Confirmed with Link: [TOR/ANA] Frederik Andersen for 30th Overall + 2017 2nd Round Pick

[Nithoniniel]

If the Leafs sit and wait for an ELITE goalie to become available, they will be sitting and waiting forever.

Bishop/Vasilevski will be available. You could also widen that to include potentially elite goalies.

I'll say this though. It's amusing to see some of the same posters who anointed Reimer as a starter despite lacking the work load in any of his seasons now dismissing every season like that by Andersen.

 

[Jack Bauer]

If the Leafs sit and wait for an ELITE goalie to become available, they will be sitting and waiting forever.

Sure but Andersen isn't elite. Potential to be very good, but not elite.

I'd take a good goalie on a 2 year deal and no picks lost over the very good goalie for 2 picks and a 5 year extension.

Clarkson's deal was considered the worst in the league by a lot of people.

How would a backup goalie look with 4 years and $20 million left on his deal if he completely drops the ball over the year? The cap hit difference is only 250k.

We desperately need Andersen to perform.

If we took a more patient approach, we wouldn't require near the performance to justify our actions. Plus you then get into the assets and money saved being used in other areas.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Disagreed.

You think 10 days a ago a majority would have preferred moving a 1st and 2nd and giving out a 5X5 deal to a goalie with 130 games of experience?

I think most would have laughed at the thought of Shanahan and Lou Lam pulling a Nonis/JFJ-like goaltending move in the lead up to the draft.

Like I said earlier...first trade in 2 years where I felt like we were back in an era of "make the playoffs at all costs" rather then the patient pain enduring rebuild we were told was coming and apparently only had to last a season and a half.

 

[Joey Hoser]

Yeah being patient and doing our buying after everyone else(if we need to buy at all) doesn't seem to be a possibility anyone brings up.

Adding a cheaper backup as opposed to moving picks and giving out a long term deal would have been the majorities preferred choice 10 days ago in my opinion.

Wasn't mine.

I don't think goaltenders fit into the traditional rebuild model. Goalies are far too volatile and great ones so rare that it's basically pointless to assume you can find an age-appropriate goaltender to grow with your group and be good for a long time, like you can do with skaters.

Aside from pure-tanking, there's never a good reason to put up with bad goaltending. The last thing you want is your kids held back from success they're able to earn because of it.

This seems like a reasonable level of investment to me. We didn't give up our future, we still have a surplus of draft picks. Very little sacrifice here despite the optics of trading picks.

We ****ed our future to get Raycroft and Toskala, so when they bombed, it ruined basically everything from the present to the future.

This is only a real problem if he turns out to be terrible, and it's so bad that we can't move him and we have the opportunity to get a better goaltender(a rare event), but can't because of the contract. That seems like enough of a stretch to me that I don't see this as all that risky.

 

[Unhealthy Scratch]

How would a backup goalie look with 4 years and $20 million left on his deal if he completely drops the ball over the year? The cap hit difference is only 250k.

About as bad as an above-average starter with 4 years and $20 million left on his deal would look good..?

 

[Burke the Legend]

Aside from pure-tanking, there's never a good reason to put up with bad goaltending. The last thing you want is your kids held back from success they're able to earn because of it.

This. From a player's perspective, bad goaltending is the most depressing thing in hockey.

Mediocre goaltending is livable, you can deal with a guy who will be mostly steady, let in occasional softies, but also make big saves. But nothing sucks out your enjoyment of the sport and the motivation to play than bad goaltending.

 

[Joey Hoser]

You think 10 days a ago a majority would have preferred moving a 1st and 2nd and giving out a 5X5 deal to a goalie with 130 games of experience?

I think most would have laughed at the thought of Shanahan and Lou Lam pulling a Nonis/JFJ-like goaltending move in the lead up to the draft.

Like I said earlier...first trade in 2 years where I felt like we were back in an era of "make the playoffs at all costs" rather then the patient pain enduring rebuild we were told was coming and apparently only had to last a season and a half.

130 games experience doesn't really work as a knock on him.

We're going to trade a first overall pick for a guy with 0 games experience.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You think 10 days a ago a majority would have preferred moving a 1st and 2nd and giving out a 5X5 deal to a goalie with 130 games of experience?

I think most would have laughed at the thought of Shanahan and Lou Lam pulling a Nonis/JFJ-like goaltending move in the lead up to the draft.

Like I said earlier...first trade in 2 years where I felt like we were back in an era of "make the playoffs at all costs" rather then the patient pain enduring rebuild we were told was coming and apparently only had to last a season and a half.

I humbly disagree.

There were a number of posters (myself included) who have brought up the possibility of Lou getting us a #1 goalie sooner as opposed to later and from all the possibilities I've seen discussed, it seems like most people had Andersen as the most desirable option.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Bishop/Vasilevski will be available. You could also widen that to include potentially elite goalies.

I'll say this though. It's amusing to see some of the same posters who anointed Reimer as a starter despite lacking the work load in any of his seasons now dismissing every season like that by Andersen.

two things.

