Should the Leafs grab Yakupov if he's Waived?

[bustaheims]

So you don't realize how much cap we're clearing come season's end then.  Got it.  It makes it an extremely easy no for you.  Your position is not gospel.  Its an extremely easy yes for me, given our option to waive him as well if things don't work out with him.

If he isn't waived this all becomes moot anyway and just remains a matter of opinion.

I'm well aware of how much cap the team is clearing at the end of the season. I'm also well aware of the number of contracts they need to sign to fill out the roster next season, the very real possibility the cap will only see a minor increase or stay stagnant (or even drop), and the extent to which any carryover can impact that. Right now, if the cap doesn't grow, the Leafs' have ~$21M in cap space next season before going into LTIR space to add 10 or 11 pieces to the roster. If they end up having to push $2M in bonuses into next season (which, with the number of players on ELCs likely to make the roster, is a real possibility if they sacrifice the amount of cap space required to fit Yakupov into the lineup without making a trade) really hinders their ability to add talent next season. The option to waive him doesn't really help if no one claims him, as it would only clear the pro-rated portion of ~$950K. So, really, you're advocating for a move that really boils down to picking up a long-shot reclamation project that could have a negative impact on the team next season while having no positive impact on the team at any point.

Just on cap space alone, it's not a particularly appeal move. Add in the potential for locker room issues, not really having a spot for him in the lineup where his skills would be put to use - at best, he ends up on the 3rd line, but, really the open spot up front is on the 4th. In both those potential roles, the pieces in the system are preferable to Yakupov.

 

[McGarnagle]

I'm thinking that if he has all this no risk upside, he wouldn't need to be waived, no?

 

[bustaheims]

I'm thinking that if he has all this no risk upside, he wouldn't need to be waived, no?

You'd think that would be pretty obvious, right?

I mean, if he hits waivers, it wouldn't shock me a bubble team with cap space looking for a depth scoring option claimed him. the ~15 goals he typically contributes could be helpful to a team like that. As a reclamation project, however . . . he's not super interesting. I don't think his issues are related to how the Oilers developed him. There's been talk of issues with his skating, his shot, his attitude, etc. Obviously, there's a lot of grey areas there, but, the reality is looking much more like he's a flawed player that had the right advanced skills to look good against junior aged players, but that don't translate well enough to the NHL. He wouldn't be the first player like that (or the first #1 overall pick, either), and he won't be the last.

 

[TBLeafer]

Vancouver was quite vocal about waiving Corrado last season and having him claimed, too.

They very much regretted the need to do so and were very hopeful he'd clear. But newer players take spots away from some players if they fit into the mix better.

Plus we only have 47 contracts currently, so that works too.

 

[ZBBM]

The anti pickup arguments ignore the central point of the whole exercise. The only reason to do this is to see whether he can blossom quickly under Babs. If he does then all the negative arguments melt away. If he doesn't -- in a short time -- then you move on like TBL says.

 

[bustaheims]

The anti pickup arguments ignore the central point of the whole exercise. The only reason to do this is to see whether he can blossom quickly under Babs. If he does then all the negative arguments melt away. If he doesn't -- in a short time -- then you move on like TBL says.

That's really misrepresenting the argument. We're not ignoring it. We're recognizing the long odds of the situation, and looking at the most realistic outcomes. It's also not so simple to just move on. Almost all of the negative issues related to the move stick around unless the Leafs can move him to another organization - which, as a failed waiver pickup, would likely be a difficult scenario.

 

[KadriFan]

Omg of course you claim him.  It's a no brainer really

 

[ZBBM]

Long odds but possibly high rewards. Maybe really high rewards. That's what justifies it. And I don't really think it's much of a big deal to organizational order if he ends up on the Marlies.

 

[Kin]

The anti pickup arguments ignore the central point of the whole exercise. The only reason to do this is to see whether he can blossom quickly under Babs. If he does then all the negative arguments melt away. If he doesn't -- in a short time -- then you move on like TBL says.

It only ignores this central point because it relies on the assumption that Babcock has some sort of unique alchemy to developing players that other coaches don't. Again, McClellan is a good coach. One who very likely has a stronger record of developing young players into big pieces than Babcock has. If he's looking at all of this supposed upside and saying "Nah" then that's a far more compelling reason for me to pass than the idea that Babcock is the coachingiest coach who ever did coach is to pick him up.

 

[Kin]

Long odds but possibly high rewards. Maybe really high rewards. That's what justifies it. And I don't really think it's much of a big deal to organizational order if he ends up on the Marlies.

