Value of: William Nylander Trade Possibilities

[Randy Randerson]

Given that the team they were primarily discussing trading down with was Columbus, I suspect that would not have worked out well for them.

not sure if this is true...unless you can support it with some sort of a .gif of Kekalainen saying no on the phone, then hanging up and laughing?

 

[Canada4Gold]

not sure if this is true...unless you can support it with some sort of a .gif of Kekalainen saying no on the phone, then hanging up and laughing?

It's pretty universally accepted that the ask/offer was 4th for 8th + 3 2nds, now whether that was a Leafs offer turned down by Columbus, or a Jackets offer turned down by Toronto once Marner was on the board I don't know. I feel like it was a Leafs offer conditional on Marner not being taken that the Jackets turned down but the Leafs also would have turned down once Marner was still there.

Was Columbus trying to/considering trading up for Provorov or Werenski though? Because that's the only way it doesn't really work out for Toronto. As Marner, Strome, Hanifin, Provorov, and Werenski would be all gone, unless we assume Jersey still takes Zacha with one of Strome/Hanifin on the board.

 

[Critical13]

I hope we keep him, and the other two.

Build the core around them.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

D+1 Drai was about the same as D+1 Nylander.
D+2 Drai was much better than D+2 Nylander.
D+3 Drai was much better than D+3 Nylander.

They are the same draft class, stop trying to fudge numbers.

But this is Zeke's specialty.

 

[Randy Randerson]

It's pretty universally accepted that the ask/offer was 4th for 8th + 3 2nds, now whether that was a Leafs offer turned down by Columbus, or a Jackets offer turned down by Toronto once Marner was on the board I don't know. I feel like it was a Leafs offer conditional on Marner not being taken that the Jackets turned down but the Leafs also would have turned down once Marner was still there.

Was Columbus trying to/considering trading up for Provorov or Werenski though? Because that's the only way it doesn't really work out for Toronto. As Marner, Strome, Hanifin, Provorov, and Werenski would be all gone, unless we assume Jersey still takes Zacha with one of Strome/Hanifin on the board.

I meant that comment to be tongue-in-cheek. I thought I heard that Columbus thought their guy was going to be available at 8 though, and I think Provorov to Philly was a pretty popular opinion before it happened so I think Columbus got the guy they intended to

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Why not Oilers?

Oilers are probably the among top 2 favourites to win the Western Conference, and they certainly don't have a what is considered a #1 Dmen. Yep, I guess they should give up this season.
Somehow among Leaf haters only the Leafs can't have a successful season unless they acquire a so called # 1 by trading Nylander.

 

[Viqsi]

It's pretty universally accepted that the ask/offer was 4th for 8th + 3 2nds, now whether that was a Leafs offer turned down by Columbus, or a Jackets offer turned down by Toronto once Marner was on the board I don't know. I feel like it was a Leafs offer conditional on Marner not being taken that the Jackets turned down but the Leafs also would have turned down once Marner was still there.

Was Columbus trying to/considering trading up for Provorov or Werenski though? Because that's the only way it doesn't really work out for Toronto. As Marner, Strome, Hanifin, Provorov, and Werenski would be all gone, unless we assume Jersey still takes Zacha with one of Strome/Hanifin on the board.

Kekalainen appears to have considered Hanifin and Werenski to be almost interchangeable, and it's pretty certain that one of those two was definitely the target.

* * *​

I meant that comment to be tongue-in-cheek. I thought I heard that Columbus thought their guy was going to be available at 8 though, and I think Provorov to Philly was a pretty popular opinion before it happened so I think Columbus got the guy they intended to

We have video of Kekalainen saying "we got our guy" after Provorov's name was called, so that's a pretty safe bet.

 

[Randy Randerson]

We have video of Kekalainen saying "we got our guy" after Provorov's name was called, so that's a pretty safe bet.

I swear there was a 5 second clip from the draft floor of Kekalainen on the phone with Shanahan saying "no, no" then hanging up and laughing

 

[Viqsi]

I swear there was a 5 second clip from the draft floor of Kekalainen on the phone with Shanahan saying "no, no" then hanging up and laughing

There's one for Cheveldayoff, but I'm unaware of one for Kekalainen. Honestly, I'm not even sure if there's video evidence that he's capable of smiling.

