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

[Gary Nylund]

I won't quibble with Lou, for sure, but he's been at the head of a tandem, and seemed to get beat out by Gibson in the end.

I certainly agree the Leafs feel they need stability in net, like I said before, their goalies let them down a bit in the AHL playoffs, and their NHL goalies certainly weren't anything to write home about. I just think signing, say, Chad Johnson for nothing might have been the better middle term approach while getting to play with the picks. I don't hate the deal, I question it on balance.

A while back I thought that I would have been fine with waiting a year to see how Bernier did, I still thought there was some chance he'd be "the guy" but admittedly I thought that chance was pretty slim. The thing is though, if we wait a year and Bernier fails, then what? Then we're desperate and the best option out there might be a tire or two below what Andersen is now. I know we're not ready to win anything yet but I also believe that solid goaltending is very important to us right now so that all our rookie mistakes don't end up in the net. The more I think about it, the more I love this deal. The only thing that gives me some pause is the term but other than that, it seems like a great move. JMHO.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I'm not aware of any studies done showing this to be true. I do know that big markets often have very successful players/teams, this goes across many sports, not just hockey. For every example of someone failing in a big market I'll bet I could give an example of someone failing in a small market or succeeding in a big market so where does that leave us?

I try to keep an open mind so if you can show me some evidence I'll look at it. So far I haven't seen anything that comes even close.

How does failing in a small market matter when discussing big market failures?

The argument would be that it's harder to succeed in a big market which almost all hockey people would agree with.

The dynamics in the biggest market are different. Hell just playing in Canada vs the US is different.

Not everything needs a study to be proven. Simply being a fan of this team for 25 years or so shows me that we're the toughest market for youth to develop in. If you need examples to prove that...go review 25 years of draft history.

 

[UllmansTiger]

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 can see it too, just that I can also see other ways of doing that. Now, if Babcock etc. decided Bernier just doesn't have it, well then, I guess you have to make a move.

 

[seanlinden]

I simply respect the inability to predict goaltenders to a much greater degree than Lou does.

That's what you said. You have NO IDEA what Lou put into this decision. Because you disagree with it, doesn't mean Lou gives no respect to the ability to predict goaltenders.

Maybe he already sees this guy as a top 15-20 #1 goalie and therefore sees no need to have to predict anything?

Not even trying to see the other side is why you get no respect from others.

The condescending tone and comments merely makes you stand out as a form of comic relief for those of us waiting for news to break.

From his actions, we have a pretty good idea as to what Lou put into this decision.

If Lou isn't confident in Andersen's ability to be a high quality #1, it would be colossally stupid to trade what they traded, and subsequently sign this guy to a long term deal. It would be even more stupid and unnecessary, to proclaim him the #1 within hours of doing so.

If you believe that Lou sees him as a #1 goalie, then you believe that Lou is totally blind, and incapable of reading a stat sheet -- because he clearly has not been. He's been the front half of a tandem.

At the end of the day, what happened here is pretty obvious. It jives both with everything they've said, and everything they've done. Lou & Co think this guy can be the #1 in Toronto, and have committed as such.

 

[seanlinden]

It's unlikely he drops off that much, but say he does. 1.6M of cap space prevents us from winning the Cup?

I'd agree that it's less than a 50% chance of him dropping off that badly in Toronto... but it's also much more than the 5% that another poster suggested.

$1.6m can absolutely prevent you from winning a cup, plus we're already stuck with Kessel at $1.2m.

 

[Grimmas]

I'd agree that it's less than a 50% chance of him dropping off that badly in Toronto... but it's also much more than the 5% that another poster suggested.

$1.6m can absolutely prevent you from winning a cup, plus we're already stuck with Kessel at $1.2m.

How does 1.6M prevent us from winning the Cup. Under what circumstances would an extra about 2M be that essential? So essential that we couldn't make it up some other way?

 

[Jack Bauer]

If you believe that Lou sees him as a #1 goalie, then you believe that Lou is totally blind.

Just stop.

You're making a fool of yourself.

 

[UllmansTiger]

A while back I thought that I would have been fine with waiting a year to see how Bernier did, I still thought there was some chance he'd be "the guy" but admittedly I thought that chance was pretty slim. The thing is though, if we wait a year and Bernier fails, then what? Then we're desperate and the best option out there might be a tire or two below what Andersen is now. I know we're not ready to win anything yet but I also believe that solid goaltending is very important to us right now so that all our rookie mistakes don't end up in the net. The more I think about it, the more I love this deal. The only thing that gives me some pause is the term but other than that, it seems like a great move. JMHO.

Sure, though I didn't really have any hope for a real Bernier turnaround, just closer to what he was when he first arrived, and to be honest, I'd still try to sign a decent back up to play with Freddy, just in case and all. ( guessing they'll try to move Bernier somewhere on that )

 

[seanlinden]

And to a rational mind, B is inextricably linked to A. "Two high picks" don't hold intrinsic value because they are "high picks" their value is firmly rooted in the on ice result (in terms of players) that those picks can deliver. If the return in the trade is greater in terms of on ice value for the time period intended than the picks would likely deliver than the trade is in the best interests of fielding the best possible team in said period.