Likewise, I really don't think there's a compelling case that "really high rewards" are much of a possibility. How many cases have their been in NHL history(and there have been bad 1st overall picks before) where someone is in the league for three or four years, looks like hot garbage for most of them, where they've given every opportunity and the result is they've played themselves off one of the worst teams in the league....and then eventually turned it around and became a really valuable contributor later on? Or even some rough approximation of the same?

Realistically the sort of rebound we're talking here even if it did happen isn't all that much different than someone looking at Brown or Soshnikov and thinking about what their top potential being realized would be.

 

[ZBBM]

The anti pickup arguments ignore the central point of the whole exercise. The only reason to do this is to see whether he can blossom quickly under Babs. If he does then all the negative arguments melt away. If he doesn't -- in a short time -- then you move on like TBL says.

It only ignores this central point because it relies on the assumption that Babcock has some sort of unique alchemy to developing players that other coaches don't. Again, McClellan is a good coach. One who very likely has a stronger record of developing young players into big pieces than Babcock has. If he's looking at all of this supposed upside and saying "Nah" then that's a far more compelling reason for me to pass than the idea that Babcock is the coachingiest coach who ever did coach is to pick him up.

It's not an assumption, it's just a very low cost bet.

To engage your point, though, Babcock is generally considered the best in the business right now.  Or do you want to argue that too?  So coachology.

 

[TBLeafer]

I look at it like another potential Turris. Still doesn't have the top end as originally billed, but still a very useful NHL'er.

All this about cap also really is moot too, because if we waive him and he clears because he didn't work out, his contract also expires at the end of the season and we are under no obligation to give him a QO.

The cap argument against grabbing him off waivers is a strawman.

 

[ZBBM]

Long odds but possibly high rewards. Maybe really high rewards. That's what justifies it. And I don't really think it's much of a big deal to organizational order if he ends up on the Marlies.

Likewise, I really don't think there's a compelling case that "really high rewards" are much of a possibility. How many cases have their been in NHL history(and there have been bad 1st overall picks before) where someone is in the league for three or four years, looks like hot garbage for most of them, where they've given every opportunity and the result is they've played themselves off one of the worst teams in the league....and then eventually turned it around and became a really valuable contributor later on? Or even some rough approximation of the same?

Realistically the sort of rebound we're talking here even if it did happen isn't all that much different than someone looking at Brown or Soshnikov and thinking about what their top potential being realized would be.

1st para: Like I said, long odds. 

One more time: When the cost is close to zero (no need to dispute that further, I get that you don't agree) and the potential benefits are much higher than zero (ditto), then taking a long shot makes perfect sense and the calculus is really not all that difficult.

Don't think I need to yak with u further because even though we disagree I totally respect your pov.

 

[bustaheims]

The cap argument against grabbing him off waivers is a strawman.

Since you clearly don't know what the straw man fallacy is, here's a pretty simple explanation:

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

That's not what anyone raising the cap as an issue is doing. Your proposition remains "the Leafs should pick up Yakupov," and we're saying "no, they shouldn't, because X, Y, and Z reasons" with one of those reasons being that cap implications that go beyond this season. The fact that his contract expires at the end of the season doesn't improve the cap situation of adding him this season. It doesn't remove the fact that adding without trading away a contract removes the buffer the Leafs currently had to avoid potential for bonus overages creating an unnecessary cap crunch next season. Being able to waive and demote him lessens the impact, sure, but it doesn't remove it. Waivers is not a "get out of jail free" card. Even in the minors, he'd count against the cap and take up most of the buffer the team has in place. Regardless of whether or not you want to acknowledge that it's an issue, it is an issue for as long as his contract impacts the team's cap situation - and, with the way the Leafs' roster is almost certainly going to be structured, that will quite likely include next season (again, regardless of how much you want to bring up the amount of cap the team is clearing, as that's only one aspect of the cap math - and one that is not as favourable to the team as you make it out to be).

 

[Kin]

It's not an assumption, it's just a very low cost bet.

To engage your point, though, Babcock is generally considered the best in the business right now.  Or do you want to argue that too?  So coachology.

Well, yeah, I would. I think if you asked a wide variety of people who the best coach in the NHL is I would sincerely doubt you'd get the most people saying Babcock. I think Quenneville, Sutter, Laviolette, Trotz...all would have their partisans. Babcock would too but the idea that he's seen as being head and shoulders above any other coach in the NHL I think is something you can really only say from within the Leafs' bubble.

Even then though there's different attributes to coaching and while I think Babcock has a lot of respect for what he's done I think that's based in large part on his results with Team Canada and that is an entirely different creature from developing young players(or turning around a stalled career). So to that point the question isn't "Is Babcock the best coach in the league" it's "Is Babcock the guy most likely to turn a bad player into a good one" and I think there's even less evidence for that.

