Bozak Signs 5 Years - $21 Million

[Frank E]

I don't think Grabbo fit in with the coach and his philosophy. 

I don't think this was about his skill level.

Sometimes you fire a guy that's got talent, but just doesn't fit in with the rest of your team.

Having said that, I'll stand by taking Bozak at $1.3m less money...but something tells me that Grabbo was gone, Bozak or no Bozak.

Maybe, but Carlyle is also the coach who didn't think Lupul could play a certain wing in Anaheim and he came here and excelled at that spot.  Grabovski was never given a chance to be the #1 C like Bozak did so we'll never know.  And yeah, he may have been gone regardless, but that doesn't make me feel better about it - I truly believe we kept a worse player when we could have kept the better player, even with the salary difference.

He can prove me wrong with his play, though.

Sorry about the lousy quoting on that last post.

We also know that Lupul is playing infinitely better than he was in Anaheim, and that maybe this was a Lupul issue, and less so a Carlyle issue.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Yes. Because it takes a Excel spreadsheet to show Tyler Bozak isn't an upgrade on Tyler Bozak.

Every single poster on the board is disappointed that Nonis didn't walk away from today with Wayne Gretzky in his prime.

Not me.  I would have settle for Seguin.  Looking at that trade the leafs could have offered a better package; like two first round picks ;-).

 

[Rebel_1812]

Signing bozak makes sense for next season.  I wonder if it will be a good deal 3 season from now.

 

[Kin]

Not me.  I would have settle for Seguin.  Looking at that trade the leafs could have offered a better package; like two first round picks ;-).

Honestly, they really couldn't. Eriksson is a 70+ point guy in most years. The Bruins aren't rebuilding, that trade was to improve right now. Short of Kadri or Kessel the Leafs really don't have a comparable asset.

 

[mr grieves]

I was only looking for Nonis to be as good as his ambitions: get deeper and better at center.

And a lot of people think he's done that with replacing Grabo with Bolland. You don't and that's fine but once Lecavalier signed there was no clear upgrade on Bozak down the middle available as a UFA. Signing Bozak doesn't mean that Bozak is going to be the #1 center for ever and ever and ever, it just means that for right now the status quo there is better than just going with Kadri and Bolland.

Bolland as "better" than Grabbo is a maybe. We'll see. But otherwise, you're telling me why things didn't happen, and I'm only saying what did happen. And you're not even really disagreeing... The position most in need of an upgrade, center, was not upgraded. "Deeper" usually means more bodies, and we have no additional centers. We aren't better and deeper. We're about the same.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think Grabbo fit in with the coach and his philosophy. 

I don't think this was about his skill level.

Sometimes you fire a guy that's got talent, but just doesn't fit in with the rest of your team.

Having said that, I'll stand by taking Bozak at $1.3m less money...but something tells me that Grabbo was gone, Bozak or no Bozak.

Maybe, but Carlyle is also the coach who didn't think Lupul could play a certain wing in Anaheim and he came here and excelled at that spot.  Grabovski was never given a chance to be the #1 C like Bozak did so we'll never know.  And yeah, he may have been gone regardless, but that doesn't make me feel better about it - I truly believe we kept a worse player when we could have kept the better player, even with the salary difference.

He can prove me wrong with his play, though.

Sorry about the lousy quoting on that last post.

We also know that Lupul is playing infinitely better than he was in Anaheim, and that maybe this was a Lupul issue, and less so a Carlyle issue.

Maybe it's a chicken or the egg scenario?  I would hate to see the same thing happen with Grabovski elsewhere.

 

[Kin]

Bolland as "better" than Grabbo is a maybe. We'll see. But otherwise, you're telling me why things didn't happen, and I'm only saying what did happen. And you're not even really disagreeing... The position most in need of an upgrade, center, was not upgraded. "Deeper" usually means more bodies, and we have no additional centers. We aren't better and deeper. We're about the same.

