Dermott re-signed - 2 years, $1.5M per

[Bender]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

The Lightning had showed a lot more up to that point though. They missed the playoffs once in the last 8yrs, had two R1 exits and had 5 Conference Final finishes or better in that span. Toronto's just not in the same stratosphere.

They keep being mentioned alongside Washington, which is fine, except we don't have the luxury of signing enormously long contracts that are bound to age well as the cap goes up. We're in a bind with a flat cap.

My point really isn't that Toronto is in the same stratosphere as Tampa.

Really, my point was what will a major change do to make this team better and give them a better shot of making it past the 1st round?

The point as I read it was well Tampa didn't blow it up so we shouldn't either. I agree we shouldn't blow it up but there's a lot more of a debate to be had from Toronto's perspective of significantly changing the roster vs. Tampa because their R1 exit was an anomaly and not a rule. So that's why I brought up Washington.

 

[Bender]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

The Lightning had showed a lot more up to that point though. They missed the playoffs once in the last 8yrs, had two R1 exits and had 5 Conference Final finishes or better in that span. Toronto's just not in the same stratosphere.

They keep being mentioned alongside Washington, which is fine, except we don't have the luxury of signing enormously long contracts that are bound to age well as the cap goes up. We're in a bind with a flat cap.

The Leafs aren't the only team in a bind because of the flat cap though.  Tampa has to have a reckoning coming.  Colorado is in a similar boat to the Leafs in that they have had high expectations the last couple of years, but they haven't been able to make it as far as people have expected them too.  The have Landeskog, Saad, and Grubauer as UFA's this year and Makar and Jost as RFA's this year.  Yes they have $25 million in cap space and probably some LTIR wiggle room, but they also need to flush out some other pieces of their roster to give themselves some more depth up front.  So while they may not feel the pinch this year, they may be starting to put themselves in a position where they could be in a cap bind, even with that awesome Mackinnon contract.

Back to the Leafs, when they traded for Andersen years ago, there was a feeling by a group on this board that it was the wrong move at the time.  I think with 5 years of hindsight available to us now, it does show that it has put the team at a disadvantage with respect to making the group a true contender.  A season of missing the playoffs may have been good for the growth of Matthews, Marner and Nylander in a way.  Plus the additional assets that they would have had would have given them some more options down the road.

Tampa will have its reckoning this offseason, absolutely. But I also don't know how many teams have committed big salary in the way we have to our big 4. Are we not amongst the most highly concentrated teams in terms of top 4 forward salary? That's my main point. Every team deals with the cap but all our deals really banked on the cap going up and it hasn't. There are few forwards in the league making more than AM, MM & JT. AM is worth every penny but the other two look worse in a flat cap situation.

Every team has to contend with a flat cap, but other teams may be in a better position to do so.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

The Lightning had showed a lot more up to that point though. They missed the playoffs once in the last 8yrs, had two R1 exits and had 5 Conference Final finishes or better in that span. Toronto's just not in the same stratosphere.

They keep being mentioned alongside Washington, which is fine, except we don't have the luxury of signing enormously long contracts that are bound to age well as the cap goes up. We're in a bind with a flat cap.

My point really isn't that Toronto is in the same stratosphere as Tampa.

Really, my point was what will a major change do to make this team better and give them a better shot of making it past the 1st round?

The point as I read it was well Tampa didn't blow it up so we shouldn't either. I agree we shouldn't blow it up but there's a lot more of a debate to be had from Toronto's perspective of significantly changing the roster vs. Tampa because their R1 exit was an anomaly and not a rule. So that's why I brought up Washington.

You're correct.

If moving Marner made the team better some how, I'd be all for it. I just don't see how trading the 3rd leading scorer in the leagues makes a team better.

 

[Kin]

Well, there?s a second part to trading Marner and, say, Rielley ? besides getting space for UFAs, you get to restock with picks, prospects, and/or young NHLers, giving the Leafs a path toward some ELC contributors or young players who can outperform their RFA deals. There?s not much coming along right now.

"Have I got a deal for you. You give me a terrific haul of picks, prospects and young players and in return you get to pay 11 million dollars a year to a player we've decided is an impediment to us getting past the first round. Orderly line and serious bidders only."

 

[L K]

Well, there?s a second part to trading Marner and, say, Rielley ? besides getting space for UFAs, you get to restock with picks, prospects, and/or young NHLers, giving the Leafs a path toward some ELC contributors or young players who can outperform their RFA deals. There?s not much coming along right now.

"Have I got a deal for you. You give me a terrific haul of picks, prospects and young players and in return you get to pay 11 million dollars a year to a player we've decided is an impediment to us getting past the first round. Orderly line and serious bidders only."

