How the handling of Grabo screwed the leafs.

Kamiccolo

Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
Aug 30, 2011
26,828
16,944
Undisclosed research facility
I took this from another site, credit to /u/optimusreims

TL;DR: Cost of buying out Grabovski: • David Clarkson and three extra years of term at 5.25M. • Jesse Blacker and both second round and fourth round picks in 2013 and 2014. • A four year cap hit via Tim Gleason

Dave Nonis buys out Grabovski, and states: “This is a roster move that will give us salary cap flexibility moving forward.†• 5.5m x 4 years remaining are bought out in the summer of 2013.

This buyout leads to a number of results that have affected this team today.

1: Dave Nonis uses said cap “flexibility†to sign Clarkson: 5.25m x 7 remaining.

This leads to 0.25m in cap “flexibility†for 4 years but adds 3 extra years of a 5.25M cap hit.

2: By removing Grabovski—arguably our most complete center at the time—Nonis must replace that center depth…enter Dave Bolland

Nonis trades a 2nd round pick and two 4th round picks for Dave Bolland. Coming off a game winning playoff goal, Bolland was a pending UFA who had only played over 60 games 3 times out of his 6 seasons with the Hawks.

Bolland then plays a total of 23 games, and thankfully does not accept a Leafs contract offer and leaves to Florida.

3: By losing Grabovski, then Bolland who replaced Grabovski, Nonis must replace the replacer of Grabovski.

With Bolland down, Grabovski bought out, and Colburne sent packing for a conditional 4th round pick so that Orr and McClaren could hold roster spots, Nonis must now trade Jesse Blacker and a 2nd for Peter Holland.

4: By using a compliance buyout on Grabovski, the Leafs get stuck with a four year Tim Gleason cap hit.

After unnecessarily buying out Gravovski and in the subsequent move below, Dave Nonis completely botched one of the most valuable assets a GM in a cap era has available: the ability to rid yourself of a contract with no cap penalty.

Nonis has only one buyout remaining with two contracts: Komisarek: 4.75M with one year remaining and Liles: 3.8M with three years remaining

Rather than eating the term of Komisarek’s deal for one year, or alternatively, using a non-compliance buyout on his final year (and leaving the Leafs with a cap hit for two years), and using a compliance buyout out on the contract with less cap but triple the term, Nonis and his “capologist†decide on a second alternative.

He uses a compliance buyout on Komisarek and leaves the Leafs with Liles’ contract, in order to save roughly 1M for one year in term…he then trades Liles for 39 games of Tim Gleason….and buys out Tim Gleason.

Leafs now have a cap hit for four years that follows: 0.833 in 14/15; 1.8 in 15/16; 1.3 in 16/17 and; 1.3 in 17/18.
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,217
9,210
buying out Grabovski didn't screw the Leafs over.
buying out Komisarek did.


had the Leafs bought out Liles (whom everyone expected), and not Komisarek, then Komisarek is off the books, allowing the Leafs one more buyout on contracts made prior to the new CBA.

and I honestly think. the Leafs were going to use that for their advantage (get a prospect, buy someone out) -because why not? we can afford to have dead cap space, but it became so public, Daley went. "brzt. no. that's cap circumvention." [the popular theory was, Leafs/Tampa re: Vinny]

I don't even disagree with buying out Grabo, because he shouldn't have been making that much money anyway. (what was stupid - was giving that money to Clarkson). but that's like fighting what's worse -losing your house via fire, or losing it via a flood.
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
40,441
10,360
buying out Grabovski didn't screw the Leafs over.
buying out Komisarek did.


had the Leafs bought out Liles (whom everyone expected), and not Komisarek, then Komisarek is off the books, allowing the Leafs one more buyout on contracts made prior to the new CBA.

and I honestly think. the Leafs were going to use that for their advantage (get a prospect, buy someone out) -because why not? we can afford to have dead cap space, but it became so public, Daley went. "brzt. no. that's cap circumvention." [the popular theory was, Leafs/Tampa re: Vinny]

I don't even disagree with buying out Grabo, because he shouldn't have been making that much money anyway. (what was stupid - was giving that money to Clarkson). but that's like fighting what's worse -losing your house via fire, or losing it via a flood.

There is no sound logic to be found in what you said or the Actions of Nonis.

The whole period from the Bolland acquisition on was a comedy of errors. Grabovski was a better player than Bolland and was blatantly misused by Carlyle. Komisarek was playing well up until he allegedly had a run in with Carlyle. Multiple players had issue with Randy.

Gleason had an excellent first 20 games and Liles was never terrible. He was simply not preferred by Randy.

Nothing made sense. None of it.
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,217
9,210
There is no sound logic to be found in what you said or the Actions of Nonis.

The whole period from the Bolland acquisition on was a comedy of errors. Grabovski was a better player than Bolland and was blatantly misused by Carlyle. Komisarek was playing well up until he allegedly had a run in with Carlyle. Multiple players had issue with Randy.

