Value of: Aaron Dell and Brenden Dillion to the Leafs.

[seanlinden]

Think some of them feel good about it now?

Here's the thing, i'm not against moving a 1st, but not for a backup goalie and a rental UFA D man. There are teams that would/could...but the Leafs are not in that position.

Should say "a rental backup goalie and rental #3/4 d man"...

And therein lies the real problem.... Dell and Dillon simply aren't the kind of impact players that you move first round picks for. These aren't impact additions, and having either/both doesn't justify the long term upside of giving up a 1st round pick.

 

[Gecklund]

Should say "a rental backup goalie and rental #3/4 d man"...

And therein lies the real problem.... Dell and Dillon simply aren't the kind of impact players that you move first round picks for. These aren't impact additions, and having either/both doesn't justify the long term upside of giving up a 1st round pick.

You don’t think a second pairing D is an impact player?

 

[FerrisRox]

And therein lies the real problem.... Dell and Dillon simply aren't the kind of impact players that you move first round picks for.

I agree. I think the Leafs would be foolish to move a 1st for two guys that barely move the needle in terms of improving the team.

Also, if I was a Leaf fan, I would be pretty pissed off to see the General Manager suddenly change course in this fashion.

All summer he ignored the obvious needs to patch up the defence and add an actual back up goaltender like he was the smartest guy in the room and he knew better. Then, at the deadline, he pays a premium to stick two band-aids on the problem?

He would be stupid to do it.

 

[seanlinden]

You don’t think a second pairing D is an impact player?

Not to the extent of giving up a first round pick. Think about it -- name one team out there for whom Dillon is a substantial upgrade on what they have to justify moving a 1st round pick.

Given that its the deadline, remember that it must be a team who after the deal, is a legit cup contender.

 

[Fatass]

What??

I like Craig Anderson as an experienced backup.
Kap fir Anderson and Sen’s 2020 2nd? Then use that 2nd to draft a young D?

 

[Liferleafer]

I like Craig Anderson as an experienced backup.
Kap fir Anderson and Sen’s 2020 2nd? Then use that 2nd to draft a young D?

Not at all interested in that...if this were the case, then Hell...do the Kap for Georgiev thoughts (which i also wouldn't do).

 

[Fatass]

Not at all interested in that...if this were the case, then Hell...do the Kap for Georgiev thoughts (which i also wouldn't do).

I don’t get the concept of trading fir a young goalie, when Anderson is the number one. An older, experienced backup makes more sense to me. That’s why Craig Anderson. Plus, the Sen’s second round pick will be in the 30’s.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

This is the part you keep going back to that i can't figure out. If you have a price in mind for the players on their own of 2nd+for Dillion and as much as a 2nd for Dell, then why would the price rise to a 1st if one team wanted both? Why not 2nd+2nd+prospect?

Because the actual goal is a 1st round pick. That's been made clear to you in multiple posts.

At the deadline, it's as close to binary as it gets.

Cap dumps, or salary equalization, are simply part of a deal. They do not affect the return at the deadline, as the selling team already has both the cap and budget space to do it. (unless there are multi-year implications)

The Leafs don't need anyone to "help" them with their cap, and certainly not by taking Ceci. The Leafs are looking for an upgrade, if a team selling a defenceman likes the Leafs offer the best, they'll take Ceci to make it happen, and then probably flip him for some negligible asset.



Yes it does, that's why we're talking a 2nd+ for Brendan Dillon.

The reality is -- first round picks simply don't get traded any more for non-impact players.

Or it's just not binary and you should just scrap that way of looking at it and yes it does affect the return at the deadline. That's demonstrably false. Ceci isn't worth anything on the market. If he was, they would've dealt him a long time ago. And a top four d-man is still an impact player at the deadline. If you're looking at Dillon as less than that then you're not going to win the bidding war for him because you're undervaluing his impact to a team.

 

[Liferleafer]

Because the actual goal is a 1st round pick. That's been made clear to you in multiple posts.



Or it's just not binary and you should just scrap that way of looking at it and yes it does affect the return at the deadline. That's demonstrably false. Ceci isn't worth anything on the market. If he was, they would've dealt him a long time ago. And a top four d-man is still an impact player at the deadline. If you're looking at Dillon as less than that then you're not going to win the bidding war for him because you're undervaluing his impact to a team.

