SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Lou OSes Marner 11M AAV Sign Karlsson Instead and Fire Babcock

Créé par: handsomeIAN
Équipe: 2019-20 Maple Leafs de Toronto
Date de création initiale: 12 mai 2019
Publié: 12 mai 2019
Mode - plafond salarial: Basique
Description
Threat of an OS from bad old Lou. We spend his money on EK and work a trade with NYI; like Kessel but this time TO is on the winning end.
Also, fire Babcock.
Signatures de joueurs autonomes
LISTE DE RÉSERVEANSCAP HIT
2700 000 $
3700 000 $
2925 000 $
3800 000 $
3700 000 $
RFAANSCAP HIT
43 740 000 $
22 260 000 $
1800 000 $
1800 000 $
1700 000 $
UFAANSCAP HIT
710 000 000 $
Transactions
1.
2.
TOR
  1. Pulock, Ryan
  2. Choix de 1e ronde en 2019 (NYI)
  3. Choix de 1e ronde en 2020 (NYI)
  4. Choix de 4e ronde en 2020 (NYI)
3.
Rachats de contrats
Transactions impliquant une retenue de salaire
Repêchage1e ronde2e ronde3e ronde4e ronde5e ronde6e ronde7e ronde
2019
Logo de NYI
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de STL
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de DAL
2020
Logo de TOR
Logo de NYI
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de NYI
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de EDM
Logo de SJS
2021
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
Logo de TOR
TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
2283 000 000 $78 769 699 $0 $215 000 $4 230 301 $
Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
2 250 000 $2 250 000 $
AD, AG
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
11 000 000 $11 000 000 $
C, AG
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
6 962 366 $6 962 366 $
AD
UFA - 5
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
3 740 000 $3 740 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 4
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
11 634 000 $11 634 000 $
C
UFA - 5
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
2 260 000 $2 260 000 $
AD
UFA - 3
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
925 000 $925 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 1
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
4 500 000 $4 500 000 $
C
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
842 500 $842 500 $ (Bonis de performance82 500 $$82K)
AD
UFA - 1
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
775 000 $775 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 2
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
675 000 $675 000 $
C
UFA - 1
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
925 000 $925 000 $
AD
RFA - 2
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
775 000 $775 000 $
C, AG, AD
UFA - 2
Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
5 000 000 $5 000 000 $
DG
UFA - 3
10 000 000 $10 000 000 $
DD
UFA - 8
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
5 000 000 $5 000 000 $
G
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
4 000 000 $4 000 000 $
DG
UFA - 1
Logo de Islanders de New York
2 000 000 $2 000 000 $
DD
UFA - 1
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
863 333 $863 333 $
DG/DD
UFA - 1
Logo de Oilers d'Edmonton
1 900 000 $1 900 000 $
DD
UFA - 1
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
750 000 $750 000 $
G
UFA - 1
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
792 500 $792 500 $ (Bonis de performance132 500 $$132K)
DG
UFA - 1
Laissés de côtéListe des blessés (IR)Liste des blessés à long terme (LTIR)
Logo de Maple Leafs de Toronto
5 300 000 $5 300 000 $
AD
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 1
Logo de Sénateurs d'Ottawa
4 875 000 $4 875 000 $
AD
UFA - 2
Logo de Sénateurs d'Ottawa
4 650 000 $4 650 000 $
AG
M-NTC
UFA - 1

Code d'intégration

  • Pour afficher cette équipe sur un autre site Web ou blog, ajoutez ce iFrame à la page appropriée
  • Personnalisez les dimensions dans le code IFrame ci-dessous pour adapter votre site de manière appropriée. Minimum recommandé: 400px.

Texte intégré

Cliquer pour surligner
12 mai 2019 à 18 h 53
#26
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2019
Messages: 35
Mentions "j'aime": 1
Quoting: joshelkin
Maybe they reach a middle ground in this scenario, but it wouldn't include Pulock/Dobson/Wilde. I'd rather keep Pulock, not accept a cap dump in Zaitsev, and just pay the 4 firsts if these are the two options


