Smoke and Mirrors

[Cap'n Flavour]

I'm happy because Nonis didn't make any completely terrible signings, just an overpayment in Komarov and a too-long deal for Robidas.

Unfortunately the team will still be bad, but on the plus side, that means that a decent draft pick is likely, as is Nonis and Carlyle getting fired. Or maybe they'll finish 9th in the East and blame the assistant coaches and depth players again

 

[BlueBaron]

I understand its only July 4th, but his is what this offseason has been so far, and frankly i'm surprised how many people are content and even excited with the offseason up to this point. Granted things can change but I doubt they will in any significant manner.

The Leafs were a team that was consistenty outworked and outplayed last year and relied on brilliant goaltending and shootout wins. A recipe for disaster, which we witnessed first hand.

They have managed to fix, but not necessarily significantly improve their bottom 6. They should be more difficult to play against, but not to the point where I think its make a huge difference.

This team needs a shakeup in the top 6 of their team and also their overall defence. They have not added any significant pieces to this. They basically made a lateral move from Gunnarsson to Polak and added an ancient and ofter injured Robidas.

Nonis and Co. tried to spend stupid money this year, but as luck may have it, they were not able to get the deals done. Imagine we signed Brian Boyle or Legwand to $3-$4 million/year? Or acquired Gorges at $4 million.

Contrary to belief, Nonis has not gotten smarter about handing our anchor contracts, he was just fortunate they never came to fruition.

Leaf fans, enjoy another 9th or 10th place finish in the East and miss out on one of the strongest drafts in years. In order to get good in this league, you have to suck first, and for some reason Leaf management refuses to accept this.

This being said, I hope im dead wrong and this team surprises us, but im not counting on it.

Gunnarson traded, Ranger let go, Gleason bought out, I doubt you mean Rielly and Gardiner have to go so really what you probably mean is Dion and Franson need to go ? Expecting a turnover of 5 out of 7 defensemen in one year is pretty unrealistic.

Seriously what is with this endless assault of hate threads ? It's getting tired fast

 

[ANDI P IS CUTE]

I never said it was a bad thing. They needed to upgrade that for sure. But they failed to see the big picture and that's the lack of high end talent on this team. The "core" players on this team are simply not the type of players you can build a true winner around. I would rather see this team fail for a few years and acquire such talent in the draft, since trading for it would be difficult.

it is much easier to fix the bottom 6 first. Top 6 forwards don't grow on trees. You have to give to get. They are not trading the Gardiners and Reillys.

 

[Number13]

What's laughable here is the number of people praising Nonis for letting Bolland go, when they should be slamming Nonis for bringing him in in the first place.

Nonis shrugging his shoulders and saying "Well, what are you gonna do? We can't match Florida," is a complete abdication of his responsibility here. He made the ****ing trade. He had to have known that there was a huge possibility of Bolland demanding big bucks in 2014, as pretty much EVERYONE here was saying that the day that the deal went down. That trade was stupid and short-sighted. Either Nonis made that trade to get Bolland for one year, thinking he would put the Leafs over the top. Or Nonis thought he'd re-sign Bolland for some kind of home discount. Either way--dumb, dumb, dumb.

I bet you Bolland doesn't walk if he didn't get that injury. The trade was actually looking like a downright steal for the Leafs until that point. He wasn't the same after and admitted he never would be quite back to before.

So it's easy to say it was dumb, dumb, dumb to angle your bias, but lets remember it was looking like an astute move before a freak injury that derailed everything.

 

[FriedEgg]

I just hope come trade deadline when this team is in no mans land again (7-12), they finally use some asset management and sell well the market is there.

 

[MrDiddlez]

I'm just happy Komakazee's back

 

[HoweHullOrr]

This team absolutely cannot be fixed in one off-season but Nonis has done a decent job of not further handcuffing the team well adding low risk high upside depth.

I don't love this off-season but people also need to realistic that this team can't simply be fixed in one free agency period. Nonis has added a bunch of short term contracts that can easily moved on from when those players contracts expire or by trading them out.

He had a price for Bolland in mind and refused to simply give into pressure and hand out a stupid contract. This is a positive.

Frattin for D'Amigo is a positive. Frattin brings a style of game we need more that can play along the walls and cycle. He has far higher upside.

Brian Boyle: what indication is there that Nonis was willing to go 3 to 4 million with him?

