Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
GT, no I didn't say that originally but nonetheless my original opinion still holds: I'd trade him. He's got the most value and they should maximize the return. They aren't going to get far in the playoffs with the defense as now constituted, even with the godlike Sandin in the lineup.
A question: pretend Muzzin is available to anyone who wants him...what would you say a team like the Panthers or Penguins or Bolts or Avs ought to be prepared to pay for 3-4 months of his services? If you were a fan of that other team, would you go absolutely ballistic at whatever price you're suggesting? What possible incentive would that other team have for trading for him if he's going to be a UFA at the end of the year? Non-contending teams have no reason at all to do a deal with you because they can just wait for July 1st. Contending teams are basically all at or near cap and would have to move out nearly equivalent value back the Leafs and have the deal appeal to both parties.
It's easy to say "dance" but you need to find a willing dance partner.
Nik Bethune said:
I think you're missing the point a little bit. I'm not saying "experience" doesn't exist, I'm saying that "experience" in and of itself isn't a specific thing. ..
I understand the point. My own personal non-hockey experience tells me there's value in having experienced those sorts of situations. I surmise but cannot prove that the same would hold true for hockey. I know that "appeal to authority" isn't a very sexy way to support an argument, particularly when it comes to psychology. In the absence of a strong argument to the contrary, however, I'll at least lean in the experts' consensus direction. And yes, failing to make the playoffs would be its own kind of experience which would be part of the "is this trade worth making" valuation you go through before pulling the trigger.
I wouldn't have traded JVR (or Gardiner or Bozak) for a bag of used pucks, but I'd have leapt at a straight-up trade for Crosby. I'm sure the offers were somewhere in between that but without knowing what sorts of offers might or might not have been on the table the only thing you can say with any certainty is that the Leafs didn't receive an offer that was enticing enough for them to feel that the value they were receiving (including the value of likely missing the playoffs) was worth whatever (imaginary) value some playoff experience might give the rest of the roster players on the team.
Nik Bethune said:
Those cap dollars and roster spots only have "value" if they're there when they otherwise wouldn't be. Trade them at the deadline or let them walk as FA's and those "valuable assets" are on the books either way. Counting them as upsides to the team's decision making is not good accounting practice.
Yes, I phrased that poorly, although to suggest that they'd be there either way is only true if the Leafs do not take back a player with remaining term as part of the deal if they make a deadline deal. It's not a foregone conclusion that the return would only have been picks.
It's all about value equations and those aren't all that easy to do. Even the experts get it wrong and perhaps the Leafs did in those cases. As you pointed out with your somewhat snide "[GM's] very rarely have bad opinions on things" remark, it's an inexact process that can easily go wrong. I'd prefer to have a professional make the mistakes than a Steve "Dangle" Glynn.
