Finding top four d-man

[bustaheims]

Isn't ordinary the expected standard for a 6th defenseman?

It's sort of the bare minimum standard for a competitive team. And, look, I'm not saying we should expect to find spectacular 3rd pairing defencemen or anything like that, but, the team should be striving for better than ordinary. The Leafs are rapidly approaching the point where the available upgrades at the top of the lineup will be minimal. It's going to be the upgrades at the bottom of the lineup - the type of upgrades that don't seem like much in isolation, but can have a significant cumulative impact - that will start to separate them from the rest of the pack.

 

[Frank E]

Isn't ordinary the expected standard for a 6th defenseman?

It's sort of the bare minimum standard for a competitive team. And, look, I'm not saying we should expect to find spectacular 3rd pairing defencemen or anything like that, but, the team should be striving for better than ordinary. The Leafs are rapidly approaching the point where the available upgrades at the top of the lineup will be minimal. It's going to be the upgrades at the bottom of the lineup - the type of upgrades that don't seem like much in isolation, but can have a significant cumulative impact - that will start to separate them from the rest of the pack.

We'll disagree on the state of the assets at the top of the lineup then.  I think you need a $7m+ defenseman injected into that top 4. 

 

[mr grieves]

I'd personally make a run at Shattenkirk.  But I know I'll be quite alone in that thinking.

I'd say you take the same kind of run at Shattenkirk (or any premiere free agent) as we did with Stamkos. Pick a reasonable, sustainable term and cap hit: if Shattenkirk bites, yay! If not, whatevs.

It's getting into bidding wars over players with no growth potential that bugs me.

Our bid can likely be a bit higher -- and still, within its context, reasonable and sustainable -- than that of most other teams, given the age of the roster, no?

 

[Kin]

Isn't ordinary the expected standard for a 6th defenseman?

It's sort of the bare minimum standard for a competitive team. And, look, I'm not saying we should expect to find spectacular 3rd pairing defencemen or anything like that, but, the team should be striving for better than ordinary. The Leafs are rapidly approaching the point where the available upgrades at the top of the lineup will be minimal. It's going to be the upgrades at the bottom of the lineup - the type of upgrades that don't seem like much in isolation, but can have a significant cumulative impact - that will start to separate them from the rest of the pack.

We'll disagree on the state of the assets at the top of the lineup then.  I think you need a $7m+ defenseman injected into that top 4.

I think that's where "available" comes into play.

 

[Highlander]

My son has been watching all the Marlies games he can and he told me he thinks Neilson could develop into a #2 D man.  He is pretty astute in his observations so lets hope him and Dermott can come up and be steady players.  We havent had too much luck to date in developing our D men (outside of Rielly who went directly to the dance).

 

[Kin]

Our bid can likely be a bit higher -- and still, within its context, reasonable and sustainable -- than that of most other teams, given the age of the roster, no?

So long as it meets the criteria of being reasonable and sustainable, I don't see why it wouldn't be as high as possible.

 

[bustaheims]

I think that's where "available" comes into play.

Very much so. Also, outside of a top pairing defenceman, I don't think there is a ton of room to upgrade at the top of the lineup - some lineup changes, sure, but, in terms of the available talent on the roster, the realistic upgrades out there aren't significant, and largely represent a larger outlay in terms of assets than they'd provide benefits.

 

[AvroArrow]

I'd personally make a run at Shattenkirk.  But I know I'll be quite alone in that thinking.

I'd say you take the same kind of run at Shattenkirk (or any premiere free agent) as we did with Stamkos. Pick a reasonable, sustainable term and cap hit: if Shattenkirk bites, yay! If not, whatevs.

It's getting into bidding wars over players with no growth potential that bugs me.

I'd do the same on Alzner too, if he makes it to FA.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I'd do the same on Alzner too, if he makes it to FA.

