Pietrangelo Watch

[herman]

Outside the top 2-3, GMs are praying their first rounder turns out even remotely as good as Nylander in 3-4 years. Neither side of the equation really wants to entertain this trade proposal.

 

[bustaheims]

[Right but I came off that mark and did say ...or a promising young d man. Obviously targeting the highest rated defenceman is preferable but it doesn?t mean I?d stop there if there wasn?t a trade available. From what I?ve read the consensus is there isn?t a ton difference from Drysdale and the next 3-4 d-man in the draft. The idea hasn?t changed. You should be able to flip Nylander for a good promising 1st round prospect. Even if that pick is for next years draft.

That?s ?consensus? doesn?t match anything I?ve read. What I?ve seen has Drysdale as the clear best defender (and the teams that will be in position to draft him aren?t in a position to trade that pick for immediate help), followed not super closely by Sanderson, and the rest are in a tier clearly below - to the point where there doesn?t even seem to be a clear consensus on who else will go in the 1st round.

As for this promising young player or prospect - how about identifying some? It?s great to speak in hypotheticals, but put your money where your mouth is. Who is a potential trade target on a team that is position to move a promising young D for a forward?

 

[Kin]

Right but I came off that mark and did say ...or a promising young d man.

Well, what you said is "similar promising d-man" and I think, in this context, where Drysdale is a consensus top 5 pick, simply getting any sort of 1st round pick for Nylander and using it on the best available defenseman is probably not being seen as being all that similar to landing one of the top prospects in the draft.

Because something the Leafs actually aren't hurting for is sort of mid-range 1st round defensive prospects. So I don't think people would see another one as a particularly valuable get for Nylander.

 

[Bender]

I don?t know why we put ourselves through this year after year. I know it?s a message board and speculation is what we strive on, but let?s be honest with ourselves, other than Tavares, the top free agent just doesn?t come to Toronto.

Maybe I?m just getting old and grumpy, but using Toronto and negotiating leverage has just gotten tiresome for me.

Thing is, Toronto has probably done as well as anyone in my time as a hockey fan at attracting free agents. The thing of it is though is that people way oversell the "he's a local guy, so he's going to sign here" thing.

I agree it's annoying when every media report has the Leafs involved and I think the "he's a local guy so he's dying to play here" thing is overblown but guys like Cujo, Mogilny, Gary Roberts, Clarkson(who sucked but was a highly sought after free agent), heck, even Gretzky did agree to come here.

Too bad Dubas cant use any leverage on cap hits.  He pays top AAV, for less term, and gives massive signing bonuses so they get all their money up front.  I love Matthews...but in no universe should he be paid 865k less than Connor Mcdavid...for LESS term.  Its baffling really. 

Up until this season comparing dollars for dollars of contracts is a recipe for misunderstanding. You need to be comparing their relative "% of cap in the year they sign" to get any sort of meaningful indication. Nobody expected a multi-year flat cap situation when any of those contracts were signed, either. It's going to be really interesting to see how that affects the upcoming free-agency.

McDavid: 16.7% of cap when he signed
Matthews: 14.63%

If McDavid had signed the same year as Matthews his would have been about $13.28 AAV (1.5M more than Matthews). I don't think that's nearly as out of line as you're suggesting.

I think that's pretty fair actually. I also think the Nylander contract is looking more and more like a bargain every day. Where we have a problem I think is with Mitch and the fact that we signed Tavares. Once you signed Tavares I think that forced out one of Marner or Nylander and I think we'll see that happening - you can't win without depth. Ultimately we need to keep rolling our roster and start trading players and get value back as we've dug a pretty sizable hole with Marleau/Zaitsev and not recouping assets on expiring contracts.

I still don't see Dubas moving Willy or Mitch this year. Maybe down the road but not yet. I heard on Overdrive an interesting take on the AP front yesterday with having to move players etc. They said if  you have to move say Nylander, or similar money, in order to get AP do you do it? All said of course you do because AP puts you closer to winning the cup then Nylander does. Also said, much like Zee has, you can't worry about 7 years down the road. The window is 4 more years with Matthews. Have to take advantage now. AP will have a huge impact on the D core. Holl who really is a low 4/5 guy will be on the 2nd pairing which should help his game a lot. Either way though the Leafs need a #1 RD whether it's AP or someone else and you're going to be paying 5+ mill to get one so like I said earlier, probably one of Kerfoot or Johnsson will have to go anyway.

The window isn't closed just because you have to give Matthews another contract, you do have to think short term and long term. If overreaching now means you get a few kicks at the can now but completely screws up your long term ability to compete then is that really progress?

