Lehtonen traded to Columbus

[ZBBM]

Not really thrilled with this trade, but if it means one less obstacle to my Rasmus, then I am at great peace.

 

[ZBBM]

Lehtonen got a fair chance here, didn't impress and so they moved on. Unless you're advocating the Leafs bench someone else in the lineup, nothing was going to change about Lehtonen's situation here and he wouldn't have come back for a second year. Saying he'll play more in Columbus than the goalie will here is sort of the point of the trade.

Got a fair chance here really. Played in 9 games and averaged about 11 mins of ice time. Time he played he didn't look awful but again small sample. Thought they would give him more time to get accustomed to the ice size etc. Think Keefe had different opinion in him than Dubas. If it was to grant him some playing time elsewhere good on Dubas but again unless it's the start of some moves I think we gave him away.

Think you are right:

?I think we've reached a different phase of the season here,? Keefe explained. ?I think we gave lots of opportunity to different people early in the season, Mikko being one, at times when maybe we really didn't have a reason to change the lineup, other than to give more opportunity for Mikko and others. We're at a point here now where the season has definitely got lots of momentum and you gotta give yourself the best opportunity to win each day.?

Keefe conceded that Lehtonen had displayed an excellent work ethic in his tenure with the Leafs, praising the blueliner for being ?extremely committed, extremely focused.? At the same time, Keefe found that, ?for the last little while, we just haven't seen a reason to make the change [and put him in].?

Yet Vesey got chance after chance....  This is a very mild variation on Babcock vs. Holl.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think you're reading into Lehtonen not playing over Dermott (a Dubas favourite) and Bogosian (another Dubas signing) a little too much.

 

[nutman]

Never saw this one coming

 

[Andy007]

Well, I was fully expecting to see Lehtonen finish out the year in the AHL and as a healthy scratch in the playoffs before either returning to the KHL next year or signing another one-year NHL deal elsewhere. So yea, a meh G prospect is fine with me I guess..

 

[Guilt Trip]

Lehtonen got a fair chance here, didn't impress and so they moved on. Unless you're advocating the Leafs bench someone else in the lineup, nothing was going to change about Lehtonen's situation here and he wouldn't have come back for a second year. Saying he'll play more in Columbus than the goalie will here is sort of the point of the trade.

Got a fair chance here really. Played in 9 games and averaged about 11 mins of ice time. Time he played he didn't look awful but again small sample. Thought they would give him more time to get accustomed to the ice size etc. Think Keefe had different opinion in him than Dubas. If it was to grant him some playing time elsewhere good on Dubas but again unless it's the start of some moves I think we gave him away.

Think you are right:

?I think we've reached a different phase of the season here,? Keefe explained. ?I think we gave lots of opportunity to different people early in the season, Mikko being one, at times when maybe we really didn't have a reason to change the lineup, other than to give more opportunity for Mikko and others. We're at a point here now where the season has definitely got lots of momentum and you gotta give yourself the best opportunity to win each day.?

Keefe conceded that Lehtonen had displayed an excellent work ethic in his tenure with the Leafs, praising the blueliner for being ?extremely committed, extremely focused.? At the same time, Keefe found that, ?for the last little while, we just haven't seen a reason to make the change [and put him in].?

Yet Vesey got chance after chance....  This is a very mild variation on Babcock vs. Holl.

Dermott, despite a couple of bad games has done nothing to get himself taken out. Leafs were rolling and he and Bogo were doing just fine. Let's not forget that Keefe and others see Lehtonen during practices and maybe he's getting burned a lot there also? There is a chance that he may not have what it takes to be an everyday NHL D man. I think Dubas promised him if he didn't get into games by a certain point, he'd do right by him and give him a shot elsewhere. Let's see what happens for Barabanov going forward.
As for Vesey, if Matthews didn't miss any games he would have been scratched. Vesey scores and plays well with his chance and gets to stay in the line up. Let's see what happens to him when everyone is healthy.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Lehtonen got a fair chance here, didn't impress and so they moved on. Unless you're advocating the Leafs bench someone else in the lineup, nothing was going to change about Lehtonen's situation here and he wouldn't have come back for a second year. Saying he'll play more in Columbus than the goalie will here is sort of the point of the trade.

I don't agree.  They could have given him more of a look at Dermott's expense.

I think that they likely did some evaluation in practice as well over the year, and realized that it was going to take a good investment of time (and probably the AHL) to get his defending to NHL level, even if possible - which I'm going to speculate wasn't the conditions promised to him when they signed him.