 

[Randy Randerson]

There's one for Cheveldayoff, but I'm unaware of one for Kekalainen. Honestly, I'm not even sure if there's video evidence that he's capable of smiling.

yep, that was it...my mistake

for sure on the smiling bit. I'm looking forward to seeing Kekalainen in the James Tolkan role for the Top Gun sequel

 

[Kamiccolo]

I came in here expecting to see some realistic trades being discussed for Nylander, then read thorough pages of IMO insulting proposals and a bunch of chirping back and forth.

That is why Nylander will not move. Other fans tell us he needs to be traded to address defense, yet can't offer a realistic deal that does that. All I see are 2nd pairing D with potential to become top pairing, however that solves nothing as

A) potential means nothing

B) Team wants to start winning ASAP and Nylander has already proven he is a top line player.

Guys like Hanifin do nothing, he is not better than Rielly. We need someone better than Rielly. Ekblad doesn't work either. He hasn't proven he is a #1, and can't stay healthy.

There are a handful of D that would be considered, and most will not move. Therefore, that makes Nylander untouchable until someone wants to trade a true #1 for Nylander.

I suspect if it happens, it will be once Nylander proves he is a #1 C, so maybe in a few seasons if the defense is still not addressed.

 

[Shootertooter]

If Doughty was signed to a long term deal than his value is much more than Nylander's... and I freaking hate Doughty.

Doughty is 27, his contract is 7.25M per. If a not exactly young guy is the need......

Why not Ryan McDonagh? Top pairing guy, turned 28 in June, 4.7M salary signed for 2 more seasons.

 

[Starat327]

Doughty is 27, his contract is 7.25M per. If a not exactly young guy is the need......

Why not Ryan McDonagh? Top pairing guy, turned 28 in June, 4.7M salary signed for 2 more seasons.

McDonaugh will command slightly less AAV, but at a similar term, and be older when the contract ends (assuming they would both re-sign to max term deals).

 

[zeke]

Lol this is why no one takes you seriously. Did you even look at their stats? They are the same draft year, so their production should be judged on that. Are we going to lump Matthews in with the 2015 draft class now because he missed that cut off by 2 or 3 days? No, that is ridiculous...

Also you say Nylander was better growing up. I won't refute that, because I can't prove anything. But how about you look at the situations they grew up in? Nylander was given way more opportunity to exceed at this sport. Father was a very good NHL player, and he was apart of a much stronger national team. I don't think anyone can argue that Sweden isn't a way better country at hockey than Germany as a whole. Leons father was a career German league goalie. Clearly there is a gap in the guidance each one of them would have received from an early age.

Each one had a fault going in to their draft year. Leon had skating issues, which he has over come. Willy was thought to have attitude issues, I never thought this was the case but it was a reason for him dropping.

Draft year +1 Can go to Willy, I'll give him that one. He put up great points in the SHL and in the AHL when he came over. But, Leon in his own right was a man among boys in the WHL. Won the memorial cup MVP on the losing team. He also did that the year in the NHL.

Draft year +1 Clearly it is Leon here. Came up after 6 games in the AHL, forced in to the #1C on the team when McDavid went down. Produced extremely well with 51 points in 72 games. Nylander played most of his year in the AHL, and he produced well. Came up to the NHL and had 13 points in 22 games, still very good for a young player. But, producing 13 points against 3rd and 4th liners is not the same as 51 points against the other teams top 2 lines.

Draft year +3 Not much needs to be said here, I don't think anyone can refute that Leon was the better player last year. 77 points vs 61 points, 16 points in the playoffs vs 4. Hell Leon had more points in one game than Nylander did in all 6.

Your need to try and prove that Leafs players are far superior to any players the rest of the league has is ridiculous. Accept that you have good young players, but also accept that they are not the be all and end all of the league. If the Leafs were as good as you and some on here make them out to be they would have made it further.

You should take it seriously. There's a reason why you and everyone else here was wrong about the leafs last year.

Nylander has been better than Drai at every age and level.

The nhl's arbitrary draft cutoff date doesn't change that in any way.

and yes, I also compare Matthews to players his own age.

 

[DonnyG33]

Nylander is worth more than any defenseman in the entire league.

 

[McNuge]

You should take it seriously. There's a reason why you and everyone else here was wrong about the leafs last year.

Nylander has been better than Drai at every age and level.

The nhl's arbitrary draft cutoff date doesn't change that in any way.

and yes, I also compare Matthews to players his own age.

