Leafs acquire Michael Grabner

[Redleaf]

Considered and largely rejected? By whom?

The board. Kessel and his influence on the team has probably been the most discussed topic on these boards over the last six months and I'd say the response that you've gotten to your "addition by subtraction" argument here backs up that, largely, people don't think that Kessel was a sufficiently bad influence in the dressing room to make the loss of one of the most talented wingers in the league a good thing.

The board? Keep up. Thats been the whole premise of this debate. I don't agree with the board. I thought that was understood?

 

[Bill_Berg]

The Grabner trade (which is what this thread is about) wasn't about trading futures, the way I saw it.

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

I was under the impression he was a PK specialist.

 

[Kin]

The board? Keep up. Thats been the whole premise of this debate. I don't agree with the board. I thought that was understood?

Yes. Clearly. But Kessel's locker-room presence has been considered and re-considered by the board. You asked whether Kessel's influence on the team off the ice had entered people's minds like you were presenting some sort of new factor that hadn't been discussed ad nauseum to the point of tedium. I answered you. It had, and was largely dismissed by the board.

Kessel's influence off the ice, negative or positive, has already been factored into the opinion you disagree with. All you're doing is rehashing an argument that's been had dozens of times over Kessel's tenure with the team.

 

[Kin]

I was under the impression he was a PK specialist.

He's spent a fair amount of time on a PK that has been one of the worst in the league over the last few years. To the extent that makes him a specialist...

 

[CarltonTheBear]

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

He was also a healthy scratch in 14 of NYI's last 21 games (including playoffs). And he's making $5mil in real money this season. I'm hopeful he can bounce-back somewhat but you can definitely make the case the Islanders were probably shopping him around for free. The Leafs probably responded by saying "we'll take his salary off your hands if you help clear up our contract-reserve problem". Bingo-bango.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Something bothers me about that reasoning though.

Why did Kessel go first? And before the new coaching staff came aboard? If Kessel wasn't the problem with this team moving forward and they only traded him because of the rebuild, why the need to trade him away this off season before others like JVR or Phaneuf?

The return has been widely accepted as being a pretty poor one. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they get more for JVR, if they are indeed in full blown rebuild like you apparently believe is happening.

It just adds to the reason being more about his attitude than being about the good of the rebuild.

That's your bias colouring your interpretation, though. They didn't trade Phaneuf because he's a much harder sell right now. His value is low and his recent play makes his contract prohibitive. They're keeping him on the premise that Babcock wants to work with him, but, honestly, I believe they just didn't find a trade that was palatable - I don't think it's a coincidence that this storyline didn't really start gaining traction until after the draft and after Kessel was moved. The return being poor is sort of typical for the situation. Very rarely when a team trades their star player do they get the type of return people hope for. What the Leafs got for Kessel was very comparable to similar deals for similar players in similar circumstances.

As for JvR, that's a little more of a mystery. The most likely answer there is that they simply didn't receive an offer they felt was worth pursuing and that they're confident that deal will materialize later.

You're reading a lot into things that are pretty self-explanatory. Rebuilding teams trade their best players, often before other players. The returns on those players are often disappointing, and there's often more of a rush to move those players to remove the potential distraction and to weaken the team.

I thought of that at first as well. I don't know, it just feels like there was more to it than subtracting Kessel's goal output to try and finish lower in the standings? Why, then do they trade away  futures for Grabner? Why the PTO's? Thats going to hurt the rebuild more than help it IMO. Trade fodder at the deadline really depends on those players doing well for their team. Explain away, but I've got a pretty clear indication of whats going on in my mind. It just differs with yours. But thats what this board is all about, right?

The Grabner trade (which is what this thread is about) wasn't about trading futures, the way I saw it. It was about trading no-futures in bulk for someone who could potentially have value. Verhaeghe, or Beck, or Finn, or Gibson, or Nilsson were not going to yield anything more than a 5th rounder individually. Even at the trade deadline, teams will be looking for depth players of which these guys do not really qualify. We took advantage of an opportunity the Islanders presented in wanting to shed salary and an underperforming forward that they had someone cheaper exceeding. Opening up more contract space is a benefit to the rebuild (waiver pick ups, trade flexibility); Grabner exceeding his last year's performance will yield a trade partner. If he doesn't, he's gone and we have more contract space.

Thats only true if you put no value in any of those 5 players though. Finn alone, for example, could be a player. You just never know what you give up until years later in those types of deals.