 

[Kin]

One more time: When the cost is close to zero (no need to dispute that further, I get that you don't agree) and the potential benefits are much higher than zero (ditto), then taking a long shot makes perfect sense and the calculus is really not all that difficult.

It's not that I disagree that the cost is close to zero, it's that I can make up reasons as to why the cost might not be close to zero that have roughly the same weight behind it as the idea that there might be really high rewards. I don't think it's needlessly wonky to get into this deeper than imagining it as some sort of abstract concept. We can look at the particulars and get a sense of the likelihood of potential outcomes and right now it's just as valid for someone to say that Connor Brown is a future 40 goal scorer whose confidence would be shattered by being returned to the Marlies as it is to say Yakupov is a future high impact winger who would turn it all around if Mike Babcock lays blessed hands upon his brow.

 

[TBLeafer]

The cap argument against grabbing him off waivers is a strawman.

Since you clearly don't know what the straw man fallacy is, here's a pretty simple explanation:

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

That's not what anyone raising the cap as an issue is doing. Your proposition remains "the Leafs should pick up Yakupov," and we're saying "no, they shouldn't, because X, Y, and Z reasons" with one of those reasons being that cap implications that go beyond this season. The fact that his contract expires at the end of the season doesn't improve the cap situation of adding him this season. It doesn't remove the fact that adding without trading away a contract removes the buffer the Leafs currently had to avoid potential for bonus overages creating an unnecessary cap crunch next season. Being able to waive and demote him lessens the impact, sure, but it doesn't remove it. Waivers is not a "get out of jail free" card. Even in the minors, he'd count against the cap and take up most of the buffer the team has in place. Regardless of whether or not you want to acknowledge that it's an issue, it is an issue for as long as his contract impacts the team's cap situation - and, with the way the Leafs' roster is almost certainly going to be structured, that will quite likely include next season (again, regardless of how much you want to bring up the amount of cap the team is clearing, as that's only one aspect of the cap math - and one that is not as favourable to the team as you make it out to be).

Okay so then you're just grasping at straws then.

Come up with any other argument than the cap one, which has next to no relevance on a team doing nothing but clearing cap over the next 2 years and Yak himself being on an expiring one himself.

 

[Tigger]

:

Not the Corrado treatment, not a strawman, a significant arbitration ruling that the Leafs and the NHL are waiting for ( though yes, it isn't likely to become a successful grievance, still ). Extremely unlikely the player will be waived. Actual cap and roster concerns. Babcock not really a wizard. Little upside given his likely use. Yakupov is better than Brown defensively? Nail is being sheltered in Edmonton because he is one of the weaker players in the league, not because he thrives there.

No offence to Nail but I don't want him anywhere near our top young talent at this stage.

I agree it is a low cost bet, just one that I wouldn't put any money into if I wasn't completely sure of the rest of the game, which I'm not. I'd ask a guy like Eakins what he thought, also McLellan if they really were waiving him, I'm not Babcock but my suspicion is that if he thought he could turn him around, that might be important, but I don't see how that would be the case when he already has an abundance of talented young already Leaf players in the system that he is very familiar with, and McLellan is part of the crowd letting him go ( which they won't ).

Anyway, eat the 100k, it won't happen.

 

[bustaheims]

Okay so then you're just grasping at straws then.

No, that's you.

Come up with any other argument than the cap one, which has next to no relevance on a team doing nothing but clearing cap over the next 2 years and Yak himself being on an expiring one himself.

How about, instead, you actually support your position with more than "maybe he can turn it around?" What are the benefits to the Leafs in the more probable scenarios here? How would claiming Yakupov benefit the team in the most likely event that his play doesn't improve in any significant fashion? I've made factual arguments based on the way things have a high probability of playing out in the real world. Now, it's your turn. Make an actual argument for him that doesn't rely on the low percentage scenario.

 

[Bullfrog]

Okay so then you're just grasping at straws then.

Come up with any other argument than the cap one, which has next to no relevance on a team doing nothing but clearing cap over the next 2 years and Yak himself being on an expiring one himself.

If no salary cap and number of contracts limit, then I'm sure most people would be fine with it because it'd just be MLSE's money. But since both of those things exist, you MUST take them into account when analyzing the move you're suggesting.

If you want to advocate for picking him up on waivers, no problem, go ahead. I'm actually on the fence a bit (though leaning toward no.) However, you must take into account the actual implications. If he doesn't pan out and you waive him, then there's a $1.55M cap hit this year (more actually because you're taking the full hit while he's on the roster.)