• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Gleason traded to Toronto for Liles

JohnK's Revenge said:
mr grieves said:
The team's made up of young guys that other teams had given up on, lost interest in, didn't want to commit to, or whatever, and, for the most part, the Leafs have done pretty well with this assortment of castoffs and broken toys. Pretty good with "'damaged' goods" indeed. But where they haven't done well is bringing in worthwhile pieces on the wrong side of their prime.

hear hear!

cough... Nolan cough...

runs away.......................

Well, different time, that.

I meant all the quality youth/ guys in their prime the Leafs have had they they didn't draft, but picked up via trade or abandoned arbitration awards or whatever. To wit: Kessel, JvR, Lupul, Grabovski, MacArthur, Raymond, Phaneuf, Franson, Gardiner, Bernier. You could probably add the undrafted Bozak, and surely should if he's returned from his oblique strain as a 2.5 ppg player. A lot of those guys were considered 'damaged' goods, either because of injuries or perceived flaws in their games and/or personalities. The Leafs out together a not-embarrassing core of guys they haven't drafted.

Gleason, however, is not that sort of 'damaged' good, I don't think.
 
I am having a very difficult time understanding why immediate and ongoing reactions to this trade are so frequently negative. Nonis made it pretty clear that his depth position is a wash for Liles', so it's not like he's being expected to become the second coming of so-and-so from the early nineties or aughts. As has been stated, we can also count on the relative financial wash between the contracts of Liles and Gleason, so frustration there makes little to no sense at all.
Those two equalities, when considered with the idea of upgrading in the size of the #7 defenseman and, hopefully, the continued emergence of Rielly and Gardiner, make Liles much more burdensome moving forward, even if slightly cheaper than Gleason.
Ideally, he would be expected to work himself into the lineup at Fraser/Ranger's expense, which is nothing to get excited about. Criticisms of his career failings in Carolina are more than fair, as are injury concerns. But at the price, it's worth a gamble to have an experienced, defense-first defenseman around, especially if he can eat up some of Dion's defensive workload (I am by no means a full supporter of Phaneuf, but statistically, there is almost nothing anyone can offer him in terms of criticism), which in the current lineup is pretty much nonexistent.
About the worst possible outcome for this trade is that we will have the style of player we lack most (apart from potentially a top-line forward) sitting in the stands, rather than a redundant offensive defenseman.

I suppose a secret worst-possible option would be if the Colorado trade rumours are true, and Gardiner ends up part of a top-line deal. Rielly has shown some very poor decision making this season, and i would hate to see him bear the full brunt of the madness at the center of the universe, simply because we traded away our other blue-chip defensive prospect.

Whatever happens, i hope Gleason finds a nice vein of form and fitness while in Toronto, and that Liles doesn't, as one of our more pedantic, cynical members suggested, become the missing piece of the Carolina puzzle, if such a yard sale of questionable decisions can be solved, or at all hacked back together. Not to be overly critical of the guy, since it is kind of his thing, but suggesting that a team more offensively anemic than we are, with comparably difficult defensive problems to work out, as well as the very real possibility of Cam Ward being past it, just needs a little help on the powerplay to make up the (as of this morning) 5-point gap on the wild card spot is pretty unfair to both Carolina and Toronto's realities--not to mention the Senators, Devils, and Rangers.

 
Joe S. said:
JohnK's Revenge said:
mr grieves said:
The team's made up of young guys that other teams had given up on, lost interest in, didn't want to commit to, or whatever, and, for the most part, the Leafs have done pretty well with this assortment of castoffs and broken toys. Pretty good with "'damaged' goods" indeed. But where they haven't done well is bringing in worthwhile pieces on the wrong side of their prime.

hear hear!

cough... Nolan cough...

runs away.......................

I don't care what anyone says. Nolan was awesome.

The man was Made in Belfast, what do you expect?

;)
 
Syntax McLawdog said:
I am having a very difficult time understanding why immediate and ongoing reactions to this trade are so frequently negative. Nonis made it pretty clear that his depth position is a wash for Liles', so it's not like he's being expected to become the second coming of so-and-so from the early nineties or aughts. As has been stated, we can also count on the relative financial wash between the contracts of Liles and Gleason, so frustration there makes little to no sense at all.
Those two equalities, when considered with the idea of upgrading in the size of the #7 defenseman and, hopefully, the continued emergence of Rielly and Gardiner, make Liles much more burdensome moving forward, even if slightly cheaper than Gleason.
Ideally, he would be expected to work himself into the lineup at Fraser/Ranger's expense, which is nothing to get excited about. Criticisms of his career failings in Carolina are more than fair, as are injury concerns. But at the price, it's worth a gamble to have an experienced, defense-first defenseman around, especially if he can eat up some of Dion's defensive workload (I am by no means a full supporter of Phaneuf, but statistically, there is almost nothing anyone can offer him in terms of criticism), which in the current lineup is pretty much nonexistent.
About the worst possible outcome for this trade is that we will have the style of player we lack most (apart from potentially a top-line forward) sitting in the stands, rather than a redundant offensive defenseman.

