Waived: Leafs place Peter Holland on waivers [CLEARED]

[Gary Nylund]

This is funny, because if you want to talk about looking at the face of a winner, I can only think of Sundin. Look at his face in the beginning of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ckaCuFfBzA

That's typical Sundin, as we see him in Sweden. A will to win that borders on psychotic. An absolute general who would accept no defeat.

I remember that face and I remember watching Sundin playing for Sweden and wishing he could bring that same passion to the Leafs. It's understandable that playing for Team Sweden would be more inspiring than playing for the sad sack Leafs but I totally understand why some Leaf fans would hold Gilmour in higher esteem than Sundin - Gilmour as a Leaf wore that face all the time.

 

[Crysis]

I remember that face and I remember watching Sundin playing for Sweden and wishing he could bring that same passion to the Leafs. It's understandable that playing for Team Sweden would be more inspiring than playing for the sad sack Leafs but I totally understand why some Leaf fans would hold Gilmour in higher esteem than Sundin - Gilmour as a Leaf wore that face all the time.

So true. He clearly cared more about the blue and gold, not the blue and white.

 

[diceman934]

Assess management is often used without context on here.

So I buy a timeshare and as most know it is a poor investment but people still buy them...you can sell your timeshare which most often goes dirt cheap or you give them away.

Same as a hockey player we or someone drafts them in the first round, they struggle to make the NHL or even be a regular in the AHL and we give them away to gain a contract spot....Biggs. That was not poor asset management at all, it is bad drafting. Bad asset management would have seen us resign him throwing more money away.

Holland is in the maybe we can get a little something for him, but with his arbitration hearing still to come no one wants him if he wins and gets over 2M for the year when they can spent half that or less and still get a similar player. We need him to sign a contract for around 800K or so and he then becomes a trade-able asset if he does not make the team.

Either way it is no great loss.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Assess management is often used without context on here.

So I buy a timeshare and as most know it is a poor investment but people still buy them...you can sell your timeshare which most often goes dirt cheap or you give them away.

Same as a hockey player we or someone drafts them in the first round, they struggle to make the NHL or even be a regular in the AHL and we give them away to gain a contract spot....Biggs. That was not poor asset management at all, it is bad drafting. Bad asset management would have seen us resign him throwing more money away.

Holland is in the maybe we can get a little something for him, but with his arbitration hearing still to come no one wants him if he wins and gets over 2M for the year when they can spent half that or less and still get a similar player. We need him to sign a contract for around 800K or so and he then becomes a trade-able asset if he does not make the team.

Either way it is no great loss.

thank you.

not every time we lose a player is "bad asset management."

 

[deletethis]

You don't see those crazy intense faces any longer in the NHL. There's a reason: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26397

 

[-DeMo-]

the Martin/Holland Debate is funny Martin actually out scored Holland at Even strength, 19 points to 16 for Holland, Martin's 5on5 P/60 is 1.22 compared to Holland's 1.07. 11 of Holland's points came on the PP something he will never see on any good team, so the one thing Holland supposively has on Martin he isn't really producing much better if at all. and yes Holland has more skill then Martin but that doesn't always translates to better offensive outputs.

also someone mentions Holland being on pace for 30+ points well, imo on pace means nothing for Holland, he's so inconsistent he could go the next 20 games without a point. so with guys like Mathews/Nylander/Brown/Marner probably taking Holland's PP time next year it wouldn't surprise me if he struggled to hit 20 points.

 

[deletethis]

We'll have to get used to discarded players having modest success elsewhere. Part of a good rebuild involves culling the talent. At some point there will be a more substantial talent than a Peter Holland drafted and developed by the Leafs who the team cannot retain.

I wouldn't be shocked if Holland "figures it out" at about 28 or so and becomes a reliable NHL forward with a consistent game. In the meantime, it's obvious that the coach was not crazy about the player's inconsistent effort level.

 

[schenneuf]

Was a boneheaded trade. Good riddance.

 

[Ciao]

I guess Lou proved his point.

Also guessing Holland wants out and will be gone before he ever plays another game in a Leafs' uniform.

No great loss, but this whole episode was not necessary and didn't rally help the Leafs.

Why would they have given him a QO in the first place?

 

[Man Bear Pig]

He is a decent young player. But we've got younger, better players coming up through the system.

That's another issue with him. There's plenty of young depth in the organization. He's gonna get passed by pretty quickly.

 

[Crysis]

I guess Lou proved his point.

Also guessing Holland wants out and will be gone before he ever plays another game in a Leafs' uniform.

No great loss, but this whole episode was not necessary and didn't rally help the Leafs.

Why would they have given him a QO in the first place?

I'm guessing they think they could still get mid to late round pick for him IF he's awarded not much over 1 million. Not many teams will claim a player right before an arbitration so the fact he wasn't claimed doesn't mean much.