The thinking here is that Lou signed Zaitsev in the first place, and these guys tend not to change their opinions about players very quickly. I guess they might want to give up four firsts. I'd take that tooif it came to it.
Four 1sts from the Isles, a team that wildly overperformed this year that is being managed by an imbecile, could turn into some lottery picks. You could end up with Alexis Lafreniere, because they wouldn't be lottery protected. So just the possibility of including lottery protection would pretty much force NYI to come to the table.
12 mai 2019 à 20 h 5
#27
Barzal4208
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2019
Messages: 124
Mentions "j'aime": 13
Quoting: handsomeIAN
They're getting Mitch Marner here, a star that everyone seems to think should be paid $11M. I don't think that Pulock and a 4th is a shocking return in the place of two 1sts. Pulock is good but the Isles seemkind of half-hearted about him, I don't know. He should probably be playing more than every other D on the PP and EV STR and he isn't so clearly they don't understand what they have in him.


It is almost a given that aren't parting with Pulock or Dobson...period. I doubt they eagerly look to move Toews either. That still leaves Leddy, Mayfield, Pelech, Aho and Wilde they can dangle in trades and they have some others they can attach in deals. Just isnt going to be Ryan or Noah...period
12 mai 2019 à 20 h 9
#28
Barzal4208
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2019
Messages: 124
Mentions "j'aime": 13
Quoting: handsomeIAN
The thinking here is that Lou signed Zaitsev in the first place, and these guys tend not to change their opinions about players very quickly. I guess they might want to give up four firsts. I'd take that tooif it came to it.
Four 1sts from the Isles, a team that wildly overperformed this year that is being managed by an imbecile, could turn into some lottery picks. You could end up with Alexis Lafreniere, because they wouldn't be lottery protected. So just the possibility of including lottery protection would pretty much force NYI to come to the table.


you showed your true colors with the imbecile comment, something easily disputed by a majority of the NHL. Someone seems butt hurt they ya are in salary cap hell and even by netting the traitor you underpeformed, got spanked by us and didn't even make it out of the first round haha
joshelkin a aimé ceci.
13 mai 2019 à 1 h 41
#29
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2018
Messages: 19,215
Mentions "j'aime": 4,837
Quoting: blowing_the_zone
If the Penguins offered up 4 firsts I hope the leafs would take it and run. We now have 7 1st round picks over the next 4 years to spend like drunken sailors if we choose to .. and package those 1sts up in trades to rebalance our cap and address roster needs, all while not putting much stress on our draft and develop model.

But riddle me this Pharrow.. if the Pens gave up the 4 1sts, what do they need to do to make their cap work and the roster better? And how would that make the pens a better team?

Not saying it can't be done, just that I'd actually like to see it so I can better understand how Marner is that valuable to team success, and how keeping him and giving him whatever he wants is better than what I can construct with 4 firsts and Marners cap space in this fake gm game..


4 late round firsts isn't going to net you a winning team. It's like a 30-40% chance they will even become a full time NHL player. You might get 2 players out of it and the odds of a player of Marner ability is highly doubtful.
The pens could easily make that happen. You trade Maatta 4 million, you trade Hornqvist that's 5 million, You trade JJ that's 3 million. There is your 11 million. Hell they could even trade Kessel out then because they would have a younger player in that role.

You act like this isn't possible. Not only is it, but it would be the worst possible outcome for a team like Toronto. They lose who is arguably their best player and he goes to a team that's hell bent on winning cups and isn't going to slow down, at least not for a few years. Meanwhile, your return would take 3-7 years to develop, trickling in while Matthews is aging. As the odds of a late round first playing at 18 are slim. It's a horrible idea for toronto.
13 mai 2019 à 7 h 26
#30
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2018
Messages: 2,132
Mentions "j'aime": 1,540
Quoting: pharrow
4 late round firsts isn't going to net you a winning team. It's like a 30-40% chance they will even become a full time NHL player. You might get 2 players out of it and the odds of a player of Marner ability is highly doubtful.
The pens could easily make that happen. You trade Maatta 4 million, you trade Hornqvist that's 5 million, You trade JJ that's 3 million. There is your 11 million. Hell they could even trade Kessel out then because they would have a younger player in that role.

You act like this isn't possible. Not only is it, but it would be the worst possible outcome for a team like Toronto. They lose who is arguably their best player and he goes to a team that's hell bent on winning cups and isn't going to slow down, at least not for a few years. Meanwhile, your return would take 3-7 years to develop, trickling in while Matthews is aging. As the odds of a late round first playing at 18 are slim. It's a horrible idea for toronto.


