What would it take to retain JVR?

[Menzinger]

I assume you meant to say "some people". Here's my rebuttal:

Some people overstate the value of goal scoring in hockey, preventing goals is every bit as important.



When your argument consists of nothing but pointless insults, you've lost the argument before it even begins.

It is always amusing to see folks end posts like “I’m the only one who understands hockey” lol, I couldn’t dream of being that arrogant.

Anyways, agreed that defensively sound players will certainly help offset Jvrs loss. Not to mention you can find decent depth scorers reasonably easily (ie the Leafs signed 20 goal, 40 point Parenteau in free agency for pennies).

 

[IBeL34f]

a NMC doesn't necessarily mean he cant be traded. Nathan Horton has a full NMC, but his contract also has listed a M-NTC. Im pretty sure a NMC is only for being sent down to the minors (which is smart seeing how the leafs dumped so many vets down there). Im not 100% but the fact Horton specifically has both leads me to believe Marleau doesn't have any NTC rights, but likely got a verbal understanding if he was traded it wouldn't be without his consent to where.

But anyway totally agree not a good look to future UFA's

My understanding is that a No-Movement Clause fully encompasses a No-Trade Clause, but also includes the inability to send the player to the minors without the NMC being waived. A full NMC (like Marleau's) requires the NMC to be waived for any transaction (trade or demotion) involving that player.

In Horton's case, it looks like they combined a modified NTC with a standard NMC, essentially making it a modified NTC that wouldn't allow him to be sent to the minors without waiving. He has to waive to go to the minors, but has to provide a list of teams he will/won't (not sure which) accept a trade to.

 

[Loosie]

Quick, name a Stanley Cup contender who traded their pending free agents just because? Other than the tire fire that is St. Louis....

And how did that work out for St. Louis?

 

[HandshakeLineRespect]

Leafs aren’t going to buckle under their first financial pressure point in this rebuild and re sign JVR. That money is going to be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Walshy7]

My understanding is that a No-Movement Clause fully encompasses a No-Trade Clause, but also includes the inability to send the player to the minors without the NMC being waived. A full NMC (like Marleau's) requires the NMC to be waived for any transaction (trade or demotion) involving that player.

In Horton's case, it looks like they combined a modified NTC with a standard NMC, essentially making it a modified NTC that wouldn't allow him to be sent to the minors without waiving. He has to waive to go to the minors, but has to provide a list of teams he will/won't (not sure which) accept a trade to.

you could be right im not sure, I feel like for ease of understanding in your above explanation it should be a M-NMC and modified no movement clause meaning the trade part has conditions

 

[Loosie]

Matthews, Marner, Nylander and the rest of this young team should never, ever be given any doubt that this management team is not serious about winning! Trading away UFAs for picks when we have a chance to win the Cup is a defeatist mentality.

It that whole 'shiny new' mentality that even after we drafted Matthews there were some people questioning if we should continue to tank to get Hischier, and if we did manage to do that there would be people wanting to continue to tank to get Dahlin and so on.

Just because they are UFA's doesn't mean they need to be moved. I'd much rather have JVR and his goal-scoring on this team now for the run we are going on and have to worry about replacing him in the off-season, then trading him now and trying to find a replacement in house for his 30 goals. (And I'm a huge Leivo fan too so trading JVR would have given Leivo a huge opportunity)

I still think we negotiate with him, see what he's looking for but if he walks, he walks. We can't rid ourselves of expiring contracts every year just because.

 

[Gary Nylund]

My understanding is that a No-Movement Clause fully encompasses a No-Trade Clause, but also includes the inability to send the player to the minors without the NMC being waived. A full NMC (like Marleau's) requires the NMC to be waived for any transaction (trade or demotion) involving that player.

In Horton's case, it looks like they combined a modified NTC with a standard NMC, essentially making it a modified NTC that wouldn't allow him to be sent to the minors without waiving. He has to waive to go to the minors, but has to provide a list of teams he will/won't (not sure which) accept a trade to.