This is assuming that Bishop/Vasilveski will be available.
Yzerman could trade one, and poof. protect the other.
as I've mentioned before, I am not going to pretend how expansion drafting works - but what if the Vegas GM just trades for a goalie? would exposing a goalie even need to happen?


... i just had to edit my post re: Andersen v. Reimer because i misread what you meant

 

[Jack Bauer]

About as bad as an above-average starter with 4 years and $20 million left on his deal would look good..?

So discussing the possibility of a goalie not thriving in this market while referencing the numerous ones we've seen the last decade holds no weight?

The extension forces all our eggs into Andersen's basket.

If he falters, we're out 2 important assets and still need to burn more to go get another unproven goaltender.

Naturally if he plays well nobody will care. That's kind of assumed to be the case I thought. But it was the case with Raycroft, Toskala, and Bernier too. All being sold to us in the same way.

Right now I'm not seeing a difference.

 

[Once]

I humbly disagree.

There were a number of posters (myself included) who have brought up the possibility of Lou getting us a #1 goalie sooner as opposed to later and from all the possibilities I've seen discussed, it seems like most people had Andersen as the most desirable option.

Yeah I am surprised that some people are surprised.

 

[Gary Nylund]

This. From a player's perspective, bad goaltending is the most depressing thing in hockey.

Mediocre goaltending is livable, you can deal with a guy who will be mostly steady, let in occasional softies, but also make big saves. But nothing sucks out your enjoyment of the sport and the motivation to play than bad goaltending.

Agree 100%. I think many people underestimate the importance of steady goal-tending to a team with a lot of young developing players.

 

[The CyNick]

the irritating thing whomever we got it it really seems like it was going to be a massive gripe
"Omg - we got Fleury - he's too old he doesn't fit, gripe gripe gripe."
"Omg - we got Bishop! he's too injury prone, and too expensive cap wise, gripe gripe gripe."
"Omg - we got Howard, can you believe it, he's garbage, gripe gripe gripe."
"Omg! - we got Elliott, he's not good enough, he chokes, gripe, gripe gripe."


now matter whom we got it would be an issue.
again I'm not going to be all smart-butt here and pretend I understand his numbers - I don't. but to me it doesn't matter per se. I think what matters is that he's a very athletic goalie who is also good on his angles and positioning. And he's tall - something that Babcock griped about the entire season. ON height average Freddie is now the third tallest in our division. (He also has good numbers vs. our division, if people care about this thing).

it takes the same amount of energy to be positive, as it does to be negative. why for the life of me people want to go run into the negative side of the pool is beyond me.

so many times this team in the past traded for players (period) without a contract in hand, and they had arb rights. Lou eliminated that. He bought up 4 ufa years so if it plays off well (which - it very well could in the system that Babcock employs), he's now being paid less than a lot of starters in the league. if it bites the biscuit - you can still manage to make it work.

It's only a problem when it becomes a problem - and it very, easily could not be a problem. and a lot of other options out there would have/could have cost a lot more.

you're going to get a wide range of opinions on every move because we have more fans than any other team in the league.

This move is by no means a no brainer. At the end of the day we paid $5 for 5 years for a guy who had essentially the same numbers as James Reimer. If James was playing for the Ducks, do you not think his numbers would have improved vs. his numbers here?

If we had paid $5M x 5 for JR, would you be happy with that just because its better to be positive than it is to be negative? I would have been pissed, because I dont think JR will ever be a starter on a good team in the NHL.

Andersen put up average starter numbers, and is now being paid like an average starter with above average term. That means all the risk is in our court. If Ansdersen becomes the Clarkson of goalies (good couple seasons, then flops for us), then were screwed for half a decade. Thats not something to just go "well, hopefully it all works out". Its a risky move, it deserves to be critiqued.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Assuming the Bishop/MAF situations are resolved this summer - what options would be potentially available next year for the Leafs to make a move if they waited? Varlamov/Pickard? Who else?

 

[Jack Bauer]

130 games experience doesn't really work as a knock on him.

We're going to trade a first overall pick for a guy with 0 games experience.

It works as a knock in terms of coming to the 30th place team and not having a lot of experience behind developing teams.

Not sure what point that 2nd line is intended to add as it makes no sense. What former 1st overall are we trading for someone with no experience?

 

[Gary Nylund]

So discussing the possibility of a goalie not thriving in this market while referencing the numerous ones we've seen the last decade holds no weight?

The extension forces all our eggs into Andersen's basket.

If he falters, we're out 2 important assets and still need to burn more to go get another unproven goaltender.

Naturally if he plays well nobody will care. That's kind of assumed to be the case I thought. But it was the case with Raycroft, Toskala, and Bernier too. All being sold to us in the same way.

Right now I'm not seeing a difference.

You're absolutely right - if he falters, yikes, I don't even want to think about it. And that being the case, I can see why some are concerned at giving out a 5 year deal.

That being said, I've loved what our brass has done so far, I'm still in my honeymoon phase with them and am therefore more than happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. This signing is a gamble as is any contract but I will assume that they did their homework on Andersen with great care and decided this is a gamble well worth taking. I don't see how you can win a cup without taking a gamble or two along the way so I'm 100% fine with this.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Assuming the Bishop/MAF situations are resolved this summer - what options would be potentially available next year for the Leafs to make a move if they waited? Varlamov/Pickard? Who else?

