2014 Free Agency and Trade Discussion Part V

[beach]

i have to agree. and herein lies the beauty of a long term contract. it could prove to be very frugal. and just as well, it could prove to be a mistake.

with JB, i see no complaints. IF he picks it up, and even scores at pace of about 50 points, and contributes on the PK, i will consider it a bargain.

for the first time in years (actually can't remember back that far...), i feel like we can field 3 lines that could be considered skilled.

i just hope they gel...

Hopefully, this makes him more trade-able.

 

[blinkman360]

Hopefully, this makes him more trade-able.

I'm sure that he's tradeable right now, but would probably only return a 3rd - maybe a 2nd if we're lucky. IMO the hope should be for one of Bailey or Grabner to come out of the gate hot next season. If that happens, and if a team that plans on competing loses a top-six winger to injury, it's possible that we could sell high and replace their spot in the lineup with Lee. Replenishing some of those lost 2015 picks would be ideal, especially with around 4 of our best prospects set to graduate next season(CdH, Strome, Reinhart, and Lee - potentially Donovan as well).

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

I'm sure that he's tradeable right now, but would probably only return a 3rd - maybe a 2nd if we're lucky. IMO the hope should be for one of Bailey or Grabner to come out of the gate hot next season. If that happens, and if a team that plans on competing loses a top-six winger to injury, it's possible that we could sell high and replace their spot in the lineup with Lee. Replenishing some of those lost 2015 picks would be ideal, especially with around 4 of our best prospects set to graduate next season(CdH, Strome, Reinhart, and Lee - potentially Donovan as well).

Your post makes no sense. We are finally in the position to start winning now. We have a lot of depth at forward that we can either use to our own advantage or use to upgrade other areas (defense). And you talk about using some of our forward depth to replenish lost draft picks? If we are trading any forwards off our NHL roster, it better be for an NHL defenseman. I am telling you that there are some people on this board who, even if we were in the top 5 in the league sometime over the next few years and competing for a cup, would still be worrying about what draft picks we have.

 

[blinkman360]

Your post makes no sense. We are finally in the position to start winning now. We have a lot of depth at forward that we can either use to our own advantage or use to upgrade other areas (defense). And you talk about using some of our forward depth to replenish lost draft picks? If we are trading any forwards off our NHL roster, it better be for an NHL defenseman. I am telling you that there are some people on this board who, even if we were in the top 5 in the league sometime over the next few years and competing for a cup, would still be worrying about what draft picks we have.

So wanting to keep the system stocked = not wanting to win/only caring about draft picks?

Our defense is fine, and should actually be pretty good by the time the season starts to play out(as de Haan and Hamonic gain chemistry together; as Reinhart gains experience; as Hickey continues to improve - as he's done every year so far; as our top prospects gain more and more professional experience). Even still, no one is going to trade a veteran top-4 during the season; at least not for one of Bailey or Grabner.

Either way, trading one of those guys is as much about getting Lee in the lineup as it is recovering draft picks. The idea that it's smart to keep a guy who could be scoring 30 goals for you down in Bridgeport for the awesome depth is what makes no sense(at least IMO).

 

[ScaredStreit]

I'm sure that he's tradeable right now, but would probably only return a 3rd - maybe a 2nd if we're lucky. IMO the hope should be for one of Bailey or Grabner to come out of the gate hot next season. If that happens, and if a team that plans on competing loses a top-six winger to injury, it's possible that we could sell high and replace their spot in the lineup with Lee. Replenishing some of those lost 2015 picks would be ideal, especially with around 4 of our best prospects set to graduate next season(CdH, Strome, Reinhart, and Lee - potentially Donovan as well).

I say make the trade for a defenseman instead of a pick, but other than that I agree with your post.

So wanting to keep the system stocked = not wanting to win/only caring about draft picks?

Our defense is fine, and should actually be pretty good by the time the season starts to play out(as de Haan and Hamonic gain chemistry together; as Reinhart gains experience; as Hickey continues to improve - as he's done every year so far; as our top prospects gain more and more professional experience). Even still, no one is going to trade a veteran top-4 during the season; at least not for one of Bailey or Grabner.

Either way, trading one of those guys is as much about getting Lee in the lineup as it is recovering draft picks. The idea that it's smart to keep a guy who could be scoring 30 goals for you down in Bridgeport for the awesome depth is what makes no sense(at least IMO).