"You act like this isn't possible..."

I quite literally said, "I'm not saying it can't be done just that I'd actually like to see it.." so, thanks for spelling it out on how you think that could work.

Also, thanks for spelling out how the pens could realistically move players around in order to accommodate Marner without putting the Pens in cap hell. My guess is that that logic should hold for the leafs as well. So, your comments should help to get posters to understand that the leafs are also not in cap hell and can easily find a way to accommodate Marner and move forward if they choose too go in that direction.

Listen, I'm not saying I want to trade Marner or that an OS is the prefered option. What I am saying is that the leafs could very easily trade Marner or let him go on an OS and still become a better team.

The idea of the value of the 4 1sts isn't to use them on picks and wait for someone to pan out and replace Marner years down the road. The idea is to use them for what they are, which is currency, to target players in trades with teams with a need for retooling, rebuilding, or they simply dont want to see their upcoming ufas walk for nothing.

These would be players thst have a proven track record and can have an immediate impact. I.e think of a guy like Spurgeon.. the leafs throw the wild the pens 20 and 21 1st round picks, plus a prospect or two to get them to retain half of his salary. Spurgeon comes over for 2M and change and the leafs still have 9M of Marner budgetted cap space to keep stacking and targeting other players to fill out more needs. All while not giving up any of their own draft picks while also not losing any current roster players that they might want to keep. I.e Kap, Johnsson

A Marner trade or OS gives the leafs all sorts of flexibility and options. Its not rocket science to see how this argument has merit. And its pretty far from lame or ignorant.
14 mai 2019 à 11 h 24
#31
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2018
Messages: 19,215
Mentions "j'aime": 4,837
Quoting: blowing_the_zone
"You act like this isn't possible..."

I quite literally said, "I'm not saying it can't be done just that I'd actually like to see it.." so, thanks for spelling it out on how you think that could work.

Also, thanks for spelling out how the pens could realistically move players around in order to accommodate Marner without putting the Pens in cap hell. My guess is that that logic should hold for the leafs as well. So, your comments should help to get posters to understand that the leafs are also not in cap hell and can easily find a way to accommodate Marner and move forward if they choose too go in that direction.

Listen, I'm not saying I want to trade Marner or that an OS is the prefered option. What I am saying is that the leafs could very easily trade Marner or let him go on an OS and still become a better team.

The idea of the value of the 4 1sts isn't to use them on picks and wait for someone to pan out and replace Marner years down the road. The idea is to use them for what they are, which is currency, to target players in trades with teams with a need for retooling, rebuilding, or they simply dont want to see their upcoming ufas walk for nothing.

These would be players thst have a proven track record and can have an immediate impact. I.e think of a guy like Spurgeon.. the leafs throw the wild the pens 20 and 21 1st round picks, plus a prospect or two to get them to retain half of his salary. Spurgeon comes over for 2M and change and the leafs still have 9M of Marner budgetted cap space to keep stacking and targeting other players to fill out more needs. All while not giving up any of their own draft picks while also not losing any current roster players that they might want to keep. I.e Kap, Johnsson

A Marner trade or OS gives the leafs all sorts of flexibility and options. Its not rocket science to see how this argument has merit. And its pretty far from lame or ignorant.


I don't see how trading for rentals is better than having Marner long term. While depth is important in this league top line talent wins out. Even a team with little depth like Boston is in the ECF because a player like Bergeron is so dominate in the faceoff circle causing problems. Losing high end pieces in no way shape or form ends well. Your belief that it can is pure fantasy.
He's not a top 5 forward but he's easily a top 15. You won't find that with those late round picks. You'll end up with rentals who will most likely walk instead of building long term and no one is going to simply trade you a top level talent unless they have no choice like Ottawa.
14 mai 2019 à 16 h 15
#32
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2018
Messages: 2,132
Mentions "j'aime": 1,540
Quoting: pharrow
I don't see how trading for rentals is better than having Marner long term. While depth is important in this league top line talent wins out. Even a team with little depth like Boston is in the ECF because a player like Bergeron is so dominate in the faceoff circle causing problems. Losing high end pieces in no way shape or form ends well. Your belief that it can is pure fantasy.
He's not a top 5 forward but he's easily a top 15. You won't find that with those late round picks. You'll end up with rentals who will most likely walk instead of building long term and no one is going to simply trade you a top level talent unless they have no choice like Ottawa.