See, I don't get why you can start off so well(allowing for a difference of opinion on Bolland vs. Grabo) and then at the end just state flatly "we aren't better". Ok, I get it, you don't think that Grabo is worse than Bolland. But Nonis pretty clearly thinks Bolland is better, or at least a better fit, than Grabo so from his perspective he's at least made a start.

Is it disappointing that the Leafs didn't get more centers? I guess but considering that with Bozak, Bolland, Kadri and McClement already here any "depth" that the team was going to add was going to come by means of fringe-y players and there's still time for that. Being disappointed that Nonis didn't improve the depth at the position in 2013-2014 will be a fair criticism if it proves to bite them, i suppose, but being disappointed that he didn't do it today is a tantrum.

But yes, ideally, everyone would have liked to have seen the Leafs add a top flight center. Nonis tried, I'm sure he did. But no top flight centers moved today. For the most part the centers who signed today were at best marginal upgrades on Bozak who signed for higher prices. There's nothing to suggest that one was available. I don't see the point in getting on Nonis for failing to make a move that wasn't available to him but, heck, you seem determined to get on him as soon as possible so have at it.

 

[Zee]

I was only looking for Nonis to be as good as his ambitions: get deeper and better at center.

And a lot of people think he's done that with replacing Grabo with Bolland. You don't and that's fine but once Lecavalier signed there was no clear upgrade on Bozak down the middle available as a UFA. Signing Bozak doesn't mean that Bozak is going to be the #1 center for ever and ever and ever, it just means that for right now the status quo there is better than just going with Kadri and Bolland.

That's the thing with that Bozak signing. Nowhere is it written in stone that Bozak is #1C for five years. Hell he may lose the position if Kadri keeps improving or maybe a trade presents itself for Nonis to upgrade the spot. He doesn't have a NTC so the options are always there to move him if he's not working out or even drop him down in the lineup if someone else becomes the true top center.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[mr grieves]

Bolland as "better" than Grabbo is a maybe. We'll see. But otherwise, you're telling me why things didn't happen, and I'm only saying what did happen. And you're not even really disagreeing... The position most in need of an upgrade, center, was not upgraded. "Deeper" usually means more bodies, and we have no additional centers. We aren't better and deeper. We're about the same.

See, I don't get why you can start off so well(allowing for a difference of opinion on Bolland vs. Grabo) and then at the end just state flatly "we aren't better". Ok, I get it, you don't think that Grabo is worse than Bolland. But Nonis pretty clearly thinks Bolland is better, or at least a better fit, than Grabo so from his perspective he's at least made a start.

Difference of opinion on Bolland vs. Grabbo, sure. At this pont, who knows? All we know know is that he's a cheaper 3C and will make a much better shutdown C. Nonis seems to think he has a better offensive game than he showed in

The flatly stated "we aren't better" had to do with the centers in toto -- improving the 3rd line somewhat and getting nothing done in the area of greatest weakness (1C) leaves the team, roughly, "not better" down the middle. Marginally better, maybe? Or, given that we'd both prefer Grabbo to Bozak in the top 6 (a conservative worst case for striking out with UFAs or trades), marginally worse?

So, "not better" seems fair. "Better up top but generally thinner and less cap-efficient on the wing" doesn't sound outrageously disapproving. "Slight addition by subtraction" seems about right for defense.

If I'm raking Nonis over the coals for anything it's not getting rid of Grabbo and MacArthur until they were walking (or being bought out) if they weren't in Carlyle's plans. That's a waste of assets for whom, within the last 14 months, teams were offering first round picks. If the plan was to build a team tailored to Randy Carlyle, a more assertive GM would've made certain roster decisions somewhat sooner.

 

[mr grieves]

I was only looking for Nonis to be as good as his ambitions: get deeper and better at center.

And a lot of people think he's done that with replacing Grabo with Bolland. You don't and that's fine but once Lecavalier signed there was no clear upgrade on Bozak down the middle available as a UFA. Signing Bozak doesn't mean that Bozak is going to be the #1 center for ever and ever and ever, it just means that for right now the status quo there is better than just going with Kadri and Bolland.

