Sun: Leafs interested in Joe Thornton

[Kin]

Absolutely, that's why those pieces are usually added at the end after years of alchemy in the GM's lair.

If by "years of alchemy" you mean being bad for a season, sure. It wasn't Managerial trickery that landed the Hawks guys like Kane and Toews.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think they are several years away from contending. The East isn't particularly strong and outside of Boston there's no real continued dominant team like Chicago/LA in the West.  It's pretty wide open, IMO, and if you have the goaltending and offense that the Leafs do, they can pretty quickly be right there.

There's a lot of truth in there, but, at the same time, to me, it says that being good enough to come out of the East and being Cup contenders are two very different things. The Leafs may not be several years away from the former, but I'm not so sure about the latter.

Well I would argue making it out of the East then you are by definition a contender.  Anything can happen in a short series so whether you are as good as the Western teams I don't think should stop the desire to contend with this team.

 

[Kin]

Heck, if the definition of contender we're using is a team that's roughly as good as the 2009-10 Flyers then Dave Nonis should sit back and relax. Mission accomplished.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Absolutely, that's why those pieces are usually added at the end after years of alchemy in the GM's lair.

If by "years of alchemy" you mean being bad for a season, sure. It wasn't Managerial trickery that landed the Hawks guys like Kane and Toews.

Love it or not, the Leafs chose to speed things up and were mediocre enough to draft where they have (assets to get Kessel aside), it's clear they're probably not blowing things up now. So it's going to have to be mixing different elements by trading, drafting and signing to get pieces that Chicago, LA and Pittsburgh were able to get in a few years. They're kind of committed to it from where I'm looking.

 

[Kin]

Love it or not, the Leafs chose to speed things up and were mediocre enough to draft where they have (assets to get Kessel aside), it's clear they're probably not blowing things up now. So it's going to have to be mixing different elements by trading, drafting and signing to get pieces that Chicago, LA and Pittsburgh were able to get in a few years. They're kind of committed to it from where I'm looking.

Right, but my point wasn't disputing whether or not they chose the path they're on, I acknowledge they did and seem committed to it. What I'm talking about is the ramifications of that choice and how it's going to impact their ability to add the sort of pieces we're discussing.

 

[bustaheims]

Well I would argue making it out of the East then you are by definition a contender.  Anything can happen in a short series so whether you are as good as the Western teams I don't think should stop the desire to contend with this team.

I'd disagree. A contender is a team that is seen as having a legitimate chance to win it all, not one that you need use the phrase "anything can happen" in regards to their chances of winning a championship.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

What I'm talking about is the ramifications of that choice and how it's going to impact their ability to add the sort of pieces we're discussing.

Those pieces are difficult to acquire, but not impossible. Every team has to deal with the cap, whether those pieces are homegrown or acquired. I get that you save a bit of cap dollars on EL's, but the better the talent the less you save, so I don't think the Leafs are too far apart in that sense.

I get that you prefer the suck and draft approach and maybe that would have been the prudent choice. I will say though, the Leafs have better pieces now than I thought they would when they decided to go this route.

 

[Kin]

Every team has to deal with the cap, whether those pieces are homegrown or acquired. I get that you save a bit of cap dollars on EL's, but the better the talent the less you save, so I don't think the Leafs are too far apart in that sense.

You'd be right about it if the Leafs had done a great job of managing the cap but they haven't done that either. So while a team like Chicago or Pittsburgh have to make tough decisions with the cap while looking to add depth, the Leafs have to make tough decisions with the cap while looking to add elite players through methods that necessitate paying them market value. Realistically, if a Ryan Getzlaf or Shea Weber type hit the UFA market the Leafs would be in a pretty bad spot to offer them a big contract. The advantages of drafting those players aren't limited to ELC's. Kane and Toews are going to be 9 years deep into their careers before they start costing the Hawks market value.

So we do have to be honest about the road the Leafs are facing if they keep the current band together. Defenders of that route as you'll see on this page, are using phrases like "anything can happen" and "not impossible" which aren't the sorts of things people tend to say about really solid plans.

 

[L K]

Every team has to deal with the cap, whether those pieces are homegrown or acquired. I get that you save a bit of cap dollars on EL's, but the better the talent the less you save, so I don't think the Leafs are too far apart in that sense.

You'd be right about it if the Leafs had done a great job of managing the cap but they haven't done that either. So while a team like Chicago or Pittsburgh have to make tough decisions with the cap while looking to add depth, the Leafs have to make tough decisions with the cap while looking to add elite players through methods that necessitate paying them market value. Realistically, if a Ryan Getzlaf or Shea Weber type hit the UFA market the Leafs would be in a pretty bad spot to offer them a big contract. The advantages of drafting those players aren't limited to ELC's. Kane and Toews are going to be 9 years deep into their careers before they start costing the Hawks market value.

So we do have to be honest about the road the Leafs are facing if they keep the current band together. Defenders of that route as you'll see on this page, are using phrases like "anything can happen" and "not impossible" which aren't the sorts of things people tend to say about really solid plans.

Younger player are signing those long-term deals too.  The ones that might cost a little too much for a year or two and then settle in to very reasonable cap hits.  Ideally that period where the cost a little too much is just before your team needs to worry about cap crunching your roster.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Realistically, if a Ryan Getzlaf or Shea Weber type hit the UFA market the Leafs would be in a pretty bad spot to offer them a big contract. The advantages of drafting those players aren't limited to ELC's. Kane and Toews are going to be 9 years deep into their careers before they start costing the Hawks market value.

That's debatable in my opinion. The Elite players you're referring to appear to have been making market value based on their numbers and the cap landscape at the time of their second contracts at 6.3 million a hit. Kessel I thought was fair value in his second, maybe even a bit better value, when you look at his numbers and consistency.

