Lou appreciation thread

[Daisy Jane]

Didn't Lou Lam come in the summer? I'm not suggesting they should have waited until now for Lou to trade him, just a few more weeks.

Lamoriello was hired July 24th

Rutherford said that the Kessel deal needed to be done July 1st - or they would have gone in another direction to find another winger

so that's assuming that
A: the leafs call the bluff
B: Rutherford can't get anything instead
C: Lamoriello could make it better.

 

[ACC1224]

Lamoriello was hired July 24th

Rutherford said that the Kessel deal needed to be done July 1st - or they would have gone in another direction to find another winger

so that's assuming that
A: the leafs call the bluff
B: Rutherford can't get anything instead
C: Lamoriello could make it better.

Yes those would be the assumptions.

 

[Mess]

Lamoriello was hired July 24th

Rutherford said that the Kessel deal needed to be done July 1st - or they would have gone in another direction to find another winger

so that's assuming that
A: the leafs call the bluff
B: Rutherford can't get anything instead
C: Lamoriello could make it better.

Part of the reason Lou is here in the 1st place is that Shanny, after getting industry feedback realized Hunter/Dubas and himself were over their heads and got taken on the Kessel deal based on GM inexperience and Rutherford a sly old vet took advantage of the situation playing on that.

In all fairness to Shana-management the interest for Kessel was low with very few interested teams, so with limited options and a desire to remove Kessel off the Leafs roster they were willing to take what they could get also. Lou would have been in a similar back against the wall scenario, but more savvy to perhaps make a better deal.

As we saw in the Phaneuf deal, Lou managed to take back contracts in lieu of salary retention on the contract over the term. I believe he would have orchestrated a similar scenario with the Pens and not had Kessel on Leafs book for 7 more years.

 

[burpsalot]

Part of the reason Lou is here in the 1st place is that Shanny, after getting industry feedback realized Hunter/Dubas and himself were over their heads and got taken on the Kessel deal based on GM inexperience and Rutherford a sly old vet took advantage of the situation playing on that.

In all fairness to Shana-management the interest for Kessel was low with very few interested teams, so with limited options and a desire to remove Kessel off the Leafs roster they were willing to take what they could get also. Lou would have been in a similar back against the wall scenario, but more savvy to perhaps make a better deal.

As we saw in the Phaneuf deal, Lou managed to take back contracts in lieu of salary retention on the contract over the term. I believe he would have orchestrated a similar scenario with the Pens and not had Kessel on Leafs book for 7 more years.

Well that's a completely inaccurate statement. Shanahan had approached Lou almost 2 months prior to making the Kessel deal.

 

[burpsalot]

Have you actually watched Kessel play? He's been great in 2016, and is around his normal PPG for the calendar year.

Huh? Have you watched him play? He has been playing worse than he had at the start of the season. He has resumed his pouty face attitude & has played a disconnected game.

He's put up some points in the last month & a half but out of about a dozen games I have watched him in there has been one that I would actually say he looked good in.

 

[Faltorvo]

Part of the reason Lou is here in the 1st place is that Shanny, after getting industry feedback realized Hunter/Dubas and himself were over their heads and got taken on the Kessel deal based on GM inexperience and Rutherford a sly old vet took advantage of the situation playing on that.

In all fairness to Shana-management the interest for Kessel was low with very few interested teams, so with limited options and a desire to remove Kessel off the Leafs roster they were willing to take what they could get also. Lou would have been in a similar back against the wall scenario, but more savvy to perhaps make a better deal.

As we saw in the Phaneuf deal, Lou managed to take back contracts in lieu of salary retention on the contract over the term. I believe he would have orchestrated a similar scenario with the Pens and not had Kessel on Leafs book for 7 more years.

sorry mess, I just don't buy it

I understand that we tried and the pens players refused to waive their ntc clauses, can't blame em pens (possible cup contender)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>us

 

[Mess]

Well that's a completely inaccurate statement. Shanahan had approached Lou almost 2 months prior to making the Kessel deal.