Gleason had an excellent first 20 games and Liles was never terrible. He was simply not preferred by Randy.

Nothing made sense. None of it.

as Komisarek is no longer playing in the NHL a mere 3 years after we bought him out, I'd say that the game was passing him by. (and if you were buying out someone, why buy out the person who had 1 year left on his contract vs. the guy who had three).

it was all stupidly run, don't get me wrong. but i'm not going to shed tears that we do/don't have Grabo here. (especially that he's been racking up the concussions lately). Liles isn't here, (shrug)

thinking that David Clarkson was worth all that money was stupid. and if i ever thought it was a smart idea, then i was stupid too, because boy howdy was it not.
 

gamer1035

Registered User
Feb 14, 2012
4,191
878
This is why he needs to be fired right now. Him and Shanny almost resigned Bolland to a Clarkon like contract too.
 

Cor

I am a bot
Jun 24, 2012
69,648
35,246
AEF
Buying out Grabo was the smart move

Using the money on Clarkson is what screwed us
 

Gallagbi

Formerly Eazy_B97
Jul 5, 2005
48,899
11,466
Made more sense to give Grabo another year and save the amnesty buyout.
 

The Winter Soldier

Registered User
Apr 4, 2011
70,810
21,016
Getting 5.5 x 5 off the books for Cap relief was the correct thing to do.

Grabovski is a shell of a player, his decline started with the 16 point, -10 season, followed by a -10 playoff.

Since he has left Toronto, he has been often hurt, and unproductive. 19 points thus far this season. It was one of Nonis' best cap moves buying him out.

He would have been a colossal waste of money here.
 

ldnk

Registered User
Apr 8, 2009
846
0
Getting 5.5 x 5 off the books for Cap relief was the correct thing to do.

Grabovski is a shell of a player, his decline started with the 16 point, -10 season, followed by a -10 playoff.

Since he has left Toronto, he has been often hurt, and unproductive. 19 points thus far this season. It was one of Nonis' best cap moves buying him out.

He would have been a colossal waste of money here.

He has 54 points in 108 games (40 point pace) since leaving Toronto.

Bolland + Clarkson have 54 points in 186 games (25 point pace) in that same span.
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
40,441
10,360
Buying out Grabo was the smart move

Using the money on Clarkson is what screwed us

Hardly. Buying out Komisarek standard is one thing. Misplaying Grabo and buying him out without playing him differently next year an trying to recoup some value was a huge dumb. Bolland I said it in the acquisition thread Lupul 2.0, he was that but people here loved it. Clarkson 50/50 to me it was all just mistakes. I was fine running Liles.
 

The Winter Soldier

Registered User
Apr 4, 2011
70,810
21,016
He has 54 points in 108 games (40 point pace) since leaving Toronto.

Bolland + Clarkson have 54 points in 186 games (25 point pace) in that same span.

Which is terrible production, 54 points in 109 games for 5.5 and frequently hurt with the big hits his body has taken is not good usage of cap space. Mike Ribeiro on the other extreme is being paid 1M this year and has 49 points already. Almost as much as Grabovski has had in his last 2 seasons. This is much better usage of cap dollars.
 

hfdshdh

Unregistered Abuser
Jan 11, 2015
951
1
Buying out Grabo was the smart move

Using the money on Clarkson is what screwed us
He was signed to nearly the same contract a year later. Had we just held onto him for another season, we could've traded him for a late pick if nothing else.
 

OLUSAF

Registered User
Sep 8, 2007
588
12
I always thought buying out Colby Armstrong was a signal that this team had no clue how to manage the cap.

Colby had one year at 3 million, leafs bought him out leaving them with a hit of 1million over 2 seasons and weren't even close to the cap the next season. They could have rode it out for one season with Colby at 3 or put him in the minors for some savings but they chose to stretch out the penalty.
 

Deuce Awesome

Registered User
Feb 23, 2010
2,456
710
I don't regret the Bolland trade. I mean yeah the outcome sucked but he was a welcome addition that the majority of fans thought we gave little to aquire.


It was unfortunate he became Lupul 2.0 and then bolted to the highest bidder. Nothing you can do about that. It happens.
 

diceman934

Help is on the way.
Jul 31, 2010
17,338
4,149
NHL player factory
Buying out Grabo was a needed thing to do....bad contract for a number 3 center....as that is clearly what he was and is.

Liles contract was a joke....said it when he signed it and most everyone on here said I was wrong and it was good value..:help:

Komi was a bad signing....not much different then Clarkson.

We traded for Holland when Bolland, and Bozak was hurt and we were forced to use Smith on our top line when Kadri was suspended for two games....I still like that trade....the error we made was allowing him to reach the number of games that met the condition part of the trade.:help:

We bought out Komi as we needed to get under the salary cap as his Cap hit was more then Liles...
 

