Confirmed with Link: Bernier traded to Ducks for a conditional 2017 draft pick

[rrc1967]

While I do agree the Andersen trade and signing was a big gamble by Lou with no guarantee that it will work out:

But that said it should be pretty clear that Babcock had absolutely zero faith in Bernier. The fact that he gave Sparks so many starts for the pat part of the season is evidence enough.

Sometimes players just don't work out - chalk this one up to yet another dumb trade by Nonis.

Totally agree.

However, I think (my own opinion) that Bernier could have worked himself back into babcock's good books.

I'd also be curious if bernier was sitting out games to finish the year because he was winning too many of them, there is always that.. the leafs were in risk of losing the #1 seeded draft pick until they started to play sparks more. a little tin foil hat like perhaps, but it wouldn't be the first time.

Let's hope this doesn't end up being yet another dumb trade by toronto for a goaltender and that andersen plays as well as leafs management thinks he will.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Totally agree.

however, I think (my own opinion) that Bernier can / could have worked himself back into babcock's good books.

I'd also be curious if bernier was sitting out games to finish the year because he was winning too many of them.

let's hope this doesn't end up being yet another dumb trade by toronto for a goaltender.

as i pointed out - i don't think he could have because the reasons why he wasn't in Babcock's good books wasn't simply because he wasn't playing well.

 

[rrc1967]

I agree that there are risks - there always are. I also agree that time will tell.

Some make this out to be black and white far more than what I have certainly been saying. However I fail to see the need to also try to paint this trade as better than what it is to make me sleep better at night.

we gave up a #1 goaltender that had a horrible start last year, who finished the season quite well for a goaltender that some have already isolated that may not play as well or have to adapt with the new equipment, and also signed him to a back end bonus laden five year contract.

there's also a good chance that with the equipment changes, that bernier fairs better than he did last year in relation to his peers.

Risks to that? certainly.

I never once stated that andersen was a poor netminder, I have always been stating that we don't really know how he'll play here next season and there's no eye test happening here especially considering the league seems to have a target on the bulkier netminders and removing their advantages.

while I've been in the past in favor of bigger netminders, the equipment changes and the threat of potentially more gives me pause.

what happens if the league goes full on Corey Hirsch level of equipment changes?

 

[BertCorbeau]

Goaltending is one of the toughest positions in sports to address with quality it seems. I don't mind taking a risk on it as long as it's not an gross overpayment. The price they paid in the trade wasn't ridiculous either - seems in the middle with what we've seen with other goaltender trades in recent memory (looking at, say, the Lehner trade, Schneider trade, Talbot trade). The 5 year term seems scary but as long as we keep in mind the expectation that Andersen provides average goaltending for a full time starter it's not bad. Hopefully he plays more like an upper echelon goalie - like Leafs management sees in him.

 

[sxvnert]

Some make this out to be black and white far more than what I have certainly been saying. However I fail to see the need to also try to paint this trade as better than what it is to make me sleep better at night.

we gave up a #1 goaltender that had a horrible start last year, who finished the season quite well for a goaltender that some have already isolated that may not play as well or have to adapt with the new equipment, and also signed him to a back end bonus laden five year contract.

there's also a good chance that with the equipment changes, that bernier fairs better than he did last year in relation to his peers.

Risks to that? certainly.

I never once stated that andersen was a poor netminder, I have always been stating that we don't really know how he'll play here next season and there's no eye test happening here especially considering the league seems to have a target on the bulkier netminders and removing their advantages.

while I've been in the past in favor of bigger netminders, the equipment changes and the threat of potentially more gives me pause.

what happens if the league goes full on Corey Hirsch level of equipment changes?

Makes no difference how many changes Hirsch implements, larger goaltenders will still cover more area.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Andersen has played a max of 54 games a season.

Good, but needs to be better for what they're paying him.

 

[WTFMAN99]

I think the funny thing would be if they signed him to a 2 year extension, Andersen kills it, then you still have these 2 geniuses complaining they should have signed him longer or if he walks it's called poor asset management.

People love to complain.

 

[ACC1224]

I think the funny thing would be if they signed him to a 2 year extension, Andersen kills it, then you still have these 2 geniuses complaining they should have signed him longer or if he walks it's called poor asset management.

People love to complain.

100% without a doubt

 

[Mad Brills*]

I think the funny thing would be if they signed him to a 2 year extension, Andersen kills it, then you still have these 2 geniuses complaining they should have signed him longer or if he walks it's called poor asset management.

