Speculation: 2019 offseason thread II

[JohnnyJacket13]

No audio link, but SiriusXM is saying that the Isles are out on the Panarin sweepstakes

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

How many teams have improved from signing the big name free agents? I would guess most teams have improved though the draft and making trades.

Then I guess that makes our lack of draft picks this year pretty important then doesn't it?

 

[Jackets16]

Then I guess that makes our lack of draft picks this year pretty important then doesn't it?

Would it have been nice to have more picks? Of course. Is it a big deal to not have a lot of picks for one year? I don't think so. Especially when your NHL team is already young. It is a reason why I wouldn't offer sheet a player. I definitely wouldn't offer sheet a player that would cost 4 first round picks. That would mean going 5 straight years without a first round pick.

It was worth going for it this year, IMO.

 

[MoeBartoli]

I'd do Lee at $7m x 5, but that's where I'd draw the line. I wouldn't go above 5 years. I'd prefer Zuccarello at $7m x 3, actually, mostly because you don't want either player after a few years. That and someone needs to do some passing.

Kadri is an obvious target in exchange for one of our second pair D. If I'm the Leafs though I wouldn't do that because it's still not enough cap relief and it weakens them at 3C too much. I would move Nylander instead and look for a bigger return, a top four RHD +. Something like Pesce or Savard++. I'm thinking that's what Dubas is working on. A Kadri move would have been more straightforward and might have been done by now.

I'd go on about Gusev but I'm still having a hard time believing, despite the reports, that Vegas would move him.

Nylander was the other Leaf I was thinking about. I really like his skill but have mild concerns about his head....and Gusev was the LVGK on my mind. (I’d love Wild Bill back with the deal he signed but that’s not happening)

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Would it have been nice to have more picks? Of course. Is it a big deal to not have a lot of picks for one year? I don't think so. Especially when your NHL team is already young. It is a reason why I wouldn't offer sheet a player. I definitely wouldn't offer sheet a player that would cost 4 first round picks. That would mean going 5 straight years without a first round pick.

It was worth going for it this year, IMO.

Unfortunately it was a risk that didn't pay off and unless Jarmo has something magical up his sleeve we'll end up being one of the youngest teams for like the 5th year in a row. As it stand right now, we'll be near the cap floor and we are essentially preparing to fill out the rest of the roster with most of our top prospects while the rest of the prospect pool is not as stellar. If these guys don't pay off we'll be in trouble in a couple of years if not sooner.

This is a rebuild when we were never finished building to begin with.

 

[jacketsnation]

No one wants to live in Columbus . That the problem. We have to over pay to make people come. We trade for players and they leave because they dont like Columbus. Its not for everyone.

 

[majormajor]

No one wants to live in Columbus . That the problem. We have to over pay to make people come. We trade for players and they leave because they dont like Columbus. Its not for everyone.

At least "It's not for everyone" was accurate. "No one wants to live in Columbus" is just not true.

 

[majormajor]

Unfortunately it was a risk that didn't pay off and unless Jarmo has something magical up his sleeve we'll end up being one of the youngest teams for like the 5th year in a row. As it stand right now, we'll be near the cap floor and we are essentially preparing to fill out the rest of the roster with most of our top prospects while the rest of the prospect pool is not as stellar. If these guys don't pay off we'll be in trouble in a couple of years if not sooner.

This is a rebuild when we were never finished building to begin with.

I think there's a contradiction here between being the youngest team with tons of cap space and expecting them to be in trouble in a couple years. Wouldn't the teams you expect to be in trouble be the oldest teams, the ones with cap problems? I know it sounds pollyannaish to some but we've got a lot of great players who aren't even in their primes yet. Jarmo doesn't need to do anything special to make this a good hockey team. To make it a great team, sure that will take some work.

 

[Jackets16]

Unfortunately it was a risk that didn't pay off and unless Jarmo has something magical up his sleeve we'll end up being one of the youngest teams for like the 5th year in a row. As it stand right now, we'll be near the cap floor and we are essentially preparing to fill out the rest of the roster with most of our top prospects while the rest of the prospect pool is not as stellar. If these guys don't pay off we'll be in trouble in a couple of years if not sooner.

This is a rebuild when we were never finished building to begin with.