Fair enough, hope you find a team that gives it to you.

 

[Flyer lurker]

You don’t think a second pairing D is an impact player?

Dillon on a great defense is 3rd pairing but on majority of teams is 2nd pairing. That isn't worth a 1. At least teams in the 15-23ish category. Capitals MAYBE you make case for. Leafs NO.

 

[seanlinden]

Because the actual goal is a 1st round pick. That's been made clear to you in multiple posts.



Or it's just not binary and you should just scrap that way of looking at it and yes it does affect the return at the deadline. That's demonstrably false. Ceci isn't worth anything on the market. If he was, they would've dealt him a long time ago. And a top four d-man is still an impact player at the deadline. If you're looking at Dillon as less than that then you're not going to win the bidding war for him because you're undervaluing his impact to a team.

Can you provide a real world example? or even some well-reasoned logic to suggest that a GM, who's mandate is to rebuild a team, did or would take less in terms of futures because it meant spending money that he already had to spend?

The fact that you think the Leafs would have dealt Ceci outright shows just how little you understand him as a player. He's a 20 minute defenceman for Toronto, and the ONLY reason he'd be moved is if somebody materially better is coming back. If they didn't want him at $4.5m, they would have gone to arbitration in the summer and let him walk.

I stand by my earlier statement.... no player of Dillon's calibre on an expiring deal has yielded a 1st round pick at the deadline. Unlike affordability, "impact" is not a binary scale, so sure, call him an impact player. He's not enough of one to justify moving a 1st round pick. Even most Sharks fans agree with that.

 

[Gecklund]

Dillon on a great defense is 3rd pairing but on majority of teams is 2nd pairing. That isn't worth a 1. At least teams in the 15-23ish category. Capitals MAYBE you make case for. Leafs NO.

Dillon on a fantastic defense (like 3 teams in the league maybe) would be on the third pair. The rest he would be getting 2nd pair minutes.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Can you provide a real world example? or even some well-reasoned logic to suggest that a GM, who's mandate is to rebuild a team, did or would take less in terms of futures because it meant spending money that he already had to spend?

The fact that you think the Leafs would have dealt Ceci outright shows just how little you understand him as a player. He's a 20 minute defenceman for Toronto, and the ONLY reason he'd be moved is if somebody materially better is coming back. If they didn't want him at $4.5m, they would have gone to arbitration in the summer and let him walk.

I stand by my earlier statement.... no player of Dillon's calibre on an expiring deal has yielded a 1st round pick at the deadline. Unlike affordability, "impact" is not a binary scale, so sure, call him an impact player. He's not enough of one to justify moving a 1st round pick. Even most Sharks fans agree with that.

When the Sharks traded with the Leafs to get Polak and Spaling and then later James Reimer, they had to pony up two 2nd round picks and a 3rd rounder. The Sharks needed to add Raffi Torres to make the cap work. They would've paid less if they didn't have that need. It may have only been a 3rd instead of one of the two 2nds because let's be real, Reimer, Polak, and Spaling were not worth 2 2nds and a 3rd. But they forked it over because they needed to move a mil off their cap to make it work.

The fact that you think Ceci playing this year 20 minutes for the Leafs changes his value elsewhere shows how little you understand how trade value works. He's not wanted by anyone especially at that cap figure and will only be taken on if they're getting something meaningful out of it from Toronto. If he's playing that well for the Leafs now then they should keep him and ride it out and that's fine because there are many instances where a player's value to their team is more than what he'd get on the trade market.

Affordability isn't the only measure that influences trades and you need to kill that mindset when talking trade values entirely. I'm not even saying that Dillon is worth justifying moving a 1st round pick but you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm exhausting all avenues and methods I have to extract one from a team for him if one is there. If Boston as a very late 1st wanted Dillon at 50% while we were taking a contract back they don't want to have anymore making at or less than Dillon, even for another year, I'm looking into that deal. I'm not saying it's out there but that's what has to be exhausted before settling on the discussed price of a 2nd plus an asset.