Lou was under contract to NJ and any contact with Shanny without approval would have been considered tampering.

Nonis was already fired after the season so I'm sure Shanny talked to a lot of potential GM candidates to fill the vacancy and not just Lou Lam alone (with permission granted).

The Kessel trade outcome reinforced the belief that Leafs needed an experienced GM to help unload a lot of current players and maximize return. If Lou had been in the GM seat prior to the Kessel trade I believe the outcome would have been better for the Leafs.

Rutherford got Leafs to cave on all aspects of the trade including paying Kessel's $4 mil bonus, retaining salary, lottery protected 1st round pick and also willing to give Pens 2nd back to get that 1st etc. Lou and Rutherford would have been more on level ground experience wise and the outcome would have reflected that.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Lou was under contract to NJ and any contact with Shanny without approval would have been considered tampering.

Nonis was already fired after the season so I'm sure Shanny talked to a lot of potential GM candidates to fill the vacancy and not just Lou Lam alone (with permission granted).

The Kessel trade outcome reinforced the belief that Leafs needed an experienced GM to help unload a lot of current players and maximize return. If Lou had been in the GM seat prior to the Kessel trade I believe the outcome would have been better for the Leafs.

Rutherford got Leafs to cave on all aspects of the trade including paying Kessel's $4 mil bonus, retaining salary, lottery protected 1st round pick and also willing to give Pens 2nd back to get that 1st etc. Lou and Rutherford would have been more on level ground experience wise and the outcome would have reflected that.

at the very least the leafs don't retain salary.

 

[burpsalot]

Lou was under contract to NJ and any contact with Shanny without approval would have been considered tampering.

Nonis was already fired after the season so I'm sure Shanny talked to a lot of potential GM candidates to fill the vacancy and not just Lou Lam alone (with permission granted).

The Kessel trade outcome reinforced the belief that Leafs needed an experienced GM to help unload a lot of current players and maximize return. If Lou had been in the GM seat prior to the Kessel trade I believe the outcome would have been better for the Leafs.

Rutherford got Leafs to cave on all aspects of the trade including paying Kessel's $4 mil bonus, retaining salary, lottery protected 1st round pick and also willing to give Pens 2nd back to get that 1st etc. Lou and Rutherford would have been more on level ground experience wise and the outcome would have reflected that.

1. That's why he had approval.

2. Shanahan had been saying for months that he would be getting an experienced GM. Timing was the only thing in question. His acquiring a GM had nothing to do with the Kessel deal, it was going to happen, when he had the person he wanted.

3. Only a complete moron GM would have signed off on the trade before July 1st with the signing bonus. Retaining salary? That's why it exists.

Deal was a good deal for the Leafs, but some people want to put Kessel on an unwarranted pedestal.

 

[ACC1224]

Lou was under contract to NJ and any contact with Shanny without approval would have been considered tampering.

Nonis was already fired after the season so I'm sure Shanny talked to a lot of potential GM candidates to fill the vacancy and not just Lou Lam alone (with permission granted).

The Kessel trade outcome reinforced the belief that Leafs needed an experienced GM to help unload a lot of current players and maximize return. If Lou had been in the GM seat prior to the Kessel trade I believe the outcome would have been better for the Leafs.

Rutherford got Leafs to cave on all aspects of the trade including paying Kessel's $4 mil bonus, retaining salary, lottery protected 1st round pick and also willing to give Pens 2nd back to get that 1st etc. Lou and Rutherford would have been more on level ground experience wise and the outcome would have reflected that.

Agree with all that.
I don't see how anyone can think that a GM of Lou's stature couldn't have made a difference.

 

[Nithoniniel]

At this point, I'm not sure how it can be said that Leafs didn't do at least decently in the Kessel trade. I still think it favors Pens, but that's mostly due to the retention. I don't like that one bit.