The Leafs did put a value on those 5 players, though. And they decided contract spots/50 were more valuable. Considering the caliber of talent evaluators on the Leafs' staff now, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of those players as futures.

 

[bustaheims]

He was also a healthy scratch in 14 of NYI's last 21 games (including playoffs). And he's making $5mil in real money this season. I'm hopeful he can bounce-back somewhat but you can definitely make the case the Islanders were probably shopping him around for free. The Leafs probably responded by saying "we'll take his salary off your hands if you help clear up our contract-reserve problem". Bingo-bango.

Yeah. Basically, it was a contract dump for a salary dump that the Leafs hope they can turn into something slightly more valuable.

 

[Redleaf]

The board? Keep up. Thats been the whole premise of this debate. I don't agree with the board. I thought that was understood?

Yes. Clearly. But Kessel's locker-room presence has been considered and re-considered by the board. You asked whether Kessel's influence on the team off the ice had entered people's minds like you were presenting some sort of new factor that hadn't been discussed ad nauseum to the point of tedium. I answered you. It had, and was largely dismissed by the board.

Kessel's influence off the ice, negative or positive, has already been factored into the opinion you disagree with. All you're doing is rehashing an argument that's been had dozens of times over Kessel's tenure with the team.

I think you've conveniently twisted around my statement just enough to confuse what I really said.

 

[herman]

Thats only true if you put no value in any of those 5 players though. Finn alone, for example, could be a player. You just never know what you give up until years later in those types of deals.

They weren't 0 value, but they didn't have enough value for the team to keep investing development time to them. Finn's been stagnant for two years now, and at 21, he was clogging the AHL pipeline for their higher ceilinged prospects.

The Grabner trade (which is what this thread is about) wasn't about trading futures, the way I saw it.

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

I don't think they were trading to get Grabner for his skillset specifically; moreso for the contract space opportunity and a serviceable body that might yield a pick. I don't think we signed any of the UFAs to be anything more than an NHL-level player to hold the fort and that can be turned into a middle pick, or a surprise 2nd. They, in turn, sound pretty pleased to be here for a chance to learn from Babcock and play their way onto a contender.

 

[Redleaf]

I thought of that at first as well. I don't know, it just feels like there was more to it than subtracting Kessel's goal output to try and finish lower in the standings? Why, then do they trade away  futures for Grabner? Why the PTO's? Thats going to hurt the rebuild more than help it IMO. Trade fodder at the deadline really depends on those players doing well for their team. Explain away, but I've got a pretty clear indication of whats going on in my mind. It just differs with yours. But thats what this board is all about, right?

I wouldn't call what the Leafs moved in the Grabner trade "futures." They were contracts and organizational filler. None of the pieces moved are likely to become full-time NHLers, and, even if they do, we're talking 4th liners and 5-7 defencemen. They're prospects that every team has and that the Leafs have replaced in recent drafts. They were basically at the bottom of the depth chart. That trade was about clearing space on the reserve list - the Leafs went from having only 1 free spot to having 5 - while picking up a potential trade chip for the deadline/a player with no contractual commitment past this season. The PTOs don't really mean anything unless those players earn contracts. Right now, they're just extra bodies for exhibition games. They don't really represent a significant upgrade on the players under contract, nor are they upgrades on the players who are no longer on the roster from last season. Trade value of these players is representative of them showing they can fill the kind of roles contending teams are looking to fill at the deadline. That generally means depth, 3rd and 4th line types. These guys showing that they can do that isn't going to improve the Leafs' fortunes - especially since some of them will be playing in more significant roles. A player on the 2nd line contributing like a good 3rd liner isn't going to lead to the Leafs winning.

Organization fillers? You can't know that any of these 5 players traded for Grabner will not amount to anything. Again your projecting your option as fact.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I was under the impression he was a PK specialist.

He's spent a fair amount of time on a PK that has been one of the worst in the league over the last few years. To the extent that makes him a specialist...

I won't judge his skill based on team numbers. He's quick and can score shorthanded goals. Point is that it looks like he is going to play that role here, and if he is good at it, which he may be despite the Islanders' numbers, then I wouldn't say he's not a very good player.

 

[Bill_Berg]

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

He was also a healthy scratch in 14 of NYI's last 21 games (including playoffs).

This however does make me think he may not be a very good player.