I suppose a secret worst-possible option would be if the Colorado trade rumours are true, and Gardiner ends up part of a top-line deal. Rielly has shown some very poor decision making this season, and i would hate to see him bear the full brunt of the madness at the center of the universe, simply because we traded away our other blue-chip defensive prospect.

Whatever happens, i hope Gleason finds a nice vein of form and fitness while in Toronto, and that Liles doesn't, as one of our more pedantic, cynical members suggested, become the missing piece of the Carolina puzzle, if such a yard sale of questionable decisions can be solved, or at all hacked back together. Not to be overly critical of the guy, since it is kind of his thing, but suggesting that a team more offensively anemic than we are, with comparably difficult defensive problems to work out, as well as the very real possibility of Cam Ward being past it, just needs a little help on the powerplay to make up the (as of this morning) 5-point gap on the wild card spot is pretty unfair to both Carolina and Toronto's realities--not to mention the Senators, Devils, and Rangers.


Great post and all very true.  I was surprised as well by how many of the great longtime posters on this forum could pick apart this trade when the logistics of everything are considered.  The argument that if Gleason hadn't regressed then Rutherford wouldn't have made this trade is also very tiresome.  Like you stated in your post, the Canes needed to kickstart their offence and Gleason wasn't going to do this.  It doesn't mean that a Gleason even at 75% of what he used to be would not be able to help this anemic defensive group in Toronto.
 
Well thanks, Mr. Plasma. My hope is that this trade isn't a harbringer for other trades, which i might be less inclined to agree with.
But the trade, if it can be seen in a vacuum of simply assets/liabilities gained, weighed against assets/liabilities lost, this is a significant win for the Leafs.
 
Syntax McLawdog said:
Well thanks, Mr. Plasma. My hope is that this trade isn't a harbringer for other trades, which i might be less inclined to agree with.
But the trade, if it can be seen in a vacuum of simply assets/liabilities gained, weighed against assets/liabilities lost, this trade is a significant win for the Leafs.

+1 on the nice post.  Thanks for contributing to the site!
 
From what I could gather from the use of Word thesaurus (seriously, I had to read that a couple times, sorry) I don't see how anything that was said results in "significant win" for the Leafs.  At best it's a potential improvement, at worst it's a non-impact for slightly more money.
 
RedLeaf said:
Joe S. said:
JohnK's Revenge said:
mr grieves said:
The team's made up of young guys that other teams had given up on, lost interest in, didn't want to commit to, or whatever, and, for the most part, the Leafs have done pretty well with this assortment of castoffs and broken toys. Pretty good with "'damaged' goods" indeed. But where they haven't done well is bringing in worthwhile pieces on the wrong side of their prime.

hear hear!

cough... Nolan cough...

runs away.......................

I don't care what anyone says. Nolan was awesome.

All kinds of awesome for, what, about 40 or so games?  ;)

The Leafs should not have bought him out after the lockout.
 
Potvin29 said:
From what I could gather from the use of Word thesaurus (seriously, I had to read that a couple times, sorry) I don't see how anything that was said results in "significant win" for the Leafs.  At best it's a potential improvement, at worst it's a non-impact for slightly more money.
It's not my job to teach you how to read, nor is it your job to demean or casually insult me.

If i have three apples and need an orange, how valuable is my third apple, if it is your requested payment for one orange?

I would say that dealing my depth resource for something i don't have is always a good idea. Isn't that what makes us humans? Or was qualifying that you don't know how to read an easy way to say that, no matter what, you'll never agree with me?
 
princedpw said:
Syntax McLawdog said:
Well thanks, Mr. Plasma. My hope is that this trade isn't a harbringer for other trades, which i might be less inclined to agree with.
But the trade, if it can be seen in a vacuum of simply assets/liabilities gained, weighed against assets/liabilities lost, this trade is a significant win for the Leafs.

+1 on the nice post.  Thanks for contributing to the site!

+2.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top