Confirmed with Link: [TOR] Frederik Andersen - 5 Year Extension [25 Million - AAV: 5M]

[Johny Drama]

This move still seems ahead of itself to me, I gave it a while to let it sink in but I remain a little on the unlike side. The cost wasn't terrible, nor the contract really just that it seems out of line for where the team is at. I assume they did their due diligence and like Freddy a lot, I also think this is a move that's at least partially based on the goaltending the Marlies got during the playoffs.

I will miss the two picks and hope the Leafs have figured out the net for a bit, long enough to maybe even draft and develop one of their own. It's not relevant but it is irksome that Gibson was the motivator to let Freddy go.

Anywho...

I kind of agree with you as I thought we should just wait and see how things play out with Bernier. On the other hand, can see the logic behind getting a goalie like Andersen on board. It sounds like they have done a lot of research on Andersen and feel he is capable of becoming a top keeper. Even though we are still rebuilding, important to have some experience in net with what should be a young team moving forward.

 

[ShaneFalco]

Time will tell.
Lou says he's a no. 1 goalie.
I'm going to trust that Lou understands what that is and also understands the need for team stability in goal. That's all we can do for now. Andersen certainly has the size and ability to back up those claims.

Not only that but, as someone else posted earlier, Babcock thinks his goal-tending style fits the way MB wants this team to play

 

[Anthrax442]

I always believed that you take opportunity when it presents itself, rather than wait for timing first.

 

[Trapper]

I always believed that you take opportunity when it presents itself, rather than wait for timing first.

I agree. Andersen,Bishop,Fleury,whoever are unlikely to be available next offseason. They will all have homes, protected.
We can still draft a young goalie (like Parsons) and still have 10 picks in this draft. I think that solidifies our goaltending situation.

 

[thewave]

I always believed that you take opportunity when it presents itself, rather than wait for timing first.

Anyone worth a grain of salt will tell you sitting on your thumbs gets you nowhere. The move is a good move and makes sense. This is proven by the fact our management made the decision to do the deal. What remains to be seen is how Andersen fits in here and performs, but that's entirely in his hands, just as it would be with anyone else.

 

[ACC1224]

I always believed that you take opportunity when it presents itself, rather than wait for timing first.

100%. This is how it has to be.

It's funny, out in the real world I haven't heard anyone (Leaf fans or not) that don't think this is a great pickup.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I kind of agree with you as I thought we should just wait and see how things play out with Bernier. On the other hand, can see the logic behind getting a goalie like Andersen on board. It sounds like they have done a lot of research on Andersen and feel he is capable of becoming a top keeper. Even though we are still rebuilding, important to have some experience in net with what should be a young team moving forward.

I agree. Goalie is the most important position in hockey IMO and we should all be aware how hard it is to find a good one. It seems clear to me that our brass thought Andersen can be the solution to our problems for many years going forward. It also seems likely that the only reason he was available at such a palatable price was the upcoming expansion draft - if we waited another year, we'd probably be too late. So while there's risk involved with Andersen, there's also risk involved in passing on this opportunity.

The only thing I could understand anyone questioning here is the 5 year term. Seeing as we don't know what went on behind the scenes, I'm willing to give our brass the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Out of all the possibilities, Andersen seemed like the best one for us and hey, we actually got him. What the Debbie downers here don't get is that maybe, just maybe we completely lucked out here and because of expansion, we solved our goaltending problems at a bargain price.

It's always possible things don't work out like you hope but I see no reason to be paranoid as there's a very good chance that things work out just fine here and we'll have what we haven't had in ages - stable quality goal-tending. How sweet would that be!

Bottom line - sure there's risk but I'm a huge fan of this trade and welcome Andersen into the fold with open arms.

 

[seanlinden]

Nah too wordy.
Lol it's literally the (simplified) foundation of good decision making. If the risk is deemed acceptable, act to maximize gain.

It's clear that management is confident in Andersen being a starting goalie. They deem the risk acceptable, and acted to seize an opportunity and maximize the value to this team.

That your evaluation of the risk is off does not make the move conceptually unsound.

Again, the defer to management logic. You're not really coming up with any critical reasoning as to why this move is the right one.