People love to complain.

Except signing a unproven goalie long term 5 years isn't a prudent move. At best it's a nice deal, but too much risk in it.

Hell, andersen for 3 x 5 would look a lot better than 5 x 5.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Except signing a unproven goalie long term 5 years isn't a prudent move. At best it's a nice deal, but too much risk in it.

Hell, andersen for 3 x 5 would look a lot better than 5 x 5.

And if he stars in year 3 as walks as a UFA when you need to sign your top 3 prospects to new deals do you move more picks for more unproven goaltending or overpay to keep Andersen at that point?

There's risk no matter the term. That's why 5 years makes the most sense.

If he's anything beyond "average" then he's an absolute steal.

If he's awful then we need to find someone new anyway.

But if we sign him for 2-3 years and he's really good and wants to be paid then he has all the leverage.

As a team with tons of cash taking the risk of the longer deal could benefit us in a huge way within 12-24 months.

 

[Mad Brills*]

And if he stars in year 3 as walks as a UFA when you need to sign your top 3 prospects to new deals do you move more picks for more unproven goaltending or overpay to keep Andersen at that point?

There's risk no matter the term. That's why 5 years makes the most sense.

If he's anything beyond "average" then he's an absolute steal.

If he's awful then we need to find someone new anyway.

But if we sign him for 2-3 years and he's really good and wants to be paid then he has all the leverage.

As a team with tons of cash taking the risk of the longer deal could benefit us in a huge way within 12-24 months.

There's risk no matter the term

what?

 

[Jack Bauer]

what?

You have trouble reading?

When you acquire a 25yr old RFA there's risk no matter what term you give them.

If it's too short they can bolt and leave you still with a need to fill.

If it's too long and they don't play well then you might have to spend some dollars to get out from the deal.

As a big market team who can afford to make cap hits disappear much easier then others it makes sense to give a deal thats too long when your top hockey people agree on the decision to bring in the new player.

 

[Mad Brills*]

You have trouble reading?

When you acquire a 25yr old RFA there's risk no matter what term you give them.

If it's too short they can bolt and leave you still with a need to fill.

If it's too long and they don't play well then you might have to spend some dollars to get out from the deal.

As a big market team who can afford to make cap hits disappear much easier then others it makes sense to give a deal thats too long when your top hockey people agree on the decision to bring in the new player.

As a big market team who can afford to make cap hits disappear much easier then others it makes sense

Clarkson's deal is still affecting this team.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Clarkson's deal is still affecting this team.

It is?

It's caused our GM's to need to do extra paper work to be cap compliant but the fact is they traded him and allowed themselves flexibility to be able to spend beyond the cap to Horton's salary while in season.

When not in season any team can go above the cap anyway.

Where is the negative exactly as compared to having what we were told was an unmovable albatross of a contract that no team could ever get out from underneath of?

Add in the fact that we're A) The leagues biggest market and B) are rebuilding and don't really need a ton of extra cap space and you really have to work hard to see the Clarkson signing as still affecting this team in any way.

 

[Mad Brills*]

It is?

It's caused our GM's to need to do extra paper work to be cap compliant but the fact is they traded him and allowed themselves flexibility to be able to spend beyond the cap to Horton's salary while in season.

When not in season any team can go above the cap anyway.

Where is the negative exactly as compared to having what we were told was an unmovable albatross of a contract that no team could ever get out from underneath of?

Add in the fact that we're A) The leagues biggest market and B) are rebuilding and don't really need a ton of extra cap space and you really have to work hard to see the Clarkson signing as still affecting this team in any way.

LTIR isn't free money.

Leafs will get hit with overages if horton has to go on LTIR.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/5/7/...and-the-leafs-need-to-be-cautious-in-using-it

 

[Xscout*]

Hm. Seems like the big tendys will always have the advantage if they're athletic enough to cover lateral movement. Simply put - they cover more net while in the butterfly than a smaller goalie. They'll make more accidental saves. So if I had 2 goalies with similar skill sets, similar agility and hockey iqs but one was 4 or 5 inches taller... seems easy.

As for the contract i agree it's length is concerning no doubt. But management is just putting this group together. Probably at least 2 or 3 yrs until they're legit contenders. A feared team. So i dunno.. guess I'm just not worried.

 

[sxvnert]

LTIR isn't free money.

