Rumor: Kyle on 590..we can and we will sign 34 16 29

[Menzinger]

i don't understand why people feel Marner will make that much more than Nylander, when a lot of stats show that they are actually pretty much on par

He does have the advantage of waiting another year before negotiating a new contract that likely gives him an advantage, but I’d agree that I wouldn’t expect a major gap in salary between the two.

Dubas made a point to promote/hire capologists for a reason - no more bad contracts.

 

[Daisy Jane]

He does have the advantage of waiting another year before negotiating a new contract that likely gives him an advantage, but I’d agree that I wouldn’t expect a major gap in salary between the two.

Dubas made a point to promote/hire capologists for a reason - no more bad contracts.

lol well eventually there'll be some
i think hiring capologists also helps you find all the loopholes.

 

[IBeL34f]

well for me, as i've said, Dubas has to earn my trust. (even if Shanahan hired the guy i wanted for GM, he'd have to earn it, it's not just "here ya go." though he gets a big mulligan for Tavares, that's for sure). overall I do have faith that the management team will do right things - but for me that also means if they do make big trades that means they looked at everything. (I'd still have to trust that it worked out in the end - just like i have to have trust that them doing nothing in the end).

as i said. I personally don't think every answer is on the marlies (or that they're capable of being all the players that we need etc (except for Lilly in terms of being a #1 etc, and we'll really have to see re: everyone else) i don't think trading Jake brings you the type of players that Kadri or others would. at this point Jake brings you a Myers (whose still a UFA so you're gonna have to decide what to do with him anyway and he's glassy), or more prospects/picks (which are always nice but not 'plug in and go'. i mean maybe Dubas can get the moon for Jake. (i hope so). I personally don't want to re-sign him but i'm going to prepare myself for that case anyway.

I just don't want to look back at this time like i do about the 2000 to 2004 run the Leafs had and go "why didn't they do more." (to be fair some of those runs we were just very unlucky due to injuries etc). you don't agree, and you feel that the problems the team has is overblown. i hope you are right is all.

This is just the beginning. Our window is only just opening. We just had a 105-point season, then added a franchise center in his prime for nothing but cap space, and can expect further development from every single member of our core. We have at least 7 years where we're perfectly geared up to contend for the Cup, and we have the superstar youth, the prospects, the picks, and the cap flexibility to be competitive even after Tavares' current contract comes to an end - To waste this time worrying about how you might feel later, instead of enjoying this process for what it is, would be such a shame.

 

[Daisy Jane]

This is just the beginning. Our window is only just opening. We just had a 105-point season, then added a franchise center in his prime for nothing but cap space, and can expect further development from every single member of our core. We have at least 7 years where we're perfectly geared up to contend for the Cup, and we have the superstar youth, the prospects, the picks, and the cap flexibility to be competitive even after Tavares' current contract comes to an end - To waste this time worrying about how you might feel later, instead of enjoying this process for what it is, would be such a shame.

and we have problems that have been evident for a very long time which Lou didn't address in 2 years, and as of yet, Dubas hasn't. that's a problem for me.

I also never said I wasn't enjoying it. I am very happy with what we are doing.

 

[IBeL34f]

and we have problems that have been evident for a very long time which Lou didn't address in 2 years, and as of yet, Dubas hasn't. that's a problem for me.

I also never said I wasn't enjoying it. I am very happy with what we are doing.

The lack of a big, sexy name on the right side of our top pair is not a legitimate problem, but a fan-made one - Unless they're elite, single-player acquisitions can only improve your team so much, and the personnel on our blueline aren't incapable, they're simply unbalanced (and we have a really easy solution for that if we want it).