Robidas: people can complain that he's old but he also fills a role as an all situation Dman with a right shot. I'll take him at 3 years x 3 million over having to be tied to someone like Orpik or Niskanen or Stralman for 5 to 7 year terms for far higher cap hits. I predict these contracts are regretted in just a year or two.

Gunnarson for Polak: at first sight this does look like a bad deal but we clearly had an imbalance in left to right D which decreased the value of forcing too many left Ds to play the right side. Allowing Phaneuf or one of the other lefties like Gardiner or Rielly to play their natural side will also improve this team. Polak is also a good penalty killer which is an area Gunnarson lacked in.

Having said all this I hope Nonis still manages to bring in some picks/prospects for pieces like Franson and Reimer. This team needs to stock up on these types of assets to save for when the next big name player comes along and teams are looking for cheap young assets in return.

^^^ Agreed. Good synopsis.

 

[KuleminFan41]

Everything OP said is true

As for optimism this board self selects for that. All the realists and rationalists are too busy drinking to post.

How arrogant of you to say

 

[HoweHullOrr]

What's laughable here is the number of people praising Nonis for letting Bolland go, when they should be slamming Nonis for bringing him in in the first place.

Nonis shrugging his shoulders and saying "Well, what are you gonna do? We can't match Florida," is a complete abdication of his responsibility here. He made the ****ing trade. He had to have known that there was a huge possibility of Bolland demanding big bucks in 2014, as pretty much EVERYONE here was saying that the day that the deal went down. That trade was stupid and short-sighted. Either Nonis made that trade to get Bolland for one year, thinking he would put the Leafs over the top. Or Nonis thought he'd re-sign Bolland for some kind of home discount. Either way--dumb, dumb, dumb.

I bet you Bolland doesn't walk if he didn't get that injury. The trade was actually looking like a downright steal for the Leafs until that point. He wasn't the same after and admitted he never would be quite back to before.

So it's easy to say it was dumb, dumb, dumb to angle your bias, but lets remember it was looking like an astute move before a freak injury that derailed everything.

NO, its not an astute move. Its bad assessment management.

Nonis could only be thinking about two things because that's all there is. He was either thinking that:

1. Bolland would push them over the top; or,
2. That he could resign Bolland somehow.

Thinking that Bolland wouldn't be looking for payday in this situation would be rightfully considered as foolish. The chances of this being a one-year rental were very high unless Nonis was planning on resigning him and backing in the Brinks truck again. He rolled the dice, gave up assets and this goes down as a bad deal regardless and independent of the injury which is a tangental and a moot point in this situation.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I bet you Bolland doesn't walk if he didn't get that injury. The trade was actually looking like a downright steal for the Leafs until that point. He wasn't the same after and admitted he never would be quite back to before.

So it's easy to say it was dumb, dumb, dumb to angle your bias, but lets remember it was looking like an astute move before a freak injury that derailed everything.

I'll say it for the 9th time, the trade was a horrible mistake that was never looking good and only ever had 2 possible outcomes:
1 - he leaves after 1 season
2 - we have to overpay to keep him

Look at the ridiculous contract he got. You say doesn't walk if he didn't get that injury. And if he didn't get injured his price would have been what, 7 million a year for 7 years?

Downright steal indeed.

 

[Teeder9]

Not sure why anyone cares tbh. Cost of doing business sometimes. Did it work out? Nope. Were those picks anything? Most likely not. Am I glad we didn't re-sign him? Yes. Fact is if he stays healthy for 60 games we likely make the playoffs, but everyone, or at least some, knew he was looking for a payday and that's why he got traded in the first place. We weren't the only ones asking about him, and we needed a 3rd line center. We probably still do. So while you can call it asset management gone bad if you care to, it can only be in hindsite that you do because when the trade was made it was a damn good one.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Not sure why anyone cares tbh. Cost of doing business sometimes. Did it work out? Nope. Were those picks anything? Most likely not. Am I glad we didn't re-sign him? Yes. Fact is if he stays healthy for 60 games we likely make the playoffs, but everyone, or at least some, knew he was looking for a payday and that's why he got traded in the first place. We weren't the only ones asking about him, and we needed a 3rd line center. We probably still do. So while you can call it asset management gone bad if you care to, it can only be in hindsite that you do because when the trade was made it was a damn good one.

Well if you think these picks were nothing, then sure. Hey look, we got Bolland for nothing, what a great trade!!



