Official Armchair GM Thread 2014-2015 Leafs

[Heroic Shrimp]

Here's hoping we can move Clarkson and sign Santorelli.

Scott Gomez was moved, right?

Looking at next year's numbers ...which will also have Gleason's $1.833 MIL buy out penalty + Gunnarsson's $0.2 MIL retained salary....I believe that Clarkson (preferably) or Lupul (as a last resort) will have to be moved and I don't think there is a chance that Santorelli can be re-signed and the Leafs will need a player like Leivo to step up and fill Santorelli's role at under $1 MIL. 

Clarkson can only be traded or bought out if I am not mistaken. 

Considering his $5.25 MIL hit demoted to the AHL would save $0.925 MIL making his salary $4.325 which is ridiculous but shockingly would still be less than his buyout cap hit loaded with all those signing bonuses...it is unfortunate that Nonis gave Clarkson those insane signing bonuses.

His final 5 years on his contract have a buyout cap hit as follows:

David Clarkson buyout from CapGeek.com
2015-16: $4,716,667
2016-17: $3,716,667
2017-18: $3,716,667
2018-19: $4,716,667
2019-20: $4,716,667

So....buy out isn't an option for the Leafs.

So if the Leafs traded Clarkson and retaining 20% of his salary, the Leafs would be on the hook for $1.05 MIL for 5 years and his new team gets him for $4.2 MIL which is not toooo nuts for them.  I would like to see him traded for a similarly aged rugged dman like M Stuart in Winnipeg.

I am also guessing that the handling of the Leafs Cap by Nonis is going to cost the Leafs either Franson or Gardiner on defense as well.

He can't be sent to the minors either because he has a NMC.

Mirtle went over it last April: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-david-clarkson-and-his-buyout-proof-contract/article17783243/

Pure intellectual exercise here:  In the absence of any trade blocks, would there be any overall logic in a Clarkson for Bolland trade?  Both have almost equally horrible contracts for cap hit and length.  Clarkson has been paid a ton of money in signing bonuses, so the paycheque going forward for Florida would be low and manageable despite the cap hit, and they get a player who's healthy and can play every game (and by play, I mean skate around every game, fall down, and do whatever it is that Clarkson does).  Toronto gets Bolland, who's played all of 4 games this year, and be counted on to give the Leafs LTIR cap relief a lot, and Bolland's paycheque is likely worth it for the overall likely cap savings.

Florida saves themselves a lot of money and gets a healthy player, Toronto digs into it's pockets more and likely gets frequent and significant cap relief.

Thoughts?

 

[bustaheims]

Pure intellectual exercise here:  In the absence of any trade blocks, would there be any overall logic in a Clarkson for Bolland trade?  Both have almost equally horrible contracts for cap hit and length.  Clarkson has been paid a ton of money in signing bonuses, so the paycheque going forward for Florida would be low and manageable despite the cap hit, and they get a player who's healthy and can play every game (and by play, I mean skate around every game, fall down, and do whatever it is that Clarkson does).  Toronto gets Bolland, who's played all of 4 games this year, and be counted on to give the Leafs LTIR cap relief a lot, and Bolland's paycheque is likely worth it for the overall likely cap savings.

Florida saves themselves a lot of money and gets a healthy player, Toronto digs into it's pockets more and likely gets frequent and significant cap relief.

Thoughts?

Clarkson hasn't actually been paid most of his signing bonuses yet. He gets a big fat cheque on July 1st of every year of the contract. There's no real savings for Florida. They'd also probably prefer to pay smaller sums over the course of a season than one big lump sum at any point.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So it sounds like the talk from Edmonton is that they would listen to offers on anyone on the roster. 

If it were up to me, I'd call and initially offer JvR and Gardiner for Hall and see where things could go from there.

If I'm trading those guys I want a legitimate C back.

 

[bustaheims]

If I'm trading those guys I want a legitimate C back.

Yeah. And, as much as I like RNH, I wouldn't trade JvR and Gardiner for him. So, there probably isn't a great fit there.

 

[Andy007]

If JVR and Gardiner can net you Hall then I make that trade instantly and find a centre elsewhere.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If JVR and Gardiner can net you Hall then I make that trade instantly and find a centre elsewhere.

Agreed. Hall's a top-3 LWer in the game, top-2 depending on which position Ovechkin is playing this week. Wouldn't want to lose JVR or Gardiner but that's a trade you can't really turn down. Also one Edmonton would never make. They might have interest in a JVR-for-Eberle deal, but Gardiner isn't the type of defenceman they're probably looking for right now.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

If JVR and Gardiner can net you Hall then I make that trade instantly and find a centre elsewhere.

