Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks

[Nik]

It also might be worth mentioning that his worst year statistically is the year he got the most games.

Of course I see we're already at the "confidence" part of trade evaluation so this is more or less right on track.

 

[TBLeafer]

What would you consider to be proven at the goaltending position?  Off the top of my head I cannot recall any articles I've read on the topic.

It's a subjective term for me admittedly. I look at him and see 3 seasons of NHL play under his belt. In his first season he came in as the back-up to Hiller and played 28 games. He also clearly outplayed Hiller and recorded his best save-percentage of his career with 0.923. He took over in the playoffs that year and that earned him the starters job the next season. He played 54 games the next year which is his career high. In what may or may not be a complete coincidence that season is also when he had his lowest save-percentage of his career at .914. Then John Gibson emerged this season and of course they played basically an even split of games.

So he's coming in with 3 years that go back up-starter-tandem. So I don't know how to define a "proven" starter but to me he's not quite there. I'd also add that if he were turning 24 or 25 instead of 27 I might be a tad more forgiving of him for all this, but his age is what it is.

And when I'm talking about him being a "proven" starter it's just really important to me when trying to establish his cap hit. I feel like $4.5-5.5mil is the standard window for a proven, average starting goalie. Andersen might have had the least amount of experience of any goalie who signed in that window at the time of their signing.

This is the heavily scouted goalie that Shanny has decided to tie himself to.

I won't question the choice until I have reason, to.

he was one of my top three potentials I had on my wish list, which consisted of him, Vas, or Reims.

Shanny has zero intention of botching his build.

 

[Nik]

What am I missing?  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Especially considering they filled a need and still have 10 picks to work with.  If the Leafs traded the 31st and something else for a 27-year old Shattenkirk, I'd be all over that as well.

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

 

[sneakyray]

I don't know about that. Some people seem to be making a big deal about the fact that the Leafs moved a 1st round pick.

30th overall pick -- "Just like giving away a 2nd rounder"
31st overall pick -- "Just like having another 1st rounder"

Haha.

It is known. 

my point though is that I think there is an emotional reaction produced from trading away a 1st round draft pick.  I mean, there are only 30 of them every year and the leafs had 2 and now they have one.  I don't think there is much of a practical difference between picking 30th and 31st but I guess if anaheim gets a guy that the leafs coveted it could become a problem.

I remember nonis talking about the franson trade and basically said that they made the deal as soon as someone offered the first rounder back.  So I do think there is something to getting a first and a 2nd as opposed to 2 2nds...but not much difference practically speaking.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Shanny has zero intention of botching his build.

Well I hope not.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I remember nonis talking about the franson trade and basically said that they made the deal as soon as someone offered the first rounder back.  So I do think there is something to getting a first and a 2nd as opposed to 2 2nds...but not much difference practically speaking.

But that was at a trade deadline, and odds are teams were offering their own 2nd rounder instead of their own 1st rounder. So yeah I would imagine that teams feel there is a much bigger difference between the 25th overall pick and the 55th overall pick than there maybe is. But at this point we're not talking about 1st rounders vs. 2nd rounders. We have exact numbers. We're talking about 30th overall and 31st overall.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What am I missing?  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Especially considering they filled a need and still have 10 picks to work with.  If the Leafs traded the 31st and something else for a 27-year old Shattenkirk, I'd be all over that as well.

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

The odds of a pick becoming an NHLer is quite low after about the 24th pick.  Regardless, the Leafs still have the highest total expected value of picks in this years draft.  The odds that losing a 30th OV pick this year is going to significantly change much of anything in the process is very small.  They've still got a high round pick in #31.

 

[Peter D.]

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

I doubt this deal is made if the Leafs don't have the very next pick as well as Washington's late 2nd.  But that's just a guess on my part. 

 

[Nik]

The odds of a pick becoming an NHLer is quite low after about the 24th pick.  Regardless, the Leafs still have the highest total expected value of picks in this years draft.  The odds that losing a 30th OV pick this year is going to significantly change much of anything in the process is very small.  They've still got a high round pick in #31.

We've talked about this before but I'm still on the fence of trying to weigh the value of draft picks like that because I still haven't seen a compelling method of distilling a player's value down to essentially the one integer you'd need for that to be a valuable measurement.

REgardless, I think you'd probably agree that having the highest OV of draft picks this year is largely due to having the #1. I don't think having the #1 significantly alters the value of the picks we gave up when for quite a while the assumption here was that the #30 and #31 picks were going to be used to address the areas where our system is the weakest. To give that up, or delay it anyway, in return for a goalie who's been marginally better than Bernier over the last three years seems like a dicey use of assets even with the accepted caveat that the odds of any one pick resulting the way we want it to aren't high.

