Guilt Trip said:
Yeah unless it's timed perfectly with Andersen or Campbell going on the IR I don't think they'll claim anyone. If they wanted a 3rd goalie on the roster they would have just kept Dell.
2020-2021 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion
- Thread starter herman
- Start date
Yeah unless it's timed perfectly with Andersen or Campbell going on the IR I don't think they'll claim anyone. If they wanted a 3rd goalie on the roster they would have just kept Dell.
L K
Active member
Too bad about losing Dell but this was obviously inevitable with the NHL not making accommodations for the taxi squad to be waiver exempt. I still think that was what should have happened but oh well.
Glad that Spezza got to pass through waivers. I wonder if in the future there might be an option to make >35+ players waiver exempt when signing 1-year deals if they elect it for guys at the end of their career that don't want to move much.
Glad that Spezza got to pass through waivers. I wonder if in the future there might be an option to make >35+ players waiver exempt when signing 1-year deals if they elect it for guys at the end of their career that don't want to move much.
L K said:
This made me wonder why NMCs can't be used in a situation like this. If Spezza had one he should be able to use it to block off waiver claims but approve being assigned to the minors.
Hobbes said:
For sure, but that's also why I don't think it would be over-used/abused by teams. It'd require a pretty high amount of trust between the team and the player to respect the spirit of their agreement, which I think exists between Dubas/Spezza.
L K
Active member
Hobbes said:
That's very true, but that's on the GM for offering a NMC. It's not really an issue to me because of that. There aren't a lot of 35+ guys getting NMC unless the team is trying to entice a player to fill a new role or they are giving it out of respect.
So much like Dubas clearly went to Spezza over this waiver scenario it would be a case by case basis.
Next year there is a lot less of an issue around roster moves with a full AHL team up and running so you won't see Spezza type scenarios as much.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
L K said:
I don't look at this as protecting John Tavares, as the writer would have you believe.
I think they're allowing the other teams to decide whether they want to match up against Matthews/Marner or Tavares/Nylander. Right now, I think teams are choosing that M&M is more of a risk so they're trying to defend against them, which is allowing Tavares to have an easier matchup. If they suddenly flipped to guarding Tavares with the more defensive groups, I don't think the Leafs would change much. They'd simply allow Matthews to face the easier competition. The leafs strength is they have 4 extremely talented forwards that they can split up onto two equal lines and give teams fits from either of those lines. They're forcing the other team to make the decision who's more dangerous. I'd agree that it's probably Matthews. I'm also ok that it's opening up Tavares(and Nylander).
Like herman says, it's leveraging the build of the line up.
L K
Active member
OldTimeHockey said:
Absolutely, and it was mentioned in the GDT but I don't remember both lines firing on all cylinders like this in the past. It always felt like one line would get really hot and then the other would quiet down (still putting up points but not as dominant). Right now those two lines are just controlling the game. Tavares looks genuinely faster this year too.
ZBBM
Active member
L K said:
^ This is the point. It's not like the Leafs suddenly stumbled on the option of forcing the opponents to pick their poison. This is one of the rare times when Marner and Tavares are beasting it up on separate lines.
Now, if Nylander can consistently bring it as in G1, then you have something there.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Frank E said:
not at all.
Guru Tugginmypuddah
Active member
L K said:
Not sure Herman is over Seth Griffith yet.