A is simply a small portion of B.

Picks don't just hold value because of their on-ice contribution, there are other things like their on-ice contribution relative to salary, and trade value.

Putting it more simply....

Kari Lehtonen is a way better goalie than hwat you could expect somebody drafted 30th overall to be. But, he costs $6m, and the 30th overall, if it pans out, will be a player who comes at a much better performance to dollar ratio.

 

[seanlinden]

How does 1.6M prevent us from winning the Cup. Under what circumstances would an extra about 2M be that essential? So essential that we couldn't make it up some other way?

You need a little bit more scoring depth to get through a round against a deep team. $1.6m could be the difference in getting that player.

What you're aruging, is that we should never consider salary implications of anyone -- "just make it up some other way".

 

[Jack Bauer]

You need a little bit more scoring depth to get through a round against a deep team. $1.6m could be the difference in getting that player.

What you're aruging, is that we should never consider salary implications of anyone -- "just make it up some other way".

What you're arguing is that we should obsess over every single cap dollar to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot and not making forward thinking moves out of fear of over spending despite history saying that over spending on the odd deal does not keep any Cup winner from being competitive.

It all works both ways.

 

[Grimmas]

You need a little bit more scoring depth to get through a round against a deep team. $1.6m could be the difference in getting that player.

What you're aruging, is that we should never consider salary implications of anyone -- "just make it up some other way".

No. What I am arguing is that the Andersen trade was a great trade and if it fails, it's not the end of the world.

He is a #1 goalie. Reading through the Anaheim thread, a lot were not happy he was traded away. He signed a deal that is inline with his stats (top 15 goalie) currently. He's 26 and is the perfect age bracket for what we need as a #1 goalie going forward.

The fact we traded away a #30 pick (when we have #1 & #31) and a 2nd rounder (when we have two more) is pretty good.

 

[Gary Nylund]

How does failing in a small market matter when discussing big market failures?

The point is that pointing to a couple of goalies that have done poorly with the Leafs isn't proof of anything as they could just as easily have done poorly elsewhere.

The argument would be that it's harder to succeed in a big market which almost all hockey people would agree with.

Almost all hockey people huh. Those are big words, do you have anything to back them up or are you just spewing? Of course there is more pressure in big markets but as I said before, big markets often have great players and great teams so maybe this pressure thing is overstated. Professional athletes play with pressure all the time, some deal with it better than others. It's hard to quantify but maybe it's something like this:

Pressure scale (1 - 10):

AHL teams: Between 6-7 depending on the team
NHL teams: Between 8-9.5 depending on the team

Just pulling numbers out of the air here of course but my point is, there will be pressure no matter where in the NHL you play. There's more than just fans in the city, there's pressure re. how much money you will make in your career - will it be 2 million or 80 million - that pressure will be there no matter what city you play in.

What about guys who get drafted high, say Matthews as an example. Arizona is a small market but the pressure there would be even bigger than in Toronto perhaps. And even if he went to the smallest market in the NHL, there would still be a ton of pressure as the #1 pick. Yet overall, #1 picks do pretty well.

I'm sorry, like I said I'll keep an open mind but as of now, this BS about the Toronto market being some crippling factor is way overblown IMO.

"pressure is for tires" - Charles Barkley.

The dynamics in the biggest market are different. Hell just playing in Canada vs the US is different.

Not everything needs a study to be proven. Simply being a fan of this team for 25 years or so shows me that we're the toughest market for youth to develop in. If you need examples to prove that...go review 25 years of draft history.

You don't have to prove anything, sure no problem there. Don't expect me to change my opinion though without any compelling arguments.

No offence but I at this 25 years of draft history "argument". Have all big market teams done poorly or is Toronto the only big market? If what you're saying is true, then we're doomed, no matter who we draft we're screwed anyway because OMG, players just can't play in "this market". Sorry but that's just nonsense, this team has had piss poor management, that's why we've done poorly. I think we have good management now and we will start doing much better.

 

[seanlinden]

What you're arguing is that we should obsess over every single cap dollar to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot and not making forward thinking moves out of fear of over spending despite history saying that over spending on the odd deal does not keep any Cup winner from being competitive.

It all works both ways.

Yeah -- in a salary cap environment, you must be extremely careful over how you commit to long term contracts.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Sure, though I didn't really have any hope for a real Bernier turnaround, just closer to what he was when he first arrived, and to be honest, I'd still try to sign a decent back up to play with Freddy, just in case and all. ( guessing they'll try to move Bernier somewhere on that )

I agree if they move Bernier they should sign a decent backup. I don't know who wants Bernier though, probably no-one at that price.

Maybe we retain 2-3m of his salary to move him? Maybe that's crazy but having Bernier and Andersen is a slightly uncomfortable situation IMO, like it was with Bernier and Reimer last season. I know they've said Andersen is the #! but what if he has a few bad games, could be another circus. Just thinking out loud ...

 

[seanlinden]

No. What I am arguing is that the Andersen trade was a great trade and if it fails, it's not the end of the world.