Quoting: pharrow
I don't see how trading for rentals is better than having Marner long term. While depth is important in this league top line talent wins out. Even a team with little depth like Boston is in the ECF because a player like Bergeron is so dominate in the faceoff circle causing problems. Losing high end pieces in no way shape or form ends well. Your belief that it can is pure fantasy.
He's not a top 5 forward but he's easily a top 15. You won't find that with those late round picks. You'll end up with rentals who will most likely walk instead of building long term and no one is going to simply trade you a top level talent unless they have no choice like Ottawa.


I'm getting the sense that this setting myself for arguing for the sake of arguing, which I'm really not interested in.. but here goes..

"I don't see how trading for rentals is better than having Marner long term." I gave an example of trading for Spurgeon when targeting a ufa. I also mentioned teams that need to retool or rebuild. Packaging up 1st can have a lot of value to teams in that position. 7 firsts over 4 years is alot of currency to spend any way a team would like to i.e. on rentals with the intention of resigning, on players under existing contract etc

"Boston is in the ECF because a player like Bergeron is so dominate in the faceoff circle causing problems"
I love Bergeron. But I'm highly skeptical that his faceoff success rate is the sole reason why their in the ECF. There's probably a bit more to it..

"Losing high end pieces in no way shape or form ends well. Your belief that it can is pure fantasy." The Oilers lost Gretzky and then went on to win a cup, while 99 never did again. That's not fantasy at all.

"He's not a top 5 forward but he's easily a top 15. You won't find that with those late round picks" I literally stated in the post that you were replying to that .. "The idea of the value of the 4 1sts isn't to use them on picks and wait for someone to pan out and replace Marner years down the road. The idea is to use them for what they are, which is currency, "

"You'll end up with rentals who will most likely walk instead of building long term" also stated in the post that you responded to that leafs could use the Pens 1st round picks as currency in trades "All while not giving up any of their own draft picks while also not losing any current roster players that they might want to keep. I.e Kap, Johnsson." The leafs can continue to draft and develop for the long term. And they could resign rentals they trade for if they wanted to. There's nothing saying they can't do that. And there's nothing saying that they stay either.

"no one is going to simply trade you a top level talent unless they have no choice like Ottawa" i'm not quite sure I even understand this. Teams will make trades if they think the return is greater than what they give up and if it addresses a need. It all depends on what is offered. That's kinda the point of trading.

Anyways, I thought I made my point pretty clearly when I wrote in the post that you responded to that.. "Listen, I'm not saying I want to trade Marner or that an OS is the prefered option. What I am saying is that the leafs could very easily trade Marner or let him go on an OS and still become a better team." Just kinda saying that that could be a possibility, like you know,... the leafs could actually win without Marner. I could be wrong.. but there are 4 teams still playing and none of them have Marner. How's that work?
14 mai 2019 à 16 h 43
#33
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2018
Messages: 19,215
Mentions "j'aime": 4,837
Quoting: blowing_the_zone
I'm getting the sense that this setting myself for arguing for the sake of arguing, which I'm really not interested in.. but here goes..

"I don't see how trading for rentals is better than having Marner long term." I gave an example of trading for Spurgeon when targeting a ufa. I also mentioned teams that need to retool or rebuild. Packaging up 1st can have a lot of value to teams in that position. 7 firsts over 4 years is alot of currency to spend any way a team would like to i.e. on rentals with the intention of resigning, on players under existing contract etc

"Boston is in the ECF because a player like Bergeron is so dominate in the faceoff circle causing problems"
I love Bergeron. But I'm highly skeptical that his faceoff success rate is the sole reason why their in the ECF. There's probably a bit more to it..

"Losing high end pieces in no way shape or form ends well. Your belief that it can is pure fantasy." The Oilers lost Gretzky and then went on to win a cup, while 99 never did again. That's not fantasy at all.

