Newsday: Lou expected to extend for 3 more years

[ScaredStreit]

Sorry. Zero market for Leddy and his contract at that point in time.

Zero.

No gaslighting, please.

Zero market for Leddy? Staal made more money, wasn't anywhere near as good as Leddy and he was moved.

The notion that a puck moving defenseman who was 29 years old, made a decent cap hit of $5.5million and had just two more years left on his deal had zero marketability is the actual gaslighting.

Lou's overall been successful for the Islanders-and believe me few people around here wanted Snow gone more than I did. But that doesn't mean Lou hasn't made his share of mistakes-and this was and still is a big one.

 

[CupHolders]

Zero market for Leddy? Staal made more money, wasn't anywhere near as good as Leddy and he was moved.

The notion that a puck moving defenseman who was 29 years old, made a decent cap hit of $5.5million and had just two more years left on his deal had zero marketability is the actual gaslighting.

Lou's overall been successful for the Islanders-and believe me few people around here wanted Snow gone more than I did. But that doesn't mean Lou hasn't made his share of mistakes-and this was and still is a big one.

You’re ignoring that due to his backloaded contract, his cash amount was substantially higher than his cap hit.

The trade market Toews was moved in was after a worldwide shut down due to COVID. There was substantial uncertainty if and when things would get back to profitability in many industries that billionaire NHL owners were involved in.

No one wanted to take on cash going into a new NHL season that was still limiting attendance.

EDIT: Staal had a lower salary to cap hit. He was also moved with assets.

 

[PK Cronin]

You’re ignoring that due to his backloaded contract, his cash amount was substantially higher than his cap hit.

The trade market Toews was moved in was after a worldwide shut down due to COVID. There was substantial uncertainty if and when things would get back to profitability in many industries that billionaire NHL owners were involved in.

No one wanted to take on cash going into a new NHL season that was still limiting attendance.

EDIT: Staal had a lower salary to cap hit. He was also moved with assets.

Leddy had that extra year too. Year one was a salary of $6.5M and year two was $7M. Staal's was one year for $4.2M. We're looking at $13.5M in total money verses $4.2M.

It was Marc Staal + a 2021 second rounder for future considerations (also known as nothing).

Realistically, if Lamoriello wanted to get rid of Leddy he'd have had to pay a second rounder at minimum and received nothing in return. Given the salary still owed he likely would've had to give up more than just a second rounder. Instead he opted to get picks in return for Toews.

 

[Lights911]

This conversation has run its course but anyone still saying letting Toews go was the right move is out to lunch. Sure the market at the time may have been somewhat dry due to the league-wide cap situation but in no way shape or form does a puck-moving, top-four defenseman not have a market.

Besides that the Isles didn't do themselves any favors with the Komarov, Hickey, and Ladd contracts.

 

[gordie43]

This conversation has run its course but anyone still saying letting Toews go was the right move is out to lunch. Sure the market at the time may have been somewhat dry due to the league-wide cap situation but in no way shape or form does a puck-moving, top-four defenseman not have a market.

Besides that the Isles didn't do themselves any favors with the Komarov, Hickey, and Ladd contracts.

It’s been mentioned numerous times, it may not have been the right move but it was the only move.

Two words…FLAT CAP

 

[Isles Junkie]

I think the real reason we haven't heard from the coach or GM is because Lou probably thinks it's none of our damn business.

 

[PK Cronin]

This conversation has run its course but anyone still saying letting Toews go was the right move is out to lunch. Sure the market at the time may have been somewhat dry due to the league-wide cap situation but in no way shape or form does a puck-moving, top-four defenseman not have a market.

Besides that the Isles didn't do themselves any favors with the Komarov, Hickey, and Ladd contracts.

The conversation is very one sided with facts though. The side that says it was a mistake provides no information other than what a good player Toews is and refuses to acknowledge anything else laid out before them. Flat cap, cap hit, actual salary, years remaining, etc. In fact, the very comparable someone just brought up in Staal is the prime example of why it wouldn't have been possible to move Leddy without costing a bunch of assets that people also would've cried about.

 

[MJF]

The conversation is very one sided with facts though. The side that says it was a mistake provides no information other than what a good player Toews is and refuses to acknowledge anything else laid out before them. Flat cap, cap hit, actual salary, years remaining, etc. In fact, the very comparable someone just brought up in Staal is the prime example of why it wouldn't have been possible to move Leddy without costing a bunch of assets that people also would've cried about.

Generally these are the same people who piss and moan about Carter Verahaege and how the Isles let him get away.

Context, folks.

 

[Osakahaus]

The return for Toews is excusable due to Covid and the flat cap (he got a decent returned compared to what most GMs were getting).

Choosing Leddy over Toews is not excusable.

Okay lets can him for someone worse

 

[Seph]

The conversation is very one sided with facts though. The side that says it was a mistake provides no information other than what a good player Toews is and refuses to acknowledge anything else laid out before them. Flat cap, cap hit, actual salary, years remaining, etc. In fact, the very comparable someone just brought up in Staal is the prime example of why it wouldn't have been possible to move Leddy without costing a bunch of assets that people also would've cried about.

People are also leaving out the likelyhood of losing him in a year anyway. For one, if Toews got a 1 year deal in arbitration he would've been UFA after that, but also, the expansion draft was looming in a year. Realistically, the decision was never whether to keep Toews or Leddy, the decision was always which 3 of Pelech, Pulock, Mayfield, Leddy and Toews to keep.

Pelech and Pulock were obvious choices, considering they were the same age as Toews and already had established themselves as the team's top pairing. So that meant it came down to keeping just one of Mayfield, Leddy and Toews. Mayfield won out, most likely due to his incredibly low AAV. If people want to argue we should've kept Toews over Mayfield, that's one thing, but anyone arguing we should have kept Toews over Leddy is missing the point.

 

[JPIsles18]

The conversation is very one sided with facts though. The side that says it was a mistake provides no information other than what a good player Toews is and refuses to acknowledge anything else laid out before them. Flat cap, cap hit, actual salary, years remaining, etc. In fact, the very comparable someone just brought up in Staal is the prime example of why it wouldn't have been possible to move Leddy without costing a bunch of assets that people also would've cried about.

This is simply untrue. We've rehashed this a ton so I don't think we'll ever agree on this. Most sane people that have an issue with the Toews move understand all the above that you mention. What we take exception to is that Lou did not understand what a good player Toews actually was when he dealt him. Even with the playoff struggles, Toews was far superior to Leddy. If you knew you had a first pair 26 year old defenseman (and the analytics supported this), and his contract was only 4 mil x 3 years, you find any way you can to keep him. That means trading significant assets to move bad contracts. The issue isn't that he moved him. The issue is that he did not know how good Toews actually was. He completely misunderstood how valuable of a piece he was and how he offered the puck moving ability nobody else (including Leddy) on the team. Since moving him he has tried Chara, Salo, and Aho as replacements on the left side.

This is absolutely an indictment on Lou for not figuring out a way to keep a top pairing defenseman. You never put yourself in a position to literally give away players like this. Ladd was moved. I'm pretty sure with enough sweetener, there could have been a Leddy move too. The problem was that Lou just whiffed on the evaluation of this player. It's maddening, but it happens to every GM. But then doubling down and not understanding what you lost and eventually replacing that skillset with a 75 year old Chara is just bad roster building. It was lazy and lacked creativity as is most things Lou does these days.

 

[PK Cronin]

This is simply untrue. We've rehashed this a ton so I don't think we'll ever agree on this. Most sane people that have an issue with the Toews move understand all the above that you mention. What we take exception to is that Lou did not understand what a good player Toews actually was when he dealt him. Even with the playoff struggles, Toews was far superior to Leddy. If you knew you had a first pair 26 year old defenseman (and the analytics supported this), and his contract was only 4 mil x 3 years, you find any way you can to keep him. That means trading significant assets to move bad contracts. The issue isn't that he moved him. The issue is that he did not know how good Toews actually was. He completely misunderstood how valuable of a piece he was and how he offered the puck moving ability nobody else (including Leddy) on the team. Since moving him he has tried Chara, Salo, and Aho as replacements on the left side.

This is absolutely an indictment on Lou for not figuring out a way to keep a top pairing defenseman. You never put yourself in a position to literally give away players like this. Ladd was moved. I'm pretty sure with enough sweetener, there could have been a Leddy move too. The problem was that Lou just whiffed on the evaluation of this player. It's maddening, but it happens to every GM. But then doubling down and not understanding what you lost and eventually replacing that skillset with a 75 year old Chara is just bad roster building. It was lazy and lacked creativity as is most things Lou does these days.

Anyone who think Toews is a first pairing defenseman is simply overvaluing him.

 

[Seph]

This is simply untrue. We've rehashed this a ton so I don't think we'll ever agree on this. Most sane people that have an issue with the Toews move understand all the above that you mention. What we take exception to is that Lou did not understand what a good player Toews actually was when he dealt him. Even with the playoff struggles, Toews was far superior to Leddy. If you knew you had a first pair 26 year old defenseman (and the analytics supported this), and his contract was only 4 mil x 3 years, you find any way you can to keep him. That means trading significant assets to move bad contracts. The issue isn't that he moved him. The issue is that he did not know how good Toews actually was. He completely misunderstood how valuable of a piece he was and how he offered the puck moving ability nobody else (including Leddy) on the team. Since moving him he has tried Chara, Salo, and Aho as replacements on the left side.

This is absolutely an indictment on Lou for not figuring out a way to keep a top pairing defenseman. You never put yourself in a position to literally give away players like this. Ladd was moved. I'm pretty sure with enough sweetener, there could have been a Leddy move too. The problem was that Lou just whiffed on the evaluation of this player. It's maddening, but it happens to every GM. But then doubling down and not understanding what you lost and eventually replacing that skillset with a 75 year old Chara is just bad roster building. It was lazy and lacked creativity as is most things Lou does these days.

Trotz thought Toews was a bottom pairing defenseman at the time, so you must also think he is a bad assessor of talent, right? And if Toews was so clearly a top pairing dman as you claim, why were none of the other 29 GMs willing to pay more than two 2nd rounders to acquire him?

 

[JPIsles18]

Trotz thought Toews was a bottom pairing defenseman at the time, so you must also think he is a bad assessor of talent, right? And if Toews was so clearly a top pairing dman as you claim, why were none of the other 29 GMs willing to pay more than two 2nd rounders to acquire him?

Bottom pair? In his last season Toews averaged 17:06/gp at 5v5 (4th behind Pulock, Leddy, Pelech). The other 3 were at 18:03, 18:01. and 17:23. respectively. On the PP, Toews was first with 2:16 TOI/GP. He did not play on the PK - that was mostly Pelech, Mayfield, Boychuk, and Greene.

He was used a 2nd pair defenseman. Leddy was used as a 1st pair, even though Toews had much stronger underlying possession metrics. So yes, sometimes Trotz made some strange calls when assessing talent. Valuing Leddy more than Toews, putting uncle Leo on the first line, continuously running out guys like Kuhnackl, and ignoring guys like Wahlstrom.

I think Trotz is a great coach, but his roster decisions were questionable. He loved some pretty bad players in the name of "defensive" responsibility.

Anyone who think Toews is a first pairing defenseman is simply overvaluing him.

He was very clearly a 1st pair defenseman when used properly on a Stanley Cup winning team. And I know people love to use Cale Makar as the reason for his success, but he was damn good on his own merit. But he also improved his game on the Avalanche. Lou likely viewed Toews as a 2nd pair guy. It's still inexcusable he dealt a cheap 2nd pair defenseman for peanuts while keeping Leddy. The way the two players were used implies strongly that they valued Leddy more. That's just bad player evaluation. Whether it be be Trotz or Lou, or both.

 

[YearlyLottery]

I do not recall the Islanders truly having a chance to move Leddy that specific offseason. Wish someone could take the time to possibly bring up old articles that explain that Toews trade a tad more.

I remember it as Toews was the only true player that had the chance to get dealt that made sense with the cap. I do not remember Leddy even being wanted that offseason due to the uncertainty with COVID.

One thing is for sure that losing Leddy and Toews in back to back seasons was brutal for this teams' skating.

 

[Seph]

Bottom pair? In his last season Toews averaged 17:06/gp at 5v5 (4th behind Pulock, Leddy, Pelech). The other 3 were at 18:03, 18:01. and 17:23. respectively. On the PP, Toews was first with 2:16 TOI/GP. He did not play on the PK - that was mostly Pelech, Mayfield, Boychuk, and Greene.

He was used a 2nd pair defenseman. Leddy was used as a 1st pair, even though Toews had much stronger underlying possession metrics. So yes, sometimes Trotz made some strange calls when assessing talent. Valuing Leddy more than Toews, putting uncle Leo on the first line, continuously running out guys like Kuhnackl, and ignoring guys like Wahlstrom.

I think Trotz is a great coach, but his roster decisions were questionable. He loved some pretty bad players in the name of "defensive" responsibility.

Yes, bottom pairing. In the playoffs, he was 5th among defenseman in 5v5 TOI/game, and personally I think the playoffs tell us more about a coach's opinion of where a player is currently at than the regular season, as that's when they don't care about a player's development and care only about winning.

But all right, so Trotz knew less about assessing hockey talent than you do. Interesting claim, and interesting how it is suddenly excusable when it's Trotz' opinion. How about answering the other question I asked? How come none of the other 29 GMs knew Toews was a top pairing dman if it was so obvious?

 

[PK Cronin]

He was very clearly a 1st pair defenseman when used properly on a Stanley Cup winning team. And I know people love to use Cale Makar as the reason for his success, but he was damn good on his own merit. But he also improved his game on the Avalanche. Lou likely viewed Toews as a 2nd pair guy. It's still inexcusable he dealt a cheap 2nd pair defenseman for peanuts while keeping Leddy. The way the two players were used implies strongly that they valued Leddy more. That's just bad player evaluation. Whether it be be Trotz or Lou, or both.

"Used properly" suggests there was some sort of situation where Toews would've been more effective with the Islanders than he ended up being but that isn't true. The NHL is riddled with guys who played second fiddle on the first pair because the guy they were paired with was extraordinary. That's the case for Toews and Makar. Without Makar, Toews isn't a top pair defenseman and/or would be significantly less effective there. The Islanders don't have a Makar, and neither do most teams, so there wasn't a situation for the team to use him "properly."

You said earlier that "his contract was only 4 mil x 3 years, you find any way you can to keep him. That means trading significant assets to move bad contracts. The issue isn't that he moved him. The issue is that he did not know how good Toews actually was. He completely misunderstood how valuable of a piece he was and how he offered the puck moving ability nobody else (including Leddy) on the team."

What is fair value for a top pairing defenseman who isn't the main piece of the top pair? What would you have wanted to see the Islanders get in return? You're also speculating that they didn't know how good Toews was but as I mentioned earlier, that proper scenario you're dreaming about didn't exist for the Islanders. Maybe the evaluation was done based off fit for the team instead of the perfect scenario.

What are we okay giving up for Toews? Leddy + 2 second rounders (and I think that's being generous)? One of the picks gotten from the Toews trade were used to offload Ladd, along with another second rounder. How are they moving on from Ladd to create cap room if they spent those assets getting rid of Leddy instead? It's likely they can't afford to do that deal and are stuck with Ladd's cap hit.

In order to keep a player who didn't play top pairing minutes for the Islanders, you gave up Leddy, picks, and had to keep Ladd, all while your cap situation is still a mess. I'd have preferred to keep Toews over Leddy, I think he's a better player, but this isn't some criminal mishandling of the situation like you're suggesting.

 

[PK Cronin]

I do not recall the Islanders truly having a chance to move Leddy that specific offseason. Wish someone could take the time to possibly bring up old articles that explain that Toews trade a tad more.

I remember it as Toews was the only true player that had the chance to get dealt that made sense with the cap. I do not remember Leddy even being wanted that offseason due to the uncertainty with COVID.

One thing is for sure that losing Leddy and Toews in back to back seasons was brutal for this teams' skating.

This is correct. Toews was more desirable and would bring in assets verses moving Leddy who would cost assets to move. The uncertainty surrounding Toews arbitration also played a factor. That's pretty much it.

And yes, losing both of them without an adequate replacement has been awful. Toews is a good player, as was Leddy, and were useful in the roles they play.

 

[YearlyLottery]

This is correct. Toews was more desirable and would bring in assets verses moving Leddy who would cost assets to move. The uncertainty surrounding Toews arbitration also played a factor. That's pretty much it.

And yes, losing both of them without an adequate replacement has been awful. Toews is a good player, as was Leddy, and were useful in the roles they play.

It reminds of the a similar mistake Snow made when he let Okposo and Nielsen walk and replaced them with Chimera and Ladd. Dobson has done a nice job replacing one of these players but they really needed someone else.

 

[duster19]

It reminds of the a similar mistake Snow made when he let Okposo and Nielsen walk and replaced them with Chimera and Ladd. Dobson has done a nice job replacing one of these players but they really needed someone else.

To me this is the problem right here. We don’t have enough skill on D. It kills our transition game. Hurts the PP. We dont have any D that on any given night can be one of the better players on the ice.

 

[Osakahaus]

Tomorrow Afternoon

 

[PK Cronin]

Tomorrow Afternoon

Made another thread so everyone can see it and the conversation about that presser will stay there.

Confirmed with Link: - Lamoriello Media Availability June 6

forums.hfboards.com

 

[JPIsles18]

Yes, bottom pairing. In the playoffs, he was 5th among defenseman in 5v5 TOI/game, and personally I think the playoffs tell us more about a coach's opinion of where a player is currently at than the regular season, as that's when they don't care about a player's development and care only about winning.

But all right, so Trotz knew less about assessing hockey talent than you do. Interesting claim, and interesting how it is suddenly excusable when it's Trotz' opinion. How about answering the other question I asked? How come none of the other 29 GMs knew Toews was a top pairing dman if it was so obvious?

This argument holds no weight because we saw exactly how good Toews was in Colorado's system getting far more ice time than with the Isles. This has nothing to do with me knowing more than Trotz but more about human nature. Trotz, just like every human, has biases. Very few coaches can put that aside when coaching. It's ok to admit a few things without ridiculously defending the Toews trade:

1) Toews is clearly better than the Isles organization thought he was. Whether or not 29 other GMs thought so is irrelevant. Bottom line was the Avs saw what Toews was and traded for him pennies on the dollar. Bottom line was that the Isles knew the player best, and dealt him for such. This happens though. Every organization trades players similar to Toews. It's not the end of the world, but management should be held accountable for it.

2) Trotz is a great coach, but he can be wrong. He also has been wrong. The examples of Leo, Kuhnackl, Toews, Wahlstrom are just some examples.

3) The biggest screw up wasn't actually trading Toews, but not trying to replace what you lost in losing him. Chara wasn't the right player. Ditto for Romanov. You heard Lou mention D being a strength. This is simply not true. The Isles don't have a pairing that scares you offensively.

 

[Seph]

This argument holds no weight because we saw exactly how good Toews was in Colorado's system getting far more ice time than with the Isles. This has nothing to do with me knowing more than Trotz but more about human nature. Trotz, just like every human, has biases. Very few coaches can put that aside when coaching. It's ok to admit a few things without ridiculously defending the Toews trade:

1) Toews is clearly better than the Isles organization thought he was. Whether or not 29 other GMs thought so is irrelevant. Bottom line was the Avs saw what Toews was and traded for him pennies on the dollar. Bottom line was that the Isles knew the player best, and dealt him for such. This happens though. Every organization trades players similar to Toews. It's not the end of the world, but management should be held accountable for it.

2) Trotz is a great coach, but he can be wrong. He also has been wrong. The examples of Leo, Kuhnackl, Toews, Wahlstrom are just some examples.

3) The biggest screw up wasn't actually trading Toews, but not trying to replace what you lost in losing him. Chara wasn't the right player. Ditto for Romanov. You heard Lou mention D being a strength. This is simply not true. The Isles don't have a pairing that scares you offensively.

Sorry, you seem to have forgotten, but we were discussing the player Toews was at the time of the trade, not the player he developed into afterwards. If he was so clearly already a top pairing dman at the time of trade as you claimed, why could no pro scout on a single other team convince their GM of that?

 

[PK Cronin]

Sorry, you seem to have forgotten, but we were discussing the player Toews was at the time of the trade, not the player he developed into afterwards. If he was so clearly already a top pairing dman at the time of trade as you claimed, why could no pro scout on a single other team convince their GM of that?

He's not arguing that he was a top pairing defenseman but that management should've seen that coming and not traded him "no matter the cost."