Our only real problem is team D, and we have been addressing it:
- Acquiring Frederik Andersen improved our team D
- Signing Hainsey and Zaitsev improved our team D
- Upgrading from Bozak to Tavares improves our team D
- Upgrading from Polak to Carrick improves our team D
- Increasing the roles of Kapanen and Johnsson improves our team D
- Further development from Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Hyman, Brown, Rielly, Dermott, Zaitsev, Carrick, Rosen and Borgman improves our team D
- Drafting and developing players like Liljegren, Sandin, Durzi and Kral improves our team D

Most importantly, focusing on improving our team D improved our team D:
- In 2013/14 we finished 26th in Goals Against, and 28th on the Penalty Kill.
- In 2014/15 we finished 26th in GA, and 22nd on the PK.
- In 2015/16 (Babcock's first - The Year of the Tank) we finished 24th in GA, and 13th on the PK.
- In 2016/17 we finished 22nd in GA, and 9th on the PK.
- In 2017/18 (Introducing the 31-team NHL) we finished 12th in GA, and 10th on the PK.

To suggest that we haven't been addressing our needs at D is objectively false - We have been steadily improving defensively since Shanahan and Babcock came on board, and the numbers are right there to back it up. We were above average last year, and every single roster movement made since should only result in further improvement.

I repeat - The Toronto Maple Leafs' problems at D are overblown.

 

[34]

I would put money on the fact that they have all talked to Dubas and the management group, and will be on the same page going forward. They even helped recruit JT, and he was sold on this team keeping everyone.

One of my fav moments would be all three on a discount, and we add more on the backend. I want to watch those rude ignorant pieces of S**T ON the main boards lose it, then take it and shove it up their ASSES!

No kidding. So tired of the Nylander for Tanev threads and other filth like that. f***ing delusional Canucks fans. Lol

Once or big 3 sign, those idiot fans can suck it.

 

[Daisy Jane]

The lack of a big, sexy name on the right side of our top pair is not a legitimate problem

Our only real problem is team D, and we have been addressing it:
- Acquiring Frederik Andersen improved our team D
- Signing Hainsey and Zaitsev improved our team D
- Upgrading from Bozak to Tavares improves our team D
- Upgrading from Polak to Carrick improves our team D
- Increasing the roles of Kapanen and Johnsson improves our team D
- Further development from Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Hyman, Brown, Rielly, Dermott, Zaitsev, Carrick, Rosen and Borgman improves our team D
- Drafting and developing players like Liljegren, Sandin, Durzi and Kral improves our team D

Most importantly, focusing on improving our team D improved our team D:
- In 2013/14 we finished 26th in Goals Against, and 28th on the Penalty Kill.
- In 2014/15 we finished 26th in GA, and 22nd on the PK.
- In 2015/16 (Babcock's first - The Year of the Tank) we finished 24th in GA, and 13th on the PK.
- In 2016/17 we finished 22nd in GA, and 9th on the PK.
- In 2017/18 (Introducing the 31-team NHL) we finished 12th in GA, and 10th on the PK.

To suggest that we haven't been addressing our needs at D is objectively false - We have been steadily improving defensively since Shanahan and Babcock came on board, and the numbers are right there to back it up. We were above average last year, and every single roster movement made since should only result in further improvement.

I repeat - The Toronto Maple Leafs' problems at D are overblown.

i never once said that we needed a sexy right hand name
however there have been countless people here who have shown that we continually get exposed on our right side.

there have been countless people through the season who has pointed out a lot of issues that don't show up in goals against or penalty kill (and that if you track it from the back end of the season our GA was rather high, and our PK was rather poor). I don't think that makes me objectively wrong but okay. I concede. I'm wrong. it's easier just to say fine, I agree. our defensive issues are overblown, and we don't have to do anything except maybe trade jake. if that.

 

[IBeL34f]

i never once said that we needed a sexy right hand name
however there have been countless people here who have shown that we continually get exposed on our right side.

there have been countless people through the season who has pointed out a lot of issues that don't show up in goals against or penalty kill (and that if you track it from the back end of the season our GA was rather high, and our PK was rather poor). I don't think that makes me objectively wrong but okay. I concede. I'm wrong. it's easier just to say fine, I agree. our defensive issues are overblown, and we don't have to do anything except maybe trade jake. if that.

If you don't think we need a sexy, big-name RHD (which we don't) then we shouldn't have to trade Kadri to fill the hole there, which has been my point all along. Gardiner and a pick or something should be plenty to balance out our blueline a bit, and we're rolling from there.