With respect to evaluation of risk, if you honestly think there is only 5% chance of regerssion / total failure for Andersen, and a 50% chance at getting an elite #1, it's you that needs to re-evaluate your risk assessment.

 

[seanlinden]

We just paid 25m and a couple 2nd round trashy picks to get a great goalie. Consider Andersen is on the same talent tier as JVR. How would you feel if you got JVR for 30th and 45th? Pretty good right? Well, enjoy the goalie.

This is one hundred percent false. It's a statement that reeks of trying to downplay the assets you gave away in order to help justify the trade.

We traded a 1st round pick (albeit the last one), and what seems to be an unknown 2nd.

If you wanted to call it a "trashy" 1st and unknown 2nd, that would be a much more accurate description.

 

[NoTouchIcing]

100%. This is how it has to be.

It's funny, out in the real world I haven't heard anyone (Leaf fans or not) that don't think this is a great pickup.

This is the type of trade that takes you from being a cellar-dweller to being competitive.

 

[thewave]

Again, the defer to management logic. You're not really coming up with any critical reasoning as to why this move is the right one.

With respect to evaluation of risk, if you honestly think there is only 5% chance of regerssion / total failure for Andersen, and a 50% chance at getting an elite #1, it's you that needs to re-evaluate your risk assessment.

No, most people are going about it correctly. It's you that are incorrect and are reaching for arguments that can only exist in your head.

 

[seanlinden]

This is the type of trade that takes you from being a cellar-dweller to being competitive.

No, it's not, neccessarily. It's the type of trade that may take you from being a cellar-dweller to being competitive. Calgary trading for Bishop is an example of a move that probably takes them from a cellar dweller to competitive.

The Andersen trade, is also the type that may prevent you from becoming a cup contender.

 

[thewave]

This is one hundred percent false. It's a statement that reeks of trying to downplay the assets you gave away in order to help justify the trade.

We traded a 1st round pick (albeit the last one), and what seems to be an unknown 2nd.

If you wanted to call it a "trashy" 1st and unknown 2nd, that would be a much more accurate description.

Who cares what I call it. We have far better odds of winning this trade then we ever would selecting a goalie with the 30th. Heck we can just select a goalie with the 31st.

 

[seanlinden]

Who cares what I call it. We have far better odds of winning this trade then we ever would selecting a goalie with the 30th. Heck we can just select a goalie with the 31st.

Everyone should, because you're spreading flat-out lies.

Trades aren't made to win or lose, they're made to better your team.

Sure, we have better odds of coming out ahead on this signing, than we do of selecting a future #1 goalie at 30th overall, but that's not the crux of this discussion. The crux of this dicussion, is what else could've been done with that pick, and the lack of a clean exit ability should Andersen fail in Toronto.

 

[4thline]

Again, the defer to management logic. You're not really coming up with any critical reasoning as to why this move is the right one.

With respect to evaluation of risk, if you honestly think there is only 5% chance of regerssion / total failure for Andersen, and a 50% chance at getting an elite #1, it's you that needs to re-evaluate your risk assessment.

This came up in what March? I've kept the same line, Andersen has shown enough that a team can be confident in getting him as a starter. I personally don't have the chops to evaluate goalies to definitively state "he is the guy", but if our management has made that evaluation on Andersen (they have) there's a good enough and big enough body of work to justify it.

And yeah I pulled those numbers out of my ass. But there's a better chance of Andersen being an upper echelon starter than of that pick ever getting to where Andersen (quality at any position) is now, and a better chance of that pick doing nothing than of Andersen flopping entirely

 

[thewave]

Everyone should, because you're spreading flat-out lies.

Trades aren't made to win or lose, they're made to better your team.

Sure, we have better odds of coming out ahead on this trade, than we do of selecting a future #1 goalie at 30th overall, but that's not the crux of this discussion. The crux of this dicussion, is what else could've been done with that pick, and the lack of a clean exit ability should Andersen fail in Toronto.

You must have a hell of a time buying a car, tv, home etc... is it likr this? -what about the consumer reports though? Is that tv really going to last past warranty? Should I get an extended warranty?