As a counterpoint listening to Leafs Lunch they brought in a guy from Sportlogiq that said the only 4 players making $7m or less who scored 30 goals last year and he is on the longest contract length of his deal, so from a value perspective does subtracting Nylander, which teams are undervaluing in a trade even though he's got a pretty good contract, make sense? I mean, at least maximize assets coming back and trading Nylander probably doesn't do that. I don't know how willing I am to rob from Peter to pay Paul, so I think I'm still on the mindset that we need depth above all else if we're jumping into free agency and I don't think trading Nylander to get AP (who is going to be 31 once next season starts by the way) is the best way to do that.

6 guys did it, not 4, making under $7m: David Pastrnak, Mika Zibanejad, Nathan MacKinnon, Patrice Bergeron, William Nylander, Dominik Kubalik.

Fair enough but the main point still stands.

 

[Redleaf]

[Right but I came off that mark and did say ...or a promising young d man. Obviously targeting the highest rated defenceman is preferable but it doesn?t mean I?d stop there if there wasn?t a trade available. From what I?ve read the consensus is there isn?t a ton difference from Drysdale and the next 3-4 d-man in the draft. The idea hasn?t changed. You should be able to flip Nylander for a good promising 1st round prospect. Even if that pick is for next years draft.

That?s ?consensus? doesn?t match anything I?ve read. What I?ve seen has Drysdale as the clear best defender (and the teams that will be in position to draft him aren?t in a position to trade that pick for immediate help), followed not super closely by Sanderson, and the rest are in a tier clearly below - to the point where there doesn?t even seem to be a clear consensus on who else will go in the 1st round.

As for this promising young player or prospect - how about identifying some? It?s great to speak in hypotheticals, but put your money where your mouth is. Who is a potential trade target on a team that is position to move a promising young D for a forward?

Lol. Well you know as well as I do, identifying desirable targets and coming to terms with those teams on a trade isn?t something you can easily speculate about . I?m sure Dubas has lots of balls in the hopper that could pan out. And I?m sure first round picks are certainly an option for him.

Why don?t you put your money where your mouth is and just come out and tell us you don?t want to trade Nylander for anything. That?s certainly the vibe I?m getting from you. Or if you disagree , tell us what it would take in a trade for you to come around with the idea?

 

[herman]

Redleaf, the pushback on your idea is not so much about Nylander being traded as it is about the idea being unrealistic. We have already outlined that teams holding the top picks are not looking for performance spending today, and the Leafs are looking for NHL core level contribution if they are moving out a key and affordable piece like Nylander.

Your idea is more suited to someone like Johnsson being traded for a low first (hi New Jersey!) where the team wants a young NHL player and have multiple firsts to spend.

 

[Redleaf]

Redleaf, the pushback on your idea is not so much about Nylander being traded as it is about the idea being unrealistic. We have already outlined that teams holding the top picks are not looking for performance spending today, and the Leafs are looking for NHL core level contribution if they are moving out a key and affordable piece like Nylander.

Your idea is more suited to someone like Johnsson being traded for a low first (hi New Jersey!) where the team wants a young NHL player and have multiple firsts to spend.

Fair enough Herman. But I have come off the mark suggesting we could get a top 5 pick in this years draft for Nylander . I?m not sure why it?s so hard for people to wrap their heads around The idea of securing a higher end 1st rounder, even if it?s in next years draft . I really don?t see that as being unrealistic . In fact I think that?s a very realistic expectation for what we should strive for when considering trading Nylander and clearing up space at the same time.

I think what is happening here is the fact there are so many people opposed to dealing Nylander for any return, that they can?t entertain any suggestions .

 

[Kin]

The idea of securing a higher end 1st rounder, even if it?s in next years draft .

I confess, that's something that's difficult for me to understand given that there is no way to secure a "higher-end" first rounder for next year's draft.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

The idea of securing a higher end 1st rounder, even if it?s in next years draft .

I confess, that's something that's difficult for me to understand given that there is no way to secure a "high-end" first rounder for next year's draft.

Be Boston.
Trade Kessel to Toronto.
Profit.

 

[Redleaf]

The idea of securing a higher end 1st rounder, even if it?s in next years draft .

I confess, that's something that's difficult for me to understand given that there is no way to secure a "high-end" first rounder for next year's draft.

So ... no way to trade Nylander for a high end first round This year or next. Ok. Discussion over Nik. Thanks

 

[Kin]

So ... no way to trade Nylander for a high end first round This year or next. Ok. Discussion over Nik. Thanks

You may be misunderstanding me but what I said is that there's no way to trade Nylander now for a pick in next year's draft where you're certain it'll be in a certain spot. You could trade Nylander for a pick in next years but where it would be in next year's draft wouldn't be certain until the season plays out(and we don't even know when that next season will be).