 

[rjd]

Shanny has zero intention of botching his build.

To be fair, I think this statement is true of every executive in the NHL.  I don't think Burke waltzed in to Calgary and said "Watch this.  I am going to make every bad move that I can possibly make just for the sake of doing so."

 

[Nik]

I doubt this deal is made if the Leafs don't have the very next pick as well as Washington's late 2nd.  But that's just a guess on my part.

Except that reads to me like the same sort of thinking that went into the Raycroft deal. There's a point where too many high value prospects becomes surplus but it's not before the draft. Drafting the players and letting them develop gives you a clearer picture of their value.

The value in having these picks is in casting the widest net possible. Whatever you think the % is of landing a valuable pick at the end of the first round is, the Leafs just halved their chances.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't know about that. Some people seem to be making a big deal about the fact that the Leafs moved a 1st round pick.

30th overall pick -- "Just like giving away a 2nd rounder"
31st overall pick -- "Just like having another 1st rounder"

Haha.

It is known. 

my point though is that I think there is an emotional reaction produced from trading away a 1st round draft pick.  I mean, there are only 30 of them every year and the leafs had 2 and now they have one.  I don't think there is much of a practical difference between picking 30th and 31st but I guess if anaheim gets a guy that the leafs coveted it could become a problem.

I remember nonis talking about the franson trade and basically said that they made the deal as soon as someone offered the first rounder back.  So I do think there is something to getting a first and a 2nd as opposed to 2 2nds...but not much difference practically speaking.

I hear ya.  It still was our 2nd most valuable draft asset, but with less than a 40% NHL yield odd.  Andersen is young enough by goalie standards to hold down that starter role, should he prove good enough through his contract, the end of which would have been around the time when that pick would have potentially yielded a NHL ready goalie should they have used it on one.

I don't think Babcock would have appreciated another season or two of Shanny having Lou sit on his hands.  I also have no idea how some fans thought that "build through the draft" somehow meant "build exclusively through the draft" when management clearly stated that they intended to utilize all avenues of team building to put together the best possible team for the future. The draft, trades and free agency.

I'm happy this caught some slow and steady, tank another season fans by surprise.  They were in need of a little reality check of how highly competitive people operate.

The tank effort is over.  4 bottom ten finishes over the last 5 years, 3 of them top 5 picks saw to that.

 

[TBLeafer]

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

I doubt this deal is made if the Leafs don't have the very next pick as well as Washington's late 2nd.  But that's just a guess on my part.

Plus they could still use theirs and Washington's to move up a few spots, if they determine that there's something there that they really want.

 

[cabber24]

What am I missing?  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Especially considering they filled a need and still have 10 picks to work with.  If the Leafs traded the 31st and something else for a 27-year old Shattenkirk, I'd be all over that as well.

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

The odds of a pick becoming an NHLer is quite low after about the 24th pick.  Regardless, the Leafs still have the highest total expected value of picks in this years draft.  The odds that losing a 30th OV pick this year is going to significantly change much of anything in the process is very small.  They've still got a high round pick in #31.

I don't understand this logic at all. Might as well cancel the draft after the 24th pick then. Why ever trade for a 2nd round pick according to this logic. It's not a good point and people need stop using it. Logic tells me the more picks you have the better the chance of success, the higher the pick the better the chance of success, the better the scouts the better the chance success. They gave up a lot regardless of how many picks they have. Sure you can only have so many prospects but I would be surprised if the 30th overall pick wouldn't bump someone out.

The only thing I do like about the trade is that Bernier is a loser and now the kids won't have to depend and learn from him. I would of thought a cheaper option would of been available though.

 

[Bullfrog]

Except that reads to me like the same sort of thinking that went into the Raycroft deal. There's a point where too many high value prospects becomes surplus but it's not before the draft. Drafting the players and letting them develop gives you a clearer picture of their value.

The value in having these picks is in casting the widest net possible. Whatever you think the % is of landing a valuable pick at the end of the first round is, the Leafs just halved their chances.

I'm on the fence. But the bolded part is 100% accurate. While people can argue the value of a single pick, unequivocally, having more is better.

I don't ahve an issue with the value paid, but I'm leaning a bit toward's Frank's position of "why now? and why spend the assets?"

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What am I missing?  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Especially considering they filled a need and still have 10 picks to work with.  If the Leafs traded the 31st and something else for a 27-year old Shattenkirk, I'd be all over that as well.

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

The odds of a pick becoming an NHLer is quite low after about the 24th pick.  Regardless, the Leafs still have the highest total expected value of picks in this years draft.  The odds that losing a 30th OV pick this year is going to significantly change much of anything in the process is very small.  They've still got a high round pick in #31.