So I tend toward's CTB's theory that he was moved as a goodwill to give him a chance to play more than anything.

 

[dekedastardly]

I liked what little we saw of Lehtonen. I think he deserved more of a chance and is Dermott any better than him? I think not. Also another 6'1" tall fringe goalie. MEH!

 

[Guilt Trip]

I liked what little we saw of Lehtonen. I think he deserved more of a chance and is Dermott any better than him? I think not. Also another 6'1" tall fringe goalie. MEH!

Dermott at this point is better.

 

[Highlander]

Got to be more coming from Dubas but my thoughts dumb trade. Lehtonen I think wasn't given much of an opportunity. What's the point of trying to find these players overseas when you don't give them an opportunity. Mark my words he'll eventually be a starter on Columbus and will do well. Thumbs down on this one.

Agreed in totality Azzurri, not a good move. Lehtonen could have been a good player for us.
On the other hand I do understand that Dubas wanted him to have an opportunity. I gotta trust the process, I guess.

 

[bustaheims]

I liked what little we saw of Lehtonen. I think he deserved more of a chance and is Dermott any better than him? I think not. Also another 6'1" tall fringe goalie. MEH!

Dermott at this point is better.

Significantly. Lehtonen was a defensive liability, and his offensive game hadn?t translated yet. Dermott hasn?t done much offensively this season, but he?s much more of a neutral impact defensively (last couple games notwithstanding).

 

[Kin]

Lehtonen got a fair chance here, didn't impress and so they moved on. Unless you're advocating the Leafs bench someone else in the lineup, nothing was going to change about Lehtonen's situation here and he wouldn't have come back for a second year. Saying he'll play more in Columbus than the goalie will here is sort of the point of the trade.

I don't agree.  They could have given him more of a look at Dermott's expense.

They could give anyone more of a look, the issue is whether or not they fairly evaluated him which as already mentioned is going to be based on more than just game time. If they honestly found him wanting compared to the guys already in the line-up(and I suspect someone like Sandin) then that's a fair shot and despite the conspiracy theorizing nobody is choosing to make their team intentionally worse for Travis Dermott.

A fringe defenseman who is going to provide a lot of value with puck moving and PP work was not going to have much of a chance on the Leafs this year on the bottom pairing. The PP didn't need him but the team 5v5 and on the PK does need all the defensive versatility they could get. It's why I'd bet that if you looked at the Leafs depth chart honestly, he'd probably be closer to 8th than 7th and wouldn't have been a preferred choice even if Dermott played his way out of the lineup or got hurt.

If he goes somewhere that they do need some PP help he very well might provide some value. Any honest appraisal could see that wasn't going to be here though.

 

[Kin]

Yet Vesey got chance after chance....

Yes. It certainly is very suspicious that a forward with a NHL track record of some success got lots of chances in a group that's been pretty banged up at times and a defenseman who's new to the NHL didn't when the defense has been healthy almost all year. What possible explanation could their be other than Keefe and Dubas needing Dermott in the lineup to keep their supply of adrenochrome going?

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Seems to me that if you want to encourage good discussion, attacking other thoughts from long term posters with needless sarcasm and ridicule isn't the best way to go about it.

 

[ZBBM]

Seems to me that if you want to encourage good discussion, attacking other thoughts from long term posters with needless sarcasm and ridicule isn't the best way to go about it.

That's Nik's MO since the dawn of time; I don't mind it because I like him, though I was mildly surprised since his posts lately haven't leaned on it.

 

[ZBBM]

Lehtonen got a fair chance here, didn't impress and so they moved on. Unless you're advocating the Leafs bench someone else in the lineup, nothing was going to change about Lehtonen's situation here and he wouldn't have come back for a second year. Saying he'll play more in Columbus than the goalie will here is sort of the point of the trade.

I don't agree.  They could have given him more of a look at Dermott's expense.

They could give anyone more of a look, the issue is whether or not they fairly evaluated him which as already mentioned is going to be based on more than just game time. If they honestly found him wanting compared to the guys already in the line-up(and I suspect someone like Sandin) then that's a fair shot and despite the conspiracy theorizing nobody is choosing to make their team intentionally worse for Travis Dermott.

A fringe defenseman who is going to provide a lot of value with puck moving and PP work was not going to have much of a chance on the Leafs this year on the bottom pairing. The PP didn't need him but the team 5v5 and on the PK does need all the defensive versatility they could get. It's why I'd bet that if you looked at the Leafs depth chart honestly, he'd probably be closer to 8th than 7th and wouldn't have been a preferred choice even if Dermott played his way out of the lineup or got hurt.

