Around the NHL - Episode XLI

Status
Not open for further replies.

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,478
23,059
East Coast
Tavares is a huge asset. They could get a kings ransom trading Matthews. It would be like trading Matthews for Tavares PLUS that kings ransom. It was a good move.
Why would you trade Matthews? That would be terrible. They haven’t traded anyone, and until they do and somehow take no salary back while also getting an impact D, they are not better off in a cup run.

The Leafs would be kissing away their chances the second they did that, Tavares is in the downswing at the moment, and they’d be trading away a 22 year old top 3 center in the league, who is likely the best goal scorer in the league for the next half a decade.

It would be like the Sens trading Karlsson away in 2011 because we signed Brent Seabrook.

The Leafs desperately needed D, and were stocked on offense. They had a lot of cap to acquire one, and threw that on a very good player, who doesn’t move the needle for the Leafs. They are probably in the bottom 2-3 teams in the league with improvement from a guy like Tavares.

The Rangers signed Panarin because of their lack of high end scorers. He fits them like a glove and helps them immensely. Tavares slots in as the #3 offensive forward on their team, and possibly #4 moving forward. That’s a luxury, and something you shouldn’t spend 11 million on, especially when your defence is laughably bad and soft.

Tavares helps the Leafs, no doubt, but he’s making an already potent offense more potent, and that’s it. There is no other improvement whatsoever, and that’s the area they needed improvement the least, by a huge margin.
 
Last edited:

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,554
Too much center depth is a great problem to have. Gave them the option of trading Kadri, who embarrassed himself and his team with his stupid antics and bad penalties in the playoffs last year.

The Tavares signing was a good one for the Leafs. May not have made the playoffs in 2018/19 or this year without him. He's a legit #1 center and their captain that's only 29 still, and most importantly they acquired him at a cost of ZERO assets. With any UFA contract there's a good chance the last couple years of the deal will look bad, but Tavares is an incredibly hard worker and produces most of his points using his elite IQ and talent, not his tools. I expect he'll still be a very good player even in his mid-30s.

The huge cap crunch can be avoided and a decent D can be added in free agency by trading Nylander and a guy like Kerfoot/Kapanen/Johnsson for a haul of prospects and picks.

Tavares @ 11M + haul of prospect and picks > Nylander @ 7M and Kerfoot @ 3.5M.

They acquired him at the cost of 11M in cap space. 11M in cap space is a HUGE asset for a team prepared to spend it.

Your welcome to believe what you choose, but i think the more defendable belief is they could have used that 11M asset more effectively

For starters they didn't need him

Secondly it seems to have resulted in Matthews nose being out of joint because rightly or wrongly Matthews believes he's worth just as much. No Tavares, you might have Matthews at 9. You have Matthews at 9, you might have Marner at 8.5 or 9.

It was a bad use of 11M. But using it as they did probably cost them close to another 5 on assets they controlled.
 

Masked

(Super/star)
Apr 16, 2017
6,339
4,564
Parts unknown
If they can move Nylander, add a big time D, and somehow take no other cap back, they’ll be fine. If they need to shed either Marner or Matthews at all, they made mistakes somewhere.

Nylander, with his hugely front loaded in the first year contract and massive signing bonus this summer , could very well be a guy Dorion targets.
 

maclean

Registered User
Jan 4, 2014
8,380
2,546
Again, you forgot about Pietrangelo. The main purpose of the trade would be to open up the cap space to sign a top 5/top 10 D in the league, who also happens to be a RD and be about as perfect a partner for your their offensive LD Rielly as can be imagined.

If the Leafs couldn't count on bring Pietrangelo home to Toronto, and instead would have to settle for some lesser RD like Tanev or Hamonic in free agency, I don't think the trade is worth it, but look at their D with Pietrangelo:

Rielly - Pietrangelo
Muzzin - Dermott
Sandin - Holl
Marincin, Liljegren

They go from having arguably a bottom 10 D in the league to arguably a top 10 D.



If you think there are other teams with loads of cap space that would trade tons of young and cheap assets to Toronto to add Matthews, that's fine. They should do that trade then instead of the one I suggested. The main goal would be to open up the cap space to add a #1 D for free in free agency.

As a Sens fan I'd easily offer something better than the Yotes package to add Matthews, but I doubt they'd trade him to us.



They wouldn't have a massive hole at C after trading Matthews. They already have a high-end #1 C in Tavares and Dvorak/Hayton would do well as the 2/3 guys.

I'll tell you what I love about all this very theoretical scenario, it's Toronto doing all kinds of crazy things to get some piece they think is going to make them complete and at the end of the day it's going to leave them looking like idiots.
 

dumbdick

Galactic Defender
May 31, 2008
11,292
3,700
Why would you trade Matthews? That would be terrible.

People got to stop saying stuff like this. What you're really saying is "I don't think other teams would give them the right kind of assets to make this trade worth it". That's an opinion. I'd argue that they'd only need to get a modest return for him, since they have Johnny waiting to step into his role and Johnny + Matthews' Return would likely be a net gain for the leafs over just Matthews. You can queue up your "but these big trades never happen!" or "this isn't NHL94!" response if you want. I'm too bored to dig up the counter examples, but they exist.

I wasn't even suggesting trading Matthews, I was just giving a hypothetical of how that signing makes another guy expendable to become a chip to improve the defence. Same reason teams usually draft BPA instead of going by positional need.

I really hate the Leafs, but that was a good signing.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,478
23,059
East Coast
People got to stop saying stuff like this. What you're really saying is "I don't think other teams would give them the right kind of assets to make this trade worth it". That's an opinion. I'd argue that they'd only need to get a modest return for him, since they have Johnny waiting to step into his role and Johnny + Matthews' Return would likely be a net gain for the leafs over just Matthews. You can queue up your "but these big trades never happen!" or "this isn't NHL94!" response if you want. I'm too bored to dig up the counter examples, but they exist.