"He's not a top 5 forward but he's easily a top 15. You won't find that with those late round picks" I literally stated in the post that you were replying to that .. "The idea of the value of the 4 1sts isn't to use them on picks and wait for someone to pan out and replace Marner years down the road. The idea is to use them for what they are, which is currency, "

"You'll end up with rentals who will most likely walk instead of building long term" also stated in the post that you responded to that leafs could use the Pens 1st round picks as currency in trades "All while not giving up any of their own draft picks while also not losing any current roster players that they might want to keep. I.e Kap, Johnsson." The leafs can continue to draft and develop for the long term. And they could resign rentals they trade for if they wanted to. There's nothing saying they can't do that. And there's nothing saying that they stay either.

"no one is going to simply trade you a top level talent unless they have no choice like Ottawa" i'm not quite sure I even understand this. Teams will make trades if they think the return is greater than what they give up and if it addresses a need. It all depends on what is offered. That's kinda the point of trading.

Anyways, I thought I made my point pretty clearly when I wrote in the post that you responded to that.. "Listen, I'm not saying I want to trade Marner or that an OS is the prefered option. What I am saying is that the leafs could very easily trade Marner or let him go on an OS and still become a better team." Just kinda saying that that could be a possibility, like you know,... the leafs could actually win without Marner. I could be wrong.. but there are 4 teams still playing and none of them have Marner. How's that work?


A. if you think winning faceoffs doesn't have a huge effect on winning games you are kidding yourself. He was taking 70% of faceoffs against toronto, winning like 70% of them and boston was keeping possession of the puck. It's pretty simple really. You possess the puck, you win. That team has like no depth. They win because he can shut other teams down from the puck drop and force them to play defense. When he's out there for almost every single puck drop you got an uphill battle.

Late round 1st don't have a lot of trade value. You don't seem to get that point. selecting 25th+ isn't helping anyone. We aren't talking about lottery picks here. Hell could you imagine a team like Colorado finding room for him. You'd be picking 31st or 32nd on damn near all of them. It's like 4 2nd round picks. Is that what you really think is going to rebuild a team after losing arguably your best player?
There just isn't as much currency as you think there. What is most likely to happen is you would stick toronto in mediocrity as they would be good enough to enter the playoffs but never win.
14 mai 2019 à 17 h 20
#34
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2018
Messages: 2,132
Mentions "j'aime": 1,540
Quoting: pharrow
A. if you think winning faceoffs doesn't have a huge effect on winning games you are kidding yourself. He was taking 70% of faceoffs against toronto, winning like 70% of them and boston was keeping possession of the puck. It's pretty simple really. You possess the puck, you win. That team has like no depth. They win because he can shut other teams down from the puck drop and force them to play defense. When he's out there for almost every single puck drop you got an uphill battle.

Late round 1st don't have a lot of trade value. You don't seem to get that point. selecting 25th+ isn't helping anyone. We aren't talking about lottery picks here. Hell could you imagine a team like Colorado finding room for him. You'd be picking 31st or 32nd on damn near all of them. It's like 4 2nd round picks. Is that what you really think is going to rebuild a team after losing arguably your best player?
There just isn't as much currency as you think there. What is most likely to happen is you would stick toronto in mediocrity as they would be good enough to enter the playoffs but never win.


Yep, this does seem like arguing for the sake of arguing, but I'll give it another spin.

. if you think winning faceoffs doesn't have a huge effect on winning games you are kidding yourself. I never said it didn't. I said "I love Bergeron. But I'm highly skeptical that his faceoff success rate is the sole reason why their in the ECF. There's probably a bit more to it.."

You don't seem to get that point. selecting 25th+ isn't helping anyone. It does when, say, you make a trade with a team who ends up with the 5th overall (i.e. LA) and you give them a low 20s pick, say the 22nd (like LA got from Toronto). Kinda like the Muzzin deal (and he's not a rental) when a 1st was packaged with two b prospects. The value from LA's perspective is that deal gave them a second first rd pick this year, and 2 prospects (Grundstrom jumped in right away and put up 5 goals in 15 games).The value from Toronto's perspective is they got a top 4 d. It literally helped both teams involved. And the 1st is what greased the wheels.. if Toronto has 7 firsts over the next 4 years, well... all sorts of options exist for them. And before you start, no, I'm not saying that Muzzin is the same as Marner...

