Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks

[herman]

Thanks for engaging me in response, mr. grieves.

Great questions/concerns. I share several of these...

My concerns:
Does Andersen flame out here like everyone that came after Belfour? Will the huge coaching difference make a difference?

I don't think anything as spectacular as Toskala or Rask, but it's concerning that they've locked themselves in to a guy who's .918 over 125 games on a very good team, behind a very good defense. (I checked Toskala: .913 in 114 games). I don't think he'll flame out spectacularly, but I don't think they'll get anything (esp. after this season) that they couldn't've got cheaper some other way.
But, on the other hand, as much as committing dollars and term to a "good" goaltender doesn't seem very progressive a move, maybe the Leafs' vaunted analytics department has identified something in his game that means he's a sure shot.

This is the part that's a toss-up for me. Andersen has rave reviews from everyone who knows him or has watched him play. Some of their fanbase also say Anaheim chose the wrong goalie to part with, but are at peace with it because they understand the budgetary reasons (and Gibson is quite good). I don't know if he'll be a huge jump up on Bernier, but if Andersen can maintain his baseline and continue to grow, I believe we're getting his peak performance window.

Which other goalies fit the bill for us in this category? Looks like the other 1a/1b combos were all leaning towards protecting their younger goalies and their 1as were all on the older side (Fleury, Bishop).

While wrapping up work, I listened to the recent Mirtle-Siegel podcast. Mirtle suggests there are a lot of teams that'll be in a similar position who won't go this route (I remember him mentioning Colorado).
I also sort of think Reimer wouldn't've been a bad option. He only has one option to be a starter (Calgary), otherwise it's 1B or back-up. Given buyer's market, I think he could've been had for less than Andersen's hit and term and would've been a good stopgap.

For the teams who will lean more towards their veteran option, I don't recall being attracted to their prospect options. Reimer is an interesting choice. Personally, I wouldn't mind having him back for 3 years (it'd probably be in the 4.5-5.5M range), but I believe his ship has sailed in Management's eyes. I hope he finds a solid landing spot.

Does 5/5 put us out of range of cap maneuverability?

Only for this summer, I think. Unless guys who most think are pretty hard to move fly off the books, or are somehow hidden away, there's no way they can sign Stamkos. And, if you aren't interested in Stamkos, who cares?
(I'm down to hoping Stamkos signs a 1 year deal with Tampa Bay for a last run at the Cup before TB's cap squeeze really hits... then he can come home when the Leafs cap situation is better and they're nearer to contending, not asking the player to waste a year of his prime on the team's year of development)

5M is lower than what most projected our future goalie to make. I think Andersen's most consistent 'floor' level of play is just about league average, which means at the very least, he nets us what we paid for. There is a ceiling there that is higher than Bernier's according to goalie coaches, so we could potentially receive better value in a couple of years as he gains the 60-game stamina.

I think it gives us decent future flexibility, and when the heir apparent (which we have to fish for) is ready to take over, he'll only be on his second contract, still under team control.

Could we have made it through the upcoming season with just Bernier/Sparks? Or a cheapo backup? What costs would have arisen from that since it would be passed that expansion draft fear window?

I think the answer to #1 is sure. Would the young players have demoralized by the odd bad goal? Maybe. Would their development have been ruined as a consequence? I doubt that.
To #2: I'm not at all clear on when the fear window shuts. Shouldn't the fear mount as the expansion draft nears?

Fear/Desperation tempered by availability of options. I think the Leafs were looking for a long term stop gap and had their eyes set on Andersen for over a year already. It looks like the asking price finally dropped into their threshold.

Will Andersen's extra goals saved (sounds like it'll be about 6-10 goals? Depending on shots against), put us out of Liljegren range potential?

Probably more than that if Bernier bounces back, no? I think getting Andersen means they're expecting to improve by 10 or so points this season. Assuming Liljegren is top 3, I'd guess they'll be needing more lotto luck.

Assuming Liljegren doesn't get Chychrun'd, yeah, he'll be a lotto pick. I think we'll still be in range, but obviously it's not something to plan around.

 

[bustaheims]

Probably more than that if Bernier bounces back, no? I think getting Andersen means they're expecting to improve by 10 or so points this season. Assuming Liljegren is top 3, I'd guess they'll be needing more lotto luck.

I'm not sure the acquisition of Andersen alone indicates they're expecting to improve by that level - that remains to be seen based on the rest of their moves this summer. However, regardless of where they finish, they'll need some luck in the lottery. Liljegren is expected to be in contention for the top pick, and, at this point, seems like a lock to go 2nd, at worst.

And, for what it's worth, a 10 point increase would still put the Leafs in the bottom 5-7 in the league, based on standings from the last few seasons.

 

[herman]

Andersen gives us time to draft and develop our own Matt Murray, while giving something consistent to backstop the parent club. Babcock has done more with arguably less in terms of goaltending (albeit with an all star cast up front).