That's the thing with that Bozak signing. Nowhere is it written in stone that Bozak is #1C for five years. Hell he may lose the position if Kadri keeps improving or maybe a trade presents itself for Nonis to upgrade the spot. He doesn't have a NTC so the options are always there to move him if he's not working out or even drop him down in the lineup if someone else becomes the true top center.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Maybe. I said months ago that, if Bozak's signed, it'll be to play with Kessel, and I don't think, if signed as a UFA, he is going to make a very appealing trade chip.

I don't think enough of Randy Carlyle as a coach to think the first needs revising -- he seems at least as stubborn as Wilson ever was. As for the second: at $4.2m Bozak certainly could move, especially if Kessel keeps watering the meat. But I hope Nonis pulls the trigger without waiting for Randy to devalue another asset.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Bolland as "better" than Grabbo is a maybe. We'll see. But otherwise, you're telling me why things didn't happen, and I'm only saying what did happen. And you're not even really disagreeing... The position most in need of an upgrade, center, was not upgraded. "Deeper" usually means more bodies, and we have no additional centers. We aren't better and deeper. We're about the same.

See, I don't get why you can start off so well(allowing for a difference of opinion on Bolland vs. Grabo) and then at the end just state flatly "we aren't better". Ok, I get it, you don't think that Grabo is worse than Bolland. But Nonis pretty clearly thinks Bolland is better, or at least a better fit, than Grabo so from his perspective he's at least made a start.

Difference of opinion on Bolland vs. Grabbo, sure. At this pont, who knows? All we know know is that he's a cheaper 3C and will make a much better shutdown C. Nonis seems to think he has a better offensive game than he showed in

The flatly stated "we aren't better" had to do with the centers in toto -- improving the 3rd line somewhat and getting nothing done in the area of greatest weakness (1C) leaves the team, roughly, "not better" down the middle. Marginally better, maybe? Or, given that we'd both prefer Grabbo to Bozak in the top 6 (a conservative worst case for striking out with UFAs or trades), marginally worse?

So, "not better" seems fair. "Better up top but generally thinner and less cap-efficient on the wing" doesn't sound outrageously disapproving. "Slight addition by subtraction" seems about right for defense.

If I'm raking Nonis over the coals for anything it's not getting rid of Grabbo and MacArthur until they were walking (or being bought out) if they weren't in Carlyle's plans. That's a waste of assets for whom, within the last 14 months, teams were offering first round picks. If the plan was to build a team tailored to Randy Carlyle, a more assertive GM would've made certain roster decisions somewhat sooner.

If you believe everything Brian Burke says, that is, but it's far from fact....

 

[Kin]

If I'm raking Nonis over the coals for anything it's not getting rid of Grabbo and MacArthur until they were walking (or being bought out) if they weren't in Carlyle's plans. That's a waste of assets for whom, within the last 14 months, teams were offering first round picks. If the plan was to build a team tailored to Randy Carlyle, a more assertive GM would've made certain roster decisions somewhat sooner.

You ever see that episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine where the captain has to sort of wrap his head around the idea that there are aliens who don't experience time as a linear progression?

Anyways, if your criticism is that Nonis didn't decide to bust up the team that looked poised to make the playoffs after 8 years without for the sake of whatever assets Mac and Grabo could have fetched once it became apparent that they weren't in Carlylye's plans well, that strikes me as some seriously unrealistic expectations.  Likewise, the idea that Nonis was coming out of today with a #1 center is kind of pipe-dream stuff.

Yes, Nonis said he would have liked to. That doesn't make one available or make it a legitimate way to judge what he did today.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Joffrey Lupul @JLupul
Oh thats sweet. It's probably time for him to start paying some rent, right? RT PKessel81: My buddy is back leaf nation

 

[mr grieves]

If I'm raking Nonis over the coals for anything it's not getting rid of Grabbo and MacArthur until they were walking (or being bought out) if they weren't in Carlyle's plans. That's a waste of assets for whom, within the last 14 months, teams were offering first round picks. If the plan was to build a team tailored to Randy Carlyle, a more assertive GM would've made certain roster decisions somewhat sooner.

