Smoke and Mirrors

[Teeder9]

Maybe the picks turn out to be valuable players, maybe not. Time will tell. If they do turn out to be good players though we won't be the ones who benefit because we traded them away.

I've stated quite clearly that I think it was a very bad trade for us. If you want to pretend I said otherwise go ahead.

I didn't pretend you said otherwise. Backtrack to my post and your response. Look in the trade thread. Most, if not all liked the trade. No one really cared about the cost, just the idea of the cost it would be to retain him. Even the ones who mention the picks pretty much admit the cost is the cost for a player of his caliber. The only hindsite involved is what happened during the season, (injury), the team collapse, and him signing in Florida. How much do you think it would cost to trade for a guy who was an integral part of two cup wins? Everyone on this site can look back and say the exact thing you are today, nothing hard there, but it doesn't change the fact the trade was fair, and we needed a guy like him on the team. Those assets we lost would be nice to have, in hindsite, but the chance they become something is a lot lower than even you would care to admit in this instance.

 

[Number13]

Maybe the picks turn out to be valuable players, maybe not. Time will tell. If they do turn out to be good players though we won't be the ones who benefit because we traded them away.

I've stated quite clearly that I think it was a very bad trade for us. If you want to pretend I said otherwise go ahead.

Captain Hindsight everybody!

Mid round picks get dealt all the time to help boost a team, this is not new. It's easy for you to use it to angle your obvious bias. But like I, and other posters have mentioned, if he stays healthy and make the playoffs, it would've been worth the spent assets and a deal probably would've been worked out.


But this is hockey, we're not dealing with constants, there are many variables. Some trades will work out perfectly, others less so, but stop pretending you are some sort of sage that saw the injury coming that would permanently change his effectiveness.

 

[rdawg1234]

Yes, they did, ergo picks=Dave Bolland, unless what you are saying is all trades that involve picks are bad trades because the value was enough to make said trade? Why not just say, "I don't like Dave Bolland, or the trade because I think all picks are more valuable than actual NHL players

Carl Dahlstrom was taken with the pick in the 2nd round, very doubtful he amounts to anything more than a DFD

It was a wash trade, the picks werent anything special, we just didnt get much playing time from him due to a freak injury. His ridiculous demands were hard to see coming imo

 

[Teeder9]

Carl Dahlstrom was taken with the pick in the 2nd round, very doubtful he amounts to anything more than a DFD

It was a wash trade, the picks werent anything special, we just didnt get much playing time from him due to a freak injury. His ridiculous demands were hard to see coming imo

And this is really it in a nutshell. Maybe the guys they pick become stars, or even usable players, but you can't sit on picks hoping they do, especially when you are coming off your first playoff in years, regardless of how you got there.

 

[Canada4Gold]

and even if the guys they pick become really good stars who's to say we would have [picked the same players with those picks? Good chance we wouldn't have, so coming back here and saying oh look the player they took with our pick became a superstar we would have had him on our team blah blah blah, no we probably wouldn't have.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I didn't pretend you said otherwise. Backtrack to my post and your response. Look in the trade thread. Most, if not all liked the trade. No one really cared about the cost, just the idea of the cost it would be to retain him. Even the ones who mention the picks pretty much admit the cost is the cost for a player of his caliber. The only hindsite involved is what happened during the season, (injury), the team collapse, and him signing in Florida. How much do you think it would cost to trade for a guy who was an integral part of two cup wins? Everyone on this site can look back and say the exact thing you are today, nothing hard there, but it doesn't change the fact the trade was fair, and we needed a guy like him on the team. Those assets we lost would be nice to have, in hindsite, but the chance they become something is a lot lower than even you would care to admit in this instance.

Most liked the trade ? Good for them, I hated it from the start.

Part of two cup wins sure, but integral part is overstating it. Bolland is a 3rd line player and an injury prone one at that. If he was an "integral part" they would have kept him and they are obviously a very good team without him.

I never said that it wasn't a fair price to pay for him, just that we shouldn't have been the ones to pay it because a one year rental player was not anywhere close to the top of the list of what we needed. We need guys who will be of value a few years down the road because we are at least a few years away from being a contender.