As for Lou, I was highly skeptical of his hiring. Big fan of the trades we've made though. The Polak one is robbery, I liked what we got for Matthias and I didn't have much hope that we'd get rid of Phaneuf without retaining.

 

[mcleex]

Could Lou have gotten us a better return for Phil? Possibly

But then maybe Kessel would have started the season playing with the Leafs. He may have helped us with a few more W's, maybe the team just wanted him gone asap

 

[taurine330]

Could Lou have gotten us a better return for Phil? Possibly

But then maybe Kessel would have started the season playing with the Leafs. He may have helped us with a few more W's, maybe the team just wanted him gone asap

I think the team wanted him gone for work ethic and cultural reasons. They wanted to implement new system for the kids and such and Kessel had to be gone.

 

[Ovate]

At this point, I'm not sure how it can be said that Leafs didn't do at least decently in the Kessel trade. I still think it favors Pens, but that's mostly due to the retention. I don't like that one bit.

As for Lou, I was highly skeptical of his hiring. Big fan of the trades we've made though. The Polak one is robbery, I liked what we got for Matthias and I didn't have much hope that we'd get rid of Phaneuf without retaining.

The retention really is bad. I see a lot of hypocrisy on these boards about that.

On the Kessel deal, $1.2M is nothing to be concerned about, and that such a small amount will never affect us. But Stamkos at $10.5M is too much, he shouldn't signed for over $9M.

 

[ACC1224]

Could Lou have gotten us a better return for Phil? Possibly

But then maybe Kessel would have started the season playing with the Leafs. He may have helped us with a few more W's, maybe the team just wanted him gone asap

Lou Lam became GM in July.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Part of the reason Lou is here in the 1st place is that Shanny, after getting industry feedback realized Hunter/Dubas and himself were over their heads and got taken on the Kessel deal based on GM inexperience and Rutherford a sly old vet took advantage of the situation playing on that.

you keep believing that, Mess.
i mean - you are flat out, dead wrong, considering that in April and in May, Shanahan said he was looking to get an experienced GM.

Shanahan + Lamoriello both have stated that basically from the day he was moved up to the president's office. (Lou), Shanahan contacted him about being the GM for the Leafs. This - by the way. Was May 4th. they talked several times (with permission with the Devils, btw) in the position

And if it wasn't going to be Lou - I have a feeling it would have been George McPhee (though Shanahan didn't announce whom else he was speaking to - but there was a lot) - but Jeff Gorton was off the table, Verbeek/BriseBois were off the table & Futa was dealing w/the Richards thing with Lombardi.


So I am very curious what "industry feedback" Shanahan got that he was over his head - and why Shanahan would have listened to such utter crap like that.

In all fairness to Shana-management the interest for Kessel was low with very few interested teams, so with limited options and a desire to remove Kessel off the Leafs roster they were willing to take what they could get also. Lou would have been in a similar back against the wall scenario, but more savvy to perhaps make a better deal.

and if horses were wishes, beggars would ride.

Again - here is the thing.

Rutherford wanted the deal done July first, or they would have gone somewhere else. Fact.

Lou was hired July twenty-fourth. So - by my math - that's 23 days after Rutherford's deadline, and you are assuming that Rutherford who wanted to shoreup the scoring (why?) wouldn't have gone with another option. We had already dodged a bullet with them missing out on Saad. Oshie was traded July 2nd (another player Rutherford was interested in).

As we saw in the Phaneuf deal, Lou managed to take back contracts in lieu of salary retention on the contract over the term. I believe he would have orchestrated a similar scenario with the Pens and not had Kessel on Leafs book for 7 more years.

Right. you know what the difference was, though?

None of the players in Pittsburgh wanted to waive their No Movement Clauses to come to Toronto. Period.. Milchalek said he did talk to everyone involved (Shanahan/Lou/Babcock) - so it worked out, but I doubt very much that Shanahan/Babcock didn't talk to the two players who would have come back - and thus avoiding the retention.

