Recalled/Assigned: Maple Leafs have recalled forward Nick Robertson from the Toronto Marlies

[Burnie97]

well this isn't helpful.



i guess the news here would be.....willy moving to center might mean tavares is actually injured? but then clifford on that line seems a weird choice.

and Robertson on that 4th line looks like something they might definitely try.

reading tea leaves guessing......Tavares is injured, mikky and engvall will be back tommorrow, robertson will play not clifford.

I'm going to guess the team caught the micky shits maybe.

Hopefully doesn't "wipe" too many guys down the "drain" tomorrow.

Either way... shit happens.

 

[Stephen]

People were literally saying they had no value. Or negative value.

I pointed out the truth that Leaf players were claimed because teams yes....saw value in these players.

Why are posters yet again pretending like every non-Leaf player has value, and every Leaf player doesn't? I did point out the Ritchie move....which was conveniently ignored because it put a dagger in the narrrative.

I'm not the one trying to re-invent the wheel. Seems like a rather simple straightforward concept, no?

No, it really doesn’t make sense.

Every Leaf player top to bottom of the roster carries a specific value. You have Auston Matthews making $12 million a season any franchise would cripple their organization to acquire. And at the bottom you have a $50,000 waiver claim and everything in between.

Specific disagreements may arise in terms of whatever the outgoing pieces and the incoming pieces are close in value. Trade proposals that are particularly unpopular would be when you want to trade 4x quarters for a loonie.

Conversations are just typically haggling over value.

 

[stickty111]

 

[Mess]

People were literally saying they had no value. Or negative value. This is incorrect.

I pointed out the truth that Leaf players were claimed because teams yes....saw value in these players.

I'm not the one trying to re-invent the wheel here. Seems like a rather simple straightforward concept that Leaf players have value. Maybe not directly as a return, but if you put them on the market, you would get something positive.

Putting players on waivers and letting them go for FREE, seems different then trading them as assets to other teams who are willing to pay for them in asset returns.

"Free kittens to good homes", might mean they're wanted by someone, doesn't mean they have numerical $$ value as an asset, if you're giving them away, because you neither want them nor need them.

If Leafs were acquiring assets picks/prospects/players etc for their spare parts they don't want or need then you would have a valid point of "one person's trash is anther's treasure".

 

[Apex Predator]

People were literally saying they had no value. Or negative value. This is incorrect.

I pointed out the truth that Leaf players were claimed because teams yes....saw value in these players.

Why are posters yet again pretending like every non-Leaf player has value, and every Leaf player doesn't? I did point out the Ritchie move....which was conveniently ignored because it put a dagger in the narrative.

I'm not the one trying to re-invent the wheel here. Seems like a rather simple straightforward concept that Leaf players have value. Maybe not directly as a return, but if you put them on the market, you would get something positive.

to be fair a lot of these waiver claims the last few years wouldn’t get you anything in a trade. Reason they are picked up is because they are free. Teams aren’t lining up to trade assets for Amadio, Brooks, Vesey, Boyd, etc.

Everyone once in a while guys like Ritchie get traded but majority of the waiver guys are not getting you anything in a trade.

Leafs got a bottom pair defense in return. Not something crazy but none the less still something.

The issue is people use Dermott, Holl, Mik as main pieces and getting something of high value back. When in reality these guys get you an equivalent and what they are.

 

[Stephen]

Putting players on waivers and letting them go for FREE, seems different then trading them as assets to other teams who are willing to pay for them in asset returns.

"Free kittens to good homes", might mean they're wanted by someone, doesn't mean they have numerical $$ value as an asset, if you're giving them away.

Also runs counter to our organizations interest to even talk about Brooks, Amadio and Dzingel when trying to establish value for Holl and Mikheyev if the purpose is to shop them. No, those guys won’t be given away on waivers.

