Official Armchair GM Thread 2014-2015 Leafs

[CarltonTheBear]

How do people define how many dimensions a player has? Is it just offence and defence? In that case a large amount of the league, even those players who are getting paid big bucks, are only one dimensional players. What separates everyone is just how good they are at their specific dimension. And Kessel is damn-good at his.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How do people define how many dimensions a player has? Is it just offence and defence? In that case a large amount of the league, even those players who are getting paid big bucks, are only one dimensional players. What separates everyone is just how good they are at their specific dimension. And Kessel is damn-good at his.

I never hear guys like Polak (to pick a quick example) called "one-dimensional" - for them it's all about their character, etc even though their one dimension is that they're supposedly strong defensively.  But the vast majority of the league is one-dimensional by and large.

Don't even get me started on Bernier.  He's all goaltending and nothing else.

 

[Kin]

How do people define how many dimensions a player has? Is it just offence and defence? In that case a large amount of the league, even those players who are getting paid big bucks, are only one dimensional players. What separates everyone is just how good they are at their specific dimension. And Kessel is damn-good at his.

Also, all movies are 3-D. Time is a dimension. So when you add depth what you're really making is a 4-D movie.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

How do people define how many dimensions a player has? Is it just offence and defence? In that case a large amount of the league, even those players who are getting paid big bucks, are only one dimensional players. What separates everyone is just how good they are at their specific dimension. And Kessel is damn-good at his.

I never hear guys like Polak (to pick a quick example) called "one-dimensional" - for them it's all about their character, etc even though their one dimension is that they're supposedly strong defensively.  But the vast majority of the league is one-dimensional by and large.

Don't even get me started on Bernier.  He's all goaltending and nothing else.

It's an interesting question.  Kessel is considered one-dimensional because most of what he does is on the offensive side of the puck, and he takes a lot of crap because he doesn't excel on defence.  If he hustled back, stopped cheating and played solid defence, that would make him a more complete player, but that would probably come at a cost in terms of production.  So, would you rather see him as a one-dimensional player scoring 40 goals/year, or would scoring 20 goals/year and playing great defence (being a complete player) make him more palatable?  I don't think he wins in either situation.

I heard someone talking about J. Toews this morning (another player??), saying he's likely a 40-goal scorer, and fairly easily if he were to cheat on his defensive duties.  But he won't do it.  So he gets labeled as a complete player, but you could make an argument that he's not living up to his offensive potential.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

How do people define how many dimensions a player has? Is it just offence and defence? In that case a large amount of the league, even those players who are getting paid big bucks, are only one dimensional players. What separates everyone is just how good they are at their specific dimension. And Kessel is damn-good at his.

I never hear guys like Polak (to pick a quick example) called "one-dimensional" - for them it's all about their character, etc even though their one dimension is that they're supposedly strong defensively.  But the vast majority of the league is one-dimensional by and large.

Don't even get me started on Bernier.  He's all goaltending and nothing else.

It's an interesting question.  Kessel is considered one-dimensional because most of what he does is on the offensive side of the puck, and he takes a lot of crap because he doesn't excel on defence.  If he hustled back, stopped cheating and played solid defence, that would make him a more complete player, but that would probably come at a cost in terms of production.  So, would you rather see him as a one-dimensional player scoring 40 goals/year, or would scoring 20 goals/year and playing great defence (being a complete player) make him more palatable?  I don't think he wins in either situation.

I heard someone talking about J. Toews this morning (another player??), saying he's likely a 40-goal scorer, and fairly easily if he were to cheat on his defensive duties.  But he won't do it.  So he gets labeled as a complete player, but you could make an argument that he's not living up to his offensive potential.

Well not everyone can play both ways like Toews, or Bergeron no matter how hard they try.  Which is why players like that are rare and very, very valuable.

 

[Bullfrog]

How do people define how many dimensions a player has? Is it just offence and defence? In that case a large amount of the league, even those players who are getting paid big bucks, are only one dimensional players. What separates everyone is just how good they are at their specific dimension. And Kessel is damn-good at his.

Also, all movies are 3-D. Time is a dimension. So when you add depth what you're really making is a 4-D movie.