So let me get this straight... You compare players based on age, what happens if the player plays half the year at one age and half the season a year older? Are you going to count how many points they got in the second half and add it to their totals the following year?

This is so flawed... teams change from year to year, players play with different players year to year. Teams have different strengths and weaknesses from year to year. The league literally changes every year... Why the hell would you not compare a players full season to anothers? Especially if they are from the same draft year. Do you hear of scouts comparing the older prospects stats from the year before to the younger guys from their draft year? No, this is stupid.


Also if Nylander has been better please provide some evidence.

 

[DaPhazz]

Nylander is going nowhere

If Mugzy97 says so, it must be true, close this tread.

 

[Brock Radunske]

Oilers are probably the among top 2 favourites to win the Western Conference, and they certainly don't have a what is considered a #1 Dmen. Yep, I guess they should give up this season.
Somehow among Leaf haters only the Leafs can't have a successful season unless they acquire a so called # 1 by trading Nylander.

And then turn around a mock them relentlessly for giving him up

 

[Advanced stats]

If Mugzy97 says so, it must be true, close this tread.

Please do.

Nylander's not going anywhere, and I haven't even seen any offers in the last few pages.

 

[zeke]

So let me get this straight... You compare players based on age, what happens if the player plays half the year at one age and half the season a year older? Are you going to count how many points they got in the second half and add it to their totals the following year?

This is so flawed... teams change from year to year, players play with different players year to year. Teams have different strengths and weaknesses from year to year. The league literally changes every year... Why the hell would you not compare a players full season to anothers? Especially if they are from the same draft year. Do you hear of scouts comparing the older prospects stats from the year before to the younger guys from their draft year? No, this is stupid.

Also if Nylander has been better please provide some evidence.

The reason we use birth year to compare ages of young players is because players at all levels are slotted by birth year growing up. It's not a perfect cutoff, but it makes much more sense than using the NHL's arbitrary draft cutoff date.

 

[Spazkat]

The reason we use birth year to compare ages of young players is because players at all levels are slotted by birth year growing up. It's not a perfect cutoff, but it makes much more sense than using the NHL's arbitrary draft cutoff date.

By "we" you mean... you? They may use birth year while growing up, but NHL comparisons are almost exclusively to their draft class.

In general, when an argument is made using a non standard metric, it's pretty much a red flag that its used because the standard metric would result in a lower score/evaluation/ranking. Its like when people here want to talk "pace" instead of actual points.

 

[Batrous]

I wouldn't want the Leafs to trade him. But if they did it would have to be for a young top 2 defenseman.

 

[Blender]

The reason we use birth year to compare ages of young players is because players at all levels are slotted by birth year growing up. It's not a perfect cutoff, but it makes much more sense than using the NHL's arbitrary draft cutoff date.

Birth year determining when you start school or what level of hockey you play in isn't any less arbitrary than the NHL's draft cutoff date. A player born in December 1995 playing against 1995 birth year players is going to have less of a physical advantage than a player born in January 1996 playing against 1996 birth year players, despite those two players being less than a month apart in age. You are using birth year because it favours your argument, but you aren't applying any context to it that is required to actually make a proper analysis.

The reason draft year is used is because it represents the number of years of development a player has under his belt, that is generally equal between all players. Yes the birth date of players will be a factor in their physical maturity in comparison to their peers, up to a certain age, but it doesn't account for the number of playing years and level of skill development a player may have. Draft year does.

 

[Leafidelity]

HF: What would you trade Nylander for?
Leafs fans: We don't want to trade Nylander.
HF: So "young player + a high pick"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: So "established player"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: lol typical Leafs fans, overrating their players.

 

[jetsjetsjets]

Birth year determining when you start school or what level of hockey you play in isn't any less arbitrary than the NHL's draft cutoff date. A player born in December 1995 playing against 1995 birth year players is going to have more of a physical advantage than a player born in January 1996 playing against 1996 birth year players, despite those two players being less than a month apart in age. You are using birth year because it favours your argument, but you aren't applying any context to it that is required to actually make a proper analysis.

The reason draft year is used is because it represents the number of years of development a player has under his belt, that is generally equal between all players. Yes the birth date of players will be a factor in their physical maturity in comparison to their peers, up to a certain age, but it doesn't account for the number of playing years and level of skill development a player may have. Draft year does.

Well said. I think most understand this, just the ones who refuse to accept it are more vocal.