I'm not looking to beat anybody into submission or anything here, Daisy, I'm simply providing as many facts and points as I possibly can to get my point across. Taking everything into consideration, including my own opinions as well as real, tangible facts, the needs we have at D just aren't as drastic or dire as many fans and media personalities are making them out to be.

I also never said you were objectively wrong, but that the suggestion that the Leafs' head office hasn't been addressing our issues at D was objectively wrong - which it is.

 

[Superstar]

No kidding. So tired of the Nylander for Tanev threads and other filth like that. ****ing delusional Canucks fans. Lol

Once or big 3 sign, those idiot fans can suck it.

Nylander for Tanev? LOL...that's like Hall for Larsson again...won't happen under Dubas' watch.

 

[34]

Nylander for Tanev? LOL...that's like Hall for Larsson again...won't happen under Dubas' watch.

Oh yeah, delusional Canucks fans actually make a new thread for it every week. Nylander + 1st for Tanev. No joke. There is even a senile Leaf fan that wants to trade our 1sts and everything. It is messed right up.

 

[DanM]

Nylander for Tanev? LOL...that's like Hall for Larsson again...won't happen under Dubas' watch.

Jesus, will Tanev ne playing from a god damn wheelchair, because he is good for F**King nothing always being injured.

I wouldn't trade shit for him

P.S. He does have talent though, too bad really

 

[Skin Tape Session]

I get the sense management is essentially telling them by taking a bit less, it opens up for more quality players and a chance to win consistently, hence Dubas saying that they “studied other sports free ageny, especially the NBA and Masai and the Raptors”

By Tavares taking 2 million less to sign here, management can then say “Hey listen Willy, you want 7M, but by taking 5.5-6M, you’re still making a lot, and the team will be better for it, much like how John took less”.

and he can say , yeah but john already has 40 million in the bank,f*** you,pay me!!!

 

[Walshy7]

I get the sense management is essentially telling them by taking a bit less, it opens up for more quality players and a chance to win consistently, hence Dubas saying that they “studied other sports free ageny, especially the NBA and Masai and the Raptors”

By Tavares taking 2 million less to sign here, management can then say “Hey listen Willy, you want 7M, but by taking 5.5-6M, you’re still making a lot, and the team will be better for it, much like how John took less”.

They may well be asking them to do that. It’s a little bit different taking $2m less when that equals $11m to taking even $1m less and it becomes $5/5.5m not to mention Jt took $2m less and at the end of it he will have earned $121m in career earnings. Nylander/marner have earnings of about $4/5m

Edit: damn it didn’t read the thread through again. Beaten to it by the poster above

 

[Daisy Jane]

If you don't think we need a sexy, big-name RHD (which we don't) then we shouldn't have to trade Kadri to fill the hole there, which has been my point all along. Gardiner and a pick or something should be plenty to balance out our blueline a bit, and we're rolling from there.

I'm not looking to beat anybody into submission or anything here, Daisy, I'm simply providing as many facts and points as I possibly can to get my point across. Taking everything into consideration, including my own opinions as well as real, tangible facts, the needs we have at D just aren't as drastic or dire as many fans and media personalities are making them out to be.

I also never said you were objectively wrong, but that the suggestion that the Leafs' head office hasn't been addressing our issues at D was objectively wrong - which it is.

but i think you're missing what my main point is.
i mean i acknowledged yours. (or i tried)

you argued that we don't have to trade Kadri that we can trade jake instead. which, i've agreed with because I personally wouldn't re-sign him the problem with trading Jake is, is that I don't think you'll get a big haul for him. it might be for the most part a one for one. if it's Myers or Spurgeon it will have to be a kind of a deal like when Turris went to NSH. (and if that happens. kay great that's an aspect).

My main point is (and I really have no horse in this like if we keep Kadri that's fine, I don't care, same with Nylander) but the argument isn't (or shouldn't) be like Nylander for Defenseman. (and then it ends) or ditto Kadri for defenseman (and it ends).. the argument is is that you get more value back if you trade them. (i'd argue Kadri much more simply due to his cap hit and what he provides). Hey, team that has a lot of defense, prospects and picks. how would you like to have a player that's capable of being your #1 centre at 4.5m for 4 more years? Especially if they are age appropriate. they can still

1: grow with the team. (just like we all want)
2: it still fits in with being a smart, intelligent, puck moving/possession team. (which is the vision)
3: if you get a better defenseman. I don't care if it's right handed or left handed -but it allows for A: better slotting of what we have now, and B: when the others (Lily, Sandin, Durzi whomever, whomever) if they make the team, can slot in just as well.