You're counting on every defensemen to improve, and for CDH and Reinhart have great 1st/2nd years in the NHL in order for our D to be just "good".

 

[TeamKidd]

So wanting to keep the system stocked = not wanting to win/only caring about draft picks?

Our defense is fine, and should actually be pretty good by the time the season starts to play out(as de Haan and Hamonic gain chemistry together; as Reinhart gains experience; as Hickey continues to improve - as he's done every year so far; as our top prospects gain more and more professional experience). Even still, no one is going to trade a veteran top-4 during the season; at least not for one of Bailey or Grabner.

Either way, trading one of those guys is as much about getting Lee in the lineup as it is recovering draft picks. The idea that it's smart to keep a guy who could be scoring 30 goals for you down in Bridgeport for the awesome depth is what makes no sense(at least IMO).

I dunno man, certainly our TEAM defense has to be better with halak, grabo and kule...but these are the same defenders from last year and as a group, they were pretty piss poor. Last year we expected Visnovsky and Donovan to play and be good. Epic failure. This year we are counting on Visnovsky and Reinhart to play and be good. We KNOW VIS is the new Martinek and once he's gone what does our D look like? Hamonic + a bunch of guys with less than 2 years experience in the NHL. I know deHaan walks on water, but this is only his 2nd season and Reinhart, expectations or not, will be a 20 year old rookie, he's bound to make mistakes...****, he might not even make the team.....

Its dangerous to expect a different result out of the same group of players. talent? maybe. experience? no. thats a problem no matter how you slice it.

 

[blinkman360]

You're counting on every defensemen to improve, and for CDH and Reinhart have great 1st/2nd years in the NHL in order for our D to be just "good".

I guess that's the difference between us. I have all the confidence in the world in both of those players. de Haan especially.

I dunno man, certainly our TEAM defense has to be better with halak, grabo and kule...but these are the same defenders from last year and as a group, they were pretty piss poor. Last year we expected Visnovsky and Donovan to play and be good. Epic failure. This year we are counting on Visnovsky and Reinhart to play and be good. We KNOW VIS is the new Martinek and once he's gone what does our D look like? Hamonic + a bunch of guys with less than 2 years experience in the NHL. I know deHaan walks on water, but this is only his 2nd season and Reinhart, expectations or not, will be a 20 year old rookie, he's bound to make mistakes...****, he might not even make the team.....

Its dangerous to expect a different result out of the same group of players. talent? maybe. experience? no. thats a problem no matter how you slice it.

Probably the worst part of our defense last year was MacDonald getting top minutes. You could clearly see the difference once he was replaced with de Haan. If you think that de Haan will have some kind of regression or sophomore slump, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

With Reinhart, IMO it's not fair to point to Donovan as a reason why we shouldn't count on this guy. He's a completely different animal. Everything from his size, poise, IQ is on another level. IMO he proved it last year with his play in camp - he outplayed Donovan, but I'm guessing either Donovan's seniority or the fact that they wanted to replace Streit with a PMD was the reason why the Isles decided to go the other way with that decision.

If you want to look at rookies who we should be comparing him to, look to his draft peers - not Matt Donovan. Guys who were similarly rated prospects who are the same age and were taken around the same slot as Reinhart. Guys like Murray, Lindholm, Trouba, and even Maatta to a degree. These were all guys who played top-4 roles and above last season as rookies(and they obviously had less development then than Reinhart has now).

Obviously not every prospect is the same, so just because these guys had success doesn't mean Reinhart will, but at the same time just because Matt Donovan failed doesn't mean Reinhart will either. That said, he's about the safest prospect we've had in a long, long time, and based on his previous TC play and how hungry he appears to be to earn a spot, I'd call it a longshot for this guy not to deliver for us in September.

As far as the other guys go: as I said before, I have zero concern when it comes to the top pairing. I know that apparently 100% of our fanbase seems to think Visnovsky will go down next season, but I'm not sure why that's the case. Sure, he suffered a serious injury, but he's also had/will have ample time to recover from that injury. Last year was the first time since '08-09 that he wasn't able to play at least 70% of a season. As long as Visnovsky gives us the first couple of months of the year, we'll be fine. We have enough depth at the AHL level to get at least one NHL caliber player after two months of play(see Hamonic in 2010). That's IF he goes down.