 

[seanlinden]

When the Sharks traded with the Leafs to get Polak and Spaling and then later James Reimer, they had to pony up two 2nd round picks and a 3rd rounder. The Sharks needed to add Raffi Torres to make the cap work. They would've paid less if they didn't have that need. It may have only been a 3rd instead of one of the two 2nds because let's be real, Reimer, Polak, and Spaling were not worth 2 2nds and a 3rd. But they forked it over because they needed to move a mil off their cap to make it work.

The fact that you think Ceci playing this year 20 minutes for the Leafs changes his value elsewhere shows how little you understand how trade value works. He's not wanted by anyone especially at that cap figure and will only be taken on if they're getting something meaningful out of it from Toronto. If he's playing that well for the Leafs now then they should keep him and ride it out and that's fine because there are many instances where a player's value to their team is more than what he'd get on the trade market.

Affordability isn't the only measure that influences trades and you need to kill that mindset when talking trade values entirely. I'm not even saying that Dillon is worth justifying moving a 1st round pick but you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm exhausting all avenues and methods I have to extract one from a team for him if one is there. If Boston as a very late 1st wanted Dillon at 50% while we were taking a contract back they don't want to have anymore making at or less than Dillon, even for another year, I'm looking into that deal. I'm not saying it's out there but that's what has to be exhausted before settling on the discussed price of a 2nd plus an asset.

No, they wouldn't... because Raffi Torres made (I believe) less than Polak, and the selling team (Leafs) already had both the budget and cap space to.

As for Ceci, there are numerous teams that are presently looking for defencemen, and he'd be absolutely fine as a #4/5 guy to add depth. Is he overpaid? sure, but again, it's only the remainder of the year, if a team has the space to add him, it doesn't really matter if he's making $4.5m or $3m. In the summer, when looking at potential acquisitions, contract value is a factor. That's replaced by affordability come deadline time for guys on expiring deals.

With respect to Dillon -- yeah, I can see Dillon at 50% for a 1st and Backes making sense from the B's perspective.... but that means the Sharks taking on MORE money than they have presumably budgeted for, as well as handicapping themselves for next year by taking on a guy making $6m who has currently fallen out of an NHL lineup.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No, they wouldn't... because Raffi Torres made (I believe) less than Polak, and the selling team (Leafs) already had both the budget and cap space to.

As for Ceci, there are numerous teams that are presently looking for defencemen, and he'd be absolutely fine as a #4/5 guy to add depth. Is he overpaid? sure, but again, it's only the remainder of the year, if a team has the space to add him, it doesn't really matter if he's making $4.5m or $3m. In the summer, when looking at potential acquisitions, contract value is a factor. That's replaced by affordability come deadline time for guys on expiring deals.

With respect to Dillon -- yeah, I can see Dillon at 50% for a 1st and Backes making sense from the B's perspective.... but that means the Sharks taking on MORE money than they have presumably budgeted for, as well as handicapping themselves for next year by taking on a guy making $6m who has currently fallen out of an NHL lineup.

The Sharks would've paid less if they didn't have the need to send Torres to account for what the Sharks were bringing in. Not the Leafs. As for Ceci, I disagree with he'd be fine as a #4/5 guy. Maybe you can find a team willing to take that chance on him and go for it if so but a competing team ought not take that chance because Ceci is not a good player. Selling teams won't do it unless they're being paid handsomely to do so. So it wouldn't surprise me if the Leafs kept him because of that. You vastly oversimplify the situation. That 1.5 million difference actually matters because contending teams may want to utilize that cap space in multiple moves. Contract value is still a factor at the deadline. It's just lessened at that stage but it's not eliminated altogether and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

As for the Boston thing, the Sharks would get more to take on Backes especially if you're also moving Dillon to them. It's going to cost them a first to get rid of Backes. Dillon being added will require his value to be met as well.

 

[seanlinden]

The Sharks would've paid less if they didn't have the need to send Torres to account for what the Sharks were bringing in. Not the Leafs. As for Ceci, I disagree with he'd be fine as a #4/5 guy. Maybe you can find a team willing to take that chance on him and go for it if so but a competing team ought not take that chance because Ceci is not a good player. Selling teams won't do it unless they're being paid handsomely to do so. So it wouldn't surprise me if the Leafs kept him because of that. You vastly oversimplify the situation. That 1.5 million difference actually matters because contending teams may want to utilize that cap space in multiple moves. Contract value is still a factor at the deadline. It's just lessened at that stage but it's not eliminated altogether and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

As for the Boston thing, the Sharks would get more to take on Backes especially if you're also moving Dillon to them. It's going to cost them a first to get rid of Backes. Dillon being added will require his value to be met as well.

