Marleau traded to Carolina

[Kin]

I'm a bit surprised that Carolina was the team to agree to this. I was under the understanding that they were a budget team, and throwing $6M for what will amount to a late 1st round pick seems a bit out of character, but stranger things.

Because they're expected to buy him out, they won't be spending 6 million in actual money.

 

[Bates]

I'm a bit surprised that Carolina was the team to agree to this. I was under the understanding that they were a budget team, and throwing $6M for what will amount to a late 1st round pick seems a bit out of character, but stranger things.

Because they're expected to buy him out, they won't be spending 6 million in actual money.

Almost $4 million for a 1st rounder still seems high for a cheap team.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I'm a bit surprised that Carolina was the team to agree to this. I was under the understanding that they were a budget team, and throwing $6M for what will amount to a late 1st round pick seems a bit out of character, but stranger things.

Because they're expected to buy him out, they won't be spending 6 million in actual money.

Ok, 4 million then? For a non on-ice product? Still surprised. I could see the Kings or NYR or a richer rebuild team on this before Carolina.

 

[Kin]

Almost $4 million for a 1st rounder still seems high for a cheap team.

It does. Maybe new ownership isn't quite as tight fisted as the Karmanos group was.

 

[Bates]

I'm a bit surprised that Carolina was the team to agree to this. I was under the understanding that they were a budget team, and throwing $6M for what will amount to a late 1st round pick seems a bit out of character, but stranger things.

Because they're expected to buy him out, they won't be spending 6 million in actual money.

Ok, 4 million then? For a non on-ice product? Still surprised. I could see the Kings or NYR or a richer rebuild team on this before Carolina.

To those teams the Cap hit might be more important. Carolina does get the benefit of looking like they are spending to the  Cap!! I'm surprised but happy Carolina did it.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

To those teams the Cap hit might be more important. Carolina does get the benefit of looking like they are spending to the  Cap!! I'm surprised but happy Carolina did it.

Maybe so. But both the Kings and NYR are more than capable of burying money (ie-Phaneuf), and are in no way interested in spending to the cap in lieu of stockpiling picks, so I'd of thought them more likely to throw financial clout at even a likely late 1st rounder. But hey, whatever. Carolina's found wallet is to our advantage. This isn't quite Clarksonesque, but it's close.

 

[gunnar36]

There is no excuse for such a mismanagement of contracts that forces an organization to give up a 1st to free up some cap space.  The so called cap experts should have seen this coming earlier.  What a freaking waste of a 1st rounder...this really angers me.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

There is no excuse for such a mismanagement of contracts that forces an organization to give up a 1st to free up some cap space.  The so called cap experts should have seen this coming earlier.  What a freaking waste of a 1st rounder...this really angers me.

There's a reason the guy who signed it isn't our GM anymore.

 

[Bender]

There is no excuse for such a mismanagement of contracts that forces an organization to give up a 1st to free up some cap space.  The so called cap experts should have seen this coming earlier.  What a freaking waste of a 1st rounder...this really angers me.

I don't think it was a matter of not seeing this coming.

 

[Kin]

In order to see this situation coming when the Marleau deal was signed you basically would have had to predict that all three of Nylander, Marner and Matthews would become the sort of players they did. Not allowing for the possibility was a mistake on Lamoriello's part to be sure but it's not like it was a sure thing either.

And, without wanting to defend Lamoriello too much, maybe a case can be made that Marleau and all his veteran leadership whatnots played a role in that.

 

[Redleaf]

Hindsight is , as always, 20/20. This Marleau discussion and the issue with the final year of his 3 yr contract would not even be happening had the Leafs known Tavares would soon after fall into their laps. Marleau was essentially brought in as a veteran presence so that the kids could have a role model. Tavares fits that bill and then some, and is still in his prime.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Hindsight is , as always, 20/20. This Marleau discussion and the issue with the final year of his 3 yr contract would not even be happening had the Leafs known Tavares would soon after fall into their laps. Marleau was essentially brought in as a veteran presence so that the kids could have a role model. Tavares fits that bill and then some, and is still in his prime.

Good point!