After that, we're talking about our bottom pairing. A bottom pairing that consists of one guy who is arguably a #4 in Hickey. Maybe one of Brennan, Donovan, or Strait step up and prove worthy of being a #6. Maybe they don't. Either way, I doubt it will end up dictating how successful our defense becomes next season. At some point next season, I expect to see one of our young D's step into that spot anyway - whether it be Pulock, Pokka, Mayfield, Czuczman, Pelech, etc. We should end up with at least one NHLer by some time next year just from the sheer quantity of the prospects alone.

I know everyone is anticipating some kind of worst case scenario to play out, but I just don't see it. Our current NHL D is on another level from where it was at the start of last season, and the AHL depth is miles ahead.

 

[13th Floor]

I guess that's the difference between us. I have all the confidence in the world in both of those players. de Haan especially.



Probably the worst part of our defense last year was MacDonald getting top minutes. You could clearly see the difference once he was replaced with de Haan. If you think that de Haan will have some kind of regression or sophomore slump, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

With Reinhart, IMO it's not fair to point to Donovan as a reason why we shouldn't count on this guy. He's a completely different animal. Everything from his size, poise, IQ is on another level. IMO he proved it last year with his play in camp - he outplayed Donovan, but I'm guessing either Donovan's seniority or the fact that they wanted to replace Streit with a PMD was the reason why the Isles decided to go the other way with that decision.

If you want to look at rookies who we should be comparing him to, look to his draft peers - not Matt Donovan. Guys who were similarly rated prospects who are the same age and were taken around the same slot as Reinhart. Guys like Murray, Lindholm, Trouba, and even Maatta to a degree. These were all guys who played top-4 roles and above last season as rookies(and they obviously had less development then than Reinhart has now).

Obviously not every prospect is the same, so just because these guys had success doesn't mean Reinhart will, but at the same time just because Matt Donovan failed doesn't mean Reinhart will either. That said, he's about the safest prospect we've had in a long, long time, and based on his previous TC play and how hungry he appears to be to earn a spot, I'd call it a longshot for this guy not to deliver for us in September.

As far as the other guys go: as I said before, I have zero concern when it comes to the top pairing. I know that apparently 100% of our fanbase seems to think Visnovsky will go down next season, but I'm not sure why that's the case. Sure, he suffered a serious injury, but he's also had/will have ample time to recover from that injury. Last year was the first time since '08-09 that he wasn't able to play at least 70% of a season. As long as Visnovsky gives us the first couple of months of the year, we'll be fine. We have enough depth at the AHL level to get at least one NHL caliber player after two months of play(see Hamonic in 2010). That's IF he goes down.

After that, we're talking about our bottom pairing. A bottom pairing that consists of one guy who is arguably a #4 in Hickey. Maybe one of Brennan, Donovan, or Strait step up and prove worthy of being a #6. Maybe they don't. Either way, I doubt it will end up dictating how successful our defense becomes next season. At some point next season, I expect to see one of our young D's step into that spot anyway - whether it be Pulock, Pokka, Mayfield, Czuczman, Pelech, etc. We should end up with at least one NHLer by some time next year just from the sheer quantity of the prospects alone.

I know everyone is anticipating some kind of worst case scenario to play out, but I just don't see it. Our current NHL D is on another level from where it was at the start of last season, and the AHL depth is miles ahead.

I agree with everything you said. I lean toward your optimism, but I may not be *quite* there. Your savvy enough to understand their will be growing pains, so I don't think we disagree there.

Two points on specific things you said:

1) Donovan vs Reinhart in camp last year: I think, along with the 2 reasons you cited, the fact that Reinhart would go back to Juniors and Donovan back to the AHL was a big reason Donovan won the spot. And in retrospect (Reinhart's Playoff MVP season), I am happy with the move. Now, the playing field of 'demotion' is even.

2) Visnovsky: Agreed that he has had time to heal/recover. I also think people are penciling him in for an injury all season is just to hedge bets. You know, prepare for the worst. However, my only disagreement with what you said is because all injuries fall into one bucket, and concussions fall into another. If this was his shoulder, his foot, his finger, his hip -- completely agree. Concussions however, are a different beast and I think the reason for everyone's pessimism.

 

[blinkman360]

I agree with everything you said. I lean toward your optimism, but I may not be *quite* there. Your savvy enough to understand their will be growing pains, so I don't think we disagree there.

