Official Armchair GM Thread 2014-2015 Leafs

[bustaheims]

Also, RE: Ribeiro, there's this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/predators/2014/07/15/mike-ribeiro-nashville/12672487/

Poile said Ribeiro sought out the Predators, not the other way around. He visited the city over the last four days and found a house. The Predators and Ribeiro nailed down the contract late Monday, Poile said.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Also, RE: Ribeiro, there's this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/predators/2014/07/15/mike-ribeiro-nashville/12672487/

Poile said Ribeiro sought out the Predators, not the other way around. He visited the city over the last four days and found a house. The Predators and Ribeiro nailed down the contract late Monday, Poile said.

Yeah, Riberio has a chance to play on their top line and have James Neal on his wing. In Toronto he'd probably have to at least start at 3C behind Bozak and Kadri.

 

[Frank E]

I don't care what he's like in the dressing room, points are scored on the ice during games.

This team needs better players, and for 50 points for $1mil, who cares how many practices he misses?

The decision makers need to ignore character and comportment and focus on bringing in players that can make the team win more games.

When a team like the Coyotes who need all the skill up front they can get their hands on and have a very limited budget is willing to spend significant dollars to buy out the 3 remaining seasons on his contract, you have to believe the issues are more serious than him not getting along with people in the locker-room and missing practices. Ribeiro has some significant off-ice issues, and, with a young team, bringing that into the mix can do a lot more damage than his production would add to the team.

Well I'd just say that was a bad hockey decision on their part.  The guy can play hockey very well, and could arguably be the most talented centre on the Leafs. 

For $1mil a season?  No brainer. 

Nonis shouldn't give a damn about his issues, the guy can play.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Nonis shouldn't give a damn about his issues, the guy can play.

That's silly

 

[bustaheims]

Nonis shouldn't give a damn about his issues, the guy can play.

The guy can play when he has his off ice issues under control. When he doesn't, he's not particularly effective and potentially disruptive.

 

[Deebo]

Derek Roy and Mike Riberio for 1M each... could the Leafs not use one of these guys for C depth , especially at that cost? 1M for Roy seems like a fantastic signing.

I really don't have any faith in the direction made by management this past year. Why can't the Leafs give a low cost chance to player looking for a rebound year?

Like Mason Raymond or Clarke MacArthur?

 

[Kin]

What circus?  The guy is a bona fide 50 point centre for a million bucks...how could you not want that kind of price/performance?

He's a 50 point center if he's on one of the top two lines and getting a ton of power play time and if the Leafs were bringing him in under those circumstances there'd be an argument there.

But if you'll read my post, I said he's not someone you bring in "for depth". Realistically he wouldn't displace Kadri or Bozak so you do have to examine what he'd be able to bring to the team in a third line(at best) role. He's not good on face-offs, he's a non-factor defensively, he's got no physical game and, oh yeah, a team just paid him millions of dollars to go away because he's a head case. That's not a depth player.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Nonis shouldn't give a damn about his issues, the guy can play.

The guy can play when he has his off ice issues under control. When he doesn't, he's not particularly effective and potentially disruptive.

I can't even begin to imagine the attitude Ribeiro would bring while being paid next to nothing.  I want him nowhere near the Leafs, regardless the price.

 

[moon111]

Mike Ribeiro and a couple of teammates had lots of internet acquisitions during their time in Montreal.  Nothing that can be proven or published.  Lots of finger pointing though makes you think.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Mike Ribeiro and a couple of teammates had lots of internet acquisitions during their time in Montreal.  Nothing that can be proven or published.  Lots of finger pointing though makes you think.

I assume you mean 'accusations'.

 

[Kin]

Mike Ribeiro and a couple of teammates had lots of internet acquisitions during their time in Montreal.  Nothing that can be proven or published.  Lots of finger pointing though makes you think.

I assume you mean 'accusations'.

His Amazon purchases were ridiculous.

 

[bustaheims]

Mike Ribeiro and a couple of teammates had lots of internet acquisitions during their time in Montreal.  Nothing that can be proven or published.  Lots of finger pointing though makes you think.

I assume you mean 'accusations'.

His Amazon purchases were ridiculous.

And here I was thinking he lost a ton of cash in the .com crash.

 

[Frank E]

What circus?  The guy is a bona fide 50 point centre for a million bucks...how could you not want that kind of price/performance?

He's a 50 point center if he's on one of the top two lines and getting a ton of power play time and if the Leafs were bringing him in under those circumstances there'd be an argument there.

But if you'll read my post, I said he's not someone you bring in "for depth". Realistically he wouldn't displace Kadri or Bozak so you do have to examine what he'd be able to bring to the team in a third line(at best) role. He's not good on face-offs, he's a non-factor defensively, he's got no physical game and, oh yeah, a team just paid him millions of dollars to go away because he's a head case. That's not a depth player.

Got it.

So General Managers should have to take into account things like character, comportment, and dressing room fit when looking to add to their team, even when that player is a relatively high producer and a better hockey player than many on the roster?

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

So General Managers should have to take into account things like character, comportment, and dressing room fit when looking to add to their team, even when that player is a relatively high producer and a better hockey player than many on the roster?

Depends on whether they're video game GMs, fantasy league GMs or actual real-life GMs.

 

[Kin]

What circus?  The guy is a bona fide 50 point centre for a million bucks...how could you not want that kind of price/performance?