I don't agree with any of this (except they pare about us being a young team with a lot of cap space).

Rest of the roster? We have 3 openings and our best prospects play those positions.

 

[EDM]

How many teams have improved by signing big name UFA's? Toronto for one. The Pens. Whoever signs Panarin. Whoever signs Duchene. Many teams do improve when the sign big name UFA's. That is why GM's do it.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

How many teams have improved by signing big name UFA's? Toronto for one. The Pens. Whoever signs Panarin. Whoever signs Duchene. Many teams do improve when the sign big name UFA's. That is why GM's do it.

The Pens? When have they signed free agents that have made their team better? Unless if you mean Jack Johnson...

 

[Jackets16]

How many teams have improved by signing big name UFA's? Toronto for one. The Pens. Whoever signs Panarin. Whoever signs Duchene. Many teams do improve when the sign big name UFA's. That is why GM's do it.

1. There are very few players in free agency like Tavares and Panarin.
2. How did Toronto improve?

2017-2018 = 105 points, lost in the first round of the playoffs to Boston (3-4)

• They signed Tavares

2018-2019 = 100 points, lost in the first round of the playoffs to Boston (3-4)

So, they had 5 less points in the regular season and had the exact same result in the playoffs.


Toronto improved by drafting Marner and Matthews.


2015-2016 = 69 points, didn't make the playoffs

• Marner and Matthews join the team (drafted in 2015 and 2016 respectively)

2016-2017 = 95 points, lost in the first round of the playoffs to Washington (2-4)

They had 26 more points in the regular season and made the playoffs.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

We signed Doyle Somerby to a 1 year 2 way deal. Who says we're doing nothing?

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Kyle Dubas won't apologize for flexing Maple Leafs' financial muscle - Sportsnet.ca

I never considered the impact of signing bonuses until reading this. Advantage Toronto and other big market , rich clubs,

If I owned an NHL club worth $500 million and had positive operating income (and I may not even need that), I could go to most any bank and get the money for these bonuses loaned to me. Competing with the Leafs or Montreal or Rangers, etc. is a phone call away to a banker.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

We signed Doyle Somerby to a 1 year 2 way deal. Who says we're doing nothing?

Is it August already?

 

[majormajor]

If I owned an NHL club worth $500 million and had positive operating income (and I may not even need that), I could go to most any bank and get the money for these bonuses loaned to me. Competing with the Leafs or Montreal or Rangers, etc. is a phone call away to a banker.

By the same means the players can get banks to front their contracts for them.

There is an interest cost for ownership in front loading everything with bonuses. I can see why the super high revenue clubs you mentioned are willing to afford that. I think most other clubs consider just getting to the $80m cap enough of a task. If our ownership gets up to the cap and is still interested in spending more money beyond that, then sure this would be a good route to take.

 

[majormajor]

How many teams have improved by signing big name UFA's? Toronto for one. The Pens. Whoever signs Panarin. Whoever signs Duchene. Many teams do improve when the sign big name UFA's. That is why GM's do it.

The league is littered with bad contracts handed to big name UFAs, players that didn't improve their teams. You seem to assume that going forward that won't be the case anymore. Why assume such good results for Duchene of all players? He's a marginal top liner, the same level of player that consistently ends up overpaid by UFA.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

By the same means the players can get banks to front their contracts for them.

There is an interest cost for ownership in front loading everything with bonuses. I can see why the super high revenue clubs you mentioned are willing to afford that. I think most other clubs consider just getting to the $80m cap enough of a task. If our ownership gets up to the cap and is still interested in spending more money beyond that, then sure this would be a good route to take.

Do banks still do that?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

The league is littered with bad contracts handed to big name UFAs, players that didn't improve their teams. You seem to assume that going forward that won't be the case anymore. Why assume such good results for Duchene of all players? He's a marginal top liner, the same level of player that consistently ends up overpaid by UFA.

To add to this...

FWIW the Jackets actually had fewer points the two seasons with Panarin than the season prior. Artemi was of course not a big-name free agent when Jarmo acquired him but...

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Is it August already?

If it is WTF is our mod doing not starting the Prospect Polls?

 

[NotWendell]

Do banks still do that?

Not for you. LOL

 

[majormajor]

Do banks still do that?

I was saying there was an interest cost for the thing you recommended.