Movies are actually a 2-D projection of a 3-D environment.  :-X

 

[Crucialness Key]

How do people define how many dimensions a player has? Is it just offence and defence? In that case a large amount of the league, even those players who are getting paid big bucks, are only one dimensional players. What separates everyone is just how good they are at their specific dimension. And Kessel is damn-good at his.

Also, all movies are 3-D. Time is a dimension. So when you add depth what you're really making is a 4-D movie.

Movies are actually a 2-D projection of a 3-D environment.  :-X

Time is a flat circle.

 

[Courtnall]

I was wondering if acquiring the #1 pick from Edmonton be impossible? Would Gardiner, Reilly, and the 4th pick do it? And the Nashville pick?

 

[Frank E]

I was wondering if acquiring the #1 pick from Edmonton be impossible? Would Gardiner, Reilly, and the 4th pick do it? And the Nashville pick?

Not. A. Chance.

 

[Bullfrog]

I was wondering if acquiring the #1 pick from Edmonton be impossible? Would Gardiner, Reilly, and the 4th pick do it? And the Nashville pick?

Never going to happen for any conceivable package the Leafs would come up with.

 

[bustaheims]

I was wondering if acquiring the #1 pick from Edmonton be impossible? Would Gardiner, Reilly, and the 4th pick do it? And the Nashville pick?

That pick is not going to be traded. Period.

 

[Highlander]

No but we may be switching with AZ if they take Phaneuf and someone else

 

[Kin]

I was wondering if acquiring the #1 pick from Edmonton be impossible? Would Gardiner, Reilly, and the 4th pick do it? And the Nashville pick?

A fun way to play this game is to imagine if the Leafs had won the draft rights to the player people are calling the next Crosby and then think what another team would have to offer them for you to be happy for them to trade it away.

So in that scenario, Edmonton could offer Hall, RNH, Eberle, Nurse and their #4 pick and I'd still pass. Tampa could offer Stamkos and Drouin and I'd pass. Pittsburgh could offer Crosby himself and I'd pass.

That pick isn't moving.

 

[L K]

No but we may be switching with AZ if they take Phaneuf and someone else

Trading Phaneuf to move from 4th to 3rd is silly.

 

[Kin]

No but we may be switching with AZ if they take Phaneuf and someone else

Trading Phaneuf to move from 4th to 3rd is silly.

It's also a bit of a paradox. The only way it would be worth it to the Leafs is if Phaneuf basically has no value around the league and couldn't be traded for anything of real consequence but if Phaneuf has no value around the league then it wouldn't be worth it to Arizona.

 

[Britishbulldog]

No but we may be switching with AZ if they take Phaneuf and someone else

Trading Phaneuf to move from 4th to 3rd is silly.

If the Leafs wanted the 3rd pick to guarantee Strome then I would suggest that Ekman-Larsson could be replaced by Hanifin and suggest a trade like:

4th Pick, Kessel, Reimer and Brown or Leipsic for 3rd pick, Ekman-Larsson and Smith.

Ekman-Larsson gets replaced with a 6 year younger, and possibly better, Hanifin.  Rid themselves of Smith's terrible contract which the Leafs can buyout any time and replace it with a comparable goalie Reimer and Kessel gets out of the Toronto fish bowl.

 

[Tigger]

OEL for Kessel ( basically ) sign me up! Just that Arizona would never do that, I mean, they're rebuilding, right?

 

[Redleaf]

I love it when people come up with these multi-player, off the wall trade proposals, get everybodys windmills turning, and then at the draft table the Leafs trade down to 6th spot, for a 2nd rounder and pick a first no one was expecting, and everyone's disappointed.

 

[Kin]

I love it when people come up with these multi-player, off the wall trade proposals, get everybodys windmills turning, and then at the draft table the Leafs trade down to 6th spot, for a 2nd rounder and pick a first no one was expecting, and everyone's disappointed.

When have the Leafs ever traded down?

 

[Redleaf]

I love it when people come up with these multi-player, off the wall trade proposals, get everybodys windmills turning, and then at the draft table the Leafs trade down to 6th spot, for a 2nd rounder and pick a first no one was expecting, and everyone's disappointed.

When have the Leafs ever traded down?

I have a feeling you want to tell me. Go for it.