If your goal is to make the playoffs and you are willing to mortage the future to get there, that's fine. The trde certainly improved our chances on paper of making the playoffs despite the fact that we didn't get there, no argument there. I would rather build a true cup contender and there is no easy quick way to do that, it takes time and patience and the Bolland trade was anything but patiently building for the future.

Those assets would indeed be nice to have, we agree on that point.

 

[Gary Nylund]

and even if the guys they pick become really good stars who's to say we would have [picked the same players with those picks? Good chance we wouldn't have, so coming back here and saying oh look the player they took with our pick became a superstar we would have had him on our team blah blah blah, no we probably wouldn't have.

And the opposite is also true - if the players turn out be useless, who's to say we wouldn't have done better?

The picks are potential value, nothing more no question there. But if we're to trade picks I would rather trade for young players (see Bernier and Holland) who might help us years down the road which is what I would rather see us building towards.

 

[Teeder9]

Most liked the trade ? Good for them, I hated it from the start.

Part of two cup wins sure, but integral part is overstating it. Bolland is a 3rd line player and an injury prone one at that. If he was an "integral part" they would have kept him and they are obviously a very good team without him.

I never said that it wasn't a fair price to pay for him, just that we shouldn't have been the ones to pay it because a one year rental player was not anywhere close to the top of the list of what we needed. We need guys who will be of value a few years down the road because we are at least a few years away from being a contender.

If your goal is to make the playoffs and you are willing to mortage the future to get there, that's fine. The trde certainly improved our chances on paper of making the playoffs despite the fact that we didn't get there, no argument there. I would rather build a true cup contender and there is no easy quick way to do that, it takes time and patience and the Bolland trade was anything but patiently building for the future.

Those assets would indeed be nice to have, we agree on that point.

For the most part I can agree with what you are saying, but, there was no way this team was going to make the playoffs and sit on their hands. Anyone thinking they would was severely out to lunch, and most likely rightly so. It sucks the way it turned out, but I am certainly not sorry they tried and am certainly not sorry they used some picks. Saying that, had they gone that route again while re-signing Bolland, than yes, there is a major disconnect with reality. Fact is, I'm not sure Nonis wouldn't have tried it without his new babysitter anyway

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

Moving a pick for Bolland was stupid because of the contract he already had and the fact he was most likely due for a raise. The second that trade was made I was thinking that we were going to have to pay 4m+ for an oft-injured 3rd line center just to keep him more than one season which is terrible cap management to start with. Factor in the fact that you're risking a decent pick for a guy who probably won't play 60+ games and it just gets stupider. You didn't need hindsight to see that move would've backfired

 

[Gary Nylund]

For the most part I can agree with what you are saying, but, there was no way this team was going to make the playoffs and sit on their hands. Anyone thinking they would was severely out to lunch, and most likely rightly so. It sucks the way it turned out, but I am certainly not sorry they tried and am certainly not sorry they used some picks. Saying that, had they gone that route again while re-signing Bolland, than yes, there is a major disconnect with reality. Fact is, I'm not sure Nonis wouldn't have tried it without his new babysitter anyway

Bolland and Clarkson were both "win now" moves and thinking we were in a position to "win now" was a major disconnect with reality IMO.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Moving a pick for Bolland was stupid because of the contract he already had and the fact he was most likely due for a raise. The second that trade was made I was thinking that we were going to have to pay 4m+ for an oft-injured 3rd line center just to keep him more than one season which is terrible cap management to start with. Factor in the fact that you're risking a decent pick for a guy who probably won't play 60+ games and it just gets stupider. You didn't need hindsight to see that move would've backfired

That's exactly what I thought as well. If there was no cap, different story but in this cap world, I believe the value comes from either elite stars who earn the top dollars they get paid, or entry level deals when you sometimes get great value from guys who haven't hit their big payday yet. Paying big bucks for guys like Bolland, Clarkson etc. inevitably ends up with getting poor value for the dollar most of the time. As far as free agents go, we should be signing only guys who come cheap (like we have done over the last few days) or try to get the big ticket guys on the rare occasions when they are on the market - I don't mean Stasny, I mean like Stamkos if he ever hits the open market. In the mean we should be acquiring young players and picks and develop them. Then, if we ever get to the point where we are close to making some real noise, then we can contemplate trading for guys like Bolland but doing it when we did ...