I wonder if something like this would be allowable - instead of offering players NMC's and so on, offer them a huge bonus if traded. The bigger the player, the bigger the bonus so a rich team like the Leafs could buy themselves more flexibility. JVR, you want a NMC? What if we offer this instead - if we trade you, you get 3 million dollars for every year left on our contract?

 

[IBeL34f]

you could be right im not sure, I feel like for ease of understanding in your above explanation it should be a M-NMC and modified no movement clause meaning the trade part has conditions

The 'Movement' part can't be modified, though, as that refers specifically to being sent to the minors. So 'NMC, M-NTC', while longer, is an apt description.

 

[GodEmperor]

Low ball him, no NTC/NMC unless he takes a mega cheap deal, if he doesn't like it, he can scram.

I don't mind him, but he's a prototypical slacker in wasting his awesome potential.

 

[Walshy7]

I wonder if something like this would be allowable - instead of offering players NMC's and so on, offer them a huge bonus if traded. The bigger the player, the bigger the bonus so a rich team like the Leafs could buy themselves more flexibility. JVR, you want a NMC? What if we offer this instead - if we trade you, you get 3 million dollars for every year left on our contract?

and refusal to x number of teams if he must, I like that its kind of like MLB contracts with team options. League wouldn't allow it I bet because it favors the rich teams and not the poor NHL pet teams

 

[Leaf Lander]

jvr is a greedy traitor

who wants too much money for his limited role.

 

[TorontoTrades]

jvr is a greedy traitor

who wants too much money for his limited role.

huh??? traitor?

I'm so confused... All reports suggest he would take a discount to stay. Unsure if that still works but he has been a proud Maple Leaf in his career.

If he leaves it's more the team saying bye than him saying bye.

 

[Tak7]

100% agree

Kapanen for example definatly has 20-25 goal potential, he imo will save you 10 more goals a season than having JVR we now either break even or are ahead on goal difference with kapanen over JVR. Kapanen was rated above Nylander in euro scouting at least partially during their draft years he may have even finished higher than him I cant remember kid has legit offensive talent. Johnsson although untried in the NHL seems to show more defensive aptitude than JVR, I believe Johnsson is on the marlies PK.

A team short on scoring forwards will pay JVR 6x$6M and if that's what you need then it isn't a bad deal, to a team that doesn't NEED that it is a very bad long term contract

Yeah I tend to agree.

The right decision is definitely to let him go in the summer, if you can't get him signed to a dumb cheap / low term deal (he shouldn't, he's already underpaid considering the comparables for his sort of production).

The only thing I'll add - while Kapanen and others can come in and, generally, replace the goals we lose, JvR does have quite a unique net front presence and other than Kadri, he's the only one on this team that can consistently score those "greasy" in-close goals. That's where the Leafs will eventually miss JvR.

It's also why I'm a bit baffled that they haven't tried to use someone like Leivo a little bit more in that JvR spot on the powerplay - with this big cushion in the standings, why not experiment a bit and see what you have?

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Awful asset management.

At this stage though, he needs to walk, because the only thing worse is signing him for more than 5mil or longer than 4 years.

 

[Tak7]

And how did that work out for St. Louis?

Well:

The Blues traded Shattenkirk, and I'd argue that Shattenkirk was far more valuable to St. Louis than JvR is to Toronto.

With those acquired assets, the Blues were able to trade for Brayden Schenn in the summer. Schenn has had a good season in St. Louis. That's good asset management.

They took a position of strength, and used it to address a position of weakness.

The Leafs strengh is their depth on the wing. Their weakness is the blueline.

The reason why Tampa, and not the Leafs, were able to complete the McDonagh deal, is was because they had a strong number of assets stocked up.

Something to think about.

 

[Tak7]

huh??? traitor?

I'm so confused... All reports suggest he would take a discount to stay. Unsure if that still works but he has been a proud Maple Leaf in his career.

If he leaves it's more the team saying bye than him saying bye.

No it isn't.

While the traitor comment is silly, JvR isn't going to be taking a discount to stay in Toronto (Kypreos and Friedman have said that a few times).

He's also going to leave because his usage - he gets third line ice time here on many nights. Babcock doesn't use him in close games or when the Leafs are protecting leads.

