Leaf Free agent Target(s)

[bustaheims]

No he was not. At 1 mil a season, he was 10 x better then Franson defensively.

Being on a cheaper contract does not improve his defensive play.

 

[Bender]

No he was not. At 1 mil a season, he was 10 x better then Franson defensively.

Being on a cheaper contract does not improve his defensive play.

I'd argue that Ranger never looked better than Franson in almost any facet of the game. I also think Franson would be a more valuable trading chip than Ranger just for the fact that he's three years younger.

 

[bustaheims]

I'd argue that Ranger never looked better than Franson in almost any facet of the game. I also think Franson would be a more valuable trading chip than Ranger just for the fact that he's three years younger.

Ranger's a better skater than Franson - though, really, that's not saying much. As the season went on, he made less mistakes, but he also saw less ice time, so, it probably balances out. In terms of a 3rd pairing guy, I think I'd rather have Ranger - he doesn't help the team as much as Franson offensively, but he doesn't hurt them as much defensively. He'd also be on a much cheaper contract. Franson probably would be a more valuable trade chip, but he's also going to be a much larger cap commitment, so, that also balances things out some - though, right now, Ranger's trade value is non-existent, as he's an unsigned UFA.

 

[freer]

I'd argue that Ranger never looked better than Franson in almost any facet of the game. I also think Franson would be a more valuable trading chip than Ranger just for the fact that he's three years younger.

Ranger's a better skater than Franson - though, really, that's not saying much. As the season went on, he made less mistakes, but he also saw less ice time, so, it probably balances out. In terms of a 3rd pairing guy, I think I'd rather have Ranger - he doesn't help the team as much as Franson offensively, but he doesn't hurt them as much defensively. He'd also be on a much cheaper contract. Franson probably would be a more valuable trade chip, but he's also going to be a much larger cap commitment, so, that also balances things out some - though, right now, Ranger's trade value is non-existent, as he's an unsigned UFA.

IMO, Franson is the reason we lost to BOS in playoffs, He was the one who sent a blind pass right up the mid leading to the tieing goal. again IMO

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd argue that Ranger never looked better than Franson in almost any facet of the game. I also think Franson would be a more valuable trading chip than Ranger just for the fact that he's three years younger.

Ranger's a better skater than Franson - though, really, that's not saying much. As the season went on, he made less mistakes, but he also saw less ice time, so, it probably balances out. In terms of a 3rd pairing guy, I think I'd rather have Ranger - he doesn't help the team as much as Franson offensively, but he doesn't hurt them as much defensively. He'd also be on a much cheaper contract. Franson probably would be a more valuable trade chip, but he's also going to be a much larger cap commitment, so, that also balances things out some - though, right now, Ranger's trade value is non-existent, as he's an unsigned UFA.

IMO, Franson is the reason we lost to BOS in playoffs, He was the one who sent a blind pass right up the mid leading to the tieing goal. again IMO

Must have been quite the feat from the bench.

 

[freer]

I'd argue that Ranger never looked better than Franson in almost any facet of the game. I also think Franson would be a more valuable trading chip than Ranger just for the fact that he's three years younger.

Ranger's a better skater than Franson - though, really, that's not saying much. As the season went on, he made less mistakes, but he also saw less ice time, so, it probably balances out. In terms of a 3rd pairing guy, I think I'd rather have Ranger - he doesn't help the team as much as Franson offensively, but he doesn't hurt them as much defensively. He'd also be on a much cheaper contract. Franson probably would be a more valuable trade chip, but he's also going to be a much larger cap commitment, so, that also balances things out some - though, right now, Ranger's trade value is non-existent, as he's an unsigned UFA.

IMO, Franson is the reason we lost to BOS in playoffs, He was the one who sent a blind pass right up the mid leading to the tieing goal. again IMO

Must have been quite the feat from the bench.

I am sorry I was mistaken. It was winning goal in OT.

 

[Kin]

Regardless, there is no one reason why the team lost.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd argue that Ranger never looked better than Franson in almost any facet of the game. I also think Franson would be a more valuable trading chip than Ranger just for the fact that he's three years younger.

Ranger's a better skater than Franson - though, really, that's not saying much. As the season went on, he made less mistakes, but he also saw less ice time, so, it probably balances out. In terms of a 3rd pairing guy, I think I'd rather have Ranger - he doesn't help the team as much as Franson offensively, but he doesn't hurt them as much defensively. He'd also be on a much cheaper contract. Franson probably would be a more valuable trade chip, but he's also going to be a much larger cap commitment, so, that also balances things out some - though, right now, Ranger's trade value is non-existent, as he's an unsigned UFA.