 

[Kin]

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

He was also a healthy scratch in 14 of NYI's last 21 games (including playoffs). And he's making $5mil in real money this season. I'm hopeful he can bounce-back somewhat but you can definitely make the case the Islanders were probably shopping him around for free. The Leafs probably responded by saying "we'll take his salary off your hands if you help clear up our contract-reserve problem". Bingo-bango.

Which is this argument in a nutshell. The Leafs, somehow, are going to improve because they add other teams' detritus. Healthy scratches and vets nobody else wants for the minimum.

At this point "magic" would genuinely be a more defensible position.

 

[Redleaf]

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

He was also a healthy scratch in 14 of NYI's last 21 games (including playoffs).

This however does make me think he may not be a very good player.

I was unaware of this as well. Even more perturbed with the deal  now.

 

[herman]

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

He was also a healthy scratch in 14 of NYI's last 21 games (including playoffs).

This however does make me think he may not be a very good player.

I was unaware of this as well. Even more perturbed with the deal  now.

It's less perturbing if you reframe it as a contract-freeing transaction, rather than an NHL team improvement move. It's almost like helping someone break a large dollar bill with your pocket change because you didn't really want so many coins in the pockets of pants that were a bit snug.

 

[bustaheims]

Organization fillers? You can't know that any of these 5 players traded for Grabner will not amount to anything. Again your projecting your option as fact.

That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of the Leafs' talent evaluators who preferred the contract spaces or the Islanders who felt they needed all 5 to justify moving a pretty mediocre contributor in Grabner. For many, it was the scouts leading up to their draft, who ranked them fairly low. In the case of Beck, there's also Nashville who didn't think he was worth a salary that's not significantly higher than the league minimum. In some cases, they've put up disappointing numbers since being drafted; for others, their ceiling was never seen as more than how I described them. These are the things I base my opinion on.

 

[Kin]

I won't judge his skill based on team numbers. He's quick and can score shorthanded goals. Point is that it looks like he is going to play that role here, and if he is good at it, which he may be despite the Islanders' numbers, then I wouldn't say he's not a very good player.

I mean, I can't argue with "If he's good at it then he's a good player" but we have more than just the team numbers to go on. There's his relative lack of any sort of Selke support(whereas Franz Nielsen, who he killed penalties with, had quite a bit), there's who he was traded for, there's the fact that on a team with a very poor penalty kill they chose to make him a healthy scratch quite a bit last year.....

 

[Bill_Berg]

I won't judge his skill based on team numbers. He's quick and can score shorthanded goals. Point is that it looks like he is going to play that role here, and if he is good at it, which he may be despite the Islanders' numbers, then I wouldn't say he's not a very good player.

I mean, I can't argue with "If he's good at it then he's a good player" but we have more than just the team numbers to go on. There's his relative lack of any sort of Selke support(whereas Franz Nielsen, who he killed penalties with, had quite a bit), there's who he was traded for, there's the fact that on a team with a very poor penalty kill they chose to make him a healthy scratch quite a bit last year.....

Ya, healthy scratch... I really don't know much about him, I suppose your argument is that by me saying 'specialist' that implies he excels at the position, and maybe it does imply that. So I'll change it to, I was under the impression he was brought in to kill penalties, possibly poorly.

I'm thinking now there is some shorthanded goal hype with him, especially with the Toronto media.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=562711

 

[herman]

I won't judge his skill based on team numbers. He's quick and can score shorthanded goals. Point is that it looks like he is going to play that role here, and if he is good at it, which he may be despite the Islanders' numbers, then I wouldn't say he's not a very good player.

I mean, I can't argue with "If he's good at it then he's a good player" but we have more than just the team numbers to go on. There's his relative lack of any sort of Selke support(whereas Franz Nielsen, who he killed penalties with, had quite a bit), there's who he was traded for, there's the fact that on a team with a very poor penalty kill they chose to make him a healthy scratch quite a bit last year.....

2 sports hernias also nerfed that ridiculous speed down to above average speed.

 

[Kin]

Ya, healthy scratch... I really don't know much about him, I suppose your argument is that by me saying 'specialist' that implies he excels at the position, and maybe it does imply that. So I'll change it to, I was under the impression he was brought in to kill penalties, possibly poorly.

Well, I suppose it's more along the lines of, even if he is a pretty good penalty killer, does that combined with his seeming inability to score much combine to make him a particularly good player. I mean, Jay McClement is a PK specialist who I think is pretty good in the role but if the Leafs acquired him I wouldn't call him a very good player either.