Bud honestly, you're over thinking things and I suggest you step away and let the staff at MLSE make decisions before you take a breakdown or something. Do you understand how many replies you have made over this topic in a 48hr period? Take a breather and have a drink.

 

[zeke]

I always believed that you take opportunity when it presents itself, rather than wait for timing first.

but this is arguably a move based on timing.

 

[Gary Nylund]

but this is arguably a move based on timing.

How so?

The only "timing" factor that occurs to me is that because the expansion draft is coming, we were able to pick up a valuable asset at a bargain price. Other than that ... but maybe I'm missing something?

 

[seanlinden]

This came up in what March? I've kept the same line, Andersen has shown enough that a team can be confident in getting him as a starter. I personally don't have the chops to evaluate goalies to definitively state "he is the guy", but if our management has made that evaluation on Andersen (they have) there's a good enough and big enough body of work to justify it.

And yeah I pulled those numbers out of my ass. But there's a better chance of Andersen being an upper echelon starter than of that pick ever getting to where Andersen is now, and a better chance of that pick doing nothing of Andersen flopping entirely

Yeah, I disagree, wholeheartedly. The only way a team should have confidence in a guy being a #1, is if he's already played as a #1. Goaltending is simply far too unpredictable.

Like I said to thewave, this isn't a debate over whether Andersen has a better chance of becoming an upper echelon starter versus the 30th overall pick. He damn well better considering he not only cost the 30th, but a 2nd, and $5m over each of the next 5 years.

This is a debate over whether it was in the Leafs best interest, in mind of building a cup winner for a few years from now, to be trading 2 high draft picks for a goalie who's played 2 years as the front half of a tandem, and sign him to a 5 year deal at $5m.

 

[ShaneFalco]

I don't think there was any way they were bringing back Bernier.
So you wait for a year and see what's out there, or you jump at an opportunity.
Risk - there's risk with Matthews. There's risk with Zaitsev, Marner.....and there's risk with any deal.

 

[ACC1224]

This is the type of trade that takes you from being a cellar-dweller to being competitive.

Pretty much, not sure everyone wants the Team to get better.

 

[seanlinden]

You must have a hell of a time buying a car, tv, home etc... is it likr this? -what about the consumer reports though? Is that tv really going to last past warranty? Should I get an extended warranty?

Bud honestly, you're over thinking things and I suggest you step away and let the staff at MLSE make decisions before you take a breakdown or something. Do you understand how many replies you have made over this topic in a 48hr period? Take a breather and have a drink.

Not really -- most of the big ticket things I buy -- I buy in such a fashion that I can get out of them with reasonable ease and minimal loss. Buying a TV doesn't preclude me from buying another if the 1st one turns out like crap.

Bud, honestly, if you're interested in a debate and contributing something insightful, you're in the right place. If you're interested in simply saying "trust somebody else", over and over and over, you're not adding any actual value.

 

[zeke]

How so?

The only "timing" factor that occurs to me is that because the expansion draft is coming, we were able to pick up a valuable asset at a bargain price. Other than that ... but maybe I'm missing something?

seems easy to argue that we settled for best easily available target instead of waiting to target a legit top target.

 

[Grimmas]

The Andersen trade, is also the type that may prevent you from becoming a cup contender.

How would you possibly jump to that conclusion? Even if Anderson plays worse than he has shown, how would it prevent the Leafs from a Cup. Worse case you can buy him out or expose him in the expansion draft if he fails?

It's the last pick in the first round and a 2nd rounder next year. Last I checked we already have another first rounder this year and two other 2nd rounders next year.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Pretty much, not sure everyone wants the Team to get better.

Perhaps it's just a case of loser mentality?

- individuals who see life from a negative perspective are simply never happy. They are pessimists who see the world as being against them. They are the constant complainers, nothing is ever done right

- over time you might notice these individuals are constantly talking “above†you. They see themselves as superior. They see their listeners to be in need of teaching

- losers are frequently stubborn and are so fixed on their own principles they can’t be swayed to try new solutions to even the simplest of problems. They are adamant and relentless in the belief that the tried and true methods still apply

...