But that's what rings so false. Before this trade, whether in the goaltender options thread or the Stamkos one, how many people were seriously saying the Leafs didn't have the time to draft and develop a goalie? I specifically remember you liking a post I made where I argued the Leafs had all the time in the world if they wanted it. They were under no pressure to do anything.

And I know we can get hung up on best practices but I look at the teams who I'd like the Leafs to emulate and they sure didn't prioritize bringing in an average-above average goalie so that their top prospects would never be faced with having to play in front of not very goaltending. For the most part they made their picks and went with cheap mediocre veterans until their guys came along.

Yes, the players the Leafs are bringing in are young but they're not fragile. They can and will deal with setbacks and frustrations if they're going to be successful pros. If Andersen represented a massive sea change in the team's goaltending from Bernier that'd be one thing but the evidence we have doesn't seem to say he does.

Thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts, Nik. I floated a bunch of unsubstantiated statements earlier in the thread and no one voiced opposition, which I thought was a bit weird since I had some oppositions myself.

I still agree that the Leafs have all the time in the world and could really just do nothing for a bit. I don't believe Andersen is a can't miss opportunity that you have to break the bank for; I also see where Management is coming from with this trade (Heroic Shrimp outlined it nicely).

You may recall that I was an early advocate in those threads for getting goaltending outside the draft when we were ready to compete, rather than the crapshoot that is drafting goaltending. You and others reminded me that drafting is still a very good way to acquire one, and I have grown to agree with that.

I am in the buy one and develop a backup camp. I didn't think we needed to buy one this very minute, nor did I think they need to buy a particularly good one (average would do), but I guess Andersen was the target option and he fell into the right price range and that's kind of nice to have. Like I said earlier, Andersen occupies the same space as Kadri to me, a shepherd-core, except that we went and bought him so this is not entirely without concern.

Re: intangibles -- Obviously hard to say anything for sure. I've played on teams what chronically gave up easy/early goals, or couldn't pitch a strike and it does drain the team's enthusiasm. But we weren't professionals and these guys are. Andersen is apparently prone to the odd weak goal mid-game, but he is also emotionally unflappable and positionally sound.

You well know that I'm a bit too pro-Management; aside from the timing (which I don't know enough information about regarding opportunity cost, etc.), I don't see a huge downside yet. Losing picks sucks -- I don't think this Management team thinks too highly of sub-20 first round picks -- but Andersen is not entirely without value to the current and future team.

 

[Frank E]

Probably more than that if Bernier bounces back, no? I think getting Andersen means they're expecting to improve by 10 or so points this season. Assuming Liljegren is top 3, I'd guess they'll be needing more lotto luck.

I'm not sure the acquisition of Andersen alone indicates they're expecting to improve by that level - that remains to be seen based on the rest of their moves this summer. However, regardless of where they finish, they'll need some luck in the lottery. Liljegren is expected to be in contention for the top pick, and, at this point, seems like a lock to go 2nd, at worst.

And, for what it's worth, a 10 point increase would still put the Leafs in the bottom 5-7 in the league, based on standings from the last few seasons.

Let me ask you this bustabusta, if they do nothing but draft this summer, are you good with this acquisition?

I ask because you've mentioned a few times not to judge this move in isolation.

 

[herman]

I think we're in the middle of that transition point in the rebuild. Nearly everything we wanted to tear out is either gone, or on its last legs (Robidas!) and will expire naturally; while that stuff departs (opportunity dependent), we start acquiring improvement pieces that bolster or augment the core that is being assessed.

 

[Kin]

You well know that I'm a bit too pro-Management; aside from the timing (which I don't know enough information about regarding opportunity cost, etc.), I don't see a huge downside yet. Losing picks sucks -- I don't think this Management team thinks too highly of sub-20 first round picks -- but Andersen is not entirely without value to the current and future team.

I don't have a problem with anyone generally liking a management group. I just think we shouldn't work backwards from that. Liking them should be the conclusion, not the body of evidence.

 

[herman]

You well know that I'm a bit too pro-Management; aside from the timing (which I don't know enough information about regarding opportunity cost, etc.), I don't see a huge downside yet. Losing picks sucks -- I don't think this Management team thinks too highly of sub-20 first round picks -- but Andersen is not entirely without value to the current and future team.

I don't have a problem with anyone generally liking a management group. I just think we shouldn't work backwards from that. Liking them should be the conclusion, not the body of evidence.

I liked them based on what they said and did, without necessarily seeing what they put on the ice; I've been too easily convinced by Dubas' interviews. So far, the only major points of contention since Dubas came on board has been the Kessel trade (which I didn't mind), and this Andersen acquisition (which I also don't hate).

I also liked Burke at first, but then I saw what he was doing.

 

[bustaheims]

Let me ask you this bustabusta, if they do nothing but draft this summer, are you good with this acquisition?