Agreed. Hall's a top-3 LWer in the game, top-2 depending on which position Ovechkin is playing this week. Wouldn't want to lose JVR or Gardiner but that's a trade you can't really turn down. Also one Edmonton would never make. They might have interest in a JVR-for-Eberle deal, but Gardiner isn't the type of defenceman they're probably looking for right now.

I just don't think it materially makes the Leafs better.  They already score a ton and are deeper on the wing than at C.  It's not easy to just 'find a C elsewhere' Leafs have been trying to do that for 6 years.  Before that they were trying to find wingers for years.

Maybe you just can't turn it down regardless, but I would think either keeping JVR on that deal he has or if he were dealt it be for a C would be far more beneficial for moving the team forward.  To me the C position is far more important and valuable and difficult to acquire, I feel like that would just be moving sideways.

But maybe I'm undervaluing the impact Hall can have on a game/team.  I don't watch him closely enough.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

But maybe I'm undervaluing the impact Hall can have on a game/team.  I don't watch him closely enough.

Like I said in that thread Nik created awhile back, Hall is one of a handful of players that I would trade Kessel for. And even if we're just looking at these players like trade chips I think you're far more likely to obtain a number 1 centre by dangling Hall than you are by dangling JVR/Gardiner.

 

[bustaheims]

I just don't think it materially makes the Leafs better.  They already score a ton and are deeper on the wing than at C.  It's not easy to just 'find a C elsewhere' Leafs have been trying to do that for 6 years.  Before that they were trying to find wingers for years.

Maybe you just can't turn it down regardless, but I would think either keeping JVR on that deal he has or if he were dealt it be for a C would be far more beneficial for moving the team forward.  To me the C position is far more important and valuable and difficult to acquire, I feel like that would just be moving sideways.

But maybe I'm undervaluing the impact Hall can have on a game/team.  I don't watch him closely enough.

I feel the same way. Hall is a great player and all, but, he really just gives the Leafs more of what they already have. He's basically Kessel on the left side. He improves the offence a little. He doesn't help the 1st line's play without the puck. He doesn't help the issues on the blue line. He doesn't fix the need for depth down the middle. He really doesn't address any of the Leafs' issues. Moving JvR and Gardiner for Hall serves to make the Leafs a lot more like Edmonton, when, really, that's the opposite of what any team in the league should be doing.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

But maybe I'm undervaluing the impact Hall can have on a game/team.  I don't watch him closely enough.

Like I said in that thread Nik created awhile back, Hall is one of a handful of players that I would trade Kessel for. And even if we're just looking at these players like trade chips I think you're far more likely to obtain a number 1 centre by dangling Hall than you are by dangling JVR/Gardiner.

Oh for sure - but then you're again weaker with a #1 C and not enough support!

Will the cycle never end!?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I feel the same way. Hall is a great player and all, but, he really just gives the Leafs more of what they already have. He's basically Kessel on the left side. He improves the offence a little. He doesn't help the 1st line's play without the puck. He doesn't help the issues on the blue line. He doesn't fix the need for depth down the middle. He really doesn't address any of the Leafs' issues. Moving JvR and Gardiner for Hall serves to make the Leafs a lot more like Edmonton, when, really, that's the opposite of what any team in the league should be doing.

Having another Kessel on the left side would be so awful (I know you didn't mean it like that)

Adding Hall wouldn't just improve our offense a little. JVR is a 60-point player playing exclusively with Kessel. Hall is a point-per-game guy on the Edmonton Oilers. Even if you run Lupul-Bozak-Kessel and Hall-Kadri-whatever you basically have 2 first lines. And while Hall isn't going to win the Selke, he's been getting better defensively with age. I'd say he's at least on par with JVR in that regard, if not better.

We also have to take into consideration that he's signed to a sweet rate for another 5 seasons after this one. His contract is even better than JVRs. He's not going to fix our issues down the middle, no. But a top-line centre isn't going to fall from a tree. We shouldn't put improving other parts of our team on hold while he wait to improve down the middle.

 

[Peter D.]

For me, trying to get Hall is completely independent of addressing a #1 centre on this team (which I do agree is still the team's biggest need).  It is more about getting a potential star/superstar who could/should be a better player than even Kessel.  And one, personally, who I would feel more comfortable building around than any other player on the current roster. 

Yeah, it would suck to lose JvR, but my whole premise is that the team would be improving on him by a decent amount at the cost of Gardiner, a guy who is falling from the "must-keep" category and one I would use in the right trade. 