Two points on specific things you said:

1) Donovan vs Reinhart in camp last year: I think, along with the 2 reasons you cited, the fact that Reinhart would go back to Juniors and Donovan back to the AHL was a big reason Donovan won the spot. And in retrospect (Reinhart's Playoff MVP season), I am happy with the move. Now, the playing field of 'demotion' is even.

2) Visnovsky: Agreed that he has had time to heal/recover. I also think people are penciling him in for an injury all season is just to hedge bets. You know, prepare for the worst. However, my only disagreement with what you said is because all injuries fall into one bucket, and concussions fall into another. If this was his shoulder, his foot, his finger, his hip -- completely agree. Concussions however, are a different beast and I think the reason for everyone's pessimism.

You're right, Reinhart's demotion probably also had a lot to do with him still being a teenager. I think the Islanders have been trying to steer clear of playing anyone <20. I do agree though that his CHL season was extremely beneficial - that said I do still think he would have been an impact player for us last year. Now he's just poised to be even better this year.

With Visnovsky, you are right, concussions are a different ballgame, but I still don't think it's a given or even likely that he will go down and miss a substantial portion of the season. Most people seem to be playing the "what if" game when pointing out why are defense will suck. Usually saying what happens when Visnovsky goes down, de Haan goes through a sophomore slump, and Reinhart falls on his face. In reality, the chances of all three of those things happening are extremely unlikely. Even two of them seem like a longshot IMO. If one happens, I don't see any reason why we couldn't survive it.

The D is in great shape, IMO, and the more time that passes, the better shape we'll be in(more experience for our young players).

 

[13th Floor]

You're right, Reinhart's demotion probably also had a lot to do with him still being a teenager. I think the Islanders have been trying to steer clear of playing anyone <20. I do agree though that his CHL season was extremely beneficial - that said I do still think he would have been an impact player for us last year. Now he's just poised to be even better this year.

With Visnovsky, you are right, concussions are a different ballgame, but I still don't think it's a given or even likely that he will go down and miss a substantial portion of the season. Most people seem to be playing the "what if" game when pointing out why are defense will suck. Usually saying what happens when Visnovsky goes down, de Haan goes through a sophomore slump, and Reinhart falls on his face. In reality, the chances of all three of those things happening are extremely unlikely. Even two of them seem like a longshot IMO. If one happens, I don't see any reason why we couldn't survive it.

The D is in great shape, IMO, and the more time that passes, the better shape we'll be in(more experience for our young players).

Agreed on the Reinhart part.

I think Reinhart NHL 2013 would have been better than Donovan NHL 2013.

But I also think that Reinhart Juniors 2013 / NHL 2014 would have / will be better than Reinhart NHL 2013 / NHL 2014.

If that makes sense...

Most people stop at the first comparison when they compare anything. Same thing going on in the Hedman vs JT thread. It isn't JT on Isles vs Hedman on Lightning. It is JT on Isles vs Hedman on JT-less Isles.

 

[blinkman360]

Agreed on the Reinhart part.

I think Reinhart NHL 2013 would have been better than Donovan NHL 2013.

But I also think that Reinhart Juniors 2013 / NHL 2014 would have / will be better than Reinhart NHL 2013 / NHL 2014.

If that makes sense...

Most people stop at the first comparison when they compare anything. Same thing going on in the Hedman vs JT thread. It isn't JT on Isles vs Hedman on Lightning. It is JT on Isles vs Hedman on JT-less Isles.

I absolutely agree. 2014 rookie Reinhart should 100% be better than what 2013 rookie Reinhart would have been. That said, 2014 sophomore Reinhart would probably be quite a bit better than 2014 rookie Reinhart (now it's starting to get confusing).

Having an already established Reinhart going into next year would probably put a lot of the skeptics at ease, but I do agree that Reinhart is poised for a more impactful rookie season due to the extra year of development. Plus not making the team last year seems to have made him pretty damn hungry to earn a spot - I think the Islanders are set to benefit from that as well.

He's going to become a favorite around here pretty quickly, I imagine. I also made a similar prediction regarding another one of our rookie defensemen last year, and it seemed to work out pretty well. Let's hope I can keep the streak going.

 

[duster19]

They are behind the 8 ball. They made some nice defensive signings. I am not sold on their goaltending.

