Decisions, decisions

[Bender]

In fairness, it'd be kind of hard to pull off being the worst team in the league and have a lousy cap situation.

Im not so sure about that! The David Clarkson deal proved that could be pretty easy!

 

[Frank E]

In fairness, it'd be kind of hard to pull off being the worst team in the league and have a lousy cap situation.

Im not so sure about that! The David Clarkson deal proved that could be pretty easy!

Columbus is a bit of a disaster.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I'm not overly concerned about a goalie yet. I expect another building year yielding another decent draft pick. Obviously at some point the goal tending needs to be addressed but at this point I don't see the immediate need to acquire a goalie. I would recommend signing a ufa to a short term contract or continuing with Bernier/Sparks this year. I would even consider Reimer for a short-term contract but I would guess the reason he was traded had something to do with his asking price so not likely.

The potential expansion draft might encourage some teams to trade one of their goalies rather than leaving him exposed. For example, Marc-Andre Fleury has an NMC on this contract so the rules might force the Penguins to protect him as their only goalie option, opening the door for a Matt Murray trade (one of our potential targets with the Kessel deal). The more likely option is that they'd shop Fleury hard and take back a lesser deal so they can hang on to Murray. Either way, their hand will be forced.

In the interest of garnering higher draft picks, as well as training/forcing our team structure to suppress shots by committee, I would also favour installing the goalie last out of all the needs we have.

How do the rules work with regard to LTIR? Fleury is out with his second concussion of the year right now with no date for return. If he's still unfit at the time of the expansion draft, does he still need to be protected? If he is healthy, his recent injuries may scare off potential trade partners.

 

[herman]

I'm not overly concerned about a goalie yet. I expect another building year yielding another decent draft pick. Obviously at some point the goal tending needs to be addressed but at this point I don't see the immediate need to acquire a goalie. I would recommend signing a ufa to a short term contract or continuing with Bernier/Sparks this year. I would even consider Reimer for a short-term contract but I would guess the reason he was traded had something to do with his asking price so not likely.

The potential expansion draft might encourage some teams to trade one of their goalies rather than leaving him exposed. For example, Marc-Andre Fleury has an NMC on this contract so the rules might force the Penguins to protect him as their only goalie option, opening the door for a Matt Murray trade (one of our potential targets with the Kessel deal). The more likely option is that they'd shop Fleury hard and take back a lesser deal so they can hang on to Murray. Either way, their hand will be forced.

In the interest of garnering higher draft picks, as well as training/forcing our team structure to suppress shots by committee, I would also favour installing the goalie last out of all the needs we have.

How do the rules work with regard to LTIR? Fleury is out with his second concussion of the year right now with no date for return. If he's still unfit at the time of the expansion draft, does he still need to be protected? If he is healthy, his recent injuries may scare off potential trade partners.

I thought Fleury was cleared to play May 3, and has been backing up Murray these past couple of games?

Nonetheless, I don't think the Expansion Draft rules have been published yet.

 

[Frank E]

From what I can see on generalfanager, Fleury has an NMC.

I've read that those guys have to be protected anyways.

 

[mr grieves]

This was a good read, even though my eyes glazed over when discussing the Cap situation numerically.

https://thebloggerstribune.com/2016/05/06/leafs-ready-to-benefit-from-sound-salary-cap-management/

We are in good cap position over the next 2-3 years, barring any epic Nonising of the UFA market, which is a possibility if we are trying to land a top-2 RHD.

Good article. Thanks for linking.

I liked this point, among the reasons not to be too scared by a Stamkos contract:

4. Players get traded. If the Matthews, Marner, Nylander trio is completely as advertised you can always make a move to get assets back on Stamkos somewhere down the road. This is probably the selling point that speaks most to me, as a Stamkos contract now is probably 3 great years of Stamkos playing, and then a deal for a 1st round pick and other assets in year 4.

 

[McGarnagle]

I liked this point, among the reasons not to be too scared by a Stamkos contract:

4. Players get traded. If the Matthews, Marner, Nylander trio is completely as advertised you can always make a move to get assets back on Stamkos somewhere down the road. This is probably the selling point that speaks most to me, as a Stamkos contract now is probably 3 great years of Stamkos playing, and then a deal for a 1st round pick and other assets in year 4.

Sounds good, but it would have to come with the constants that:
1 - Stamkos would sign a deal without an NMC, or a very favourable LNMC.
2. - Stamkos would be good enough to not only be moveable 4 years out, but moveable for the significant assets you've listed in the link with a (likely) double digit cap hit without retaining salary.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that this positive scenario is hardly a given - no?

