Dave Bolland

[Highlander]

The real revelation is how well Kuliman can play centre. Who needs Bolland when we can fit Kuliman in that position and then give some of our young guys a chance on the 4th line (and give the 4th line a bit more playing time) down the stretch to keep our first and second line fresh for the playoffs.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

The real revelation is how well Kuliman can play centre. Who needs Bolland when we can fit Kuliman in that position and then give some of our young guys a chance on the 4th line (and give the 4th line a bit more playing time) down the stretch to keep our first and second line fresh for the playoffs.

^^^^^

I'm thinking the same thing. Bolland was playing really well before he went down with the injury (better than ever maybe?) so that makes things harder to read.

He was given a bigger opportunity then he'd gotten elsewhere I believe so maybe he was starting to show what he can really do. On the other hand Kulemin is looking better and better, and I've really liked him at center.

It may just come down to who is worth more on the trade market, or who can be had for cheaper on an extension (which I believe will be Kuli).

 

[Rebel_1812]

Excellent article about Bolland and the Leafs.  Seems to say if we sign Bolland its goodbye to Kuliman and as said before (no trade Kuliman).  http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2014/02/07/dave-bolland-the-leafs-rebuild-succession-plans/

I would keep Bolland over Kuli anyday.

 

[lamajama]

Well right now, as is typical in Leaf land, Bolland has been built up to mythical proportions. He's Mark Messier in his prime.....all I can say is we better wait as long as we can before re-signing him ( or trying to) so we can see just how good he is. He was good in Chicago but just an ok-good on a great team.

Leaf fans (as I am) hype players like crazy.

Then we get stuck with a David Clarkson for 7 years.

 

[Redleaf]

Excellent article about Bolland and the Leafs.  Seems to say if we sign Bolland its goodbye to Kuliman and as said before (no trade Kuliman).  http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2014/02/07/dave-bolland-the-leafs-rebuild-succession-plans/

I would keep Bolland over Kuli anyday.

I'd keep both and unload Clarkson.

 

[jdh1]

I wouldn't jump the gun on Clarkson's effectiveness...If we get in the playoffs ,he might well be the tonic that gets us past a couple rounds.He wasn't signed to be a sweetheart player,but I bet he shows up and does some grunt work that just might put the Bruins out this time around.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

He was given a bigger opportunity then he'd gotten elsewhere I believe so maybe he was starting to show what he can really do. On the other hand Kulemin is looking better and better, and I've really liked him at center.

I don't really think Bolland had a bigger opportunity in his 15 games here than he had before.  Bolland played almost solely with Kane and Sharp in his last season in Chicago, which is as close to a huge role as you can get on that team.

 

[caver]

I wouldn't jump the gun on Clarkson's effectiveness...If we get in the playoffs ,he might well be the tonic that gets us past a couple rounds.He wasn't signed to be a sweetheart player,but I bet he shows up and does some grunt work that just might put the Bruins out this time around.

Agreed. Just as Leaf fans fall in love with players they also turn on them quickly. It's too early to judge Clarkson's worth to this team.

 

[Zee]

Well right now, as is typical in Leaf land, Bolland has been built up to mythical proportions. He's Mark Messier in his prime.....all I can say is we better wait as long as we can before re-signing him ( or trying to) so we can see just how good he is. He was good in Chicago but just an ok-good on a great team.

Leaf fans (as I am) hype players like crazy.

Then we get stuck with a David Clarkson for 7 years.

Yes, the Leafs fans signed Clarkson.

 

[caver]

Just sayin'... next season's 3rd line... Komarov - Bolland - Kulemin...    ??  8) 8)

 

[moon111]

Not sure how he'll do after injury, but I'd like to see him signed for about $3.5 million for ONE season.  Not only to see how Bolland does, but to see how Kadri does.  If Kadri were to really improve, would want enough in the pot to resign him.

 

[Corn Flake]

Just sayin'... next season's 3rd 4th line... Komarov - Bolland - Kulemin...    ??  8) 8)

 

[Corn Flake]

Excellent article about Bolland and the Leafs.  Seems to say if we sign Bolland its goodbye to Kuliman and as said before (no trade Kuliman).  http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2014/02/07/dave-bolland-the-leafs-rebuild-succession-plans/

As much respect as I have for Anthony, I don't quite agree on the whole notion of what makes a "core" player.  He seems to conclude that any player with a long term deal is a core player when I don't really think that's the case at all.  Although I get the point about established teams with track records of success like Chicago vs. the Leafs who don't have that yet are locking up players, I think in some ways the latter is a better position even if it requires a lot of hedging.  Sometimes cup winning teams end up almost forced into certain contract extensions.  I think of JS Giguere who got his huge contract after winning the cup.  He wasn't near the same goalie after that.  The Hawks seemed resigned to overpaying Bickell after a huge post season, and they did.