No, they really wouldn't. Any team shipping over the salaries that the Leafs did (Polak and Spaling) would have happily absorbed the $2m left on Raffi Torres' deal. Only difference is that they may have actually taken Torres and tried to make use of him, rather than pay him to play in somebody else's organization.

There's only so many additions that a deadline team can make -- typically they don't want to grossly disrupt their chemistry either.

As for Boston, it's not going to cost them a 1st round pick to get rid of David Backes.... the cash outlay and cap implications are going to be the same as Marleau, but with Backes you will get a veteran player who will play.. plus if he gets hurt his contract is likely insured.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No, they really wouldn't. Any team shipping over the salaries that the Leafs did (Polak and Spaling) would have happily absorbed the $2m left on Raffi Torres' deal. Only difference is that they may have actually taken Torres and tried to make use of him, rather than pay him to play in somebody else's organization.

There's only so many additions that a deadline team can make -- typically they don't want to grossly disrupt their chemistry either.

As for Boston, it's not going to cost them a 1st round pick to get rid of David Backes.... the cash outlay and cap implications are going to be the same as Marleau, but with Backes you will get a veteran player who will play.. plus if he gets hurt his contract is likely insured.

Except they actually did so your argument is meaningless to me.

As for Backes, no not really. Anybody taking on Backes is very likely going to buy him out in the off-season so it's no difference there.

 

[seanlinden]

Except they actually did so your argument is meaningless to me.

As for Backes, no not really. Anybody taking on Backes is very likely going to buy him out in the off-season so it's no difference there.

And if they do that... his salary outlay will be much smaller than Marleau.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And if they do that... his salary outlay will be much smaller than Marleau.

Except if they're looking to dump Backes now, there aren't many willing suitors so they're in a pinch. So they either carry Backes to the off-season to open up their options and pay less, which they very well may do, or if they're pressed to do it now so they can go for it this year more effectively, they will have to pay a premium to do so.

 

[Fatass]

Except if they're looking to dump Backes now, there aren't many willing suitors so they're in a pinch. So they either carry Backes to the off-season to open up their options and pay less, which they very well may do, or if they're pressed to do it now so they can go for it this year more effectively, they will have to pay a premium to do so.

I thought Bakes refused to go to the AHL? Doesn’t that terminate his contract?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I thought Bakes refused to go to the AHL? Doesn’t that terminate his contract?

Not unless the Bruins actually pursue that route. He's assigned to Providence but just not showing up there. Sounds like the B's are alright with that for now.

 

[Fatass]

Not unless the Bruins actually pursue that route. He's assigned to Providence but just not showing up there. Sounds like the B's are alright with that for now.

That’s a class way to handle the circumstance. Backers has been a warrior in the league, and the Bruins did sign him to that contract.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That’s a class way to handle the circumstance. Backers has been a warrior in the league, and the Bruins did sign him to that contract.

That's what makes the trade route interesting. While he is cheaper to buy out than Marleau or could play somewhere else until his deal is done, the B's either sit on his contract like this until they can buy him out or they move him within the next month. If they feel the motivation to move him now for whatever reason, that likely increases their cost to do so just due to leverage but we'll see.

 

[seanlinden]

Except if they're looking to dump Backes now, there aren't many willing suitors so they're in a pinch. So they either carry Backes to the off-season to open up their options and pay less, which they very well may do, or if they're pressed to do it now so they can go for it this year more effectively, they will have to pay a premium to do so.

Pretty much anyone who would take Backes in the offseason would likely take him now.

His salary this year is negligible ($1m) as he had a big signing bonus this year.

You basically get a "free" run with him.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Pretty much anyone who would take Backes in the offseason would likely take him now.

His salary this year is negligible ($1m) as he had a big signing bonus this year.

You basically get a "free" run with him.

He has a 6 mil cap hit so no, that's not true. Plenty of teams shuffle things around to bring in contracts like that during the off-season regularly. The free run doesn't mean anything because everyone knows what he is. He's cooked.