Unless we are trading Rielly or Gardiner for a righty, I don't know why we'd spend big money on Alzner to strengthen our Left-side.

 

[Kin]

I'd do the same on Alzner too, if he makes it to FA.

Unless we are trading Rielly or Gardiner for a righty, I don't know why we'd spend big money on Alzner to strengthen our Left-side.

A very real and pressing matter that Babcock is going to have to make a tough call on in the future is how he adapts his ideal line-up construction to the unideal situation the Leafs may find themselves in. We know, for instance, he likes to have a grinder/puck retrieval guy on every line but we're seeing some of the offensive limitations of that with Hyman on Matthews wing.

Likewise, we know he likes to go Lefty/Righty with defensemen but the very real question of whether or not he's so married to that idea will trump having more talented defensemen on the team.

 

[Frank E]

I'd do the same on Alzner too, if he makes it to FA.

Unless we are trading Rielly or Gardiner for a righty, I don't know why we'd spend big money on Alzner to strengthen our Left-side.

A very real and pressing matter that Babcock is going to have to make a tough call on in the future is how he adapts his ideal line-up construction to the unideal situation the Leafs may find themselves in. We know, for instance, he likes to have a grinder/puck retrieval guy on every line but we're seeing some of the offensive limitations of that with Hyman on Matthews wing.

Likewise, we know he likes to go Lefty/Righty with defensemen but the very real question of whether or not he's so married to that idea will trump having more talented defensemen on the team.

I agree.  The pool of great guys is already limited.

 

[slapshot]

It's a heck of a thing for Polak to both have no real value and also be the reason the team's going to make the playoffs.

Nice point

 

[slapshot]

The thing about a trade like this is it's not like making the trade on Playstation where you just have to accumulate enough value on one side of the ledger and then a certain degree of player is available. A lot of defensemen just aren't going to be available for an upgrade on the LW(and a temporary one at that) and picks/prospects.

If the Leafs do make a substantial trade for a defenseman who's already fairly established it'll probably be less about the value they're able to put together and more about who, for whatever reason, is available.

Just to clarify, the main point of the post was to just start a discussion about getting a top four d-man. I just thought the package above together could generate possibilities, not necessarily an X = Y per say. Sorry if that was a bit confusing. That being said, there certainly have been packages put together for top 4 d-men, such as Shattenkirk and Dougie Hamilton to name a couple. It might take bigger name player off the Leafs to get that top-4 d-man, but it would be nice if they Leafs could swing a quantity for quality deal. Not saying it will happen, but it does happen in some cases. If unloading Clarkson contract can be done, anything is possible. I am wondering if the Leafs make a pitch for a good sized right handed d-man for either two pairing or second pairing, maybe a Jacob Trouba (would probably cost quite a bit), or an Erik Johnson if Avs wanted to move contract, or maybe a Connor Murphy from Yotes. Would anybody go for any of those guys and if so what would it take on our end.

 

[Kin]

That being said, there certainly have been packages put together for top 4 d-men, such as Shattenkirk and Dougie Hamilton to name a couple.

Right but in those situations it wasn't as if the teams trading the defensemen in question were largely happy to have them around and were just won over by the strength of the players/picks they were offered, Shattenkirk was/is leaving as a UFA and Boston had come to the conclusion that they couldn't fit Hamilton under the cap. Those teams weren't convinced to trade those players, situation had forced their hands and they were looking to shop them.

So again it's really about who is available for whatever reason. I think we've seen in the past with the cases you mention and with guys like Bouwmeester or Phaneuf that when those guys hit the market because their team is determined to sell it can actually be surprisingly cheap.

 

[Bates]

Has anyone checked Amazon?  You can find anything there.  And with Prime we could have a couple delivered by tomorrow.

 

[Highlander]

Has anyone checked Amazon?  You can find anything there.  And with Prime we could have a couple delivered by tomorrow.

Funny, made me laugh
Got a spare Turnbull or Bobby Baun available?