To me the Leafs true core right now is really 3 players: Kessel, Phaneuf and JvR.  these are the guys the team is basically built around, who aren't going anywhere any time soon and are what makes the engine run.  In short order I see Bernier, Kadri and Rielly as part of that core too, but the body of work needs to build up a bit more for them to be truly established as that. 

The complimentary parts to the core are: Lupul, Clarkson, Bolland and Bozak, with maybe guys like Gunarrson and Gleason on the fringe.  So while these guys may be on longer term, expensive deals, that doesn't mean they are "core" guys. They could be moved if need be to make room for cheaper, better options, etc.

 

[bustaheims]

They could be moved if need be to make room for cheaper, better options, etc.

Well, the issue there is that, with some of them, their contracts make that extremely difficult. For instance, I don't see any team that would take on another 6 years of Clarkson @ $5.25M. In a cap world, moving expensive, long-term contracts can be problematic. While I agree with you that long-term contract does not equal being part of the core, Petrielli is absolutely right when he says there has to be a progression plan. There has to be spots on the roster that are available to be won by younger players without having to push out a veteran on an expensive long-term deal. There have to be better cap value players on the roster. I also think the Holland/Bolland issue he brings up is a good example of this. I think there's a real question as to whether Bolland will provide enough more value to the team to justify the significant difference in cap hit between them.

 

[Corn Flake]

They could be moved if need be to make room for cheaper, better options, etc.

Well, the issue there is that, with some of them, their contracts make that extremely difficult. For instance, I don't see any team that would take on another 6 years of Clarkson @ $5.25M. In a cap world, moving expensive, long-term contracts can be problematic. While I agree with you that long-term contract does not equal being part of the core, Petrielli is absolutely right when he says there has to be a progression plan. There has to be spots on the roster that are available to be won by younger players without having to push out a veteran on an expensive long-term deal. There have to be better cap value players on the roster. I also think the Holland/Bolland issue he brings up is a good example of this. I think there's a real question as to whether Bolland will provide enough more value to the team to justify the significant difference in cap hit between them.

On the progression side I fully agree with him, in theory. You have to make room and make decisions on older players at some point for sure.  Bolland is definitely a question mark as far as using up a roster spot long-term for him and holding back a guy like Holland (although completely different players/roles), although I would hate to not have what Bolland brings. 

On Clarkson, yeah sure if you were trading him today it would be tough but they aren't giving up on the guy that easily. He's going to be around at least two full seasons and would have to stink large for all of that for it to really become a huge problem. As cold as many are on the guy right now, I think he will be far more impactful a player as the season rolls on.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I still don't see him improving enough to come anywhere near justifying that deal and it will continue to hinder the team going forward.  It's going to stick out like a sore thumb, and even with the cap going up the Leafs are going to use most of that on raises coming to players that will be re-signed.

He's not a bad player, just ridiculously overpaid for what he can bring.

 

[AvroArrow]

Just sayin'... next season's 3rd line... Komarov - Bolland - Kulemin...    ??  8) 8)

Just posted this in the Komarov thread...  Really hope it happens.

 

[Britishbulldog]

He's not a bad player, just ridiculously overpaid for what he can bring.

Who are you referring to here? 

Phaneuf?  Orr? 

 

[Optimus Reimer]

He's not a bad player, just ridiculously overpaid for what he can bring.

Who are you referring to here? 

Phaneuf?  Orr? 

Clarkson???

I would like to see Komarov and Bolland on the team next season.  It is not only useless salary but useless players.  McClaren and Orr both dress for games and sometimes do not even fight.  On top of that, since they are in the lineup they take away roster spots from players who could actually help the team win. 

 

[Corn Flake]

McClaren and Orr both dress for games and sometimes do not even fight. 

Just to be fair here on what appears to be a dying trend.... If I'm not mistaken they have both dressed for maybe 2 games since mid-Dec?

edit: They have played together 3 times since Dec 1:  Feb 1, Jan 7, Dec 3.