Leafs will get hit with overages if horton has to go on LTIR.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/5/7/...and-the-leafs-need-to-be-cautious-in-using-it

From that same article:

The tagging room is not necessarily a problem as long as there is a sufficient amount of money coming off the books in the form of expiring contracts, which is why the rule almost never comes into play. However, if a team were to have many big money deals like Horton and Lupul on LTIR for multiple seasons, the prospect of running into the tagging room rule is significantly increased.

It will never be a problem for this team because of the rebuild. The large number of ELC's and expiring contracts will ensure they are always in a healthy cap situation.

 

[Gallagbi]

LTIR isn't free money.

Leafs will get hit with overages if horton has to go on LTIR.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/5/7/...and-the-leafs-need-to-be-cautious-in-using-it

I don't believe the article is correct about performance bonuses.

My understanding is the they count against the cap as "hit" all season, but team's can exceed the cap by 7.5% in bonus (like a cushion) until the end of the season. Then if the bonuses are met, they are paid out this year until the cap is maxed and then rolled over to next if there are any overages.

Doesn't seem like a big deal, but it can actually help the team with their LTIR situation since it pushes them up closer to the cap.

 

[WTFMAN99]

I don't believe the article is correct about performance bonuses.

My understanding is the they count against the cap as "hit" all season, but team's can exceed the cap by 7.5% in bonus (like a cushion) until the end of the season. Then if the bonuses are met, they are paid out this year until the cap is maxed and then rolled over to next if there are any overages.

Doesn't seem like a big deal, but it can actually help the team with their LTIR situation since it pushes them up closer to the cap.

Yeah if guys hit their bonuses that take you over the cap, you can defer them to next season if you wish.

People are just making a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing wrong with the Andersen trade or his extension.

I am happy we signed him to that contract and I am okay with the trade.

 

[Doug Gilmour]

These conditions made me chuckle. I get the sense that the conditions are meant to be motivation for Bernier to train, focus and play harder and prove us wrong. On the other hand it is just solidifying what many people have said about his value being non-existent or very poor.

Strange as it may sound, I do still see Anaheim as a contender regardless of Bernier. They are a perennial playoff team with talent up and down the lineup. Gibson is noted as having some injury problems and they need someone with experience to pick up where Gibson leaves off. Wish him all the best but those conditions are awfully steep.

 

[Jack Bauer]

LTIR isn't free money.

Leafs will get hit with overages if horton has to go on LTIR.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/5/7/...and-the-leafs-need-to-be-cautious-in-using-it

As others have already stated: Those are factors that will not ever negatively affect a rebuilding team.

There's really very little, if any at all, downside to the Clarkson contract and its trade for us.

Being a big market team still allows us some advantages over other markets even in a cap world.

 

[Jerkini]

I think the funny thing would be if they signed him to a 2 year extension, Andersen kills it, then you still have these 2 geniuses complaining they should have signed him longer or if he walks it's called poor asset management.

People love to complain.

I think what's really worrisome to people is that they've tried this exact same thing three times before, this being the fourth, and it has failed spectacularly each time. An exorbitantly high price paid for a goalie that the other team deemed expendable.

And it's only going to get worse for Frederik if he doesn't come out playing like a $5m man. In fact, he may get it the worst. Fans in this city are tired of overpriced, overrated goaltending talent. But he holds all the cards. He chooses how this plays out. And i'll be the first to admit if or when i'm wrong.

 

[Gallagbi]

I think what's really worrisome to people is that they've tried this exact same thing three times before, this being the fourth, and it has failed spectacularly each time. An exorbitantly high price paid for a goalie that the other team deemed expendable.

And it's only going to get worse for Frederik if he doesn't come out playing like a $5m man. In fact, he may get it the worst. Fans in this city are tired of overpriced, overrated goaltending talent. But he holds all the cards. He chooses how this plays out. And i'll be the first to admit if or when i'm wrong.

3 different GMs with different professional scouts, goalie coaches, etc making these trades.

Tough to hold history against a group that wasn't part of it.

 

[Xscout*]

Haha martin Luther King or malcolm x
Didn't bernier think one of these dudes were old hockey players? Hahaha

That quote alone. ... get out the door bud.

 

[Gallagbi]

Haha martin Luther King or malcolm x
Didn't bernier think one of these dudes were old hockey players? Hahaha

That quote alone. ... get out the door bud.

This may be as bad as his actual quote.