Jake Gardiner

[Frank E]

I think Gardiner's skill set is important to the team's fortunes this year, and he certainly isn't easily replaceable.

He had a bad game 7, really bad, and may have been a big reason they lost that game, but I don't think he's the reason they lost the series. 

I'm very curious to see how Dubas handles the situation of Gardiner coming up on UFA.

 

[ZBBM]

That is a wonderful article and whatnot, but the fact is that he was all-caps AWFUL in the one game where it counted most.  So no, PPP, people aren't going to seriously stop criticizing him and wanting to trade him until he is not awful in a G7-type situation.

The whole team was awful in that game. They all basically disappeared after the first period. Only Gardiner gets singled out for it. Yes, he was bad, and he was victimized (by the Bruins and by some shaky goaltending), but, the amount of blame he gets for that game is disproportionate to his actual impact.

The subject here is Gardiner and PPP's attempt to just cut off discussion of trading him.  Articles like that are at best disingenuous if the author thinks that a flood of analytics is going to simply override the fact that the player had his worst game of the season at the worst possible time.

 

[bustaheims]

I think Gardiner's skill set is important to the team's fortunes this year, and he certainly isn't easily replaceable.

He had a bad game 7, really bad, and may have been a big reason they lost that game, but I don't think he's the reason they lost the series. 

I'm very curious to see how Dubas handles the situation of Gardiner coming up on UFA.

He was probably the team's best defenceman in games 1-6, so, you're absolutely right that he's not the reason they lost the series. In fact, he's a big part of the reason they even made it to game 7.

 

[Kin]

Would you?

No. I want the team to get as deep in the playoffs as they can. That's why I generally think it's good to have 50 point defensemen kicking around.

 

[ZBBM]

Would you?

No. I want the team to get as deep in the playoffs as they can. That's why I generally think it's good to have 50 point defensemen kicking around.

So long as they don't blow it in G7s.  Which he may well never do again, in which case, as I said, there's no more reason at all to call for trading him.

 

[Kin]

Would you?

No. I want the team to get as deep in the playoffs as they can. That's why I generally think it's good to have 50 point defensemen kicking around.

So long as they don't blow it in G7s.  Which he may well never do again, in which case, as I said, there's no more reason at all to call for trading him.

All players have the capacity to have bad games. As busta has pointed out though Gardiner was A) not as bad as you're making it out and B) instrumental in the team getting there in the first place.

Gardiner is absolutely a guy who will help a ton in some games and much less in others. But the trade-off is that someone else might be steadier from game to game but less likely to be a major contributor to a win.

Unless you're arguing that Gardiner has something inherent in him that makes him bad in big games, which has no basis in fact, then you're arguing that you'd rather go with someone who is less likely to help the Leafs get to that game 7. Which, you know, your call but it's pretty reasonable for people like PPP to not see it that way.

 

[bustaheims]

The subject here is Gardiner and PPP's attempt to just cut off discussion of trading him.  Articles like that are at best disingenuous if the author thinks that a flood of analytics is going to simply override the fact that the player had his worst game of the season at the worst possible time.

If you're looking to build the best possible team, they're right. You have to ignore the one game sample instead of ignoring everything else he brings to the table.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Ah yes...Gardiner is the glue that holds the whole thing together.

I mean, he led the team in ice-time this past season, so yeah he's pretty critical to the teams success.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The subject here is Gardiner and PPP's attempt to just cut off discussion of trading him.  Articles like that are at best disingenuous if the author thinks that a flood of analytics is going to simply override the fact that the player had his worst game of the season at the worst possible time.

Andersen was just as bad as Gardiner in that game (and had a worse playoffs on the whole) and nobody has even remotely talked about moving him.

 

[mr grieves]

The subject here is Gardiner and PPP's attempt to just cut off discussion of trading him.  Articles like that are at best disingenuous if the author thinks that a flood of analytics is going to simply override the fact that the player had his worst game of the season at the worst possible time.

But Game 7 isn't really relevant to the Gardiner situation. The author skips right past the best reason to trade him -- that he's UFA and they may lose him for nothing -- by suggesting that they'll win a Cup with him this spring... which seems a bit optimistic.