Now, maybe you meant trading Nylander for a pick in next year's draft after next year so we'd know where it is but in that case the purpose of trading him wouldn't be "to sign Pietrangelo" so I don't think a lot of us see what you'd be clearing up cap dollars for, in which case you're talking about trading what is maybe the best value contract the Leafs have for a not very good return(and trading good value contracts typically isn't where you start to clear cap space).

And I think that's sort of fueling the issue here. You could, I assume, trade Nylander for a pick in the top half of this year's draft but what I think most of us are saying isn't that such a deal would be unworkable but that a trade like that would be a bad trade we don't want to make. That's why people are asking for specifics on trade proposals, to see if they sound like good ones.

Because contrary to what you said earlier, it's not a situation where I wouldn't trade Nylander for any return. If Vancouver calls up tomorrow and offers Hughes and Horvat for him, I'll pack his bags myself. That doesn't strike me as very likely though and I think it's pretty reasonable for people to generally not be a fan of any trade proposal for a player until it's one they think would ultimately improve the team.

 

[dappleganger]

I could see Ottawa trading the 5th pick for Nylander straight up.

They have the 3rd pick overall and another 1st round. They'll have lots of cap space. Diversifying with a known quantity like a young Nylander on a good contract would make some sense.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Well said Nik. You need to hit a home run if you're trading one of your biggest assets.

I could see Ottawa trading the 5th pick for Nylander straight up.

They have the 3rd pick overall and another 1st round. They'll have lots of cap space. Diversifying with a known quantity like a young Nylander on a good contract would make some sense.

I don't see Ottawa doing that because they have Melnyk lol.

 

[Kin]

I could see Ottawa trading the 5th pick for Nylander straight up.

They have the 3rd pick overall and another 1st round. They'll have lots of cap space. Diversifying with a known quantity like a young Nylander on a good contract would make some sense.

They strike me as the team that's probably least likely to want to give up the possibility of a good young player on an ELC deal.

But even if I'm wrong about that getting one of Perfetti/Raymond/Rossi or Sanderson doesn't really excite me.

 

[dappleganger]

Well said Nik. You need to hit a home run if you're trading one of your biggest assets.

I could see Ottawa trading the 5th pick for Nylander straight up.

They have the 3rd pick overall and another 1st round. They'll have lots of cap space. Diversifying with a known quantity like a young Nylander on a good contract would make some sense.

I don't see Ottawa doing that because they have Melnyk lol.

Well, yes, but that could be why they do it. Never know where his head is at.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Too much money for Eugene here.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

At best by the time the sens are close to being in a position to start making playoff runs Nylander will be a year or two away from being an UFA. Even aside from the money/Melynk angle it's a trade that makes absolutely zero sense for the team considering where they are in their rebuild.

 

[bustaheims]

Redleaf, the pushback on your idea is not so much about Nylander being traded as it is about the idea being unrealistic. We have already outlined that teams holding the top picks are not looking for performance spending today, and the Leafs are looking for NHL core level contribution if they are moving out a key and affordable piece like Nylander.

Your idea is more suited to someone like Johnsson being traded for a low first (hi New Jersey!) where the team wants a young NHL player and have multiple firsts to spend.

This. It?s not about not wanting to trade Nylander. It?s about not wanting to move him purely for futures (essentially, as a cap dump) in order to sign a 30 y/o UFA to a long-term, expensive contract.

 

[herman]

Redleaf, the pushback on your idea is not so much about Nylander being traded as it is about the idea being unrealistic. We have already outlined that teams holding the top picks are not looking for performance spending today, and the Leafs are looking for NHL core level contribution if they are moving out a key and affordable piece like Nylander.

Your idea is more suited to someone like Johnsson being traded for a low first (hi New Jersey!) where the team wants a young NHL player and have multiple firsts to spend.

This. It?s not about not wanting to trade Nylander. It?s about not wanting to move him purely for futures (essentially, as a cap dump) in order to sign a 30 y/o UFA to a long-term, expensive contract.

I would be okay with trading Nylander if Robertson ends up turning into a 40G scorer and we still need RD on Nylander?s second last year of the deal and Colorado says, hey want Makar for Willy?

 

[dappleganger]

Too much money for Eugene here.

Willy is owed $20.5m over the next 4 years while having a cap hit of $6.9m. If they flip Willy with a year left on his deal, could be some shrewd business. They're gonna have to pay someone to make it to the cap floor and be cap compliant.

If I'm Dubas I'd never do it but I don't think it'd be that outlandish from Ottawa's perspective.