Is that what you really think is going to rebuild a team after losing arguably your best player? Rebuilding is a process. A rebuild isn't accomplished with picking up an extra 1st rd pick. And I never suggested that trade that brought a team a 1st would be thinking it would That's my response if you meant Toronto trading with a team to get an established player...
If you meant Toronto needs to rebuild after letting Marner go, I'm at a loss. I'm not sure how a team with a core of Tavares, Matthews, Riley, Andersen and supporting pieces like Muzzin, Nylander, Hyman, Kadri, Dermott and prospects like Sandi, Lilly and Bracco could seriously be labeled as a team in need of a rebuild. That's a strong group to build around even without Marner... give a team 7 firsts over 4 years along with the cap space budgetted for Marner and i'd say there's a good chance they could turn out some success.

There just isn't as much currency as you think there. What is most likely to happen is you would stick toronto in mediocrity as they would be good enough to enter the playoffs but never win. That's where Toronto is now. Paying Marner whatever he wants and losing some of the above listed core doesn't guarantee that they'll be any better than right now. Letting Marner go to an OS doesn't guarantee anything either. Two different scenarios. Two different possibilities. Neither is a certainty.

Anways, I'll end this post the same way as I ended the last one...

"Listen, I'm not saying I want to trade Marner or that an OS is the prefered option. What I am saying is that the leafs could very easily trade Marner or let him go on an OS and still become a better team." Just kinda saying that that could be a possibility, like you know,... the leafs could actually win without Marner. I could be wrong.. but there are 4 teams still playing and none of them have Marner. How's that work?
15 mai 2019 à 7 h 25
#35
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2018
Messages: 19,215
Mentions "j'aime": 4,837
Quoting: blowing_the_zone
Yep, this does seem like arguing for the sake of arguing, but I'll give it another spin.

. if you think winning faceoffs doesn't have a huge effect on winning games you are kidding yourself. I never said it didn't. I said "I love Bergeron. But I'm highly skeptical that his faceoff success rate is the sole reason why their in the ECF. There's probably a bit more to it.."

You don't seem to get that point. selecting 25th+ isn't helping anyone. It does when, say, you make a trade with a team who ends up with the 5th overall (i.e. LA) and you give them a low 20s pick, say the 22nd (like LA got from Toronto). Kinda like the Muzzin deal (and he's not a rental) when a 1st was packaged with two b prospects. The value from LA's perspective is that deal gave them a second first rd pick this year, and 2 prospects (Grundstrom jumped in right away and put up 5 goals in 15 games).The value from Toronto's perspective is they got a top 4 d. It literally helped both teams involved. And the 1st is what greased the wheels.. if Toronto has 7 firsts over the next 4 years, well... all sorts of options exist for them. And before you start, no, I'm not saying that Muzzin is the same as Marner...

Is that what you really think is going to rebuild a team after losing arguably your best player? Rebuilding is a process. A rebuild isn't accomplished with picking up an extra 1st rd pick. And I never suggested that trade that brought a team a 1st would be thinking it would That's my response if you meant Toronto trading with a team to get an established player...
If you meant Toronto needs to rebuild after letting Marner go, I'm at a loss. I'm not sure how a team with a core of Tavares, Matthews, Riley, Andersen and supporting pieces like Muzzin, Nylander, Hyman, Kadri, Dermott and prospects like Sandi, Lilly and Bracco could seriously be labeled as a team in need of a rebuild. That's a strong group to build around even without Marner... give a team 7 firsts over 4 years along with the cap space budgetted for Marner and i'd say there's a good chance they could turn out some success.

There just isn't as much currency as you think there. What is most likely to happen is you would stick toronto in mediocrity as they would be good enough to enter the playoffs but never win. That's where Toronto is now. Paying Marner whatever he wants and losing some of the above listed core doesn't guarantee that they'll be any better than right now. Letting Marner go to an OS doesn't guarantee anything either. Two different scenarios. Two different possibilities. Neither is a certainty.

Anways, I'll end this post the same way as I ended the last one...

"Listen, I'm not saying I want to trade Marner or that an OS is the prefered option. What I am saying is that the leafs could very easily trade Marner or let him go on an OS and still become a better team." Just kinda saying that that could be a possibility, like you know,... the leafs could actually win without Marner. I could be wrong.. but there are 4 teams still playing and none of them have Marner. How's that work?