 

[Number13]

Moving a pick for Bolland was stupid because of the contract he already had and the fact he was most likely due for a raise. The second that trade was made I was thinking that we were going to have to pay 4m+ for an oft-injured 3rd line center just to keep him more than one season which is terrible cap management to start with. Factor in the fact that you're risking a decent pick for a guy who probably won't play 60+ games and it just gets stupider. You didn't need hindsight to see that move would've backfired

These boards are crazy sometimes. It was a 2nd round pick with two others in the 100s, relax people.

This was a cup winning player, with skill and slotted perfect into our 3rd centre role. He came out of the gate and looked like a perfect fit and scored many timely goals. Then he had a freak injury that limited his effectiveness.

Had this injury not happened, he likely would've been an integral part of this team and they would've worked to strike a deal throughout the season. But unfortunately, he had lost a step after the injury.

While still being an effective player, Nonis and co likely had a pretty firm price that they were willing to pay to take on the risk of Bolland. Florida, having to make big signings again to reach the cap floor, gave him huge dollars.

It could've worked out great, but unfortunately things happen, it's a dangerous game. This time it didn't go in our favour, but it was not an unreasonable risk to make that move in the first place. Potentially locking down a local boy, with cup rings, under 30 with skill and grit? Yeah, I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[Teeder9]

Bolland and Clarkson were both "win now" moves and thinking we were in a position to "win now" was a major disconnect with reality IMO.

Mentioning Clarkson takes this in a whole different direction. He was a win now knee jerk signing. Bolland was 27 and actually fit in nicely with this core. Clarkson cost 5.25m which was 2m more than his own team apparently thought he was worth. No one thought Bolland was overpaid at the time or a win now move. If he had been healthy all year and picked up 40 points while playing close to where he did for the first 15 games he was here i'm not so sure anyone would have been yelling had they signed him for what Fla did, because he is, and was a better player than Clarkson. That said, I'm glad they didn't based on what transpired, but given a choice of who I want taking up that 5.25m, it isn't Clarkson.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

These boards are crazy sometimes. It was a 2nd round pick with two others in the 100s, relax people.

This was a cup winning player, with skill and slotted perfect into our 3rd centre role. He came out of the gate and looked like a perfect fit and scored many timely goals. Then he had a freak injury that limited his effectiveness.

Had this injury not happened, he likely would've been an integral part of this team and they would've worked to strike a deal throughout the season. But unfortunately, he had lost a step after the injury.

While still being an effective player, Nonis and co likely had a pretty firm price that they were willing to pay to take on the risk of Bolland. Florida, having to make big signings again to reach the cap floor, gave him huge dollars.

It could've worked out great, but unfortunately things happen, it's a dangerous game. This time it didn't go in our favour, but it was not an unreasonable risk to make that move in the first place. Potentially locking down a local boy, with cup rings, under 30 with skill and grit? Yeah, I don't think that's unreasonable.

You're right, a board with many people who have differing opinions could get very crazy but I'm not here to argue how bad the Bolland deal was with the help of hindsight. I'm here reaffirming my position that I didn't like the trade for the beginning for two reasons: 1. his contract and 2. his injury history. Those are elements I couldn't ignore when we acquired him and those are elements that came to bite the Leafs in the behind.

Regarding your second point, I won't argue that he wasn't a good part of our roster while he was healthy but, again, his history of injuries proved to be a good indicator of how his 2013/2014 season went, freak injury or not. Lupul likely won't play 70+ games this upcoming season either, regardless of how many people want to argue his injury history is of the freak variety; he simply can't stay healthy.

Regarding your third point, had he not gotten injured then the Leafs still would've had to overpay to retain his services, probably to the sum of 6m given the contract he got for his GWG cup goals. Guys like Ville Leino and Joel Ward were also playoff performers turned overpaid depth players. Simply put, it would've been a bad management of cap dollars to keep Bolland around. That was evident to me 1 year ago

There was plenty of risk associated with Bolland, just that Leafs management and some fans turned a blind eye to it because if intangibles yet again.