IMO, Franson is the reason we lost to BOS in playoffs, He was the one who sent a blind pass right up the mid leading to the tieing goal. again IMO

Must have been quite the feat from the bench.

I am sorry I was mistaken. It was winning goal in OT.

I don't really blame him on that one, although I've blocked it out of my memory.  I thought maybe you were referring to the first goal of the game.  Anyways..

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Regardless, there is no one reason why the team lost.

Yeah, everybody knows that there were two: Grabovski and Reimer.

 

[Champ Kind]

I have to say, I don't think I would mind seeing Steve Ott on a 'Raymond'esque' join the Leafs.  Likely would create a glut of third/fourth line centres and take away a spot that a Marlie should have a legitimate shot at, but on a favourable deal I think he'd look pretty good on the Leafs bottom six.

 

[TML fan]

Regardless, there is no one reason why the team lost.

Yeah, everybody knows that there were two: Grabovski and Reimer.

Carlyle?

 

[Kin]

I don't think he'll be unsigned when camp rolls around but if he is, Dany Heatley is someone I'd look at on a try-out basis.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't think he'll be unsigned when camp rolls around but if he is, Dany Heatley is someone I'd look at on a try-out basis.

I think if he's hitting the gym and ice hard this summer he'd be a good gamble for some team to take. He's always crushed it at the ACC so maybe that magic will still work with the other jersey on now. His skating it going to have to improve though and I don't know if that will happen at 33. We could start him on the 4th line and have him work his way up:

JVR-Bozak-Kessel
Lupul-Kadri-Kontiola
Komarov-Santorelli-Clarkson
Heatley-Holland-Frattin

 

[Bullfrog]

Regardless, there is no one reason why the team lost.

Yeah, everybody knows that there were two: Grabovski and Reimer.

If only he would have retained possession instead of giving it away!

 

[pmrules]

I'd argue that Ranger never looked better than Franson in almost any facet of the game. I also think Franson would be a more valuable trading chip than Ranger just for the fact that he's three years younger.

Ranger's a better skater than Franson - though, really, that's not saying much. As the season went on, he made less mistakes, but he also saw less ice time, so, it probably balances out. In terms of a 3rd pairing guy, I think I'd rather have Ranger - he doesn't help the team as much as Franson offensively, but he doesn't hurt them as much defensively. He'd also be on a much cheaper contract. Franson probably would be a more valuable trade chip, but he's also going to be a much larger cap commitment, so, that also balances things out some - though, right now, Ranger's trade value is non-existent, as he's an unsigned UFA.

IMO, Franson is the reason we lost to BOS in playoffs, He was the one who sent a blind pass right up the mid leading to the tieing goal. again IMO

Must have been quite the feat from the bench.

I am sorry I was mistaken. It was winning goal in OT.

I don't really blame him on that one, although I've blocked it out of my memory.  I thought maybe you were referring to the first goal of the game.  Anyways..

And let's not forget the fact that Franson was one of the biggest reasons as to why the Leafs got that 4-1 lead in the first place.

Bygones....

 

[bustaheims]

IMO, Franson is the reason we lost to BOS in playoffs, He was the one who sent a blind pass right up the mid leading to the tieing goal. again IMO

There was no single play that cost the Leafs the series. There was one that ended it, but, that's it. You don't blow a 4-1 lead in 10 minutes because of one play.

 

[Courtnall]

IMO, Franson is the reason we lost to BOS in playoffs, He was the one who sent a blind pass right up the mid leading to the tieing goal. again IMO

There was no single play that cost the Leafs the series. There was one that ended it, but, that's it. You don't blow a 4-1 lead in 10 minutes because of one play.

You're right, but a timeout could have made a world of difference.

 

[bustaheims]

You're right, but a timeout could have made a world of difference.

It might have. It might not have. I agree that Carlyle should have used it after the Bruins made it 4-3, because, well, what was the point in saving it?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You're right, but a timeout could have made a world of difference.

It might have. It might not have. I agree that Carlyle should have used it after the Bruins made it 4-3, because, well, what was the point in saving it?

Worth noting though that the Bruins took a timeout at that point.

 

[bustaheims]

Worth noting though that the Bruins took a timeout at that point.

Did they? I thought they took theirs before their 3rd goal.

EDIT: Either way, while I may have the exact moment wrong, I definitely remember there being a clear point in in the last couple minutes of the game where a timeout would have been more than appropriate and was not used. Even if it wouldn't have made a difference, I just don't understand the logic in holding on to your timeout at that point.