A. that is not where toronto is right now. My god, toronto's young players haven't even peaked.
And look at your thought process. Sure we'll trade out that late round first with 1-2 prospects.....
What do you want to happen to your young club. Them to turn out to be like Pittsburgh right now. It only takes 2-3 years and all your prospects are basically gone, your prospect pool is weak, and your ability to keep cycling in the youth is gone. Then you find yourself reaching and in cap hell. That's the worst possible way to build a long term future on a team that IS going to win at some point as these players start hitting their peaks. You go look at the east and you can see the 3 teams coming. Toronto, CBJ and Carolina. Everyone else is looking at the door closing and the rebuild having to start. But those young teams wrapping up their core long term are the teams that are going to be competing for years having a chance at multiple cups..
15 mai 2019 à 10 h 45
#36
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2018
Messages: 2,132
Mentions "j'aime": 1,540
Quoting: pharrow
A. that is not where toronto is right now. My god, toronto's young players haven't even peaked.
And look at your thought process. Sure we'll trade out that late round first with 1-2 prospects.....
What do you want to happen to your young club. Them to turn out to be like Pittsburgh right now. It only takes 2-3 years and all your prospects are basically gone, your prospect pool is weak, and your ability to keep cycling in the youth is gone. Then you find yourself reaching and in cap hell. That's the worst possible way to build a long term future on a team that IS going to win at some point as these players start hitting their peaks. You go look at the east and you can see the 3 teams coming. Toronto, CBJ and Carolina. Everyone else is looking at the door closing and the rebuild having to start. But those young teams wrapping up their core long term are the teams that are going to be competing for years having a chance at multiple cups..


A. that is not where toronto is right now. My god, toronto's young players haven't even peaked. Yes, right NOW, they are a middling team with the record to prove it - 3 first round exits in a row. Between NOW and WHEN toronto's young players peak (FUTURE EVENT) a series of decisions will be made by management in order for the team to have the best possible chance at success (i.e. the cup). The range of possibilities related to those decisions are unpredictable and almost limitless (because they haven't happened yet.... and once a decision is made, it changes the available possibilities related to the next decision )

And look at your thought process. Sure we'll trade out that late round first with 1-2 prospects..... Bingo! Yep, your offer of Pittsburgh's 4 firsts allows the leafs to use that as currency in trades while not diminshing their existing draft picks. Their draft and development process continues unencumbered

What do you want to happen to your young club. I think there is a good possibility that by keeping their own picks (and spending Pits) they might continue to hit on guys like Sandin and Lily with late first round picks and find guys like Dermott, Bracco and Grundstrom with their 2nd round picks.. and maybe even hit a gem like Johnsson in the 7th round. they continue to develop those prospects like they are now, increasing their value until some make the jump (like Dermott/Johnsson) and play an important role given their skill and elc status (greatly assisting their cap structure) while excess prospects (like Grundstom and Drusak) are packaged with Pits 1st round picks in various trades to address team weaknesses and needs (i.e Muzzin).

Them to turn out to be like Pittsburgh right now It only takes 2-3 years and all your prospects are basically gone, your prospect pool is weak, and your ability to keep cycling in the youth is gone. kinda just stepped you through the logic that would avoid that.

Then you find yourself reaching and in cap hell I'm not sure how this process would put them in cap hell at all. And like you rightfully pointed out, if Pits could give up 4 firsts for Marner and then trade the pieces out to accommodate Marner and still not be in cap hell, then that logic should also hold for the leafs. having too many good players is not cap hell - its the ideal situation! Having too many players on inflated contracts is... i.e. Lucic, Seabrook, just as two examples...


Look, we can keep doing this, but I should warn you that you're increasingly going to turn yourself in circles (and maybe even look silly) in trying to make your point, while I'll just use your very words to counter. Because here's the difference... you're trying to be right, and I could give two beans about that... what we are discussing is future possibilities, which means neither of us can know how this turns out. And as far as I understand the rules, trading Marner or letting him go on an OS is a possibility.. I recognize that, and its why I keep pointing out the possibility to you and then laying out how that could work.. not how it will.

So, I'll end this post the same way as the last couple, but this time I'll bold a few items in hopes that you get my drift here...

"Listen, I'm not saying I want to trade Marner or that an OS is the prefered option. What I am saying is that the leafs could very easily trade Marner or let him go on an OS and still become a better team." Just kinda saying that that could be a possibility, like you know,... the leafs could actually win without Marner. I could be wrong.. but there are 4 teams still playing and none of them have Marner. How's that work?
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Soumettre le sondage