I did preface saying that JvR and Gardiner would be an initial offer, knowing full well that Edmonton would likely want more added to a deal.  But the Oilers are a vulnerable team, and sometimes vulnerable teams made stupid, hasty deals.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

at the cost of Gardiner, a guy who is falling from the "must-keep" category and one I would use in the right trade. 

Leafs should probably stop the selling low on young players angle, especially if it is driven by a poor 20-some games.

*cough*Alex Steen*cough*

Sorry, something in my throat.

 

[Peter D.]

Leafs should probably stop the selling low on young players angle, especially if it is driven by a poor 20-some games.

*cough*Alex Steen*cough*

Sorry, something in my throat.

True.  Although Gardiner could be performing at peak potential and I likely still do that deal in a heartbeat.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Leafs should probably stop the selling low on young players angle, especially if it is driven by a poor 20-some games.

*cough*Alex Steen*cough*

Sorry, something in my throat.

True.  Although Gardiner could be performing at peak potential and I likely still do that deal in a heartbeat.

You're right - I meant in a more general sense trading him when his value is probably lowest for a poor return.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Leafs should probably stop the selling low on young players angle, especially if it is driven by a poor 20-some games.

*cough*Alex Steen*cough*

Sorry, something in my throat.

True.  Although Gardiner could be performing at peak potential and I likely still do that deal in a heartbeat.

And from the Oilers perspective they definitely wouldn't consider themselves to be buying low on Gardiner if they're accepting that trade (or a trade like it).

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Pure intellectual exercise here:  In the absence of any trade blocks, would there be any overall logic in a Clarkson for Bolland trade?  Both have almost equally horrible contracts for cap hit and length.  Clarkson has been paid a ton of money in signing bonuses, so the paycheque going forward for Florida would be low and manageable despite the cap hit, and they get a player who's healthy and can play every game (and by play, I mean skate around every game, fall down, and do whatever it is that Clarkson does).  Toronto gets Bolland, who's played all of 4 games this year, and be counted on to give the Leafs LTIR cap relief a lot, and Bolland's paycheque is likely worth it for the overall likely cap savings.

Florida saves themselves a lot of money and gets a healthy player, Toronto digs into it's pockets more and likely gets frequent and significant cap relief.

Thoughts?

Clarkson hasn't actually been paid most of his signing bonuses yet. He gets a big fat cheque on July 1st of every year of the contract. There's no real savings for Florida. They'd also probably prefer to pay smaller sums over the course of a season than one big lump sum at any point.

*Sigh* The contract that keeps on giving...

I think it says so much about sports, salary caps, and probably humanity in general that if David Clarkson were to be grievously injured in the course of a game, it would likely bring great hope and joy to no small number of people.

 

[bustaheims]

*Sigh* The contract that keeps on giving...

I think it says so much about sports, salary caps, and probably humanity in general that if David Clarkson were to be grievously injured in the course of a game, it would likely bring great hope and joy to no small number of people.

Clarkson is really the gift that keeps on taking.

 

[mr grieves]

For me, trying to get Hall is completely independent of addressing a #1 centre on this team (which I do agree is still the team's biggest need).  It is more about getting a potential star/superstar who could/should be a better player than even Kessel.  And one, personally, who I would feel more comfortable building around than any other player on the current roster. 

If you have Kessel and Hall, I think you're in a more extreme version of where the team's been since it emerged from the basement -- strong on the wings, weak at center. But I wonder whether, if there are two superstars on the wings, "addressing the #1 center" can be done on the cheap. For example, Kadri's not anyone's idea of a "true" #1C, but he's a very good #2, has a game with a lot of good facets, pushes play the right way, etc. If he's centering Kessel or Hall, would Kadri be an acceptable #1?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

For me, trying to get Hall is completely independent of addressing a #1 centre on this team (which I do agree is still the team's biggest need).  It is more about getting a potential star/superstar who could/should be a better player than even Kessel.  And one, personally, who I would feel more comfortable building around than any other player on the current roster. 

If you have Kessel and Hall, I think you're in a more extreme version of where the team's been since it emerged from the basement -- strong on the wings, weak at center. But I wonder whether, if there are two superstars on the wings, "addressing the #1 center" can be done on the cheap. For example, Kadri's not anyone's idea of a "true" #1C, but he's a very good #2, has a game with a lot of good facets, pushes play the right way, etc. If he's centering Kessel or Hall, would Kadri be an acceptable #1?

No idea if he's an acceptable #1 because he doesn't get to be one.  Don't know what he would have to do to become one here either, short of Bozak being injured.