I wasn't even suggesting trading Matthews, I was just giving a hypothetical of how that signing makes another guy expendable to become a chip to improve the defence. Same reason teams usually draft BPA instead of going by positional need.

I really hate the Leafs, but that was a good signing.
I don’t need too, because they don’t exist at that level, top 3 players, at 22 years old none the less, don’t get traded to maximize assets.

Tavares is great, would be a huge signing for 95% of the teams in the league. The Leafs aren’t one of them, the Leafs of today have even worse problems at the areas they needed to improve since signing Tavares and improved in the area they needed to the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GCK

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,142
30,354
I don’t need too, because they don’t exist at that level, top 3 players, at 22 years old none the less, don’t get traded to maximize assets.

Tavares is great, would be a huge signing for 95% of the teams in the league. The Leafs aren’t one of them, the Leafs of today have even worse problems at the areas they needed to improve since signing Tavares and improved in the area they needed to the least.

Idk that Matthews is actually a top 3 player in the league right now, though he has the potential to be one for sure.

Right now, McDavid and McKinnon are easy ahead of him imo. There's a strong argument for Pastrnak and Draisaitl too. Then there are some debatable guys like Eichel and Marner. That's just guys in the same age group, then there's Malkin, Crosby, Kucherov, Kane, and Marchand to be debated.

In the end though, it's kind of a moot point, because I do agree that guys in a tier where you can have that discussion don't get traded, particularly at his age. There are guys like Seguin, Kessel, and Hall, but that's not really the same thing.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,478
23,059
East Coast
Idk that Matthews is actually a top 3 player in the league right now, though he has the potential to be one for sure.

Right now, McDavid and McKinnon are easy ahead of him imo. There's a strong argument for Pastrnak and Draisaitl too. Then there are some debatable guys like Eichel and Marner. That's just guys in the same age group, then there's Malkin, Crosby, Kucherov, Kane, and Marchand to be debated.

In the end though, it's kind of a moot point, because I do agree that guys in a tier where you can have that discussion don't get traded, particularly at his age. There are guys like Seguin, Kessel, and Hall, but that's not really the same thing.
Top 3-5 Center right now in my opinion, at 22, and likely the top goal scorer in the league over the next 5 years. He’s 6’3, 220, skates like the wind, and has every offensive tool you would want. He’s the prototypical franchise Center that leads teams to the Cup, if the Leafs properly built around him rather than neglecting their needs for an expensive luxury they didn’t need.
 
Last edited:

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,142
30,354
Top 3-5 Center right now in my opinion, at 22, and likely the top goal scorer in the league over the next 5 years.
Yeah, I think top 5 center is reasonably safe; McDavid and MacKinnon to me are clearly ahead, personally I have Draisaitl ahead. I'd take Crosby and Malkin today but that won't last long and is certainly debatable, then there's Eichel who is in the discussion but certainly not clearly ahead. At worst he's 7th and you can make a strong enough case for 3rd.

But like I said, and more to your point, none of those guys are getting traded any time soon, and particularly not the younger ones.
 

Laphroaig

Registered User
Aug 26, 2011
3,707
1,809
The Town Fun Forgot
The NHL appears set to approve a 24 team format when play resumes. My assumption is that the top two teams in each of the four divisions will advance to the playoffs to be joined by the eight winners of the "play in" series.The eight losers of the play in will likely be considered non-playoff teams for the purposes of the draft.

My question is will the points players accumulate in the "play in" be added to their regular season totals, will they be considered playoff points or will a new category be created?
 
Last edited:

senators101

Registered User
Jan 17, 2008
10,848
7,002
T.O.
First of all, you don't trade a guy like Matthews.
Second.. If you do trade him, it isn't for unknowns along with the hope you are able to get the big fish in free agency. It would be like trading Matthews before signing Tavares... If he doesn't sign, then you look like an idiot.

If Pietrangelo is the target, you sign him first and then make your moves. Or if you want to reallocate money from offense to defense (by trading Matthews) then you trade him for a #1 Dman. This isn't EANHL where you can sell high valued players and then just sign their equivalents in free agency.
 

Fandlauer

Registered User
Apr 23, 2013
6,714
3,903
Ottawa unless it becomes a disaster
FB_IMG_1590658138763.jpg
 

Qward

Because! That's why!
Jul 23, 2010
18,930
5,897
Behind you, look out
If Ottawa ever gets a new arena I think these events will cause pause for consideration in how the arena is designed.
Four locker rooms opposed to 2. Hotel within walking distance. etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nac Mac Feegle

FormentonTheFuture

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
7,761
3,732
With how contagious the virus is it definitely makes sense.

Let them go the US if they'd like: they'll increase their own risk of exposure and everybody else's around them
Why does it make sense now though? And I'm saying this as somebody who very much agrees with the measures we have had in place so far. The virus is everywhere. What does it matter if you came from another country? All countries have it for the most part. A player coming from Finland is no different than a person from Kanata going to a grocery store in downtown Ottawa
 

Do Make Say Think

& Yet & Yet
Jun 26, 2007
51,157
9,904
Why does it make sense now though? And I'm saying this as somebody who very much agrees with the measures we have had in place so far. The virus is everywhere. What does it matter if you came from another country? All countries have it for the most part. A player coming from Finland is no different than a person from Kanata going to a grocery store in downtown Ottawa

It makes sense because even if things look bad, the goal is to limit the spread. You limit the spread with measures like self-quarantine.

If we adopt the position that "f*** it, what is the point" then we'll never beat this.

Whatever it takes. Failure is not an option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->