But, that center depth is ugly.
Are they desperate enough to overpay for a center? Between VL and Bailey, I would probably take VL, hoping he bounces back. That NTC puts all the control in VL's hands though.

One of those hacks who cover the Oilers, wrote that the Oilers should be asking for Brock Nelson instead. Isles should have no interest in a Brock for Petry swap. Even with sweeteners.

Ya it is pretty terrible. I have no idea what Edm does if they tank again this year.

Brock for Petry is a steal for Edm. I think it would take a lot to get brock. Snow jumped up to get, so you know he loves him.

 

[ScaredStreit]

I guess that's the difference between us. I have all the confidence in the world in both of those players. de Haan especially.



Probably the worst part of our defense last year was MacDonald getting top minutes. You could clearly see the difference once he was replaced with de Haan. If you think that de Haan will have some kind of regression or sophomore slump, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

With Reinhart, IMO it's not fair to point to Donovan as a reason why we shouldn't count on this guy. He's a completely different animal. Everything from his size, poise, IQ is on another level. IMO he proved it last year with his play in camp - he outplayed Donovan, but I'm guessing either Donovan's seniority or the fact that they wanted to replace Streit with a PMD was the reason why the Isles decided to go the other way with that decision.

If you want to look at rookies who we should be comparing him to, look to his draft peers - not Matt Donovan. Guys who were similarly rated prospects who are the same age and were taken around the same slot as Reinhart. Guys like Murray, Lindholm, Trouba, and even Maatta to a degree. These were all guys who played top-4 roles and above last season as rookies(and they obviously had less development then than Reinhart has now).

Obviously not every prospect is the same, so just because these guys had success doesn't mean Reinhart will, but at the same time just because Matt Donovan failed doesn't mean Reinhart will either. That said, he's about the safest prospect we've had in a long, long time, and based on his previous TC play and how hungry he appears to be to earn a spot, I'd call it a longshot for this guy not to deliver for us in September.

As far as the other guys go: as I said before, I have zero concern when it comes to the top pairing. I know that apparently 100% of our fanbase seems to think Visnovsky will go down next season, but I'm not sure why that's the case. Sure, he suffered a serious injury, but he's also had/will have ample time to recover from that injury. Last year was the first time since '08-09 that he wasn't able to play at least 70% of a season. As long as Visnovsky gives us the first couple of months of the year, we'll be fine. We have enough depth at the AHL level to get at least one NHL caliber player after two months of play(see Hamonic in 2010). That's IF he goes down.

After that, we're talking about our bottom pairing. A bottom pairing that consists of one guy who is arguably a #4 in Hickey. Maybe one of Brennan, Donovan, or Strait step up and prove worthy of being a #6. Maybe they don't. Either way, I doubt it will end up dictating how successful our defense becomes next season. At some point next season, I expect to see one of our young D's step into that spot anyway - whether it be Pulock, Pokka, Mayfield, Czuczman, Pelech, etc. We should end up with at least one NHLer by some time next year just from the sheer quantity of the prospects alone.

I know everyone is anticipating some kind of worst case scenario to play out, but I just don't see it. Our current NHL D is on another level from where it was at the start of last season, and the AHL depth is miles ahead.

I don't think he'll get injured to the same extent next but. But let's face the facts: he's a 38 year old defenseman who's coming off of a rough year with injuries. Not only that but he's going to be asked to play a significant amount of minutes. I'm not worried about injuries-I'm worried about the role we're putting him into. Ideally he's a #3-4, but he's going to be played as a #1.

For the record I really like visnovsky a lot, but I think there's a good chance he regresses by quite a bit.

 

[PK Cronin]

I don't think he'll get injured to the same extent next but. But let's face the facts: he's a 38 year old defenseman who's coming off of a rough year with injuries. Not only that but he's going to be asked to play a significant amount of minutes. I'm not worried about injuries-I'm worried about the role we're putting him into. Ideally he's a #3-4, but he's going to be played as a #1.

For the record I really like visnovsky a lot, but I think there's a good chance he regresses by quite a bit.

I'm with you on the 38 year old defenseman coming off injuries. Definitely an area for concern.

However, I think that de Haan and Hamonic will be given the #1 and #2 spot this upcoming season. We'll be seeing less of Vis even if he is healthy (the first and second pair would probably be pretty close to even strength playing time).

