter and why should I believe him?
Who is Tom Hunter and why should I believe him?
He's quoting Friedman, who said it on the Jeff Blair show on the Fan 590 this morning.
OK, I'm doing lines...
Hyman-Matthews-Nylander
Marleau-Thornton-Brown
Leivo-Kadri-Marner
Martin- ??? - Kapanen
Marleau linked to here now too:QuoteCraig Custance @CraigCustance
Lots of interest in Patrick Marleau coming off 27-goal season. Toronto, Anaheim, NYR, SJ, Carolina, Nashville, LA all in the mix.
I've brought this up a couple of times, but trading JVR and Bozak for a defenceman and/or futures and replacing them with Marleau and Thornton for the next 2 years would be a heck of a move.
Even if they lose a bit offensively because of their age, those 2 are miles ahead of JVR and Bozak defensively. Miles. The upgrade there would also make getting another top defenceman less of a priority.
Franson pleaseA whole lot of "meh" on that suggestion. Been there done that, we need a minute crunching shut down guy.
Franson would be alright paired with either Rielly or Gardiner. We're not bringing back Mark Fraser.Franson pleaseA whole lot of "meh" on that suggestion. Been there done that, we need a minute crunching shut down guy.
Anyone know much about Jordan Weal other than what his hockeydb shows?
Supposedly had a visit with the Leafs earlier this week.
So tsn.ca McGuire is suggesting that if McDavid gets $13.25, teams will offer sheet Draisaitl.
I don't about you guys, but I think it would have to be one helluva offer sheet for Edmonton not to match.
Since it's no longer the '90s and the St. Louis Blues are probably less nuts, an offer sheet is pretty unlikely, but it could happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_players_who_have_signed_offer_sheets
Since it's no longer the '90s and the St. Louis Blues are probably less nuts, an offer sheet is pretty unlikely, but it could happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_players_who_have_signed_offer_sheets
Lou and Shanahan were involved in those, no? Maybe Lou uses an OS to blow up STL by signing Parayko. Dellow says they shed the salary to match if we go to 9+...
Lou and Shanahan were involved in those, no? Maybe Lou uses an OS to blow up STL by signing Parayko. Dellow says they shed the salary to match if we go to 9+...
Lou and Shanahan were involved in those, no? Maybe Lou uses an OS to blow up STL by signing Parayko. Dellow says they [can't] shed the salary to match if we go to 9+...
And, if they don't, then the Leafs have to shed a bunch of salary just to fill out the roster.
So, that's a no.
Lou and Shanahan were involved in those, no? Maybe Lou uses an OS to blow up STL by signing Parayko. Dellow says they [can't] shed the salary to match if we go to 9+...
And, if they don't, then the Leafs have to shed a bunch of salary just to fill out the roster.
So, that's a no.
Yeah, it'd require a fire sale of JvR, Bozak, Komarov, maybe Martin -- which the Leafs ought to do anyhow. And you'd have to trust that internal options are ready to fill in. Nylander could slide into Bozak's spot. Platooning Rychel, Johnsson, and Leivo in JvR's spot could add some scoring, but probably not replace his, and any number of plugs could replace Martin and Komarov. You downgrade a number of positions, but add a 1D.
Parayko isn't a 1D.Lou and Shanahan were involved in those, no? Maybe Lou uses an OS to blow up STL by signing Parayko. Dellow says they [can't] shed the salary to match if we go to 9+...
And, if they don't, then the Leafs have to shed a bunch of salary just to fill out the roster.
So, that's a no.
Yeah, it'd require a fire sale of JvR, Bozak, Komarov, maybe Martin -- which the Leafs ought to do anyhow. And you'd have to trust that internal options are ready to fill in. Nylander could slide into Bozak's spot. Platooning Rychel, Johnsson, and Leivo in JvR's spot could add some scoring, but probably not replace his, and any number of plugs could replace Martin and Komarov. You downgrade a number of positions, but add a 1D.
I don't recall that clearly but didn't St. Louis make a move after that article was written?
Parayko isn't a 1D.
;)
(http://i.imgur.com/1TApXik.png)