Dave Bolland

[skrackle]

I dont think anybody's saying that. In fact, I think alot of people tend to think GMs are inherently incompetent.

It was pretty much in each of your last 3 posts. If Nonis/Shanny think it's a good idea to bring back Bolland then it's a good idea.

Because I, personally, think they are both smart hockey men. How do you conclude from that that I believe all GMs in the league are infallible? Is agreeing with a GMs decision not a strong enough argument now?

Ooooooh. It's just the guy who signed the worst UFA contract in recent memory and extended a coach whose team gave up the most shots against in the modern NHL that you think is a "smart hockey man."

What do you suppose the GMs of actual playoff teams are?

Yep. Not to mention wasting two compliance buyouts. It would be nice to have at least one of those left.

Nonis has done very little so far to give any indication that he's capable of transforming the Leafs into a contender. The Leafs aren't good enough to make the playoffs, and they are not bad enough to draft top end talent. Isn't that where JFJ had them?

I'm a little confused. You don't think Nonis has done a good job because the Leafs aren't one of the worst teams in the league?

Undergoing a full rebuild, i.e. picking in the 1-3 range for at least a few seasons is something the Leafs have never done. "Pittsburgh model my ass" was Burke's take on it, but I don't see how a team is going to acquire enough top end talent of the same age group without drafting it.

Nonis obviously doesn't think the Leafs warrant a full rebuild at this point. Okay, that's fine but there is something very wrong with the Leafs as currently constructed. For a team that's always right up against the salary cap, there's not a lot to show for it. They can't realistically compete with the top teams, and teams like Montreal, Colorado and Columbus are leap-frogging past them.

I don't think Nonis is a terrible GM; he's done some good things, but I think the Leafs deserve a top-tier GM. I don't see Nonis as that guy, but I'd be happy to have him prove me wrong.

 

[2badknees]

I think Nonis and others will point at NYRs rebuild on the fly, and resulting/"alignment of the stars"this year, and compare it to Edmonton's full rebuild with terrible results so far, and continue think they can take a few shortcuts as well. And perhaps they're right.

Sather has thrown the kitchen sink at the roster for the last bazillion seasons, and it "almost" worked. Philly has tried the same, and it hasn't.

At the end of the day, I think success is more about cap management. Signing free agents like Bolland 4+M to fill your bottom two lines is a fool's errand. You have to spend on the top two lines, and fill the bottom two with mostly AHL up and comers making close to league min. The D, however needs to be 2.5 pairings deep, with an exceptional 1-2.

I'd want the leafs to forget Bolland and Richards (if avail), and focus on strengthening the D, and getting another top center if at all possible.

 

[Highlander]

I would rather they pry Sharpe away from the Hawks, he is my kind of player.  Could provide solid leadership in absense of Bolland and lead the flock of young by example.

 

[hap_leaf]

To each their own, but I think some people are putting entirely too much weight on the Clarkson contract when sizing up how well Nonis has done.

There is no amount of weight too large in describing this issue.  You cannot build a winning team in today's NHL unless every contract is perfect; every dollar must make sense.  The money wasted on Clarkson as a useless player also means you don't have that money any more for the other player(s) that do make sense.  Compounded by all the years attributed and you cannot build the team properly for all those future years.

See: Gomez.  We have our very own Gomez.

 

[Redleaf]

To each their own, but I think some people are putting entirely too much weight on the Clarkson contract when sizing up how well Nonis has done.

There is no amount of weight too large in describing this issue.  You cannot build a winning team in today's NHL unless every contract is perfect; every dollar must make sense.  The money wasted on Clarkson as a useless player also means you don't have that money any more for the other player(s) that do make sense.  Compounded by all the years attributed and you cannot build the team properly for all those future years.

See: Gomez.  We have our very own Gomez.

Right. But it shouldn't overshadow every single one of the very good players he has brought to the Leafs as GM.

Also....If Clarkson turns it around next season and becomes the player Nonis paid large for last summer, does that change your opinion of whether or not Nonis is a good GM? If it doesn't than the Clarkson contract isn't your only problem with Nonis.

 

[bustaheims]

Right. But it shouldn't overshadow every single one of the very good players he has brought to the Leafs as GM.