Like. I honestly feel that people miss this aspect. Shanahan didn't want to retain. he flat out said he didn't want to retain, but they couldn't get the other assets to waive, so that's what happened. and Kapenen is a good player - and quite frankly, as has been stated - if the leafs end up w/o having a 1st round pick from Pittsburgh - it means they've missed out twice, and Kessel DIDN'T help. Which is a win.

and WE didn't have to deal with kessel. Which was a win

i would have rather had 1.2 million on the books for seven years, then wishing what could have been in hopes that we didn't - but then we're STUCK with Phil - because have y'all seen him? with elite talent? He's still Phil. and I would have lost it if he wore the uniform for one instant this season.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

I have no problem with the general package that Kessel returned. A 1st, a 3rd, Kapanen, Harrington and Spaling (now a future SJS 2nd) for Kessel, Pittsburgh's second and two nobodies (Erixon and Biggs) isn't bad. It's actually a decent return given his contract and the worry of his declining play.

It gets bad when you realize that we had to retain salary and give back their 2nd. I've always thought it should've been either/or with regards to those two parts. Rutherford wanted it back most likely because he'd have had no picks in the first three rounds of this upcoming draft has he not gotten the 2nd back. Also the 1st round pick should've been unconditional.

But as Daisy has so aptly pointed out, all those factors surrounding the trade (Rutherford's deadline, other options that were available to him, the lack of market for Kessel to begin with) left Shanahan and co. at a serious disadvantage.

Would Lou have gotten a better deal, maybe. I don't think Pittsburgh would've parted with Pouliot. The meat of the deal probably stays the same, but one of the three conditions that Rutherford had us take (1st contingent on Pittsburgh making the playoffs, returning their 2nd, retaining salary) is probably taken out.

 

[Deebo]

Agree with all that.
I don't see how anyone can think that a GM of Lou's stature couldn't have made a difference.

It's been explained to you already how people can think that.

If the opportunity with the Penguins was gone because they opted to trade for Patrick Sharp or someone else and no other team on Phil's list wanted to trade for him then there was no deal to be made. He may have been able to do a bit better with Pittsburgh, but there was every indication that a deal with Pittsburgh would't have been possible 23 days later. Lou can't make a deal without a willing partner.

 

[ACC1224]

It's been explained to you already how people can think that.

If the opportunity with the Penguins was gone because they opted to trade for Patrick Sharp or someone else and no other team on Phil's list wanted to trade for him then there was no deal to be made. He may have been able to do a bit better with Pittsburgh, but there was every indication that a deal with Pittsburgh would't have been possible 23 days later. Lou can't make a deal without a willing partner.

Because it's been explained doesn't mean it's gospel and has to be agreed with.

 

[SEER]

I think Lou has done a FANTASTIC job of things, so far...!

Just losing Kesel and Pheneuf made me very happy..

But.. I also think some kudos is due to Dubas & Hunter, who more than likely also had a lot to do with some of these recent moves..

Always got to love a guy that keeps his word.. We haven't seen that for awhile here..

The Godfather: Lou Lamoriello Tribute-Montage - TML 2015-16

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

In the spirit of the thread, I appreciate what Lou has done so far in regards to helping our rebuild and stocking up on draft picks. Many critics and sceptics kept going on about the rebuild being over, or how he'd never go for a rebuild, or how it was LouLam's show now and he'll do whatever he damn well pleased, regardless of the input from Shanahan, Dubas, and Hunter. I didn't doubt that he was completely on board with the plan and wasn't here to have some power struggle with Shanahan and Babcock, but it's nice that we now have the proof to shut people up.

I can't wait to see what else we do between now and the trade deadline.

 

[Nithoniniel]

The retention really is bad. I see a lot of hypocrisy on these boards about that.

On the Kessel deal, $1.2M is nothing to be concerned about, and that such a small amount will never affect us. But Stamkos at $10.5M is too much, he shouldn't signed for over $9M.