 

[isles31]

Peter Mueller just signed a 1yr 2 way deal with the Blues...now that we see we got real UFA forwards with Grabo and Kuli, i wish we had picked him up instead of Conacher.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Peter Mueller just signed a 1yr 2 way deal with the Blues...now that we see we got real UFA forwards with Grabo and Kuli, i wish we had picked him up instead of Conacher.

Why do you like Mueller more than Conacher?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I am curious.

 

[cjdv16]

Why do you like Mueller more than Conacher?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I am curious.

I agree.... Mueller > Conacher.

1. they're both risks ... Mueller with injury. Conacher with size and performance.
2. Mueller has higher end skill and thus, a higher potential ceiling
3. they're both on the outside looking in... so as a GM, I'd swing for the fences. Now, if their slot was to be solidified in the top 9 or top 12, different story. Since it's not, I'd go large here and for the player with the greater upside.

Mueller was headed towards very good things Colorado before the head injury.

 

[Sheva7]

Mueller already tried making a comeback once.... it didn't work out.

I'd rather give Conacher a shot.

 

[cjdv16]

Ya it is pretty terrible. I have no idea what Edm does if they tank again this year.

Brock for Petry is a steal for Edm. I think it would take a lot to get brock. Snow jumped up to get, so you know he loves him.

Garth would need a stud back for Brock. The kid has it all. Smart, responsible, offensive talent, size, etc.

I'm afraid that he's part of the Winnipeg chatter.

I pray that Garth keeps that conversation short, sweet, and thus, the deal small. No E. Kane + Dman.

Keep the convo to Bogosian or Buygflien (sp?). The return will need to be sizable enough. Snow should be trying to Jedi mind trick Chevaldayov that Bogosian and Bailey are the same, underperforming player and that both need a change of scenery to blossom.`

 

[BroadwayJay*]

I agree.... Mueller > Conacher.

1. they're both risks ... Mueller with injury. Conacher with size and performance.
2. Mueller has higher end skill and thus, a higher potential ceiling
3. they're both on the outside looking in... so as a GM, I'd swing for the fences. Now, if their slot was to be solidified in the top 9 or top 12, different story. Since it's not, I'd go large here and for the player with the greater upside.

Mueller was headed towards very good things Colorado before the head injury.

Wasn't that injury five years ago?

Conacher has a more recent track record of success, albeit much less so than Mueller's prior track record (but it is quite some time ago).

Mueller is clearly worth taking a flyer on, but I think his risk is much, much greater than Conacher's.

Either way, neither guy is likely to be a gamebreaker in 14-15.

 

[JZCislesHockey]

I absolutely agree. 2014 rookie Reinhart should 100% be better than what 2013 rookie Reinhart would have been. That said, 2014 sophomore Reinhart would probably be quite a bit better than 2014 rookie Reinhart (now it's starting to get confusing).

Having an already established Reinhart going into next year would probably put a lot of the skeptics at ease, but I do agree that Reinhart is poised for a more impactful rookie season due to the extra year of development. Plus not making the team last year seems to have made him pretty damn hungry to earn a spot - I think the Islanders are set to benefit from that as well.

He's going to become a favorite around here pretty quickly, I imagine. I also made a similar prediction regarding another one of our rookie defensemen last year, and it seemed to work out pretty well. Let's hope I can keep the streak going.

I agree, but last season I was pissed that he didn't at least get the 9 game look after making the team and staying up for a bit.

 

[Pharrell Williams]

Yo, this is completely off-topic and I'm not even an Islanders fan, but I just saw this on the NHL's auction site and it looks pretty sick for relatively cheap. Not to be all spammy or anything, just thought some of you might appreciate the heads-up: http://auction.nhl.com/iSynApp/auctionDisplay.action?auctionId=268708

 

[xECK29x]

Who knew all you needed to add was Daniel Winnik to make your team a contender and bring infinite optimism to your fan base. Leafs fans are funny.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Who knew all you needed to add was Daniel Winnik to make your team a contender and bring infinite optimism to your fan base. Leafs fans are funny.

In all seriousness, I think it comes from the TYPE of moves moreso than the moves themselves.

They've been a lot less Leaf-like since the Dubas hiring.

They're still not a contender though.

 

[blinkman360]

Mueller already tried making a comeback once.... it didn't work out.

I'd rather give Conacher a shot.

Remember when people on the Prospects board were saying that we screwed up by taking Okposo over Mueller? Those were good times.