 

[mr grieves]

I liked this point, among the reasons not to be too scared by a Stamkos contract:

4. Players get traded. If the Matthews, Marner, Nylander trio is completely as advertised you can always make a move to get assets back on Stamkos somewhere down the road. This is probably the selling point that speaks most to me, as a Stamkos contract now is probably 3 great years of Stamkos playing, and then a deal for a 1st round pick and other assets in year 4.

Sounds good, but it would have to come with the constants that:
1 - Stamkos would sign a deal without an NMC, or a very favourable LNMC.
2. - Stamkos would be good enough to not only be moveable 4 years out, but moveable for the significant assets you've listed in the link with a (likely) double digit cap hit without retaining salary.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that this positive scenario is hardly a given - no?

1. If Stamkos is holding out for a NMC, I doubt he gets it from the Leafs. And a favorable to the player LNMC would probably just cut the list down to contenders, who are probably the only teams who'd be in the market anyhow.

2. I don't know. A late first and other assets isn't wildly optimistic return. And if the low end return is Phaneuf's, then the Leafs have spent money for a few years of an elite talent, a pick, and some assets and so still end up ahead. Or are you predicting Stamkos is going to turn into Lupul?

 

[Tigger]

This was a good read, even though my eyes glazed over when discussing the Cap situation numerically.

https://thebloggerstribune.com/2016/05/06/leafs-ready-to-benefit-from-sound-salary-cap-management/

We are in good cap position over the next 2-3 years, barring any epic Nonising of the UFA market, which is a possibility if we are trying to land a top-2 RHD.

Overall I enjoyed that article, thanks for posting.

Marincin and Carrick are RFAs, though likely not expensive ones. Combined they should account for another $5M of cap hit

That's a lot for those 2, I don't agree with that at all.

Between now and the end of Stamkos? contract would come another Collective Agreement between the NHL and NHLPA. While it?s far from a guarantee, the last couple of CBAs included compliance buyout options, and it?s entirely possible that the Leafs could rid themselves of a potentially declining Stamkos

That's an interesting point, this is a long way out but I think the end of the cba coincides with McDavid turning unrestricted.

Plotting a course through expansion seems really interesting but difficult to navigate at this point.

Also, just no to any notion of offersheets.

An aside, I heard there could be difficulty insuring Stamkos with regards to blood clots? That's a toughie if true.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Marincin and Carrick are RFAs, though likely not expensive ones. Combined they should account for another $5M of cap hit

That's a lot for those 2, I don't agree with that at all.

Yeah I like both of those players and there's no way they probably even get half of that. Marincin doesn't prove offence and Carrick hasn't played close to a full season in the NHL yet.

 

[herman]

Marincin and Carrick are RFAs, though likely not expensive ones. Combined they should account for another $5M of cap hit

That's a lot for those 2, I don't agree with that at all.

Yeah I like both of those players and there's no way they probably even get half of that. Marincin doesn't prove offence and Carrick hasn't played close to a full season in the NHL yet.

Yeah. 3.5 for both sounds more likely, leaning heavier for Carrick (offen$e).

 

[GatineauLeaf]

An aside, I heard there could be difficulty insuring Stamkos with regards to blood clots? That's a toughie if true.

I would think that would give teams like Toronto, who have lots of real money to spend, an advantage in signing Stamkos. Like the Horton trade?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yeah. 3.5 for both sounds more likely, leaning heavier for Carrick (offen$e).

Even that seems high. Carrick isn't getting much of a deal after 53 NHL games, 16 of which were with the Leafs. He probably gets a 1 or 2 year deal at $800-950k I'm guessing, Marincin gets somewhere around $1.2-1.5mil. So $2-2.5mil total.

 

[Kin]

Even that seems high. Carrick isn't getting much of a deal after 53 NHL games, 16 of which were with the Leafs. He probably gets a 1 or 2 year deal at $800-950k I'm guessing, Marincin gets somewhere around $1.2-1.5mil. So $2-2.5mil total.

That's probably true if you want to just sign them short term but I wonder if you maybe don't want to sign someone like Marincin to a longer term thing. He seems like he's going to be, at the least, a good bottom pairing guy and if you only sign him for a year or two he might be due his big raise about when you start looking to re-sign some of the higher end talent. If you could lock him up now at, say, 4 years and 10-12 million I wonder if that doesn't make some sense. 

 

[Britishbulldog]

Yeah. 3.5 for both sounds more likely, leaning heavier for Carrick (offen$e).