 

[Gary Nylund]

These boards are crazy sometimes. It was a 2nd round pick with two others in the 100s, relax people.

This was a cup winning player, with skill and slotted perfect into our 3rd centre role. He came out of the gate and looked like a perfect fit and scored many timely goals. Then he had a freak injury that limited his effectiveness.

Had this injury not happened, he likely would've been an integral part of this team and they would've worked to strike a deal throughout the season. But unfortunately, he had lost a step after the injury.

While still being an effective player, Nonis and co likely had a pretty firm price that they were willing to pay to take on the risk of Bolland. Florida, having to make big signings again to reach the cap floor, gave him huge dollars.

It could've worked out great, but unfortunately things happen, it's a dangerous game. This time it didn't go in our favour, but it was not an unreasonable risk to make that move in the first place. Potentially locking down a local boy, with cup rings, under 30 with skill and grit? Yeah, I don't think that's unreasonable.

There is nothing to suggest that they could have signed him at a reasonable price. If they liked him so much, why didn't they get it done before the season started? As I already stated, if they signed him right away at a fair price I would have been fine with the trade but that's not what happened and there's no reason to think it would've happened. If anything, the fact that we gave him a very generous offer (one that almost everyone here is happy he didn't accept as it was an overpayment) and he took 10% more money to skip town indicates that we never had any hope of getting him at a decent price.

Local boy ... what's the relevance of that? How does that help us in any way? Some suggested that maybe it means he'll take a "home town discount" to stay here, we know now that was a pipe dream so what is your point?

He played good for a few games here sure but the guy is a 3rd line centre, let's not get carried away when talking about how valuable he is. The best Chicago could get for him was the picks we gave which according to you have little value and nobody was willing to pay more for him and that tells you what his value is right there.

Mentioning Clarkson takes this in a whole different direction. He was a win now knee jerk signing. Bolland was 27 and actually fit in nicely with this core. Clarkson cost 5.25m which was 2m more than his own team apparently thought he was worth. No one thought Bolland was overpaid at the time or a win now move. If he had been healthy all year and picked up 40 points while playing close to where he did for the first 15 games he was here i'm not so sure anyone would have been yelling had they signed him for what Fla did, because he is, and was a better player than Clarkson. That said, I'm glad they didn't based on what transpired, but given a choice of who I want taking up that 5.25m, it isn't Clarkson.

You're right, my apologies for getting off topic.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Something I am finding amusing is: every bit of the team has been involved in three collapses so far - but when any change is done - the first reaction is "well that's not good enough" or "why this player? why not that player."

I personally feel - and I said this a few pages ago - what happens this year is the last go for a lot of the team (Nonis, Carlyle, Phaneuf, Lupul, Kessel to an extent and so forth). but those who did go (either by not being signed - or fired) people keep going it's to keep the mob happy. No - they were also part of the team who failed to do better. I'm not going to list all eleven names that were part of the three collapses - however, 1/2 of that list is now off the team. (Orr is unlikely to be playing, Reimer is gonna be gone, Franson better be gone).

that leaves:

Jake Gardiner (who shouldn't go)
Phil Kessel (will probably be the last to go)
Joffrey Lupul (will most likely be the 1st to go)
Dion Phaneuf (who will probably be gone if we melt down again).
Tyler Bozak (who can be packaged with Phill).
left.

and in theory are the pieces who should bring is back a lot of bang for our buck. Reshaping our bottom two lines and shoring up the defense is a good thing - and in my opinion now puts onus on the top two lines to shore up or ship up because now there are no excuses.

(same with the coaching thing. I hate Carlyle for the sheer stupidity of his decisions at times, but if Farrish is the one running the defensive game, and the other two the PP and the PK - then yes. fire those three, and bring in coaches who will A: challenge Carlyle more (ie: not being yes men, but "do you REALLY tihink it's right to play McClement 20 minutes a night), and B: create more of that system that you have 1 hard ass, 1 softy and 1 in the middle).