Like who? The only players Nonis has brought in as GM that he has committed to for more than one season are Bernier, McLaren, Clarkson and Gleason - the two players most people want off the roster and a face puncher. He has one real win in his column right now.

 

[moon111]

Right. But it shouldn't overshadow every single one of the very good players he has brought to the Leafs as GM.

Like who? The only players Nonis has brought in as GM that he has committed to for more than one season are Bernier, McLaren, Clarkson and Gleason - the two players most people want off the roster and a face puncher. He has one real win in his column right now.

Is Scrivens for Bernier a real win?

 

[bustaheims]

Is Scrivens for Bernier a real win?

Considering it took LA's goaltending coach making some significant changes to the way Scrivens plays to make him into more than a backup, yes. The Scrivens that played this past season would not have happened had he stayed in Toronto.

 

[losveratos]

Right. But it shouldn't overshadow every single one of the very good players he has brought to the Leafs as GM.

Like who? The only players Nonis has brought in as GM that he has committed to for more than one season are Bernier, McLaren, Clarkson and Gleason - the two players most people want off the roster and a face puncher. He has one real win in his column right now.

I thought I remember hearing that Nonis negotiated and initiated the Phanuef trade. That one was pretty lopsided in our favour. I also liked the Bolland trade if that was him.

 

[bustaheims]

I thought I remember hearing that Nonis negotiated and initiated the Phanuef trade. That one was pretty lopsided in our favour. I also liked the Bolland trade if that was him.

Bolland fails the "committed to for more than one season" measurement as things stand right now - in fact, in hindsight, that deal now works out to be wasted assets, unfortunately (out of Nonis' control, obviously). As for Phaneuf, Burke did give Nonis a lot of credit for that deal, but, Nonis wasn't GM at the time - so, that move doesn't fit the current discussion - and, without having actually been in the front office, we don't really know how much work Nonis really did there. Even if he did a fair portion of the negotiations, it's safe to assume he didn't initiate them - in fact, Burke is on record as having approached Calgary earlier in the season - nor was he in a position to make the deal without Burke's consent. That was more of Nonis negotiating Burke's trade rather than making a deal himself.

 

[Redleaf]

I would suggest that Nonis played a large part in the decison making and negotiations involved in bringing in most of the players while Burke was GM as well.

If that is the case, then you can chalk up most of the current team to decisions made by or in part by Dave Nonis.

*For the record, I believe that Bernier alone will make up for the Clarkson contract debacle when we look back in twenty years.

 

[Kin]

There is no amount of weight too large in describing this issue.  You cannot build a winning team in today's NHL unless every contract is perfect; every dollar must make sense.

Well, that's just not true. Every good team has bad contracts. Look at the two teams in the finals. Both are reported to be interested in using their compliance buyouts on the various Richardses.

 

[Kin]

If that is the case, then you can chalk up most of the current team to decisions made by or in part by Dave Nonis.

Sorry, that's your defense of him?

 

[bustaheims]

I would suggest that Nonis played a large part in the decison making and negotiations involved in bringing in most of the players while Burke was GM as well.

If that is the case, then you can chalk up most of the current team to decisions made by or in part by Dave Nonis.

Yeah . . . no. When Burke was GM, regardless who had input or who did the legwork, the final decision was always made by Burke. Putting it on anyone else is purely assumptive. We really have no idea what Nonis thought about any of those moves. For all we know, he could have been against a number of them. You just can't give him credit for something you can't absolutely say he did - and nothing that happened while Burke was GM can be said to have been absolutely 100% Dave Nonis. There's no partial credit here, because we simply don't know enough to award partial credit.

 

[Kin]

I just figured someone making the case for Nonis would want to put distance between him and Burke's decisions.

 

[bustaheims]

I just figured someone making the case for Nonis would want to put distance between him and Burke's decisions.

I assumed it was more a matter of cherry picking which decisions Nonis was involved with.

 

[Redleaf]

I would suggest that Nonis played a large part in the decison making and negotiations involved in bringing in most of the players while Burke was GM as well.

If that is the case, then you can chalk up most of the current team to decisions made by or in part by Dave Nonis.