You ever see that episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine where the captain has to sort of wrap his head around the idea that there are aliens who don't experience time as a linear progression?

I don't know, I think it's a pretty linear progression:

Spring 2012 -- trade offers received for Grabbo and MacArthur. Burke's committed to keeping them.
March 2, 2012 -- Wilson fired, Carlyle hired. Stated at the time is that the move isn't so much to get the Leafs back into the playoffs (things had deteriorated far) but to let him evaluate the team.
March 5(?), 2012 -- Grabbo signed to 2C money. Burke isn't waiting to see who's the best fit for "Randy Carlyle" hockey.
Summer 2012 -- During end of season meetings, Carlyle and management evaluate players. One can infer, based on below, the view that Grabovski and MacArthur aren't "Randy Carlyle players" becomes clear, at least to Nonis, then.
January 2013 -- Burke's fired. Nonis steps in. Shortly after: "Nonis was asked early in his administration as Leafs general manager whether or not the group assembled fit under the style of Carlyle ? who had assumed control from Ron Wilson as the Toronto coach in the final stages of the 2011-2012 campaign. He replied toward the negative before an ultimately successful 2013 campaign. "We need to alter that a little bit," Nonis said of the team's construction in early January. "We need to make a couple of changes to play that style."" (from Jonas Siegel).
January 2013 to May 2013 -- Players who don't fit the coach's style are kept on the roster in marginal roles; their trade values plummet. The consequence of this inaction is players that had garnered trade interest cease to. A team that was no sure bet to make the playoffs surprises and does pretty well, but the plan either remains or becomes "get Randy his team." In either case, with playoffs a strong possibility, no moves are being made. But, even if they weren't, the players that didn't fit the coach's style were not put in positions where their value benefitted.
Summer 2013 -- Nonis, unable to trade what's now a miscast shutdown 
3C, has to buy Grabbo out, and he lets MacArthur walk.

So, before the season started, some players appear to have been deemed not a fit for the coach's style, and the new GM's declared his intentions to assemble a roster that fits the coach's style. Unless he was just mouthing words, the time to move on from players that aren't going to fit is in January.

Every move in the last two weeks has been followed by a press conference in which Nonis crows "I can you Randy's very happy about this..." The last two days have made it very clear the Leafs are testing the theory that it's better to build coaches their ideal teams than to just take the best available players.

The extent to which Nonis committed to this since the draft suggests two possibilities, and I don't think either is very flattering to GM:

1. The plan was always to build a team tailored to Randy Carlyle. In this case, Nonis is a poor GM for failing to evaluate players and make roster decisions in a timely manner (i.e. before your coach devalues your assets) and/or failing to get his coach to be honest about what he wanted on his roster ("Think Grabbo's going to work on your team, Randy?" "Might could..." "... Ok."). Nonis's being conservative in player assessment -- "well, it might work..." -- results in being cavalier with respect asset management. There was a time to fish or cut bait on certain players, and it was in January. A better, less timid GM would've made the move then.

2. The plan only became to build Randy's team in the last month or so, after seeing how the season and playoffs went. In that case, Nonis is a poor GM for not having much of a plan -- "we'll stick with my evaluation of the players... you know, or Randy's" -- and then changing tack pretty hard and outsourcing the plan to his coach. 

 

[Kin]

I don't know, I think it's a pretty linear progression:

I think there are some pretty glaring omissions in your read of things. I'll go point by point.

Spring 2012 -- trade offers received for Grabbo and MacArthur. Burke's committed to keeping them.

Yes, although there are conflicting reports as to what those offers were. There's a very real likelihood that what you're obsessing about here is how Nonis didn't decide to jeopardize the Leafs playoff chances for some second round picks.