I don't understand this logic at all. Might as well cancel the draft after the 24th pick then. Why ever trade for a 2nd round pick according to this logic. It's not a good point and people need stop using it. Logic tells me the more picks you have the better the chance of success, the higher the pick the better the chance of success, the better the scouts the better the chance success. They gave up a lot regardless of how many picks they have. Sure you can only have so many prospects but I would be surprised if the 30th overall pick wouldn't bump someone out.

The only thing I do like about the trade is that Bernier is a loser and now the kids won't have to depend and learn from him. I would of thought a cheaper option would of been available though.

Sorry but the reality is that the odds of a player picked past that point becoming an NHL player is low.  That does not mean those picks are worthless or that there is no point to having those picks.  It means that the value attached to those individual picks should be realistic.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm on the fence. But the bolded part is 100% accurate. While people can argue the value of a single pick, unequivocally, having more is better.

I don't ahve an issue with the value paid, but I'm leaning a bit toward's Frank's position of "why now? and why spend the assets?"

Fortunately they still do have a lot of picks (I believe tied with Buffalo for most in the draft) and they still have the highest expected value of draft picks according to those nerds who calculate that stuff.  Plus they always have the opportunity to add to that.

 

[Bill_Berg]

What am I missing?  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Especially considering they filled a need and still have 10 picks to work with.  If the Leafs traded the 31st and something else for a 27-year old Shattenkirk, I'd be all over that as well.

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

The odds of a pick becoming an NHLer is quite low after about the 24th pick.  Regardless, the Leafs still have the highest total expected value of picks in this years draft.  The odds that losing a 30th OV pick this year is going to significantly change much of anything in the process is very small.  They've still got a high round pick in #31.

I don't understand this logic at all. Might as well cancel the draft after the 24th pick then. Why ever trade for a 2nd round pick according to this logic. It's not a good point and people need stop using it. Logic tells me the more picks you have the better the chance of success, the higher the pick the better the chance of success, the better the scouts the better the chance success. They gave up a lot regardless of how many picks they have. Sure you can only have so many prospects but I would be surprised if the 30th overall pick wouldn't bump someone out.

The only thing I do like about the trade is that Bernier is a loser and now the kids won't have to depend and learn from him. I would of thought a cheaper option would of been available though.

Sorry but the reality is that the odds of a player picked past that point becoming an NHL player is low.  That does not mean those picks are worthless or that there is no point to having those picks.  It means that the value attached to those individual picks should be realistic.

They need guys to play in the AHL too!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What am I missing?  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Especially considering they filled a need and still have 10 picks to work with.  If the Leafs traded the 31st and something else for a 27-year old Shattenkirk, I'd be all over that as well.

11 picks this year but 6 of them are 4th rounders or lower.

Regardless, I think the point stands that typically the point of accumulating high round picks is to put prospects in the cupboard, not trade them for established players.

The odds of a pick becoming an NHLer is quite low after about the 24th pick.  Regardless, the Leafs still have the highest total expected value of picks in this years draft.  The odds that losing a 30th OV pick this year is going to significantly change much of anything in the process is very small.  They've still got a high round pick in #31.

I don't understand this logic at all. Might as well cancel the draft after the 24th pick then. Why ever trade for a 2nd round pick according to this logic. It's not a good point and people need stop using it. Logic tells me the more picks you have the better the chance of success, the higher the pick the better the chance of success, the better the scouts the better the chance success. They gave up a lot regardless of how many picks they have. Sure you can only have so many prospects but I would be surprised if the 30th overall pick wouldn't bump someone out.

The only thing I do like about the trade is that Bernier is a loser and now the kids won't have to depend and learn from him. I would of thought a cheaper option would of been available though.

Sorry but the reality is that the odds of a player picked past that point becoming an NHL player is low.  That does not mean those picks are worthless or that there is no point to having those picks.  It means that the value attached to those individual picks should be realistic.

They need guys to play in the AHL too!

They literally could have iced two AHL teams this year with the amount of players down there.

 

[Peter D.]

Except that reads to me like the same sort of thinking that went into the Raycroft deal. There's a point where too many high value prospects becomes surplus but it's not before the draft. Drafting the players and letting them develop gives you a clearer picture of their value.

The value in having these picks is in casting the widest net possible. Whatever you think the % is of landing a valuable pick at the end of the first round is, the Leafs just halved their chances.

I don't disagree.  But if this move was made for Vasilevskiy as opposed to Andersen, does this same thought process apply? 

Now, if the debate is whether Andersen was the right target to use those picks on, then I can get on board with that.  But I still don't think the ideology behind the trade was a bad one.