If he goes somewhere that they do need some PP help he very well might provide some value. Any honest appraisal could see that wasn't going to be here though.

?

Anyway, IMO Dermott's game performance was not head and shoulders above Lehtonen which of course is all I, a Lowly Fanworm, have to go on.  You had a guy who was apparently in line to be the best defenseman in the KHL and you cut him loose after, what, around 100 minutes of game ice time?  My "honest appraisal" is that that's premature.

 

[ZBBM]

Yet Vesey got chance after chance....

Yes. It certainly is very suspicious that a forward with a NHL track record of some success got lots of chances in a group that's been pretty banged up at times and a defenseman who's new to the NHL didn't when the defense has been healthy almost all year. What possible explanation could their be other than Keefe and Dubas needing Dermott in the lineup to keep their supply of adrenochrome going?

Not your best material. 

 

[Bullfrog]

I liked what little we saw of Lehtonen. I think he deserved more of a chance and is Dermott any better than him? I think not. Also another 6'1" tall fringe goalie. MEH!

Dermott at this point is better.

Significantly. Lehtonen was a defensive liability, and his offensive game hadn?t translated yet. Dermott hasn?t done much offensively this season, but he?s much more of a neutral impact defensively (last couple games notwithstanding).

And three years younger.

 

[Kin]

Seems to me that if you want to encourage good discussion, attacking other thoughts from long term posters with needless sarcasm and ridicule isn't the best way to go about it.

That's Nik's MO since the dawn of time; I don't mind it because I like him, though I was mildly surprised since his posts lately haven't leaned on it.

Indeed. It's something in the tool box I only use when the situation calls for it. "Needless" is the word I'd dispute there.

 

[Kin]

?

Anyway, IMO Dermott's game performance was not head and shoulders above Lehtonen which of course is all I, a Lowly Fanworm, have to go on.

And you're free to make the case that in your opinion Lehtonen was neck and neck with Dermott or the second coming of Doug Harvey or anywhere in between. A) There are people like busta who are happy to take the "Dermott was better" position and hash that out and B) people can weigh up your player evaluation vs. that of Keefe's and Dubas' and decide where they come down. What I took issue with, what I described as conspiracy theorizing, was the suggestion that this decision was made not because the people running the Leafs genuinely thought that playing Dermott so long as he's healthy was the better call for the team but rather was the product of biases or stubborn allegiances. Again nobody is intentionally making their team worse for Dermott.

  You had a guy who was apparently in line to be the best defenseman in the KHL and you cut him loose after, what, around 100 minutes of game ice time?  My "honest appraisal" is that that's premature.

I'll gloss over the intellectual dishonesty that is your stock in trade of quoting part of a sentence related to another unrelated part of the discussion and refocus it back to what I was actually saying.

You are, again, 100% free to think that this front office is incapable of deciding on a depth chart after roughly 30 games worth of data including all of the practices that go with it. Again, your opinion would then be given it's due consideration. What I was referring to there with what should be anyone's "honest appraisal" was about the decision the team had clearly come to, not what you might think the decision should have been.

With the season going as well as it is and as late in the year as it is, any team is going to be less likely to tinker with the line-up just to give guys a shot. The MO is going to be find the group you're most confident in and play them together to build familiarity and chemistry heading into the playoffs. Regardless of how you feel in terms of Dermott vs. Lehtonen, it's clear that the decision Keefe/Dubas made is that their best chance to win is to give Dermott the bottom pairing minutes and not to rotate Lehtonen in now and then so he can develop his game at what they think is to the team's detriment(and yes, again, you can think they're wrong about that).

Lehtonen, like I said, probably needed to be on a team that needed his services on the PP to be valuable right now. So really, Lehtonen's competition for minutes here wasn't Dermott. It was whether or not the Leafs felt comfortable with giving those 2nd unit PP minutes to Brodie so they could go with Dermott as the bottom pairing defensive option they liked. Clearly they made that choice too. That they would then trade Lehtonen says, pretty clearly, he wouldn't have been their choice to sub into the lineup to play the defensive minutes Dermott was getting even if Dermott got hurt.

So if Lehtonen was behind not only Dermott but also probably Sandin in the team's eyes as a bottom pairing, no PP time guy, keeping him here just didn't make sense. Nobody would sacrifice what they thought was the best team they had to let Lehtonen work on personal development, especially when the role Lehtonen is best suited for just isn't available here and that has nothing to do with him vs. Dermott.