Yeah . . . no. When Burke was GM, regardless who had input or who did the legwork, the final decision was always made by Burke. Putting it on anyone else is purely assumptive. We really have no idea what Nonis thought about any of those moves. For all we know, he could have been against a number of them. You just can't give him credit for something you can't absolutely say he did - and nothing that happened while Burke was GM can be said to have been absolutely 100% Dave Nonis. There's no partial credit here, because we simply don't know enough to award partial credit.

I'm not giving him credit for individual players that came in under Burke. If I remember correctly, I do recall reading about him having his fingerprints on certain trades from time to time during Burkes tenure.

How big of role he had in that department is up for debate.

This is in no way my 'defense' of David Nonis as a good GM. It's just something that often gets overlooked when assessing his work in Toronto.

 

[2badknees]

This is in no way my 'defense' of David Nonis as a good GM. It's just something that often gets overlooked when assessing his work in Toronto.

I think that the point is you can't tangibly "overlook" something that likely isn't attributable.

 

[mr grieves]

The guy hasn't been without mistakes. I don't think too many GMs are. But what I like about Nonis is that he hasn't sold the farm for reclamation projects and 'wanna be Leafs before they retire' guys like so many Leaf GMs did before him. He's been patient, kept most of his draft picks, and has put together,(along with Burke), the most talented squad of youngsters the Leafs have had in 'as long as anyone can remember'. I respect the fact that he hasn't sold out, and believe he's done a real good job all around.

Sure, but that seems to me a pretty low scratch for the GM of a young, rebuilding team to meet. And where he's made his mistakes, it seems to me, is precisely with cutting bait or over-committing to complementary players like Bolland. I don't know what the Clarkson signing was if not mismanaging assets (not picks or youth, but compliance buyouts and cap space) for a "wanna be a Leaf before he retires."

To each their own, but I think some people are putting entirely too much weight on the Clarkson contract when sizing up how well Nonis has done.

That was his big acquisition. What else of note has he done? Got rid of dead-weight Mikhail Grabovski, let Clarke MacArthur walk, turned a maybe-top-6 center prospect and a 2nd into a maybe-top-6 center prospect, traded one 4-6 D with a boat anchor contract into one that's worse and with more of an anchor contract... McLaren... I mean, the only positive improvement has been Bernier.

So, there's not that much evidence that he hasn't been pretty mistake prone since becoming GM. And if 80% of the decisions someone makes are poor, why would you appeal to his authority as a 'smart hockey man' arguing that the next one's going to be good?


And not that it's worth getting into Clarkson again, but:

How much is it really a reflection of Nonis abilities as a GM to judge talent when a player like Clarkson suddenly and surprisingly has by far the worst season of his career?

The extent of the drop off -- sub-fourth liner on a team with a 4th line -- was surprising. That he did fall off wasn't.

Are we really saying Nonis should have anticipated this happening and because he didn't he's now a bad GM? Had Clarkson performed as well as he has virtually every other season he's played in the NHL, there wouldn't be nearly as many critics of Nonis decision to sign him.

Yes, Nonis should've known there was going to be a drop off. I recall a few people noting how he was used in NJ -- particularly on the top PP unit -- as being incredibly important to his success there. Without that, those skeptical of his 1.5 excellent seasons said, he'd be 3rd line grinder, nowhere near worth a $5m+/season, buyout-proof contract. Time has proven them 'smarter hockey men' than Dave Nonis.

Let's not forget, Clarkson had more than a few suitors willing to offer him that very same contract and more.

Clarkson had one other suitor who wanted to give him "that very same contract and more": the GM of the Edmonton Oilers. So, Dave Nonis. Marginally smarter than the GM of the most inept organization in the league.

 

[Kin]

That was his big acquisition. What else of note has he done? Got rid of dead-weight Mikhail Grabovski, let Clarke MacArthur walk, turned a maybe-top-6 center prospect and a 2nd into a maybe-top-6 center prospect, traded one 4-6 D with a boat anchor contract into one that's worse and with more of an anchor contract... McLaren... I mean, the only positive improvement has been Bernier.

Is this supposed to be the Holland deal? Because Blacker wasn't a center.