March 5(?), 2012 -- Grabbo signed to 2C money. Burke isn't waiting to see who's the best fit for "Randy Carlyle" hockey.

Hard to believe he was fired.

Summer 2012 -- During end of season meetings, Carlyle and management evaluate players. One can infer, based on below, the view that Grabovski and MacArthur aren't "Randy Carlyle players" becomes clear, at least to Nonis, then.

No, one really can't. Well, one can if you're bending facts to make Nonis look as bad as possible but, well, clearly that's not going on. Remember, as we've gone over multiple times when talking about Grabo, Carlyle started off giving Grabo 2nd line minutes. For almost a quarter of the season he did. It was Grabo's poor play and Kadri's emergence that bumped him down to the third line role. The evidence actively disputes the idea that this was a determination made before the season began. This applies just as well to Mac whose diminished role has way more to do with JVR's arrival than it does any decision Nonis made.

January 2013 -- Burke's fired. Nonis steps in. Shortly after: "Nonis was asked early in his administration as Leafs general manager whether or not the group assembled fit under the style of Carlyle ? who had assumed control from Ron Wilson as the Toronto coach in the final stages of the 2011-2012 campaign. He replied toward the negative before an ultimately successful 2013 campaign. "We need to alter that a little bit," Nonis said of the team's construction in early January. "We need to make a couple of changes to play that style."" (from Jonas Siegel).

Yes but as we've gone over the idea that the players in question "didn't fit the style" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Likewise, looking over the teams Carlyle has coached in the past there is no clear "style" that a player has to play that makes them a bad fit. Teemu Selanne, Andy McDonald, Ryan Getzlaf, Travis Moen...lots of players, lots of different styles.

The way Grabo and Mac "didn't fit into Carlyle's system" is that they're players whose value comes mainly from offense who weren't providing offense and weren't providing enough value in reduced roles. That's not a Carlyle specific problem and, quite frankly, we've seen that from the reaction to them being available on the open market. 

January 2013 to May 2013 -- Players who don't fit the coach's style are kept on the roster in marginal roles; their trade values plummet. The consequence of this inaction is players that had garnered trade interest cease to. A team that was no sure bet to make the playoffs surprises and does pretty well, but the plan either remains or becomes "get Randy his team." In either case, with playoffs a strong possibility, no moves are being made. But, even if they weren't, the players that didn't fit the coach's style were not put in positions where their value benefitted.

Here's where your argument really falls apart. For starters something pretty important things happened between when the team got the trade offers for Mac and Grabo and Nonis got the job. For starters, Grabovski signed a big multi-year contract that a lot of people criticized as being too rich and too long the day it was signed. That negatively impacted his trade value. Also, there was a lockout. That lockout included salary cap that was going to decrease in the next year. That further devalued any player who had a bad contract.  There were lots of reasons those players were less attractive on the trade market besides their own poor play, and let's be real that's still the main reason their value dropped.

Simple fact of the matter is that there just wasn't a lot of player movement in the very brief window between the lockout ending and the season beginning. Everyone was scrambling let alone someone who got the GM job very recently and very suddenly.

So, before the season started, some players appear to have been deemed not a fit for the coach's style, and the new GM's declared his intentions to assemble a roster that fits the coach's style. Unless he was just mouthing words, the time to move on from players that aren't going to fit is in January.

I think this ignores the very real dynamic that can exist between a GM and a coach. Carlyle may very well have said to Nonis in January that Grabovski didn't really fit in with his plans going forward but Nonis who I think it's safe to say was clearly going to be influenced by Burke very well may have said "Well, clearly Brian thought he was a good fit for this team" and said that he wanted to at least give Grabo a shot. After the season, where Grabo played poorly, Carlyle can come back to Nonis and say Grabo wasn't a fit and point to his crummy play as proof. If there was disagreement between Burke and Carlyle as to Grabo's place within the organization, and I think you have to admit that to reconcile your belief in Carlyle's irrational dislike of Grabo and Burke's willingness to sign him to a big extensions, then Grabo's season gave Carlyle's opinion weight.