Yeah. The biggest issue as I see it is the amount of years with one retention spot less. That's a lot of potential value in trades that we lose out on.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I have no problem with the general package that Kessel returned. A 1st, a 3rd, Kapanen, Harrington and Spaling (now a future SJS 2nd) for Kessel, Pittsburgh's second and two nobodies (Erixon and Biggs) isn't bad. It's actually a decent return given his contract and the worry of his declining play.

It gets bad when you realize that we had to retain salary and give back their 2nd. I've always thought it should've been either/or with regards to those two parts. Rutherford wanted it back most likely because he'd have had no picks in the first three rounds of this upcoming draft has he not gotten the 2nd back. Also the 1st round pick should've been unconditional.

But as Daisy has so aptly pointed out, all those factors surrounding the trade (Rutherford's deadline, other options that were available to him, the lack of market for Kessel to begin with) left Shanahan and co. at a serious disadvantage.

Would Lou have gotten a better deal, maybe. I don't think Pittsburgh would've parted with Pouliot. The meat of the deal probably stays the same, but one of the three conditions that Rutherford had us take (1st contingent on Pittsburgh making the playoffs, returning their 2nd, retaining salary) is probably taken out.

again this is the way that I see it.

Rutherford was flat out lucky that last season, they made the playoffs - if they didn't Edmonton would have had two lottery picks. (i mean, they won but still).

other factors - the Penguins pretty much gave up most of their first round picks the last few years. then they made that stuuuuuuuuuuuid trade with regards to LoveJoy. (why? i dunno). then with the near call with Edmonton - I don't blame them for wanting to make the pick lottery protected.

and honestly, I truly feel if it were any other player - Shanahan would have insisted that the 2nd year would have been non lottery protected, or we keep the 2nd, or whatever - but the rate things are going, we "got back" that 2nd. so I'm not even upset with that). but this way -

A: you keep up good trade relations with Pittsburgh (who apparently wants players from us anyway) vs. being a dink about it, and maybe you burn that bridge (which some GMs have done see: Lowe + Burke).

B: You don't have Kessel anymore. again. this entire summer was how Kessel was gonna make us look stupid, and how Kessel was going to burn us for 50 goals, and all the assists, and we'll see how Kessel looks like playing with elite talent. Yeah. I'm seeing it. Let's be thankful we're only paying for 1.2m for that crap. (and actually the rate things are going - we'll probably need that 1.2 to be cap compliant).

hand to heart - I would do this trade again exactly how it is, knowing all the facts that I do now, all day every day - for the mere fact that Phil Kessel is far, far, far away from this team, even if he had scored 50 goals. Because quite frankly, he wasn't going to do that here, and after last season (not going into a whole new Phil-atribe) - i personally get the feeling Shanahan didn't want him around. and that's the most important thing.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Because it's been explained doesn't mean it's gospel and has to be agreed with.

how on earth is it not gospel? everything basically except the part where Lou "could" have done something is plain fact.

 

[burpsalot]

Again - here is the thing.

Rutherford wanted the deal done July first, or they would have gone somewhere else. Fact.

Lou was hired July twenty-fourth. So - by my math - that's 23 days after Rutherford's deadline, and you are assuming that Rutherford who wanted to shoreup the scoring (why?) wouldn't have gone with another option. We had already dodged a bullet with them missing out on Saad. Oshie was traded July 2nd (another player Rutherford was interested in).

Excellent assessment & comments Daisy.

If anyone thinks Lamoriello would have come to the Leafs in late July & quickly made a trade of an asset like Kessel without first learning about all the other assets within the organization, they are sorely wrong.

Would Lamoriello have made a better deal? Maybe, don't know, don't really care, I'm very happy with what we got. The deal was done when it had to be done. I would prefer no retention. But it was created for these type of circumstances & we will have 2 more spots by the end of this year.

For anyone that is curious, I am a HUGE Lamoriello fan. The day he was signed I called it a home run & expressed my thrill of the signing. Of the GM's that I know, there is no other that I respect as much as I respect Lamoriello.