Or hey, you traded Morgan Rielly for picks and lets just say Warren Foegele and you resign him for 2.5M 
Then you trade Marner for lets just say Filip Forsberg + picks/prospects
You then sign Dougie Hamilton for 8M

OUT: Rielly 5M + Marner 11M = 16M
IN: Hamilton 8M + Forsberg 6M + Foegele 2.5M = 16.5M

The team isn't better on paper there to me but it's different and not necessarily in a bad way.  Forsberg however is a UFA next year and he isn't going to be 6M next year so it's only punting the salary issue a year down the road.  I could understand why Carolina might do a trade for Rielly to replace Hamilton.  I don't think you can rationalize why Nashville would trade for Marner given they just sold Arvidsson.

 

[ZBBM]

Having much of the same core around for that time isn't meaningful?

Yeah, that's not really how this works. If you're going to suggest causation you actually have to make an argument for it. Otherwise, well, they still wear blue jerseys too.

And, no, "they haven't won a round" is not a compelling argument that they can't otherwise "Steve Yzerman can't win a cup" would have been a compelling argument for about 12 years.

So your argument is no need to change anything radically if they keep getting eliminated in R1 because ... hey Montreal made it to the final so anything can happen.  Stevie Y eventually won so anything can happen.  Playoff success is a crapshoot so anything can happen?

Let's say they lose again in R1 next spring (or miss the playoffs).  Are you content to just shrug and say, whatever, let's keep giving them another kick at the can while fiddling around with the bottom 6?

 

[mr grieves]

Well, there?s a second part to trading Marner and, say, Rielley ? besides getting space for UFAs, you get to restock with picks, prospects, and/or young NHLers, giving the Leafs a path toward some ELC contributors or young players who can outperform their RFA deals. There?s not much coming along right now.

"Have I got a deal for you. You give me a terrific haul of picks, prospects and young players and in return you get to pay 11 million dollars a year to a player we've decided is an impediment to us getting past the first round. Orderly line and serious bidders only."

Yup! That?s how it could go poorly. And probably some teams do hear the Leaf?s pitch that way.

But a player who?s top 5 in scoring is probably appealing to some team out there, and the Leafs could net a prospect, pick, salary dump and cap space they wouldn?t otherwise have. A crazy trade idea? No. One that makes them better over the long term? Maybe? Can?t rule it out anyway

 

[Kin]

So your argument is no need to change anything radically if they keep getting eliminated in R1 because ... hey Montreal made it to the final so anything can happen.

No, my argument is that I'm open to the team making any change so long as there's a credible argument as to why it makes the team better and not just different.

Stevie Y eventually won so anything can happen.  Playoff success is a crapshoot so anything can happen?

I mean, that's true but no, that's not what I'm saying. Steve Yzerman winning a cup isn't proof that "anything can happen". Steve Yzerman was one of the greatest players of all time. Great players help their teams win. What I'm saying was that "Steve Yzerman can't win a cup" was a stupid argument and would have been a stupid reason for Detroit to trade him because the only thing that could even remotely be called "supporting evidence" for it was that it hadn't happened yet. Much in the same way "These Leafs can't win a first round" has nothing going for it outside of it not happening yet.

Let's say they lose again in R1 next spring (or miss the playoffs).  Are you content to just shrug and say, whatever, let's keep giving them another kick at the can while fiddling around with the bottom 6?

As I said above, I am always open to the team making changes if they think there's a credible case it will make the team better. I'm not into making the team worse to assuage the hurt feelings of frustrated fans who've decided to listen to Steve Simmons craft useless narratives.

 

[Kin]

The team isn't better on paper there to me but it's different and not necessarily in a bad way.  Forsberg however is a UFA next year and he isn't going to be 6M next year so it's only punting the salary issue a year down the road.  I could understand why Carolina might do a trade for Rielly to replace Hamilton.  I don't think you can rationalize why Nashville would trade for Marner given they just sold Arvidsson.

I think any time your plan is structured around signing a high tier free agent for a very reasonable price it's a plan that probably shouldn't be called a "plan" but more in the camp of wishful thinking but like you say there are bigger assumptions there and while you're right that it doesn't necessarily make the team "worse" it also doesn't really do much to actually improve the team's depth, which is this year's in-style reason why the Leafs didn't win. At best you probably add some picks that don't figure to be in the top half of whatever round they're in and, like you say, kick the cap crunch a bit.

 

[Kin]

But a player who?s top 5 in scoring is probably appealing to some team out there, and the Leafs could net a prospect, pick, salary dump and cap space they wouldn?t otherwise have. A crazy trade idea? No. One that makes them better over the long term? Maybe? Can?t rule it out anyway

I get why you would want to have the exact same argument again but I feel we made our points on this pretty clear to each other in the other thread.