Every move in the last two weeks has been followed by a press conference in which Nonis crows "I can you Randy's very happy about this..." The last two days have made it very clear the Leafs are testing the theory that it's better to build coaches their ideal teams than to just take the best available players.

With all due respect, this is where you start really sounding like you don't know what you're talking about. This is TSN's list of the "best available free agents" yesterday:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=95306

Where's Grabo? #9. Where's Mac? #29. Where are the two guys they actually signed? #1 and #4. I know, I know, the guys at TSN aren't as smart as you or know as much about hockey but the idea that Nonis has favoured guys who fit in with Carlyle's system over better players? That's you man, that's far from fact.

1. The plan was always to build a team tailored to Randy Carlyle. In this case, Nonis is a poor GM for failing to evaluate players and make roster decisions in a timely manner (i.e. before your coach devalues your assets) and/or failing to get his coach to be honest about what he wanted on his roster ("Think Grabbo's going to work on your team, Randy?" "Might could..." "... Ok.").

Or Carlyle's answer was "Well, yeah, if he gives us a legitimate second scoring line he'll fit. Failing that he'll have to really prove himself on the 3rd line but even then he's too expensive for that role". Grabo's failure then determined his "not fitting in".

2. The plan only became to build Randy's team in the last month or so, after seeing how the season and playoffs went. In that case, Nonis is a poor GM for not having much of a plan -- "we'll stick with my evaluation of the players... you know, or Randy's" -- and then changing tack pretty hard and outsourcing the plan to his coach.

Or, and I know this requires a certain degree of appreciating that Nonis is a person, but Nonis got the job with absolutely no warning and under very strange circumstances after acting as Burke's #2 for a long time. Expecting Nonis to come into that situation with a "plan" that involved a drastic overhaul might not have made sense considering the time he had and the fairly confusing nature of what Burke got fired for. Because of that, he might have opted to stick with the status quo at first and see where the team that Burke had assembled before taking the wrecking ball to it if it needed that.

Mac aside, and I think Mac was always destined to leave but that there was more value in keeping him here as depth than adding the marginal assets you could have fetched at the deadline, the only real way for Nonis to have done what you said is to have seen that Grabo wouldn't have been able to play well this year.

Now, I think the Captain on Star Trek taught the Aliens about linear time through baseball. So, you know, if you ever want to talk Blue Jays....

 

[slapshot]

I don't know, I think it's a pretty linear progression:

I think there are some pretty glaring omissions in your read of things. I'll go point by point.

Spring 2012 -- trade offers received for Grabbo and MacArthur. Burke's committed to keeping them.

Yes, although there are conflicting reports as to what those offers were. There's a very real likelihood that what you're obsessing about here is how Nonis didn't decide to jeopardize the Leafs playoff chances for some second round picks.

March 5(?), 2012 -- Grabbo signed to 2C money. Burke isn't waiting to see who's the best fit for "Randy Carlyle" hockey.

Hard to believe he was fired.

Summer 2012 -- During end of season meetings, Carlyle and management evaluate players. One can infer, based on below, the view that Grabovski and MacArthur aren't "Randy Carlyle players" becomes clear, at least to Nonis, then.

No, one really can't. Well, one can if you're bending facts to make Nonis look as bad as possible but, well, clearly that's not going on. Remember, as we've gone over multiple times when talking about Grabo, Carlyle started off giving Grabo 2nd line minutes. For almost a quarter of the season he did. It was Grabo's poor play and Kadri's emergence that bumped him down to the third line role. The evidence actively disputes the idea that this was a determination made before the season began. This applies just as well to Mac whose diminished role has way more to do with JVR's arrival than it does any decision Nonis made.

January 2013 -- Burke's fired. Nonis steps in. Shortly after: "Nonis was asked early in his administration as Leafs general manager whether or not the group assembled fit under the style of Carlyle ? who had assumed control from Ron Wilson as the Toronto coach in the final stages of the 2011-2012 campaign. He replied toward the negative before an ultimately successful 2013 campaign. "We need to alter that a little bit," Nonis said of the team's construction in early January. "We need to make a couple of changes to play that style."" (from Jonas Siegel).