He is a #1 goalie. Reading through the Anaheim thread, a lot were not happy he was traded away. He signed a deal that is inline with his stats (top 15 goalie) currently. He's 26 and is the perfect age bracket for what we need as a #1 goalie going forward.

The fact we traded away a #30 pick (when we have #1 & #31) and a 2nd rounder (when we have two more) is pretty good.

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated. Andersen, today, has not played a single game as a "#1 Goalie". For the last 2 years, he's been the front half of a tandem -- a #1 guy, and been annointed the #1 in Toronto without playing a game.

Your last post suggested that we don't need to worry about a $1.6m buyout for 6 years -- "just make it up some other way". So why does that logic only apply to Andersen?

 

[4thline]

A is simply a small portion of B.

Picks don't just hold value because of their on-ice contribution, there are other things like their on-ice contribution relative to salary, and trade value.

Putting it more simply....

Kari Lehtonen is a way better goalie than hwat you could expect somebody drafted 30th overall to be. But, he costs $6m, and the 30th overall, if it pans out, will be a player who comes at a much better performance to dollar ratio.

For a year or two maybe, then they get paid.

 

[JonnyMacAwesome]

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated. Andersen, today, has not played a single game as a "#1 Goalie". For the last 2 years, he's been the front half of a tandem -- a #1 guy, and been annointed the #1 in Toronto without playing a game.

Your last post suggested that we don't need to worry about a $1.6m buyout for 6 years -- "just make it up some other way". So why does that logic only apply to Andersen?

2014-2015 played 54 games. How is that not a #1 role?
2014-2015 playoffs 16 games, how is that not a #1 role?

Your argument is false and you're just picking a fight with no basis or reasoning. Clearly Andersen has previously established himself.

 

[seanlinden]

For a year or two maybe, then they get paid.

Not really.

Young players generally come with 7 years of cost control, versus a guy like Lehtonen, who wouldn't even get paid $6m if he was a UFA today.

 

[seanlinden]

2014-2015 played 54 games. How is that not a #1 role?
2014-2015 playoffs 16 games, how is that not a #1 role?

Your argument is false and you're just picking a fight with no basis or reasoning. Clearly Andersen has previously established himself.

A #1 role is somebody who generally plays ~60 games -- is the uncontested / unquestioned #1 goalie for that team.

Andersen simply hasn't been that -- he's had Gibson there tandeming with him.

 

[Nithoniniel]

If you believe that Lou sees him as a #1 goalie, then you believe that Lou is totally blind, and incapable of reading a stat sheet -- because he clearly has not been. He's been the front half of a tandem.

Well, seems like a problem here is that you think one can evaluate a goaltender properly with a stat sheet, alternatively that you claim the only way one can judge if a goaltender can play a heavy workload is in retrospect.

Personally, it seems to me after reading these discussions that you are aware of the limitations of layman goaltending evaluations, but extrapolate our limitations unto those that have better tools at their disposal.

I'm not convinced it's a great deal like many others here, but you are arguing as if you have figured it all out beforehand. I think you're too emotionally invested in the debate, to be frank.

 

[ACC1224]

A #1 role is somebody who generally plays ~60 games -- is the uncontested / unquestioned #1 goalie for that team.

Andersen simply hasn't been that -- he's had Gibson there tandeming with him.

That sounds conveniently made up.

Thread is way over 1000, aren't alarms going off somewhere at HF Headquarters?

 

[seanlinden]

Well, seems like a problem here is that you think one can evaluate a goaltender properly with a stat sheet, alternatively that you claim the only way one can judge if a goaltender can play a heavy workload is in retrospect.

Personally, it seems to me after reading these discussions that you are aware of the limitations of layman goaltending evaluations, but extrapolate our limitations unto those that have better tools at their disposal.

I'm not convinced it's a great deal like many others here, but you are arguing as if you have figured it all out beforehand. I think you're too emotionally invested in the debate, to be frank.

Not at all.

You cannot evaluate a goaltender with a stat sheet, but you can evaluate a goaltender's role with one.

 

[Grimmas]

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated. Andersen, today, has not played a single game as a "#1 Goalie". For the last 2 years, he's been the front half of a tandem -- a #1 guy, and been annointed the #1 in Toronto without playing a game.

Your last post suggested that we don't need to worry about a $1.6m buyout for 6 years -- "just make it up some other way". So why does that logic only apply to Andersen?

He was Anaheim's number one goalie.

We don't need to worry about the 1.6M buyout for 6 years, because the chances it happens are so slim. If you think Andersen is going to fail that badly, then you don't trade for him and give him that contract.

Did you read about why they traded for him?

1) He's a #1 goalie
2) His style is the perfect style for the defensive system that Babcock has here
3) He's 26
4) A young team with a good goalie has a better chance to improve, because they don't have to worry about ****** goals going in and constantly falling behind.
5) The picks we gave up are not that essential, since we have other similar picks in abduance and after today will have a good group of prospects.

 

[seanlinden]

That sounds conveniently made up.

Thread is way over 1000, aren't alarms going off somewhere at HF Headquarters?

Not really.

It's 3/4 games... every year, there's about 10-15 guys at this mark.