This also allows Nylander to move to the centre. You argued that this is too expensive and removes a high calibre winger from Matty. which. true. (I've always been team Matty/Will to be fair, and now that we have Tavares, the only way I see Nylander getting any centre development time is if they double shift him on the 4th line. which would be soooo not fair to others). but I think that might be something that comes up during contract talks.(where do we see you, how do we accommodate your needs etc etc).

i think those are very valid options too. it doesn't take away with what is coming,, (and taking the time/patience of waiting for the others to come up, if they come up)

I do think it's good for Dubas to be all "nothing to see here, we're fine." (a: to instil trust into the team, B: because as we both pointed out - they do have good team statistics) but there are some causes for concern because as the last few months showed down the the stretch there were issues for concern that don't show up in GAA/PK.

and. while I do think (because contary to belief lol i am v. patient in seeing this through i just feel that making big trades when opportunities show themselves (aka Poile!) is a good thing too) - a lot of issues can be sorted out just by a little bit more time and seeing what comes up, i also do think while we have the set up we have now, you need to make some hay to maximize the ELCS/really great 2nd-contracts/deals we had. Lou failed in this. Dubas did do a great correction again, by bringing in Tavares because it does slot a 1st line calibre centre on the 3rd line with speedy wingers. (which. not fair). but if we don't shore up up some of the deficits that advantage will be wasted. We'll still have a great team down the road (i never doubted that). but we would have wasted some real key growth too.


i just feel we need to be open for every possibility. that's what I have faith in management. that they won't shut the door because it features nylander or kadri - but that they can see moves that we can't, and also to the possibilities that not every answer to our problems lies within Ricoh. - this is where we disagree though (if i read everything right)

i do apologise though for being short.
summer = crabby daisy. (this should just be a given for everyone. if i am mean, it's because it's too damned hot)

 

[IBeL34f]

but i think you're missing what my main point is.
i mean i acknowledged yours. (or i tried)

you argued that we don't have to trade Kadri that we can trade jake instead. which, i've agreed with because I personally wouldn't re-sign him the problem with trading Jake is, is that I don't think you'll get a big haul for him. it might be for the most part a one for one. if it's Myers or Spurgeon it will have to be a kind of a deal like when Turris went to NSH. (and if that happens. kay great that's an aspect).

My main point is (and I really have no horse in this like if we keep Kadri that's fine, I don't care, same with Nylander) but the argument isn't (or shouldn't) be like Nylander for Defenseman. (and then it ends) or ditto Kadri for defenseman (and it ends).. the argument is is that you get more value back if you trade them. (i'd argue Kadri much more simply due to his cap hit and what he provides). Hey, team that has a lot of defense, prospects and picks. how would you like to have a player that's capable of being your #1 centre at 4.5m for 4 more years? Especially if they are age appropriate. they can still

1: grow with the team. (just like we all want)
2: it still fits in with being a smart, intelligent, puck moving/possession team. (which is the vision)
3: if you get a better defenseman. I don't care if it's right handed or left handed -but it allows for A: better slotting of what we have now, and B: when the others (Lily, Sandin, Durzi whomever, whomever) if they make the team, can slot in just as well.