Even that seems high. Carrick isn't getting much of a deal after 53 NHL games, 16 of which were with the Leafs. He probably gets a 1 or 2 year deal at $800-950k I'm guessing, Marincin gets somewhere around $1.2-1.5mil. So $2-2.5mil total.

Those are the exact numbers I was expecting.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

That's probably true if you want to just sign them short term but I wonder if you maybe don't want to sign someone like Marincin to a longer term thing. He seems like he's going to be, at the least, a good bottom pairing guy and if you only sign him for a year or two he might be due his big raise about when you start looking to re-sign some of the higher end talent. If you could lock him up now at, say, 4 years and 10-12 million I wonder if that doesn't make some sense. 

While I wouldn't exactly hate that contract, I feel like in this landscape we can probably get him signed to less even with term. He's a guy that produces virtually 0 offence, and he's not the typical rugged stay-at-home player. He's also likely to slot into our bottom pairing when we start to look at playoffs, so $3mil there just seems higher than what you'd like to budget for that spot.

So yeah that type of deal does make sense I just think we could do it for even a little less, like $8mil over 4 years. I bet even Marincin probably doesn't realize how valuable he can be.

 

[herman]

Hmm, I was thinking slightly longer term deals (3 yrs), but I see how cheaper and shorter show-me deals would keep the internal competition flowing, and the cap space allotted more to the top, than the bottom of the roster.

I like Carrick though, and puck-moving RHD are pretty rare. I hope both he and Zaitsev turn out to be top-4 guys in the long run.

 

[mr grieves]

Hmm, I was thinking slightly longer term deals (3 yrs), but I see how cheaper and shorter show-me deals would keep the internal competition flowing, and the cap space allotted more to the top, than the bottom of the roster.

I like Carrick though, and puck-moving RHD are pretty rare. I hope both he and Zaitsev turn out to be top-4 guys in the long run.

Too soon to really say, but, if even two of Nylander, Marner, and Matthews turn out as their current performances suggest they should, I think that's a pretty solid plan.

 

[Tigger]

Hmm, I was thinking slightly longer term deals (3 yrs), but I see how cheaper and shorter show-me deals would keep the internal competition flowing, and the cap space allotted more to the top, than the bottom of the roster.

I like Carrick though, and puck-moving RHD are pretty rare. I hope both he and Zaitsev turn out to be top-4 guys in the long run.

I doubt either Carrick or Zaitsev are going to become top pairing guys, I'll reserve that opinion to see how they cope with the NHL next year, anywho, top 4 makes one of them ultimately redundant, which is fine, bolstering any player into becoming a more marketable commodity should be a positive on balance. On a strong team I think Marincin is a bottom pairing guy, but a pretty good one. With Valiev, Dermott and Nielsen coming up it should create a nice kind of pressure. Still think this leaves the team with likely needing to trade for a top pairing D. They might draft one but that's unlikely to be meaningful for a number of years.

 

[herman]

Hmm, I was thinking slightly longer term deals (3 yrs), but I see how cheaper and shorter show-me deals would keep the internal competition flowing, and the cap space allotted more to the top, than the bottom of the roster.

I like Carrick though, and puck-moving RHD are pretty rare. I hope both he and Zaitsev turn out to be top-4 guys in the long run.

I doubt either Carrick or Zaitsev are going to become top pairing guys, I'll reserve that opinion to see how they cope with the NHL next year, anywho, top 4 makes one of them ultimately redundant, which is fine, bolstering any player into becoming a more marketable commodity should be a positive on balance. On a strong team I think Marincin is a bottom pairing guy, but a pretty good one. With Valiev, Dermott and Nielsen coming up it should create a nice kind of pressure. Still think this leaves the team with likely needing to trade for a top pairing D. They might draft one but that's unlikely to be meaningful for a number of years.

Just thinking out loud here...

Zaitsev played top-pairing for this year's second best team in the KHL at 24. From what I've seen of his KHL play, I think he's more Bryan McCabe than Drew Doughty, but for a freebie, I'll take that. The ideal situation in my opinion, in the event that both Zaitsev and Carrick pan out to be top-4 caliber, is for them to be pushed into 2nd and 3rd pairings with the acquisition or unlikely emergence of a true #1RHD.

I think we're likely to see the Leafs continue to accumulate RHD like a savvy baseball team would draft and develop left-handed flamethrowers. Like Dubas mentioned after last year's draft, overloading on one or two rare player-types can help fill lineup holes with trades when we're ready to make the push.