Yes but as we've gone over the idea that the players in question "didn't fit the style" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Likewise, looking over the teams Carlyle has coached in the past there is no clear "style" that a player has to play that makes them a bad fit. Teemu Selanne, Andy McDonald, Ryan Getzlaf, Travis Moen...lots of players, lots of different styles.

The way Grabo and Mac "didn't fit into Carlyle's system" is that they're players whose value comes mainly from offense who weren't providing offense and weren't providing enough value in reduced roles. That's not a Carlyle specific problem and, quite frankly, we've seen that from the reaction to them being available on the open market. 

January 2013 to May 2013 -- Players who don't fit the coach's style are kept on the roster in marginal roles; their trade values plummet. The consequence of this inaction is players that had garnered trade interest cease to. A team that was no sure bet to make the playoffs surprises and does pretty well, but the plan either remains or becomes "get Randy his team." In either case, with playoffs a strong possibility, no moves are being made. But, even if they weren't, the players that didn't fit the coach's style were not put in positions where their value benefitted.

Here's where your argument really falls apart. For starters something pretty important things happened between when the team got the trade offers for Mac and Grabo and Nonis got the job. For starters, Grabovski signed a big multi-year contract that a lot of people criticized as being too rich and too long the day it was signed. That negatively impacted his trade value. Also, there was a lockout. That lockout included salary cap that was going to decrease in the next year. That further devalued any player who had a bad contract.  There were lots of reasons those players were less attractive on the trade market besides their own poor play, and let's be real that's still the main reason their value dropped.

Simple fact of the matter is that there just wasn't a lot of player movement in the very brief window between the lockout ending and the season beginning. Everyone was scrambling let alone someone who got the GM job very recently and very suddenly.

So, before the season started, some players appear to have been deemed not a fit for the coach's style, and the new GM's declared his intentions to assemble a roster that fits the coach's style. Unless he was just mouthing words, the time to move on from players that aren't going to fit is in January.

I think this ignores the very real dynamic that can exist between a GM and a coach. Carlyle may very well have said to Nonis in January that Grabovski didn't really fit in with his plans going forward but Nonis who I think it's safe to say was clearly going to be influenced by Burke very well may have said "Well, clearly Brian thought he was a good fit for this team" and said that he wanted to at least give Grabo a shot. After the season, where Grabo played poorly, Carlyle can come back to Nonis and say Grabo wasn't a fit and point to his crummy play as proof. If there was disagreement between Burke and Carlyle as to Grabo's place within the organization, and I think you have to admit that to reconcile your belief in Carlyle's irrational dislike of Grabo and Burke's willingness to sign him to a big extensions, then Grabo's season gave Carlyle's opinion weight.

Every move in the last two weeks has been followed by a press conference in which Nonis crows "I can you Randy's very happy about this..." The last two days have made it very clear the Leafs are testing the theory that it's better to build coaches their ideal teams than to just take the best available players.

With all due respect, this is where you start really sounding like you don't know what you're talking about. This is TSN's list of the "best available free agents" yesterday:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=95306

Where's Grabo? #9. Where's Mac? #29. Where are the two guys they actually signed? #1 and #4. I know, I know, the guys at TSN aren't as smart as you or know as much about hockey but the idea that Nonis has favoured guys who fit in with Carlyle's system over better players? That's you man, that's far from fact.

1. The plan was always to build a team tailored to Randy Carlyle. In this case, Nonis is a poor GM for failing to evaluate players and make roster decisions in a timely manner (i.e. before your coach devalues your assets) and/or failing to get his coach to be honest about what he wanted on his roster ("Think Grabbo's going to work on your team, Randy?" "Might could..." "... Ok.").