 

[ACC1224]

to be fair a lot of these waiver claims the last few years wouldn’t get you anything in a trade. Reason they are picked up is because they are free. Teams aren’t lining up to trade assets for Amadio, Brooks, Vesey, Boyd, etc.

Everyone once in a while guys like Ritchie get traded but majority of the waiver guys are not getting you anything in a trade.

Leafs got a bottom pair defense in return. Not something crazy but none the less still something.

The issue is people use Dermott, Holl, Mik as main pieces and getting something of high value back. When in reality these guys get you an equivalent and what they are.

Apparently that means they have negative value, go figure.

 

[stickty111]

What a dumb waste of Robertson if the lines are like that.

Robertson should be in a top 9 role to see what you have. Depending on whose out, could get PP time

 

[ULF_55]

My guess is Robertson would take the position of waterperson to be on the bench of the NHL Maple Leafs.

So ask him if he's going to hold his breath until he turns purple if he isn't above the 4th. line.

Really only 5 top 6 forwards who know they're top 6 forwards on the Leafs.

 

[zeke]

he's in.

 

[ULF_55]

to be fair a lot of these waiver claims the last few years wouldn’t get you anything in a trade. Reason they are picked up is because they are free. Teams aren’t lining up to trade assets for Amadio, Brooks, Vesey, Boyd, etc.

Everyone once in a while guys like Ritchie get traded but majority of the waiver guys are not getting you anything in a trade.

Leafs got a bottom pair defense in return. Not something crazy but none the less still something.

The issue is people use Dermott, Holl, Mik as main pieces and getting something of high value back. When in reality these guys get you an equivalent and what they are.

Dermott and Holl would have value in many trades, they are not rentals, so a team not going to the dance dealing a UFA might look at them as good assets for next year.
Mikheyev's value I'd place much lower for a team who is looking at next year.

 

[pspot]

Robertson and Clifford get called up...which one gets 2nd line and which gets 4th?

 

[kb]

to be fair a lot of these waiver claims the last few years wouldn’t get you anything in a trade. Reason they are picked up is because they are free. Teams aren’t lining up to trade assets for Amadio, Brooks, Vesey, Boyd, etc.

Everyone once in a while guys like Ritchie get traded but majority of the waiver guys are not getting you anything in a trade.

Leafs got a bottom pair defense in return. Not something crazy but none the less still something.

The issue is people use Dermott, Holl, Mik as main pieces and getting something of high value back. When in reality these guys get you an equivalent and what they are.

The value of a player is still the value of the player.

Mikheyev in a return still has value. There is still weeks until the deadline for him to be flipped again. But nothing says he has to be part of the return. He can be dealt to another team for something of value. This is what is painfully misunderstood.

Posters are saying the Leaf players have no value in a trade. They all have value. Why people think differently is confusing, but more to the point....a lie.

 

[Mess]

Also runs counter to our organizations interest to even talk about Brooks, Amadio and Dzingel when trying to establish value for Holl and Mikheyev if the purpose is to shop them. No, those guys won’t be given away on waivers.

Exactly .. Nick Ritchie was placed on waivers and could had been had for FREE with NO takers. His contract made him a negative asset in terms of finding a taker even for free, as that was still too much to pay to take on his contract.

However if another team can dump a couple of expiring contracts equal to Ritchie as an offset, then there was a numerical tangible value to acquiring him. It cost the Leafs a conditional 2nd round pick to dump a negative value contract, in addition to offset cap money this year.

The value of Holl and Mikheyev will be the return in assets in trade. I doubt Leafs have any intention of dumping them on waivers first as the #1 choice to get rid of them.

Besides the Leafs protected Holl in the expansion draft, and gave away better player in Seattle's leading scorer Jared McCann just to keep him.. The organization would look pretty silly now dumping him on waivers to get rid of for FREE.

 

[DraftSchmaft]

I don't like the idea of Nick on that 4th line TBH. I just don't think he will be effective in that role. This was what I feared with the callup TBH. I agree with you though, that is likely the line they will run with tmw. There is no reason to have Nick practicing with them today in place of Clifford. Clifford is very clearly just a place holder for the absent players. There is zero chance he see's top 6 minutes.