This also allows Nylander to move to the centre. You argued that this is too expensive and removes a high calibre winger from Matty. which. true. (I've always been team Matty/Will to be fair, and now that we have Tavares, the only way I see Nylander getting any centre development time is if they double shift him on the 4th line. which would be soooo not fair to others). but I think that might be something that comes up during contract talks.(where do we see you, how do we accommodate your needs etc etc).

i think those are very valid options too. it doesn't take away with what is coming,, (and taking the time/patience of waiting for the others to come up, if they come up)

I do think it's good for Dubas to be all "nothing to see here, we're fine." (a: to instil trust into the team, B: because as we both pointed out - they do have good team statistics) but there are some causes for concern because as the last few months showed down the the stretch there were issues for concern that don't show up in GAA/PK.

and. while I do think (because contary to belief lol i am v. patient in seeing this through i just feel that making big trades when opportunities show themselves (aka Poile!) is a good thing too) - a lot of issues can be sorted out just by a little bit more time and seeing what comes up, i also do think while we have the set up we have now, you need to make some hay to maximize the ELCS/really great 2nd-contracts/deals we had. Lou failed in this. Dubas did do a great correction again, by bringing in Tavares because it does slot a 1st line calibre centre on the 3rd line with speedy wingers. (which. not fair). but if we don't shore up up some of the deficits that advantage will be wasted. We'll still have a great team down the road (i never doubted that). but we would have wasted some real key growth too.


i just feel we need to be open for every possibility. that's what I have faith in management. that they won't shut the door because it features nylander or kadri - but that they can see moves that we can't, and also to the possibilities that not every answer to our problems lies within Ricoh. - this is where we disagree though (if i read everything right)

i do apologise though for being short.
summer = crabby daisy. (this should just be a given for everyone. if i am mean, it's because it's too damned hot)

I haven't missed your main point, I just disagree with it - Acquiring this piece is not so dire that we should be looking to get the highest-value player for that position at any cost. What is more important than getting the highest-value player for that position is getting the right fit for that position, at the right cost, to fit with our team structure and cap structure that we've already put in place.

One thing to keep in mind when talking about value is the value of the player to your team, both on the ice and against your cap. I know you don't like worrying about the finances all that much, because we have highly intelligent people responsible for handling that, but it's an important thing to keep in mind, especially when we have a very obvious structure in place - All of our big money is going to be committed to our superstar forward group, so making sure you're making smart, cost-effective decisions throughout the rest of your lineup is hugely important. While Kadri may more value in a trade than Jake Gardiner, his contract has absolutely huge value to the Maple Leafs over the next 4 years, while the same cannot be said for Gardiner. And as one of our 3 de facto NHL centermen, as well as our at-home shut-down guy, and our grittiest player, Kadri also has ridiculous on-ice value to the Leafs; while Gardiner, excellent as he is, plays a position that can be more easily filled from within.

Trade Kadri and all of a sudden you have to make another move to replace him, and you're likely downgrading. Not only would a Gardiner move not create a hole in our lineup, but it would actually allow us to perfectly utilize the remaining pieces that we already have in place - Hainsey moves into an easier role at 5v5, switches to his strong side of the ice, and potentially complements Zaitsev's offensive talents better than Gardiner did, while still allowing Dermott another year to develop on a strong 3rd pair.

You mentioned yourself in a previous post that you think there's a fine line between loving what you have and throwing everything overboard - While you might believe my stance on Kadri leans towards loving a player too much, I would suggest that the idea of trading him, instead of Gardiner, in our quest to fill this one position (which, again, I don't believe is as big a need as many people here do) leans too far towards throwing a good thing overboard. I think it would be an almost inherently unwise decision to make. Getting a less sexy, but smart, cost-effective (ideally no more than a slight bump from Gardiner's current salary) defenseman that can serve as a stabilizing partner for Rielly is much more ideal.

Also, I bolded a line your post regarding Myers/Spurgeon and a Turris situation - I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you explain?

 

[Daisy Jane]

I haven't missed your main point, I just disagree with it - Acquiring this piece is not so dire that we should be looking to get the highest-value player for that position at any cost. What is more important than getting the highest-value player for that position is getting the right fit for that position, at the right cost, to fit with our team structure and cap structure that we've already put in place.

One thing to keep in mind when talking about value is the value of the player to your team, both on the ice and against your cap. I know you don't like worrying about the finances all that much, because we have highly intelligent people responsible for handling that, but it's an important thing to keep in mind, especially when we have a very obvious structure in place - All of our big money is going to be committed to our superstar forward group, so making sure you're making smart, cost-effective decisions throughout the rest of your lineup is hugely important. While Kadri may more value in a trade than Jake Gardiner, his contract has absolutely huge value to the Maple Leafs over the next 4 years, while the same cannot be said for Gardiner. And as one of our 3 de facto NHL centermen, as well as our at-home shut-down guy, and our grittiest player, Kadri also has ridiculous on-ice value to the Leafs; while Gardiner, excellent as he is, plays a position that can be more easily filled from within.

