Armchair GM 2016-2017

[Kin]

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?

 

[herman]

No qualifying offer for Griffith:

https://twitter.com/reporterchris/status/879461842850111489

Sorry herman.

 

[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?

I wanted to trade them before now, but they're not going to get back as much value now as they would have when we weren't playoff bound.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[herman]

Not qualifying Bibeau and Kalinin was obvious.

Not qualifying Griffith was also rather obvious (but saddening), and opens up minutes and room for the wave of 2015/6 draft picks coming up to join the existing LOGJAM:

Exiting: Kapanen (graduated), Leipsic (wasted), Griffith, Kalinin, Michalek, Laich, Greening, Bibeau, Rychel (waiver wire fodder)

Incumbents: Timashov, Johnsson, Lindberg, Moore, Dermott (maybe graduating), Neilsen, Holl, Gauthier, Sparks

Incoming: Aaltonen, Bracco, Brooks, Grundstrom, Rosen (maybe Leaf), Borgman, Kaskisuo, Piccinich

Question marks: Dzierkals, Walker, Lindgren, Engvall

Edit: Forgot Fish-bulb.

 

[Highlander]

Nothing on Rosen or the other Swede? I think these guys have huge potential upside. When we look back at things who wouldn't love to have Stralman back in the fold.

 

[bustaheims]

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 could still re-sign him. They may just have chosen not to qualify him to avoid arbitration or to try to get his salary down a few hundred grand. It wouldn't be super unusual.

 

[herman]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

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.

 

[Highlander]

Did they retain Sparks?

 

[Zee]

Did they retain Sparks?

Yeah Sparks was qualified.

 

[herman]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

Sure, except those 50ish goals and 105 points would be countered both from internal ways such as players like Leivo getting a shot or maybe Kapanen being used in more of an offensive role or externally by bringing in some scoring help on short term deals. You probably can't make up for the entirety of what JVR brings but you should be able to make up 70-80% of those 50ish goals and 100ish points at least via internal replacements or affordable short term UFAs.

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!

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.

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.

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. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

 

[Bender]

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.

At the same time now that I think about it, why couldn't we have offered the same package for Hamonic? I think JVR is more valuable than a 1st at 20th or wherever.

 

[Bender]

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.

At the same time you get a bit more out of your backup and a move to average in terms of shootout wins and we're not that far off from being very competitive. As it stands I think we're missing a first pairing D and maybe depth D and a backup and I think we should be in pretty good shape.

 

[herman]

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.

Yo those are super recent, so my brain is clearly ignoring them for some reason. How could I forget Subban-Webber? Thanks!

Gotta say though, some of those trades were done for some silly reasons.

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.

I think my original premise here with their evaporating value was the hypothetical: what if Marner didn't get mono, and the Leafs had all of their lines going against Washington... but that's stupid. JvR/Bozak weren't and have never really been the drivers of that line (they do a great job riding shotgun, at least in the OZ), but they're the higher end of rental depth a contender might want to pick up to become a champion.

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.

 

[Kin]

Gotta say though, some of those trades were done for some silly reasons.

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.

 

[herman]

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.

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'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.

Martin looks like a really good hugger so I think we'll be okay.

 

[Kin]

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.