Tavares

[CarltonTheBear]

Absolutely. I think you at least make it part of the conversation. See if that's something he wants but frame it as a sign of just how much they believe in him and what he brings to the table.

Right. Like if he wants it and the C is what seals the deal here then you absolutely give it to him.

I know we've all seen a Matthews' captaincy as an inevitability but he may just not be that kind of guy just yet. If the Leafs land a guy who would make for a good Captain and could handle that pressure, even if he's not a superstar, I think that would be a positive step forward for the team.

This isn't a knock on Matthews, but my gut feeling is that Rielly would get the C over him.

 

[Kin]

The captaincy ought to be a side issue but it brings up a fundamental argument against going after Tavares: you can only have one 1C and Matthews no doubt views himself as that guy.  Having two alpha males playing the same role on the team is an invitation to controversy ... which the Toronto media will only be too glad to stoke.

All of the teams Tavares is rumoured to potentially be speaking to have something in common: Pavelski, Matthews, Seguin, Kopitar, Bergeron, Johansen.

Maybe after 10 years on a literal and figurative island Tavares doesn't want to be the undisputed alpha-no help below him #1 C.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So I was just thinking about how long we've been captain-less for and my very first thought was "wow it's been like 10 years since Sundin retired".

Uh... sorry Dion.

 

[Kin]

Remember all those cups Gretzky and Messier didn't win? Or Francis and Lemieux? Or Yzerman and Fedorov? Or Sakic and Forsberg? Or...

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/1011254817375899649

If he doesn't sign here I'd be pretty happy to see him in Dallas. Especially if they can manage to re-sign Seguin too.

 

[bustaheims]

Can't see any way that this works now that Kovalchuk is signed to go along with LAK's collection of horrible contracts.

I said this to busta in the other thread but I don't see it as being all that difficult. Bribe someone to take Phaneuf, trade Toffoli and you're effectively there.

Sounds like it may be a moot point, as there have been rumblings that the Kings don't intend to pursue him.

https://twitter.com/JSportsnet/status/1010724450499776512

"Confirmation tonight that the Kings will not pursue John Tavares, after signing Ilya Kovalchuk. They did take a long hard look at Max Pacioretty but couldn?t get a deal done"

 

[Kin]

If he doesn't sign here I'd be pretty happy to see him in Dallas. Especially if they can manage to re-sign Seguin too.

Me too. But only because I'm a firm believer in Gary Bettman's NHL where living in a noxiously right-wing state with no income tax is a legitimate financial incentive for a player but making more money via playing in a city with lots of fans who pay insanely high ticket prices is unfair and anti-competitive.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/andystrickland/status/1011244639389659137

"This is hardly a shock to management" haha bullcrap it is. The Habs have almost $20mil in cap space and nobody noteworthy to re-sign and a gaping hole at 1C (and I mean at 2C and 3C...). I guarantee you they were planning on going all-in on Tavares.

 

[Zee]

https://twitter.com/andystrickland/status/1011244639389659137

"This is hardly a shock to management" haha bullcrap it is. The Habs have almost $20mil in cap space and nobody noteworthy to re-sign and a gaping hole at 1C (and I mean at 2C and 3C...). I guarantee you they were planning on going all-in on Tavares.

Plan B for their center is Bozak.

 

[Kin]

https://twitter.com/andystrickland/status/1011244639389659137

"This is hardly a shock to management" haha bullcrap it is. The Habs have almost $20mil in cap space and nobody noteworthy to re-sign and a gaping hole at 1C (and I mean at 2C and 3C...). I guarantee you they were planning on going all-in on Tavares.

My guess is that if it isn't a shock, it's because whatever their attempts at footsy might have been prior to officially being allowed to talk to him were generally rebuffed.

 

[Kin]

I also think that Habs report speaks to what ZZBM was talking about with regards to the money for Tavares. I think a fair argument can be made that it should be spent elsewhere. I'm less convinced that the money can be spent elsewhere. Genuine stars coming onto the free agent market is pretty rare. I know we might be dreaming of Karlsson and Doughty, and they may be better fits, but there's no guarantee that they hit free agency and even if they do the Leafs may not be on their list.

Personally, I think you need to take these chances. To add a major piece for just money is a unique enough opportunity that it can't really be ignored. Even if, or maybe especially if, the end result is that it maybe frees the team up to consider trading pieces they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I also think that Habs report speaks to what ZZBM was talking about with regards to the money for Tavares. I think a fair argument can be made that it should be spent elsewhere. I'm less concerned that the money can be spent elsewhere. Genuine stars coming onto the free agent market is pretty rare. I know we might be dreaming of Karlsson and Doughty, and they may be better fits, but there's no guarantee that they hit free agency and even if they do the Leafs may not be on their list.