 

[ANDI P IS CUTE]

I remember watching the leaf documentary series they just had and Holland said after he was benched it really made him come back stronger and harder; but apparently again that did not last long.

 

[deletethis]

I remember watching the leaf documentary series they just had and Holland said after he was benched it really made him come back stronger and harder; but apparently again that did not last long.

The skill level divide between him and Kadri isn't that wide, Kadri is flashier while Holland is smoother. Last season really set the two of them far apart. Babcock challenged them both. Kadri responded with a consistently intense (occasionally even dirty) effort and was rewarded substantially. Holland responded with the occasional good/great game(s) then fading back into the woodwork.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Kadri had an awful shooting luck season and still outproduced him by 18 points.

 

[Budsfan]

I think they may settle on a contract before arbitration, somewhere like 1.2-1.3 million.

The waiver was a chance we would lose him but it has also has proven that he is unlikely to get 2.1 million in arbitration because no team would take him not knowing if he won the ruling, so now it comes down to .09 mill per season Leafs figure, or 2.1 million Holland's contract demands, I think they will settle before the hearing.

 

[showtime8]

Assess management is often used without context on here.

So I buy a timeshare and as most know it is a poor investment but people still buy them...you can sell your timeshare which most often goes dirt cheap or you give them away.

Same as a hockey player we or someone drafts them in the first round, they struggle to make the NHL or even be a regular in the AHL and we give them away to gain a contract spot....Biggs. That was not poor asset management at all, it is bad drafting. Bad asset management would have seen us resign him throwing more money away.

Holland is in the maybe we can get a little something for him, but with his arbitration hearing still to come no one wants him if he wins and gets over 2M for the year when they can spent half that or less and still get a similar player. We need him to sign a contract for around 800K or so and he then becomes a trade-able asset if he does not make the team.

Either way it is no great loss.

The overview of what you're saying is correct, but I believe what people are talking about is that it's terrible asset management that you trade picks to acquire this guy and let him have the potential of being claimed 2 seasons later.

Now, you could say that it was poor drafting on the Ducks part because he was a 1st rounder and got traded for a 3rd (became a 2nd) and a 7th.

Either way, this move was about negotiation tactics on the Leafs part.

 

[Mad Brills*]

The overview of what you're saying is correct, but I believe what people are talking about is that it's terrible asset management that you trade picks to acquire this guy and let him have the potential of being claimed 2 seasons later.

Now, you could say that it was poor drafting on the Ducks part because he was a 1st rounder and got traded for a 3rd (became a 2nd) and a 7th.

Either way, this move was about negotiation tactics on the Leafs part.

Why not just not give him a QO, and between June 25th and July 1, when you have still have first dibs at him, just sign him to a 1 year deal?

 

[showtime8]

Why not just not give him a QO, and between June 25th and July 1, when you have still have first dibs at him, just sign him to a 1 year deal?

They did offer him a qualifying offer, but he thought he was worth more money than whatever the price was.

They've had since that time to give him a contract though. So from June 25th until now, they could have worked out a deal.

 

[The Iceman]

The overview of what you're saying is correct, but I believe what people are talking about is that it's terrible asset management that you trade picks to acquire this guy and let him have the potential of being claimed 2 seasons later.

Now, you could say that it was poor drafting on the Ducks part because he was a 1st rounder and got traded for a 3rd (became a 2nd) and a 7th.

Either way, this move was about negotiation tactics on the Leafs part.

At the time the Leafs acquired Holland they were really banged up bad down the middle. I am sure Nonis saw this as a chance to acquire a young former #1 draft pick and insert him right into the lineup with decent playing time. At the time a trade with some real upside potential.

 

[Ciao]

At the time the Leafs acquired Holland they were really banged up bad down the middle. I am sure Nonis saw this as a chance to acquire a young former #1 draft pick and insert him right into the lineup with decent playing time. At the time a trade with some real upside potential.

Holland is a skilled player.

I think there was upside that he did not reach.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Holland is a skilled player.

I think there was upside that he did not reach.

This.

The bad asset management came from playing him over that 25 game limit that saw the conditional pick go from a 3rd to a 2nd rounder, when Holland wasn't given significant minutes but rather being buried on the fourth line. Further to that the bad asset management predated the trade when the Leafs moved Colborne to keep the fighters on the roster heading into the season. Moving Colborne depleted the centre depth the Leafs had at the time.

 

[darrylsittler27]

I think it is time we moved on.

Holland has had his chance. He was the doing of a past regime. Does he really have any future here? He is a run of the mill 3rd line Center with nothing special about his game. Would he play on a Stanley cup team? Anaheim says no. I don't think Babcock likes him and he is likely one of the "tweeners" he referred to. I know I wouldn't pay him $2 million.