He's a 50 point center if he's on one of the top two lines and getting a ton of power play time and if the Leafs were bringing him in under those circumstances there'd be an argument there.

But if you'll read my post, I said he's not someone you bring in "for depth". Realistically he wouldn't displace Kadri or Bozak so you do have to examine what he'd be able to bring to the team in a third line(at best) role. He's not good on face-offs, he's a non-factor defensively, he's got no physical game and, oh yeah, a team just paid him millions of dollars to go away because he's a head case. That's not a depth player.

Got it.

So General Managers should have to take into account things like character, comportment, and dressing room fit when looking to add to their team, even when that player is a relatively high producer and a better hockey player than many on the roster?

Well, yes, for starters. But if they're a "depth" player then especially so. Again, especially so if it's a young team without particularly strong veteran leadership.

 

[bustaheims]

So General Managers should have to take into account things like character, comportment, and dressing room fit when looking to add to their team, even when that player is a relatively high producer and a better hockey player than many on the roster?

Well, yes. You're dealing with a group of human beings, not a group of robots. The entire group can be negatively impacted by one "bad apple." Also, when that player's ability to produce at a high level is fairly well connected to his ability to have get his personal issues in check, it's an extra concern. It should also be noted that the Coyotes are not the first team to rid themselves of Ribeiro because of his off ice issues. It was noted to be part of the reason the Habs shipped him to Dallas.

 

[Corn Flake]

I don't care what he's like in the dressing room, points are scored on the ice during games.

This team needs better players, and for 50 points for $1mil, who cares how many practices he misses?

The decision makers need to ignore character and comportment and focus on bringing in players that can make the team win more games.

When a team like the Coyotes who need all the skill up front they can get their hands on and have a very limited budget is willing to spend significant dollars to buy out the 3 remaining seasons on his contract, you have to believe the issues are more serious than him not getting along with people in the locker-room and missing practices. Ribeiro has some significant off-ice issues, and, with a young team, bringing that into the mix can do a lot more damage than his production would add to the team.

Exactly. There egos and then there are problem child types like Ribeiro.  They bought him out and Maloney straight up said it was for "behavioral issues", you know there's a lot going on. 

also: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/predators/2014/07/15/mike-ribeiro-nashville/12672487/

he talks about personal issues including marriage.  Says he's past it now but this is a guy who has had "issues" since his days as a Hab, been arrested as a player in Dallas, and then this stuff. 

At his age if he hasn't sorted out his issues by now, chances are slim he will ever be truly stable.

 

[Corn Flake]

Derek Roy and Mike Riberio for 1M each... could the Leafs not use one of these guys for C depth , especially at that cost? 1M for Roy seems like a fantastic signing.

I really don't have any faith in the direction made by management this past year. Why can't the Leafs give a low cost chance to player looking for a rebound year?

Sure go ahead and sign one, but don't be upset if a guy like Peter Holland never gets a chance because of it.

 

[Frank E]

What circus?  The guy is a bona fide 50 point centre for a million bucks...how could you not want that kind of price/performance?

He's a 50 point center if he's on one of the top two lines and getting a ton of power play time and if the Leafs were bringing him in under those circumstances there'd be an argument there.

But if you'll read my post, I said he's not someone you bring in "for depth". Realistically he wouldn't displace Kadri or Bozak so you do have to examine what he'd be able to bring to the team in a third line(at best) role. He's not good on face-offs, he's a non-factor defensively, he's got no physical game and, oh yeah, a team just paid him millions of dollars to go away because he's a head case. That's not a depth player.

Got it.

So General Managers should have to take into account things like character, comportment, and dressing room fit when looking to add to their team, even when that player is a relatively high producer and a better hockey player than many on the roster?

Well, yes, for starters. But if they're a "depth" player then especially so. Again, especially so if it's a young team without particularly strong veteran leadership.

I was just trying to illustrate a point.  Some were dismissing anything but on-ice performance as criteria for adding/subtracting a player from your roster because this Ribeiro type of intangible (in this case, a negative one) is practically impossible for the average fan to quantify.

Certain players are more valuable to a team/organization if their off-ice & dressing room behaviour is exemplary, even if their on-ice production is just average.  You see trades/acquisitions like this, and I read a lot of criticism of the price tag vs. on-ice production even when the GM is stating that the person they're bringing in is one that sets a great example for his teammates.

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

 

[Kin]

I was just trying to illustrate a point.  Some were dismissing anything but on-ice performance as criteria for adding/subtracting a player from your roster because this Ribeiro type of intangible (in this case, a negative one) is practically impossible for the average fan to quantify.

Certain players are more valuable to a team/organization if their off-ice & dressing room behaviour is exemplary, even if their on-ice production is just average.  You see trades/acquisitions like this, and I read a lot of criticism of the price tag vs. on-ice production even when the GM is stating that the person they're bringing in is one that sets a great example for his teammates.

Well, first of all, kudos on the clever ruse.

Anyways, I guess I don't see the contradiction you do in large part because GM's don't get hired to their jobs because they're experts in HR and I genuinely question how much of a "great example" a player can be if they're not particularly effective on the ice. Likewise, a player can be very talented and be able to produce to certain degrees because of their natural talent but they're bad examples for other players who don't have the same talent. I think that's much easier to identify.