Trade Kadri and all of a sudden you have to make another move to replace him, and you're likely downgrading. Not only would a Gardiner move not create a hole in our lineup, but it would actually allow us to perfectly utilize the remaining pieces that we already have in place - Hainsey moves into an easier role at 5v5, switches to his strong side of the ice, and potentially complements Zaitsev's offensive talents better than Gardiner did, while still allowing Dermott another year to develop on a strong 3rd pair.

You mentioned yourself in a previous post that you think there's a fine line between loving what you have and throwing everything overboard - While you might believe my stance on Kadri leans towards loving a player too much, I would suggest that the idea of trading him, instead of Gardiner, in our quest to fill this one position (which, again, I don't believe is as big a need as many people here do) leans too far towards throwing a good thing overboard. I think it would be an almost inherently unwise decision to make. Getting a less sexy, but smart, cost-effective (ideally no more than a slight bump from Gardiner's current salary) defenseman that can serve as a stabilizing partner for Rielly is much more ideal.

Also, I bolded a line your post regarding Myers/Spurgeon and a Turris situation - I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you explain?

turris got traded as a ufa but re-signed

 

[IBeL34f]

turris got traded as a ufa but re-signed

Oh, ok - Spurgeon's got 2 years left on his deal, so he's not a UFA until after our cap crunch in 2019/20, and we could afford to re-sign him at that point.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Oh, ok - Spurgeon's got 2 years left on his deal, so he's not a UFA until after our cap crunch in 2019/20, and we could afford to re-sign him at that point.

gotcha
(I was thinking Myers)

 

[Stephen]

and we have problems that have been evident for a very long time which Lou didn't address in 2 years, and as of yet, Dubas hasn't. that's a problem for me.

I also never said I wasn't enjoying it. I am very happy with what we are doing.

When you consider the fact that the Leafs added Matthews, Andersen, Marleau, Tavares from outside the organization since June 2016, I’m not sure it’s fair to say they failed to address the RHD position since they were busy with other things.

The RHD weakness is the only position that poses a weakness on the depth chart. Provided they re-sign the Big Three to reasonable deals and can convert Gardiner into assets or re-sign him at a reasonable deal to give yourself the room to add a RHD I don’t see it being a problem if that’s the only thing they need to solve.

The obsession with the RHD also seems to be exacerbated by Mike Babcock’s tendency to want to have LHD and RHD pairs. Before his era I barely remember anyone caring what hand a defenseman was just as long as we found some good ones.

 

[Daisy Jane]

When you consider the fact that the Leafs added Matthews, Andersen, Marleau, Tavares from outside the organization since June 2016, I’m not sure it’s fair to say they failed to address the RHD position since they were busy with other things.

The RHD weakness is the only position that poses a weakness on the depth chart. Provided they re-sign the Big Three to reasonable deals and can convert Gardiner into assets or re-sign him at a reasonable deal to give yourself the room to add a RHD I don’t see it being a problem if that’s the only thing they need to solve.

The obsession with the RHD also seems to be exacerbated by Mike Babcock’s tendency to want to have LHD and RHD pairs. Before his era I barely remember anyone caring what hand a defenseman was just as long as we found some good ones.

i don't care about right-handed d.
the right side is poor, i'm pretty sure there are a left of left handed people playing the right side in the NHL.

 

[Canadian Finn]

This is just the beginning. Our window is only just opening. We just had a 105-point season, then added a franchise center in his prime for nothing but cap space, and can expect further development from every single member of our core. We have at least 7 years where we're perfectly geared up to contend for the Cup, and we have the superstar youth, the prospects, the picks, and the cap flexibility to be competitive even after Tavares' current contract comes to an end - To waste this time worrying about how you might feel later, instead of enjoying this process for what it is, would be such a shame.

Great post!