 

[Bender]

Hindsight is , as always, 20/20. This Marleau discussion and the issue with the final year of his 3 yr contract would not even be happening had the Leafs known Tavares would soon after fall into their laps. Marleau was essentially brought in as a veteran presence so that the kids could have a role model. Tavares fits that bill and then some, and is still in his prime.

So many of us here thought he would never play out the 3rd yr of his contract. I think lots of people knew they'd be in a bit of a cap crunch. Lots of people were looking at Tavares two years out. Sure it's unlikely, but it's a scenario you have to plan for.

This reminds me a bit of when a ton of us were saying Rask for Raycroft was a disaster at the time and seeing comments that hindsight was 20/20.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Lots of people were looking at Tavares two years out. Sure it's unlikely, but it's a scenario you have to plan for.

Nah, I think that's pushing it. Put it this way, if someone told us two years back that Nylander, Marner, and Matthews would all pan out as well as they have, and we'd sign Tavares, and all it would cost us is a late 1st round pick (which I think a lot of people are tremendously overvaluing), then we'd all be high fiving and doing kegstands.

 

[Highlander]

I kind of feel like next season is a writeoff due to the salary cap issues, however this trade is interesting in that it will probably allow the Leafs to re-sign Marner, Kapaenen, and hopefully Johnsson as well.  If Dubas can pull that off, then this trade seems definitely worth it.  What about Jake Gardiner though?  How do they replace him?  And can they fit a player with that type of salary under the cap now?

what salary cap issues? once we find a new home for Zaitzev and Brown, we can have the whole core including Kapi, Johnsson and Marner together. Dubas is a freaking genius.  Even though I will miss Paddys eyebrows.

 

[Bender]

Lots of people were looking at Tavares two years out. Sure it's unlikely, but it's a scenario you have to plan for.

Nah, I think that's pushing it. Put it this way, if someone told us two years back that Nylander, Marner, and Matthews would all pan out as well as they have, and we'd sign Tavares, and all it would cost us is a late 1st round pick (which I think a lot of people are tremendously overvaluing), then we'd all be high fiving and doing kegstands.

Everyone knew the third year was an issue at the time and the cap hit was high for someone who was likely to hit a wall. You don't need to get Tavares in order to plan intelligently. I you're planning on spending to the cap and you project a 6.25m 40y.o. to be replacement level that cap hit will be an issue if it's Tavares or whomever the FAs signed are if we are a team spending to the cap consistently.

 

[Kin]

I you're planning on spending to the cap and you project a 6.25m 40y.o. to be replacement level that cap hit will be an issue if it's Tavares or whomever the FAs signed are if we are a team spending to the cap consistently.

But I think that's the point. If the Leafs hadn't signed Tavares, would they be a team that would be spending to the cap? Or would they be holding onto that money in the hopes of signing a superstar?

 

[rdowdall]

Does this trade also increase the value of Zaitsev, Kadri and Brown?  They no longer have to trade any of them because of salary reasons.  Zaitsev wants out, sure, but they don't need to give him away. 

If the answer to the first question is yes, then it could be that they can recoup some of the cost of the first by being able to charge more for the other three. 

 

[bustaheims]

Does this trade also increase the value of Zaitsev, Kadri and Brown?  They no longer have to trade any of them because of salary reasons.  Zaitsev wants out, sure, but they don't need to give him away. 

If the answer to the first question is yes, then it could be that they can recoup some of the cost of the first by being able to charge more for the other three.

It takes some pressure off the team, but it doesn?t really increase the value of any other player. I don?t think the Leafs ever felt they needed to give those guys away - Dubas must have known for a while that a trade like this was going to be on the table. Doesn?t really change the position the Leafs would have been taking in recent negotiations.

 

[sickbeast]

There's lots of trade rumors out there and stuff.  Dubas appears to be quite busy.  It looks like we'll have a pretty different team next season.  I'm wondering if they will in fact re-sign Jake Gardiner.  And if they don't, I wonder what they will do for the back end.  There's talk of a trade with Carolina involving Kapanen and Brown for Pesce.  Interesting times indeed.