I'll give you that the difference in the asset cost to acquire those kinds of players has to be taken into account, but how much more in cap dollars are the Leafs actually paying for their talent?

 

[Kin]

That's debatable in my opinion. The Elite players you're referring to appear to have been making market value based on their numbers and the cap landscape at the time of their second contracts at 6.3 million a hit.

In what world would either Kane or Toews only fetch 6.3 million on the open market?

I'll give you that the difference in the asset cost to acquire those kinds of players has to be taken into account, but how much more in cap dollars are the Leafs actually paying for their talent?

You're missing the point though. The question isn't about the money that the Leafs are paying the guys on the roster, it's about the cap room they don't have to pay the elite players they need. Paying Kessel and Phaneuf market value, having bad contracts on the books...it makes adding elite players by UFA an incredibly tall order in addition to the probability issues of going that route.

So Kane and Toews and Keith all being 1.5-2.5 million under market is what lets the Blackhawks pay good money for depth players like Hossa and Sharp and so on. The Leafs have that backwards. They're paying market value for players who aren't as good as that trio and, as a result, couldn't add those players as free agents even if they were available.

 

[caver]

Agreed Nik... If they could unload Phaneuf's contract and buy out Gleason they could change the situation to an extent.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

So Kane and Toews and Keith all being 1.5-2.5 million under market is what lets the Blackhawks pay good money for depth players like Hossa and Sharp and so on. The Leafs have that backwards. They're paying market value for players who aren't as good as that trio and, as a result, couldn't add those players as free agents even if they were available.

I don't remember the cap ceiling in 2010, but 7.8 million seems high to me for a cap hit, no offense to Toews or Kane. I'd also say that 5.4 million was not "market value" for Kessel either, but maybe I'm the only one that see's Kessel in the same league as those two.

 

[moon111]

I proposed (for discussion) a Dion Phaneuf for Joe Thornton deal a long time ago.  The question becomes, where does that leave Kadri and Holland?  And can the other blueliners take up the slack or a new one obtained?

 

[Kin]

I don't remember the cap ceiling in 2010, but 7.8 million seems high to me for a cap hit, no offense to Toews or Kane. I'd also say that 5.4 million was not "market value" for Kessel either, but maybe I'm the only one that see's Kessel in the same league as those two.

I don't know why you're so fixated on the cap hit relative to when it was signed. The whole point of the attractiveness of signing your own young RFA's to long term deals is that the cap hits become more and more attractive as the players develop. Kessel has performed above his salary for the last few years, sure, but that's been during a period when the Leafs weren't contending. Now that he's getting market money it cuts into the Leafs' ability to add depth, let alone elite players. 

 

[bustaheims]

I don't remember the cap ceiling in 2010, but 7.8 million seems high to me for a cap hit, no offense to Toews or Kane. I'd also say that 5.4 million was not "market value" for Kessel either, but maybe I'm the only one that see's Kessel in the same league as those two.

What their market value when the deals were signed isn't really relevant when you're talking about the fact that they're signed to deals that are below their current market value. The point Nik is making is that the Hawks have a trio of $8M+ players (Kane, Toews and Keith) on their roster right now signed for well below their market value, and that's what has helped them to add quality talent that help them in the present. The summer of 2010, when those deals were signed, they were part of the reason the Hawks had to trade away players like Byfuglien, Ladd and Versteeg, because, at the time, they were only market value deals, and, because of that, the Hawks didn't have the same room to retain their depth.

 

[Kin]

Also, it's important to point out that in 2010 Kane was 22, coming off an 88 point season and 28 point playoffs and Toews was also 22, coming off a 68 point/4th place in the Selke voting season where he became the youngest player to captain a team to the cup and win a Conn Smythe.

So...yeah, if either guy had been available on the open market they would have gotten more than 6.3 million.

 

[losveratos]

Also, it's important to point out that in 2010 Kane was 22, coming off an 88 point season and 28 point playoffs and Toews was also 22, coming off a 68 point/4th place in the Selke voting season where he became the youngest player to captain a team to the cup and win a Conn Smythe.

So...yeah, if either guy had been available on the open market they would have gotten more than 6.3 million.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they'd get all the millions.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

This conversation went a little sideways, as it does from time to time, but I was just trying to establish a bit of context of "value", I'm not fixated on anything. I don't think we can compare the Leafs way with Chicago, without looking at what the landscape was when they were building their respective teams. Of course Kane and Toews would make a killing today if they hit the market, so would Kessel. Kessel's contract came up a year before those two, don't worry Chicago will pay through the nose next season for them.

They also were the benefactors of some loopholes that allowed them to sign few of those contracts, certainly Hossa's, which helped a bit.

The point I was trying to get to before was simply that the Leafs aren't in as bad a situation as some believe IMO, certainly not in a position to destroy the last few years of asset accumulation. There's more than one way to skin a cat, the Rangers are in the finals and they haven't really been "traditional" with their rebuild/ retool or whatever.

I'm not trying to be an apologist or staunch defender of the route the Leafs decided to take, but I'm also not set on a right way to build a team I'm more open to fluidity in the building landscape.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Well I would argue making it out of the East then you are by definition a contender.  Anything can happen in a short series so whether you are as good as the Western teams I don't think should stop the desire to contend with this team.

I'd disagree. A contender is a team that is seen as having a legitimate chance to win it all, not one that you need use the phrase "anything can happen" in regards to their chances of winning a championship.

I think they could win a 7-game series against any team in the league if they were to make it that far, and by virtue of being one of the last 2 teams they would indeed be a 'contender' for the Stanley Cup.