Not thrilled with this decision. I'd rather Nick play in the AHL than on the 4th line. I just don't see how he will provide anything more than Engvall in that position TBH. It's a waste of time IMO.


lol I just saw Holl as 3rd line RW now, so who f***ing knows what the hell is going on here

Probably will be fine on the 4th line to start due to his elite shot. They must be hoping Spezza can get the puck to him the same way Brooks was able to follow the puck around and score some goals beside Spezza. It's a good spot for him to work his way up to line 2.

 

[ACC1224]

Probably will be fine on the 4th line to start due to his elite shot. They must be hoping Spezza can get the puck to him the same way Brooks was able to follow the puck around and score some goals beside Spezza. It's a good spot for him to work his way up to line 2.

It seemed Engvall was getting looks almost every night but struggled to hit the net.

 

[Mess]

Why wouldn't a rookie like Robertson begin and the bottom and need to prove himself as opposed to be handed something he didn't earn?

Starting on the 4th line also gives him the easiest QofC of the opposition to go up against, which is putting him in a position to succeed.

If you dump him onto a top line and ask him to perform against better competition, then that may be placing him in a position to fail.

Spezza seems like a good mentor for a kid getting his feet wet.

 

[pspot]

Why wouldn't a rookie like Robertson begin and the bottom and need to prove himself as opposed to be handed something he didn't earn?

Starting on the 4th line also gives him the easiest QofC of the opposition to go up against, which is putting him in a position to succeed.

If you dump him onto a top line and ask him to perform against better competition, then that may be placing him in a position to fail.

Spezza seems like a good mentor for a kid getting his feet wet.

My opinion is you develop players for certain roles, and when they are called up its to fit those roles.

 

[Nylanderthal]

Yeah I'm not really sure what they're going on about.
Seems just a bunch of weird generalizations.

I guess Holl and Mikheyev could be center pieces of a deal but it's hard to see for me.

I don’t think anyone sees them as “centrepieces” that would be reserved for the prospects and picks attached to those guys. Just more so that they’re not complete cap dump and liabilities

 

[ACC1224]

I don’t think anyone sees them as “centrepieces” that would be reserved for the prospects and picks attached to those guys. Just more so that they’re not complete cap dump and liabilities

Haven't seen anyone say that, perhaps I missed it.
I did see them included with a prospect for Miller which doesn't seem realistic to me.

 

[LeafalCrusader]

I don't mind it. Robertson gives Spezza someone to work with on the 4th line. He'll get 2nd unit power play time too.

 

[kb]

I don’t think anyone sees them as “centrepieces” that would be reserved for the prospects and picks attached to those guys. Just more so that they’re not complete cap dump and liabilities

Exactly.

Thank you. Especially posters who say that you would need to attach something to Holl to move him.

 

[Menzinger]

The mixed blessing from Muzzin on ltir and the fact the Leafs are a lock for the playoffs is they can give some extended looks with the younger guys.

Slap Robertson alongside Nylander and Tavares and see what happens

 

[Menzinger]

I see your objections but Imo being o. The kampf line forces him to keep his focus on playing responsibly and that line usually ends up playing in the offensive zone, so he will have his chance to shine there.
Giving him predominantly offensive zone starts is great for his stats but personally I would like to see him focus on 200 feet of ice.

I don't think he's making the team based on his defensive play this season one way or the other. It's going to come down to if he gels offensively

 

[kb]

The mixed blessing from Muzzin on ltir and the fact the Leafs are a lock for the playoffs is they can give some extended looks with the younger guys.

Slap Robertson alongside Nylander and Tavares and see what happens

It's audition time. In a way it's a blessing. They can evaluate internal options before the deadline.

Was I the only one who felt more comfortable watching the D pairings as the game progressed?