Should be a few teams that would look to make a move out of fear of the expansion draft.

Without really looking I can think of the following:

Lack or Ward
Greiss or Halak
Schneider or Kinkaid
Miller or Markstrom

Probably more on the market causing prices to drop a bit if we waited until next year.

 

[Leaf Army]

They more than doubled.

Only because we finished with one fewer win than Edmonton. A single win. You cannot plan for that.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Wasn't mine.

I don't think goaltenders fit into the traditional rebuild model. Goalies are far too volatile and great ones so rare that it's basically pointless to assume you can find an age-appropriate goaltender to grow with your group and be good for a long time, like you can do with skaters.

Aside from pure-tanking, there's never a good reason to put up with bad goaltending. The last thing you want is your kids held back from success they're able to earn because of it.

This seems like a reasonable level of investment to me. We didn't give up our future, we still have a surplus of draft picks. Very little sacrifice here despite the optics of trading picks.

We ****ed our future to get Raycroft and Toskala, so when they bombed, it ruined basically everything from the present to the future.

This is only a real problem if he turns out to be terrible, and it's so bad that we can't move him and we have the opportunity to get a better goaltender(a rare event), but can't because of the contract. That seems like enough of a stretch to me that I don't see this as all that risky.

wasn't mine either. I've been saying from ages, we were going to be getting a goalie. I don't know if people listen to game pressers (pre or post) but this was something that was really, really sticking in Babcock's craw. as well as Lou when he talked about the position.

again - for me. I don't see any other cheaper options.

Fleury would have cost assets and be .75 more. (2 years less, then we'd be in the same situation)
Bishop is already making 5.9 and he's injury prone.
Eliott is an option, but that's providing that Armstrong wanted to move him yet.
Howard is making 6 (and is bad).
then there was Andersen

then there's "make a move to other goalies and HOPE they're good, like Hutchinson out of WPG"
unless there's a goalie or a move i'm simply not seeing - ...Andersen is the cheaper choice. Everyone else would have been assets + term. or you wait, and deal with so so goaltending and hurt our young player's development.

Again for me I'm not going to argue numbers and worrying if it blows in my face. it's just that - to me i don't see any other cheaper options that would have cost us less than we we paid (including cap hit), that makes the most sense.

 

[Jack Bauer]

You're absolutely right - if he falters, yikes, I don't even want to think about it. And that being the case, I can see why some are concerned at giving out a 5 year deal.

That being said, I've loved what our brass has done so far, I'm still in my honeymoon phase with them and am therefore more than happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. This signing is a gamble as is any contract but I will assume that they did their homework on Andersen with great care and decided this is a gamble well worth taking. I don't see how you can win a cup without taking a gamble or two along the way so I'm 100% fine with this.

Yep and that's fair.

Giving this group the benefit of the doubt over the last few groups definitely makes sense.

My biggest complaint about Bernier, that I assume management agrees with and did heavy scouting on Andersen in regards to the same, is his mental game. I honestly think he's more concerned with being a celebrity hockey player with the reality show wife then he is about being a top 5 NHL goaltender.

If Andersen's mental game is strong then he should have no issues in this market.

 

[Joey Hoser]

It works as a knock in terms of coming to the 30th place team and not having a lot of experience behind developing teams.

Not sure what point that 2nd line is intended to add as it makes no sense. What former 1st overall are we trading for someone with no experience?

You mentioned that Andersen only has 130 GP as if that's somehow a knock on him.

I mentioned that we are going to trade our most valuable asset(1st overall) for a guy with 0 games played(Auston Matthews), to demonstrate why.

What matters is how good they are. Appealing to GP is really reaching.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Lou Lam thinks he will be elite, that's good enough for me. If he thought that he would only be 'very good' then he wouldn't have traded for him. They obviously think he can be elite.

 

[Eb]

I just feel like goalies can come out of nowhere.

Hate feeling the need to trade a first and second for a position that has always been tough to judge and predict.

 

[Clark4Ever]

Maybe true but you don't need an 'elite' goalie to win a cup, I would argue that in a cap world paying for one is a hinder not a help. We also didn't pay the fee or salary of an elite goalie

I agree.

 

[Jack Bauer]

You mentioned that Andersen only has 130 GP as if that's somehow a knock on him.

I mentioned that we are going to trade our most valuable asset(1st overall) for a guy with 0 games played(Auston Matthews), to demonstrate why.

What matters is how good they are. Appealing to GP is really reaching.

When giving a 5 year extension to a goalie and saying he should feel like the #1 bringing up his experience or lack of is relevant to the discussion.

The 1st overall point doesn't make any sense in this discussion at all. Matthews only has 0 NHL games played because of his date of birth. Not his skill level.

Andersen couldn't consistently hold down the #1 goalie job on his own team which is why he was available and not Gibson. He's also 26 and not 18.

Bringing up GP in relation to a contract extension for a 26yr old only seems rational to me. Bringing up the 18yr old you're about to pick #1 does not.