Personally, I think you need to take these chances. To add a major piece for just money is a unique enough opportunity that it can't really be ignored. Even if, or maybe especially if, the end result is that it maybe frees the team up to consider trading pieces they otherwise wouldn't.

Agreed.  Prior to adding someone like Tavares, we would all still struggle with trading Marner or Nylander to address the deficiencies on the back end.  We'd all be wondering if we are impacting our offense too much.  With Tavares (or another significant offensive star) added for just money, it makes it easier to accept moving out one of those pieces. 

(Note, in both cases the return also has to be good enough.  Just because we add Tavares, doesn't mean I want one of our young stars being moved for Adam Larsson)

 

[ZBBM]

The captaincy ought to be a side issue but it brings up a fundamental argument against going after Tavares: you can only have one 1C and Matthews no doubt views himself as that guy.  Having two alpha males playing the same role on the team is an invitation to controversy

Uh, the Pens did not trade for either one, did they?  That's the dymanic that makes for the tension I'm talking about.

 

[ZBBM]

I also think that Habs report speaks to what ZZBM was talking about with regards to the money for Tavares. I think a fair argument can be made that it should be spent elsewhere. I'm less concerned that the money can be spent elsewhere. Genuine stars coming onto the free agent market is pretty rare. I know we might be dreaming of Karlsson and Doughty, and they may be better fits, but there's no guarantee that they hit free agency and even if they do the Leafs may not be on their list.

Personally, I think you need to take these chances. To add a major piece for just money is a unique enough opportunity that it can't really be ignored. Even if, or maybe especially if, the end result is that it maybe frees the team up to consider trading pieces they otherwise wouldn't.

Agreed.  Prior to adding someone like Tavares, we would all still struggle with trading Marner or Nylander to address the deficiencies on the back end.  We'd all be wondering if we are impacting our offense too much.  With Tavares (or another significant offensive star) added for just money, it makes it easier to accept moving out one of those pieces. 

(Note, in both cases the return also has to be good enough.  Just because we add Tavares, doesn't mean I want one of our young stars being moved for Adam Larsson)

Well, if we signed Tavares then you could argue that the best player to move of the big 3 is Matthews.  Straight up for Karlsson, say?  We'd be a much better team, wouldn't we?

 

[Kin]

Well, if we signed Tavares then you could argue that the best player to move of the big 3 is Matthews.  Straight up for Karlsson, say?  We'd be a much better team, wouldn't we?

No?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Uh, the Pens did not trade for either one, did they?  That's the dymanic that makes for the tension I'm talking about.

The Leafs aren't trading for Tavares either. Although I'm not really sure what difference that would make.

 

[mr grieves]

Well, if we signed Tavares then you could argue that the best player to move of the big 3 is Matthews.  Straight up for Karlsson, say?  We'd be a much better team, wouldn't we?

No.

But Nylander or Marner for Parayko would help.

 

[ZBBM]

Uh, the Pens did not trade for either one, did they?  That's the dymanic that makes for the tension I'm talking about.

The Leafs aren't trading for Tavares either. Although I'm not really sure what difference that would make.

Matthews is sitting there as the 1C with no doubts.  The team goes out and gets (trade, UFA signing, no diff) another 1C.  In public, Matthews will say all's well and good.  In private?  Who knows, but jealousy is a powerful emotion.

 

[ZBBM]

Well, if we signed Tavares then you could argue that the best player to move of the big 3 is Matthews.  Straight up for Karlsson, say?  We'd be a much better team, wouldn't we?

No.

But Nylander or Marner for Parayko would help.

JT centering the first line instead of Matthews, and adding Karlsson on the back end ... wouldn't make us a better team?  Seriously?  Unless you are arguing that Tavares is a major downgrade on Matthews it certainly would.

 

[Kin]

JT centering the first line instead of Matthews, and adding Karlsson on the back end ... wouldn't make us a better team?  Seriously?  Unless you are arguing that Tavares is a major downgrade on Matthews it certainly would.

No, it's arguing that the values of players are reflected in their actual play as opposed to their position on a depth chart. There is no significant difference in Matthews' value to the Leafs if he's getting 20 minutes of ice time a night as the #2 C instead of as the #1.

And, as pointed out, many many great teams in history have had two HOF level C's.