I'd see how the season goes and whether he wants to re-sign. If things aren't looking great and he hasn't signed an extension, get a pick, prospect, and whatever.

 

[ZBBM]

Would you?

No. I want the team to get as deep in the playoffs as they can. That's why I generally think it's good to have 50 point defensemen kicking around.

So long as they don't blow it in G7s.  Which he may well never do again, in which case, as I said, there's no more reason at all to call for trading him.

All players have the capacity to have bad games. As busta has pointed out though Gardiner was A) not as bad as you're making it out and B) instrumental in the team getting there in the first place.

Gardiner is absolutely a guy who will help a ton in some games and much less in others. But the trade-off is that someone else might be steadier from game to game but less likely to be a major contributor to a win.

Unless you're arguing that Gardiner has something inherent in him that makes him bad in big games, which has no basis in fact, then you're arguing that you'd rather go with someone who is less likely to help the Leafs get to that game 7. Which, you know, your call but it's pretty reasonable for people like PPP to not see it that way.

The point of my comment is not to debate Gardiner's value.  It was to criticize the PPP article, and others like it, that say it's completely irrational to latch onto the one-game sample.  Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

 

[ZBBM]

The subject here is Gardiner and PPP's attempt to just cut off discussion of trading him.  Articles like that are at best disingenuous if the author thinks that a flood of analytics is going to simply override the fact that the player had his worst game of the season at the worst possible time.

Andersen was just as bad as Gardiner in that game (and had a worse playoffs on the whole) and nobody has even remotely talked about moving him.

PPP could write the same kind of article about him and my argument would still apply.  And yes, Andersen was worse than Gardiner in that series.

 

[Kin]

Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

Only if there's a reason to think that it's an inherent issue rather than a one-game sample which can swing wildly. But that notion is completely undercut by what we actually saw. Gardiner has played in elimination games before and played well in elimination games before. The idea that he can't, that playing badly in that game is indicative of some sort of deficiency to be concerned with going forward, simply has no legitimate case.

And absent that case to be made, this is "We should be open to trading him because he played badly in that one game" regardless of when that game was.

 

[ZBBM]

Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

Only if there's a reason to think that it's an inherent issue rather than a one-game sample which can swing wildly. But that notion is completely undercut by what we actually saw. Gardiner has played in elimination games before and played well in elimination games before. The idea that he can't, that playing badly in that game is indicative of some sort of deficiency to be concerned with going forward, simply has no legitimate case.

And absent that case to be made, this is "We should be open to trading him because he played badly in that one game" regardless of when that game was.

Has he in fact played well in elimination games before?  Can't recall G6 against Washington.  In any event, since we haven't won the Cup he by definition hasn't played spectacularly well enough in elimination games to offset the recency bias of his spectacularly bad game against Boston.

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

 

[mr grieves]

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

 

[Frank E]

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Disagree here.  If they are in a position to contend (ie, no long term injuries to stars, a top 5 team in the league) they aren't trading him. 

If they haven't had the season they've expected and are sitting on the playoff bubble (or have some long term injuries to stars), that is when Dubas is going to be up against it.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Disagree here.  If they are in a position to contend (ie, no long term injuries to stars, a top 5 team in the league) they aren't trading him. 

If they haven't had the season they've expected and are sitting on the playoff bubble (or have some long term injuries to stars), that is when Dubas is going to be up against it.

The biggest question is if the team can re-sign him in 2019. Can they afford him? If they need to decide they can't afford him, will they trade him? It's the JVR situation again. Game 7 and next year's Feb standings are both far less important.  If they are out of a playoff spot somehow, trading him becomes a much easier decision at one level, but it still depends firstly on if they plan on re-signing him.

 

[Frank E]

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

The larger argument concerns his contract status and asset management. Game 7 is irrelevant to keep him or trading him.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  Dubas is going to be up against it come February if they're in a position to contend.

Disagree here.  If they are in a position to contend (ie, no long term injuries to stars, a top 5 team in the league) they aren't trading him. 

If they haven't had the season they've expected and are sitting on the playoff bubble (or have some long term injuries to stars), that is when Dubas is going to be up against it.

Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

 

[mr grieves]

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

That would be how to avoid being "up against it."