He'll leave because money and TOI. The organization will let him leave because of his $ and lack of defensive play.

 

[Loosie]

Well:

The Blues traded Shattenkirk, and I'd argue that Shattenkirk was far more valuable to St. Louis than JvR is to Toronto.

With those acquired assets, the Blues were able to trade for Brayden Schenn in the summer. Schenn has had a good season in St. Louis. That's good asset management.

They took a position of strength, and used it to address a position of weakness.

The Leafs strengh is their depth on the wing. Their weakness is the blueline.

The reason why Tampa, and not the Leafs, were able to complete the McDonagh deal, is was because they had a strong number of assets stocked up.

Something to think about.

So the Blues didn't win the cup last year, and are likely out of the playoffs this year, but hey a player they got with pieces from a trade last year is having a good year! Asset Management!

Tampa completed the McDonagh deal because they were willing to pay the price to get him, Toronto was not. We don't know what Toronto offered or what the Rangers asked for it's just speculation. Lou likely had his price and stuck to his guns instead of giving in and (in his eyes) overpaying. That to me is better asset management then trading a UFA in the middle of a playoff run simply because he's a UFA.

 

[Muston Atthews]

I hope we spend be money on Kovalchuk before JVR

 

[Marner]

I hope we spend be money on Kovalchuk before JVR

no bad blood with Lou?

 

[Gallagbi]

no bad blood with Lou?

Bad blood?

 

[Torontonian]

For him to learn how to play some defense and show some heart out there.

 

[pylon17]

Lou to have an aneurysm.

 

[OppositeLocK]

Well:

The Blues traded Shattenkirk, and I'd argue that Shattenkirk was far more valuable to St. Louis than JvR is to Toronto.

With those acquired assets, the Blues were able to trade for Brayden Schenn in the summer. Schenn has had a good season in St. Louis. That's good asset management.

They took a position of strength, and used it to address a position of weakness.

The Leafs strengh is their depth on the wing. Their weakness is the blueline.

The reason why Tampa, and not the Leafs, were able to complete the McDonagh deal, is was because they had a strong number of assets stocked up.

Something to think about.

Good post and excellent discussion point.

 

[Trapper]

So the Blues didn't win the cup last year, and are likely out of the playoffs this year, but hey a player they got with pieces from a trade last year is having a good year! Asset Management!

Tampa completed the McDonagh deal because they were willing to pay the price to get him, Toronto was not. We don't know what Toronto offered or what the Rangers asked for it's just speculation. Lou likely had his price and stuck to his guns instead of giving in and (in his eyes) overpaying. That to me is better asset management then trading a UFA in the middle of a playoff run simply because he's a UFA.

We don't know the ramifications of our decisions yet, it's too early.
Same with St. Louis. How what they got for Stastny (plus the return of a healthy Fabbro) impact moving forward. We also don't know how the loss of Bozak,JVR,Komarov,Plekanec,etc. affect us yet. Does Willy stay at wing? In which case we a pretty weak at C.
Can't answer these questions yet. We are only in the now. So with our current decisions, enjoy the now.
IMO, JVR should have been moved in the summer to address a deficiency long term. People don't have to agree but it is what it is now.

 

[Tak7]

So the Blues didn't win the cup last year, and are likely out of the playoffs this year, but hey a player they got with pieces from a trade last year is having a good year! Asset Management!

Tampa completed the McDonagh deal because they were willing to pay the price to get him, Toronto was not. We don't know what Toronto offered or what the Rangers asked for it's just speculation. Lou likely had his price and stuck to his guns instead of giving in and (in his eyes) overpaying. That to me is better asset management then trading a UFA in the middle of a playoff run simply because he's a UFA.

So?

Are the Blues better off with nobody? Or with Brayden Schenn in his prime moving forward? They knew they were losing their man, and so they flipped him and eventually addressed a position of weakness.

Sorry- but if you don't view that as good asset management, then there's not much discussion to be had.

Both Mirtle and Friedman suggested Liljegren or Dermott needed to be in any potential McDonagh package - that's why the Leafs backed out. Tampa could make that deal because they have a stockpile of assets after some smart asset management over the past 4 years.