Or Carlyle's answer was "Well, yeah, if he gives us a legitimate second scoring line he'll fit. Failing that he'll have to really prove himself on the 3rd line but even then he's too expensive for that role". Grabo's failure then determined his "not fitting in".

2. The plan only became to build Randy's team in the last month or so, after seeing how the season and playoffs went. In that case, Nonis is a poor GM for not having much of a plan -- "we'll stick with my evaluation of the players... you know, or Randy's" -- and then changing tack pretty hard and outsourcing the plan to his coach.

Or, and I know this requires a certain degree of appreciating that Nonis is a person, but Nonis got the job with absolutely no warning and under very strange circumstances after acting as Burke's #2 for a long time. Expecting Nonis to come into that situation with a "plan" that involved a drastic overhaul might not have made sense considering the time he had and the fairly confusing nature of what Burke got fired for. Because of that, he might have opted to stick with the status quo at first and see where the team that Burke had assembled before taking the wrecking ball to it if it needed that.

Mac aside, and I think Mac was always destined to leave but that there was more value in keeping him here as depth than adding the marginal assets you could have fetched at the deadline, the only real way for Nonis to have done what you said is to have seen that Grabo wouldn't have been able to play well this year.

Now, I think the Captain on Star Trek taught the Aliens about linear time through baseball. So, you know, if you ever want to talk Blue Jays....

Thanks Nik for summing this up nicely. Burke way overpaid for Grabbo and everyone in the hockey universe knew it. When his second line production sucked, he got demoted, as rightly he should have. You have earn your minutes, like Kadri did gradually. To suggest Carlyle devalued Grabbo, sorry not buying it. He has lots of time and chances to put up decent numbers with essentially the same line mates, but didn't. Simple as that.
Nonis has done an admirable job, not panicking, sticking to his guns on the Bozak contract, adding grit and winning pedigree vets to the young team, who are not old dogs, but have solid playing ahead of them.
The fact that he and Carlyle are on the same page is a good thing for the organization, unlike Burke and Wilson, whose vision of a team they wanted never meshed. A recipe for disaster, which in the end it was.

 

[mr grieves]

Bozak reads, but doesn't understand, his reviews:

?I don?t see myself getting 90 points or whatever, but a lot of the criticism I get at least is about puck possession. I don?t play the game where I want to hold onto the puck as long as I can,? Bozak explained.

?I?m playing with two highly skilled wingers; I try to get them the puck as quick as I can. I?m a big believer in give-and-go hockey ? move the puck as quick as you can and get to an open spot.

?When you?re playing with Phil (Kessel) and JVR (James van Riemsdyk) or Joffrey (Lupul) they all three have amazing shots and obviously I?m going to try and get them the puck as often as I can in a scoring position.?

source: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/toronto-maple-leafs-tyler-bozak-responds-to-don-cherry-and-bozak-thinks-phil-kessel-will-stay-with-leafs/

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Let's just leave this here.

http://theleafsnation.com/2013/7/29/leafs-vp-states-incorrect-fact-about-tyler-bozak-internet-will-burn

This at least implies that Kessel's performance is in some way tied to Bozak, if they somehow believe that and haven't actually looked at the raw numbers playing with and without Bozak, then they might just be the biggest laughing stock in the league.

 

[Kin]

Let's just leave this here.

http://theleafsnation.com/2013/7/29/leafs-vp-states-incorrect-fact-about-tyler-bozak-internet-will-burn

This at least implies that Kessel's performance is in some way tied to Bozak, if they somehow believe that and haven't actually looked at the raw numbers playing with and without Bozak, then they might just be the biggest laughing stock in the league.

I'm confused. The chart in the article you link to there has Kessel's points per 60 higher with Bozak than without. Leaving aside that points per 60 has some major problems with it as a strict measurement of offensive efficiency that would seem to add to the point that Bozak-Kessel has been effective, not take away from it.

Also, I'm still not sure what the incorrect fact is.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Well the fact in the article is that statistically, Kessel scores more when not playing with Bozak, Poullin seems to imply otherwise.