I ask because you've mentioned a few times not to judge this move in isolation.

I am, yeah. With what can reasonably be expected from the rookie that will be in the lineup - including a level of inconsistency/rookie mistakes - I don't think Andersen moves the needle a whole lot on his own. If no other moves are made, I'd say the Leafs are a good bet for another bottom 5 finish, and a virtual lock for a bottom 10. They would have had to do something to address the goaltending by next summer at the latest, and likely at a similar cap hit. And, as much as I would prefer the team keep as many draft picks as possible, I also understand that there isn't room in the system to keep all of them, and you have to give up value to get value - and I don't think the team sacrificed a lot of value in this deal.

 

[Kin]

So far, the only major points of contention since Dubas came on board has been the Kessel trade (which I didn't mind), and this Andersen acquisition (which I also don't hate).

It's like you've just completely forgotten the moustache ban.

 

[herman]

So far, the only major points of contention since Dubas came on board has been the Kessel trade (which I didn't mind), and this Andersen acquisition (which I also don't hate).

It's like you've just completely forgotten the moustache ban.

I did completely forget!

Rich Clune had nice things to say about the moustache ban/guidelines. What I really don't like is the Dubas-ban.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So far, the only major points of contention since Dubas came on board has been the Kessel trade (which I didn't mind), and this Andersen acquisition (which I also don't hate).

I understood the point of it, but I'm still not completely over trading down when Konecny was on the board.

 

[Kin]

Rich Clune had nice things to say about the moustache ban/guidelines. What I really don't like is the Dubas-ban.

Rich Clune is a stooge. An inside man. A waterboy. They got to him too. Trust no one.

 

[bustaheims]

So far, the only major points of contention since Dubas came on board has been the Kessel trade (which I didn't mind), and this Andersen acquisition (which I also don't hate).

I understood the point of it, but I'm still not completely over trading down when Konecny was on the board.

Yeah, Bracco, Dermott, and Dzierkals.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Andersen is a bit of a later bloomer in that he skipped out his first draft year (Carolina?) and got picked up again by a team that drafts and develops goalies consistently above average in the cap era.

Just to clarify, in his 2nd season after being drafted by Carolina he was the clear-cut best goalie in the SHL as a 22-year old rookie. The Canes wanted to sign him but he spurned them. He re-entered the draft and Anaheim got him in the 3rd round, mostly due to concerns about him signing. He played a year in their AHL system before getting the back-up role on the Ducks the season after. So I wouldn't really consider him a late-bloomer, especially as far as goalies go. If anything his progression seems to follow the normal route for goalies. He was arguably the best goalie outside of North America at the age of 22. He just didn't get much attention earlier in his career because he was playing in Denmark.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So far, the only major points of contention since Dubas came on board has been the Kessel trade (which I didn't mind), and this Andersen acquisition (which I also don't hate).

I understood the point of it, but I'm still not completely over trading down when Konecny was on the board.

I will probably regret this, but I don't really get the Konecny hype.  I think he'll be a good player but the way people talk about him you'd think he's a guaranteed superstar. 

 

[TBLeafer]

So far, the only major points of contention since Dubas came on board has been the Kessel trade (which I didn't mind), and this Andersen acquisition (which I also don't hate).

I understood the point of it, but I'm still not completely over trading down when Konecny was on the board.

I understood completely, given who we picked up earlier and didn't need a similar type of forward, only less skilled.  Going after a solid D prospect next made the most sense with Dermott and Bracco seems just as good or potentially even better than Konecny.

 

[Peter D.]

A question for those not happy with the fact the Leafs lost picks in this deal.  If there was a guy management really really wanted that slipped to 16 let's say, but it cost the Leafs the 30th, 31st and 57th overall picks, would you be bothered the Leafs gave up a bunch of picks? 

 

[Kin]

A question for those not happy with the fact the Leafs lost picks in this deal.  If there was a guy management really really wanted that slipped to 16 let's say, but it cost the Leafs the 30th, 31st and 57th overall picks, would you be bothered the Leafs gave up a bunch of picks?

It would depend on the guy, I'd think.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

A question for those not happy with the fact the Leafs lost picks in this deal.  If there was a guy management really really wanted that slipped to 16 let's say, but it cost the Leafs the 30th, 31st and 57th overall picks, would you be bothered the Leafs gave up a bunch of picks? 

Seems like a very high price to pay. Would have to be a guy like Chychrun who drops and the Leafs would have to think he has top-pairing potential for it to even be considered.

 

[Zee]

I don't know a lot about Andersen, but I have to believe the fancy shmancy advanced stats guys, led by Dubas, have done their homework on this.  Admittedly I don't follow the advanced goalie stats, but I've seen people bring out charts and figures the last few days to assure us that Andersen might perform well here within a given system that Babcock implements.  I have no reason to dump on that assumption until I see Andersen fall flat on his face.  So I'm a wait and see approach with this trade.