Quoting: OldNYIfan
It's not a binary proposition. To put it another way, you don't have to address your primary need directly with every move. Sometimes you can employ a plan which still gets you there, indirectly but successfully.
I would first like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I have advocated for this argument many times on here when I see people turning down overpayments because a specific need is not met. Most often when the team is not in a position to win.
Quoting: OldNYIfan
Let's use your math. We trade Kapanen and have $3.75 million to spend on a defenseman. If De Melo would sign for that, or we believe that Radko Gudas is an acceptable add (he would probably sign for that), the immediate problem is solved plus we get a first-round draft pick that could start restocking the pipeline. Toronto can't keep ignoring the future in the hope that the "win now" philosophy will somehow magically result in a Stanley Cup, because as I and I suspect you secretly believe, the team as it is constituted now just isn't good enough.
Let's not forget though, that my math was an optimistic estimate. Who's to say they can trade Johnsson without taking back any cap? Who's to say that Mikheyev and Dermott sign for $1.7m? I don't think either of those things are unrealistic, but there are a lot of variables. Now we come to the point of UFA's. You have limited options and it is entirely out of your control whether or not a player will sign with you. You can make your offer to them but other teams may beat it or they might simply not want to play in Toronto. So if you lose out, now you've traded your best piece for a downgrade and a pick that won't help you until 2-4 years down the road, if at all. You've worsened your team. Why take that risk when you can just trade said player directly for what you are looking for? If they weren't actively trying to win, that may be a route worth taking, but given their position, the risk outweighs the reward.
I would very much challenge the notion that Toronto has been 'ignoring the future'. There is also no magic to it, just logic. When you enter into a window to win a Stanley Cup, you should do what you can to increase your odds at winning and keep the window open. Is there any guarantee that it happens for you? No, but doing anything else would be counterproductive. Your suspicion is wrong - I do believe that the foundation is there for this team to win a cup. There are spots where they can improve, of course, and sometimes the best way to do that is to put the future on the back burner. If you aren't willing to make sacrifices to improve your team, how can you ever expect to win?
I believe it was actually you who said to me in a previous conversation that something someone said that stuck with you was along the lines of "I've lost a lot of battles I expected to win, but I've never won a battle I expected to lose". The Leafs management lowering their chance to win with this team for the benefit of a 1st that may never make an impact on the team is as good as waving a white flag. It sends a bad message to the players, as well.
Quoting: OldNYIfan
Three or four years from now, the farm system is going to be worse without the first. I wouldn't be willing to accept that if I were the Maple Leafs GM.
I'd be fine with a slightly worse farm system, knowing that they did their best to capitalize on a legitimate chance to win.