Deuce Awesome

Registered User
Feb 23, 2010
2,456
710
Which is terrible production, 54 points in 109 games for 5.5 and frequently hurt with the big hits his body has taken is not good usage of cap space. Mike Ribeiro on the other extreme is being paid 1M this year and has 49 points already. Almost as much as Grabovski has had in his last 2 seasons. This is much better usage of cap dollars.

Ribeiro was a wildcard as well. Its working for Nashville but who knows for how long. He was damaged goods hence the million dollar signing.

If Nonis had of signed him it would have been a mass freakout "ooooh he's going to teach the youngens bad things"
 

Durkin67

Guest
buying out Grabovski didn't screw the Leafs over.
buying out Komisarek did.


had the Leafs bought out Liles (whom everyone expected), and not Komisarek, then Komisarek is off the books, allowing the Leafs one more buyout on contracts made prior to the new CBA.

and I honestly think. the Leafs were going to use that for their advantage (get a prospect, buy someone out) -because why not? we can afford to have dead cap space, but it became so public, Daley went. "brzt. no. that's cap circumvention." [the popular theory was, Leafs/Tampa re: Vinny]

I don't even disagree with buying out Grabo, because he shouldn't have been making that much money anyway. (what was stupid - was giving that money to Clarkson). but that's like fighting what's worse -losing your house via fire, or losing it via a flood.



These hindsight driven topics always give me a chuckle...

Had the Leafs bough out Liles, they'd have had little leverage when negotiating with Gunnarson and Franson, if memory serves. The reason Grabo got paid like he did was for that very reason. Had they let him walk or traded him, there was nothing on the horizon that looked NHL ready (naz included, who was being groomed as a winger not a centre) .
 

hfdshdh

Unregistered Abuser
Jan 11, 2015
951
1
I don't regret the Boland trade. I mean yeah the outcome sucked but he was a welcome addition that the majority of fans thought we gave little to aquire.

It was unfortunate he became Lupul 2.0 and then bolted to the highest bidder. Nothing you can do about that. It happens.
Bolland was never really a durable player and was obviously going to be looking for a bloated contract after that season. Plus, management had to know they were going to be taking a serious run at Clarkson a couple of days later.

I mean.... what was their plan? To allocate over $10M of the team's cap space to ****ing Dave Bolland and David Clarkson?
 

Cor

I am a bot
Jun 24, 2012
69,648
35,246
AEF
He was signed to nearly the same contract a year later. Had we just held onto him for another season, we could've traded him for a late pick if nothing else.

1. No, he would have been in the same bottom 6 role, and his value would have continued to drop

2. We had to buy him out that summer, because it was the last summer for compliance buyouts
 

Deuce Awesome

Registered User
Feb 23, 2010
2,456
710
Bolland was never really a durable player and was obviously going to be looking for a bloated contract after that season. Plus, management had to know they were going to be taking a serious run at Clarkson a couple of days later.

I mean.... what was their plan? To allocate over $10M of the team's cap space to ****ing Dave Bolland and David Clarkson?


Why not? Both players were desirable when aquired. Yeah we paid top whack for Clarkson but thats what happens on July 1. He hasn't worked out. Happens frequently with UFA's.

Obviously Bolland wasn't offered the same kind of money to resign here so he bolted to Florida....again for top whack on July 1.


Leafs are damned if they do and damned if they don't when it comes to taking chances.
 

stavs*

Registered User
Oct 11, 2010
3,549
0
Toronto
Nonis truly is a remarkably bad GM. If i saw him in public, i wouldn't even shake his hand. Instead I would tell him how he's destroyed this team from top to bottom and walk away. its our luck that we haven't had a good GM in a decade
 

OLUSAF

Registered User
Sep 8, 2007
588
12
Basically buying out Gleason was to create immediate cap space of 3.166 of cap space, then they sign Robidas for a 3 million dollar hit over 3.

The way I look at it Robidas is costing the Leafs his cap hit plus whatever Gleasons remaining hit is.

3.833, 4.833,4.333 and a year of 1.333 of dead space after that.
 

Deuce Awesome

Registered User
Feb 23, 2010
2,456
710
Nonis truly is a remarkably bad GM. If i saw him in public, i wouldn't even shake his hand. Instead I would tell him how he's destroyed this team from top to bottom and walk away. its our luck that we haven't had a good GM in a decade

I think you need to change your handshake diss to the people above Nonis. Nonis is just the fall boy.
 

Gallagbi

Formerly Eazy_B97
Jul 5, 2005
48,899
11,466
Basically buying out Gleason was to create immediate cap space of 3.166 of cap space, then they sign Robidas for a 3 million dollar hit over 3.

The way I look at it Robidas is costing the Leafs his cap hit plus whatever Gleasons remaining hit is.

3.833, 4.833,4.333 and a year of 1.333 of dead space after that.
Grabovski's buyout doesn't have a cap hit.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad