Speculation: Maple Leafs' busy offseason plans (all-encompassing Leafs thread)

[biotk]

If defensemen are returning picks in the teens + bluechip prospects for being big, we should be on the other side of that transaction. Holl and Marincin would be tough to let go, but if you're gonna twist my arm and give me #16 for them I guess we can work something out.

Well, of course, Gubranson will not get close to that return, if he is traded. But Gudbranson is not just big - but also tough. Holl and Marincin are not the latter. Still plenty of tough D available in UFA.

 

[biotk]

Oh yeah, that's outrageous. I could see Gudbranson being useful, but along those Bogosian Schenn lines, and those guys were dumpster dives. Best of luck to Anaheim in their future endeavors.

Yes, although LL is not an Anaheim fan - just someone with bias.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Why do any Leafs fans want Hal Gil...oops. I meant Gudbranson?

 

[Leaf Fans]

Why do any Leafs fans want Hal Gil...oops. I meant Gudbranson?

We had a place for Martin Marincin so we need an upgrade on the 5,6,7 spot. Salary would have to be retained ( unless he is UFA . He will be this year or next year anyway) .

 

[lwvs84]

Oh no. For me it would be like Gudbranson at 25-50% retained and a 2nd round pick for a 5th round pick back to Anaheim kind of thing.

You do know the Ducks aren't out to help Toronto right? Why would they pay to trade a guy that has actually played well for them? The way he played in Anaheim, he's probably slightly overpaid but not a cap dump, especially for a team that has no salary issues and wanting picks. He put up 9 points in 44 games and was an even rating on a tire fire of a team. Obviously not worth 15th/Lilj, but also not the trash value you think either. If he plays like he did last season in Anaheim and is willing to take reasonable money, most Anaheim fans wouldn't mind him back.

 

[Stephen]

You do know the Ducks aren't out to help Toronto right? Why would they pay to trade a guy that has actually played well for them? The way he played in Anaheim, he's probably slightly overpaid but not a cap dump, especially for a team that has no salary issues and wanting picks. He put up 9 points in 44 games and was an even rating on a tire fire of a team. Obviously not worth 15th/Lilj, but also not the trash value you think either. If he plays like he did last season in Anaheim and is willing to take reasonable money, most Anaheim fans wouldn't mind him back.

By all means, keep him!

 

[lwvs84]

By all means, keep him!

Ducks fans haven't been the ones wanting to trade him. He's been a solid #4.

 

[dracom]

Oh no. For me it would be like Gudbranson at 25-50% retained and a 2nd round pick for a 5th round pick back to Anaheim kind of thing.

that's an insulting offer. giving up a 2nd to dump a one year 2 mil contract just to get a 5th back? Ducks aren't here to help Toronto.

 

[oooooooooohCanada]

that's an insulting offer. giving up a 2nd to dump a one year 2 mil contract just to get a 5th back? Ducks aren't here to help Toronto.

They might be when owners are bleeding money because of rona.. havent a bunch had stuff leaked about them needing to cut salary by a lot?

 

[Taluss]

Go after Boro, would be cheap, bottom pairing defence man who has some grit which leafs lack. Idk if they want a bottom pairing D tho...

 

[Drew311]

that's an insulting offer. giving up a 2nd to dump a one year 2 mil contract just to get a 5th back? Ducks aren't here to help Toronto.

You owe us one for drafting Gibson and Rakell with our picks.

 

[lwvs84]

They might be when owners are bleeding money because of rona.. havent a bunch had stuff leaked about them needing to cut salary by a lot?

I think the Ducks salary is under $70 mil (actual dollars, not cap hit), especially considering 80% of Kesler's salary will be paid by insurance. Ducks aren't desperate to get rid of salary, especially paying draft picks and retaining salary on useful players. Saving $1.5 mil (actual dollars) isn't worth trading a 2nd round pick. And $2 mil cap hit for a #4 d-man would be pretty good, especially since he's a UFA at the end of the year and if he doesn't work out, there's no long term commitment.

 

[EC]

Sign Byfuglien

Rielly/____
Muzzin/Byfuglien (1 Year 2.5MM?)
Sandin (Lehtonen)/Holl
Lehtonen (Sandin) / Liljegren

Either somehow sign Pietrangelo or trade for partner with Rielly. Problem Solved

 

[Phion Keneuf]

What’s the cost to get Montour to the Leafs? I think he’s worth the gamble.

 

[pylon17]

The difficulty about any Leaf's offseason situation discussion is that what I think the concept of what's necessary to have a good team and what the brass in Toronto believe is necessary deviate almost entirely.

Every team remaining in the playoffs goes at least 5 deep with good defensemen who are either good going both ways or, at the very least, excellent in their own end.

Tampa: Hedman, Bogo, McDonagh, Cernak, Sergachev, Shattenkirk
NYI: Pulock, Pelech, Mayfield, Toews, Leddy
Dallas: Klingberg, Lindell, Heiskanen, Oleksiak, Sekera
Vegas: Theodore, Martinez, Schmidt, McNabb, Whitecloud

With the Leafs, the constant discussion is something alone the lines of "we need a third defenseman", "we just need one guy to bring some size, some grit", "we need one guy to pair with Reilly", or "we just need this UFA defenseman."

I think you need to go at least 5 deep. You need guys who you can just put out on the ice and know "while this guy is on the ice, they're not scoring." You can get that two ways. You can develop it, you can home-grow your talent. That would be like Cernak, Pulock, Pelech, Mayfield, Whitecloud, etc. But Toronto lost interest in the concept of defensive-defensemen long ago. So what's the other option? You can buy them off the market or trade for them. That's not impossible at all. Toronto has the cap space easily to nab up 3-4 defensemen for 3-5 million each, who could sit in the zone and win pucks behind the net, clear the front of the net, get sticks in lanes etc, and only having to sell one or two more pieces. But I don't think Toronto believes there is a need for that. I think the belief in Toronto is still that every defenseman should be this puck-moving offensive juggernaut and a defensive-defenseman at best is "oh we just need one of those."

And really the same thing with the forwards. You hear some Leafs fans talking about Tampa. I think the comparisons are inappropriate at best. But for the sake of discussion, look at what Tampa did over the off-season and into the season before the deadline. They got Blake Coleman for a 1st round pick, and a good prospect. They got Barclay Goodrow for a first round pick. They signed Patrick Maroon, the guy who after winning the Cup with St. Louis last year said "old time hockey's back, screw the speed." They signed Zach Bogosian. And even with all their size and strength and physicality, they're probably still the least physical and ground and pound style team left in the playoffs. Toronto has three lines that are supposed to score plus one line where the old guys reside who were probably only hired because the brass in Toronto felt that there was need for "veteran presence", whatever that means.

The way hockey works, you can never guarantee 100% possession. The other team will have their chances. As a result, teams plan for some lines to be scored on more than they score on their opponents. Because opposing coaches will roll out their best lines against your lower lines. When their best lines are on the ice, they will probably have stronger possession numbers than your lower lines. Unless your lower lines are better than their best lines, virtually impossible unless it's like an international competition Canada vs. some other country, you're going to inevitably surrender more goals on your lower lines than you score. As a result, the measure of a good bottom 6 lines isn't whether those lines can score more on the opposing top lines than they give up, it's whether they can surrender a smaller goal differential to the opposing top lines than the opposing bottom 6 can surrender to your top 6. That's why it's problematic when you have a line 3 that is designed to score. Because even if they score, they will not score more than the lines that they are against. And if they are shoddy defensively, and surrender a significant deficit, while your top lines are going against very defensive bottom 6s of the opposing teams and surrender very small deficits, you won't actually score more on the balance. Together with a very confusing line 4, I think just the vision of the game is very different from how I view hockey, and how I think the meta is developing. And my idea of fixing it would involve significant wholesale replacements, not simply small changes to existing structures.

Spot on.

 

[duckpuck]

Imo Ducks fans are divided on moving Manson. Some think the Ducks should sell nearly anyone we can move. Manson plays a pivotal role for the Duck and has no clear replacement. I for one see no reason to trade him for anything less then a legit top 6 forward. Not a potential one or a pick who might be 1 in 5 years. If he is not returning that, ita fine. He'll stay a Duck. We aren't desperate for picks or prospects or middle depth talent. 15th might be fair value but its not enough for the Ducks. You'll have to look elsewhere if that's all you want to give up. IMO. Just don't assume all Ducks fans are happy with that kind of return.

This is a good summary of many ducks fans. I think they want to be overwhelmed by an offer. That being said, if on draft day there's a player available at 15 that the ducks really want, I could see a package like this coming together because at that point the pick is more valuable to the ducks.

That's true, I'm torn on trading him. He's one of my favorite players on the team, but the Ducks need to do something. They can't wait around to be gifted a top pick in a good draft and there really aren't good players with high value to trade off outside of Manson and Rakell. 15+Lilj seemed to be the most agreed upon trade, but if the Ducks end up keeping Manson I won't be unhappy about it. I guess it really depends on what kind of player Liljgren would be, he's 21 so he shouldn't be far away from NHL ready. The Ducks definitely shouldn't trade away every vet, shelter the kids as much as possible but get value from some of the players while they can.

Another good post. One option for the ducks is to wait until the 2020-21 trade deadline at which point they'll have a much better idea of how all the d-man pieces fit together (right now there's a lot of guys vying for limited spots). They'll also have a better idea of what they plan to do to minimize the impact of the expansion draft.

Liljegren and 15OA for one year of Gudbranson (50% retained)? I would hope not.

I agree this is not good value. But I could see this being the basis for a larger trade. For example, if the ducks added one of their young LHD (Mahura/LarssonGuhle) and/or a young cheap forward who brings some grit (Jones). Or maybe the ducks send back their 2nd round pick.

I know he struggled early in his career, but Gudbranson was actually pretty good for the ducks - very solid in a top 4 role. And they acquired him from Pittsburgh where Pitt reportedly was happy with his play but needed to move him for cap reasons. He's a bit overpaid, but the ducks can retain to address that if need be.

At the same time, Gudbranson brings some of the size and physicality that Toronto seemingly needs to add. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the consensus around here.

What’s the cost to get Montour to the Leafs? I think he’s worth the gamble.

I don't understand many Toronto fan's desire to get Montour. It seems like Barrie 2.0 - undersized offensive d-man who isn't very good at 5 v 5 defense. Montour adds value on the offensive side, but: (1) Toronto already has Reilly to run its PP; (ii) Montour doesn't do anything to upgrade the defense or physicality (whereas a player like Gudbranson would); and (iii) more than likely, Montour is going to want to get paid big $$.

Part of the reason he was traded from Anaheim is he went to arbitration and had a very aggressive number. Right or wrong, that is a no no with Bob Murray particularly for a player who he feels hasn't earned it on the ice (and Montour hadn't). The ducks eventually settled right before the hearing, but that was the beginning of the end.

 

[Leaf Fans]

The difficulty about any Leaf's offseason situation discussion is that what I think the concept of what's necessary to have a good team and what the brass in Toronto believe is necessary deviate almost entirely.

Every team remaining in the playoffs goes at least 5 deep with good defensemen who are either good going both ways or, at the very least, excellent in their own end.

Tampa: Hedman, Bogo, McDonagh, Cernak, Sergachev, Shattenkirk
NYI: Pulock, Pelech, Mayfield, Toews, Leddy
Dallas: Klingberg, Lindell, Heiskanen, Oleksiak, Sekera
Vegas: Theodore, Martinez, Schmidt, McNabb, Whitecloud

With the Leafs, the constant discussion is something alone the lines of "we need a third defenseman", "we just need one guy to bring some size, some grit", "we need one guy to pair with Reilly", or "we just need this UFA defenseman."

I think you need to go at least 5 deep. You need guys who you can just put out on the ice and know "while this guy is on the ice, they're not scoring." You can get that two ways. You can develop it, you can home-grow your talent. That would be like Cernak, Pulock, Pelech, Mayfield, Whitecloud, etc. But Toronto lost interest in the concept of defensive-defensemen long ago. So what's the other option? You can buy them off the market or trade for them. That's not impossible at all. Toronto has the cap space easily to nab up 3-4 defensemen for 3-5 million each, who could sit in the zone and win pucks behind the net, clear the front of the net, get sticks in lanes etc, and only having to sell one or two more pieces. But I don't think Toronto believes there is a need for that. I think the belief in Toronto is still that every defenseman should be this puck-moving offensive juggernaut and a defensive-defenseman at best is "oh we just need one of those."

And really the same thing with the forwards. You hear some Leafs fans talking about Tampa. I think the comparisons are inappropriate at best. But for the sake of discussion, look at what Tampa did over the off-season and into the season before the deadline. They got Blake Coleman for a 1st round pick, and a good prospect. They got Barclay Goodrow for a first round pick. They signed Patrick Maroon, the guy who after winning the Cup with St. Louis last year said "old time hockey's back, screw the speed." They signed Zach Bogosian. And even with all their size and strength and physicality, they're probably still the least physical and ground and pound style team left in the playoffs. Toronto has three lines that are supposed to score plus one line where the old guys reside who were probably only hired because the brass in Toronto felt that there was need for "veteran presence", whatever that means.

The way hockey works, you can never guarantee 100% possession. The other team will have their chances. As a result, teams plan for some lines to be scored on more than they score on their opponents. Because opposing coaches will roll out their best lines against your lower lines. When their best lines are on the ice, they will probably have stronger possession numbers than your lower lines. Unless your lower lines are better than their best lines, virtually impossible unless it's like an international competition Canada vs. some other country, you're going to inevitably surrender more goals on your lower lines than you score. As a result, the measure of a good bottom 6 lines isn't whether those lines can score more on the opposing top lines than they give up, it's whether they can surrender a smaller goal differential to the opposing top lines than the opposing bottom 6 can surrender to your top 6. That's why it's problematic when you have a line 3 that is designed to score. Because even if they score, they will not score more than the lines that they are against. And if they are shoddy defensively, and surrender a significant deficit, while your top lines are going against very defensive bottom 6s of the opposing teams and surrender very small deficits, you won't actually score more on the balance. Together with a very confusing line 4, I think just the vision of the game is very different from how I view hockey, and how I think the meta is developing. And my idea of fixing it would involve significant wholesale replacements, not simply small changes to existing structures.

Where has the Leafs brass said this?

 

[Leaf Fans]

16 players signed with $7.7M in cap space and two RFA's that should get raises in Dermott and Mikheyev. What is Dermott and Mikheyev getting for new contracts?

Mikheyev has arb rights so it has its own ending. Dermott???

 

[HockeyWooot]

Move Nylander AND one of the 10m+ players.

Get top pair RD to compliment Reilly.

Get a strong two-way/shut down C

Get some sandpaper into the top 9

Get good complimentary vets

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Go after Boro, would be cheap, bottom pairing defence man who has some grit which leafs lack. Idk if they want a bottom pairing D tho...

If Boro can play RD he's an upgrade

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Oh no. For me it would be like Gudbranson at 25-50% retained and a 2nd round pick for a 5th round pick back to Anaheim kind of thing.

Of course Anaheim isn't paying to get rid of Gudbranson, really silly to even bring it up.

They got him for a 7th + contract and he was very solid for them. Absolutely no reason they are giving up assets to be rid of him. Even if the Ducks had any motivation to try and dump him, no team would give up an early 2nd to dump about 2M in salary, especially not a team who doesn't need the cap space.

 

[kabidjan18]

Where has the Leafs brass said this?

Not sure which specific part you're talking about. I used brass in two places. The second one about Spezza, you can just youtube and look up the presser from when they signed him, Dubas says that in about 5 different ways.

About their concept being different from mine...I mean it's just obvious. If I were to build a team it'd look entirely different. And I'm not saying I'd build a better team, but just preference wise.

 

[Bounces R Way]

If Brodie hits the open market I'd think Toronto would make him a good offer. Dubas was interested in him before and I do think he'd be an ideal partner for Reilly.

I would trade Nylander for a couple ELCs or cheap RFAs that have shown a bit of potential and speed. Find someone better defensively than Kerfoot to play 3C. Other than that I don't really see how more futzing with the roster would help, especially the goaltending.

 

[Colt55]

Faulk + barbashev for nylander

Solves rhd problem for leafs and blues can put nylander on a line with guys who are tough allowing nylander to float.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

People

If Brodie hits the open market I'd think Toronto would make him a good offer. Dubas was interested in him before and I do think he'd be an ideal partner for Reilly.

I would trade Nylander for a couple ELCs or cheap RFAs that have shown a bit of potential and speed. Find someone better defensively than Kerfoot to play 3C. Other than that I don't really see how more futzing with the roster would help, especially the goaltending.

Doing that with Nylander is an awful idea.

You can trade Kapanen and Johnsson if you want to because Robertson is NHL ready Miktehev can slide into the top 6 full time, and if you don't think Robertson is quite ready then you can sign a winger in free agency.

But Nylander is a core piece you can't replace Nylander, see that's the difference between a depth piece and a core piece, no matter how good a depth piece, and Kapanen is a damn good one, but no matter how good a depth piece is it can ALWAYS be replaced, that's why it's a depth piece because it's replaceable.

Core pieces are MUCH harder to replace