The trade was awful. Some of said from the start as it was pretty clear what would happen. What amazes me is that people like you still don't get it even with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Northern Dancer]

I'll say it for the 9th time, the trade was a horrible mistake that was never looking good and only ever had 2 possible outcomes:
1 - he leaves after 1 season
2 - we have to overpay to keep him

Look at the ridiculous contract he got. You say doesn't walk if he didn't get that injury. And if he didn't get injured his price would have been what, 7 million a year for 7 years?

Downright steal indeed.

The thing is, if we wasn't injured, the Leafs would have either extended him early or perhaps trade him at the TD if his demands were too high. As for 7 million a year, that's ridiculous, his current contract fully prices in a 100% recovery. The only way he would get 7 million would be having Statsny like stats.

 

[Gary Nylund]

The thing is, if we wasn't injured, the Leafs would have either extended him early or perhaps trade him at the TD if his demands were too high. As for 7 million a year, that's ridiculous, his current contract fully prices in a 100% recovery. The only way he would get 7 million would be having Statsny like stats.

I was only using the 7 million number to make a point. Do you really think is he was healthy and played well all year he wouldn't have gotten more money than he did?

As far as extending him early, you don't know that, there's no way you could know that. What they should have done, was made the trade conditional on signing him to an extension and negotiated a reasonable contract right away. When they didn't it was a disaster waiting to happen and happen it did.

 

[Northern Dancer]

I was only using the 7 million number to make a point. Do you really think is he was healthy and played well all year he wouldn't have gotten more money than he did?

As far as extending him early, you don't know that, there's no way you could know that. What they should have done, was made the trade conditional on signing him to an extension and negotiated a reasonable contract right away. When they didn't it was a disaster waiting to happen and happen it did.

Fair enough. You are right I am speculating but just as you are speculating that Florida made a mistake by paying him 5.5 million?

 

[Gary Nylund]

And for all those who say those picks had little value - look at it this way, those picks had enough value to get us a player like Dave Bolland. Timing is the problem here. To a contending team, that trade would be totally reasonable. We were not a contending team, and we just pissed away assets that could have been used for something that might help us become one down the road.

We traded a 2nd round pick for Holland as an example. Much more sensible because who knows how he pans out. Some are pretty high on him though and maybe he makes a contribution here for years to come. Or the Bernier trade, the 2nd round pick was a part of that, a great example of how much trading value 2nd round picks have. These picks have value, there is no question whatsoever about that.

 

[Teeder9]

Well if you think these picks were nothing, then sure. Hey look, we got Bolland for nothing, what a great trade!!



The trade was awful. Some of said from the start as it was pretty clear what would happen. What amazes me is that people like you still don't get it even with the benefit of hindsight.

God, I really hope that isn't the extent of your debate skills. Pray tell, who are these great players we threw away in the draft, and be specific, wouldn't want it to seem like you didn't have it all figured out

 

[Gary Nylund]

Fair enough. You are right I am speculating but just as you are speculating that Florida made a mistake by paying him 5.5 million?

Well perhaps it wasn't even a mistake on their part considering they needed to get up to the cap floor. If we had signed him for that price I do believe the consensus would be that it was a horrible move.

But sure, when talking about the future it's all speculation, maybe the Bolland signing turns out to be the biggest bargain of free agency over the last 5 years. I mean I doubt it but it is possible.

 

[Northern Dancer]

And for all those who say those picks had little value - look at it this way, those picks had enough value to get us a player like Dave Bolland. Timing is the problem here. To a contending team, that trade would be totally reasonable. We were not a contending team, and we just pissed away assets that could have been used for something that might help us become one down the road.

We traded a 2nd round pick for Holland as an example. Much more sensible because who knows how he pans out. Some are pretty high on him though and maybe he makes a contribution here for years to come. Or the Bernier trade, the 2nd round pick was a part of that, a great example of how much trading value 2nd round picks have. These picks have value, there is no question whatsoever about that.

I would argue that a misjudgment was made and the fact we lost in OT in 7 games to the Bruins gave a glimmer of hope for the future. The addition of Bolland was justifiable at the time. I would also argue that if Bolland did not get hurt the results last year would have been dramatically different.

 

[Gary Nylund]

God, I really hope that isn't the extent of your debate skills. Pray tell, who are these great players we threw away in the draft, and be specific, wouldn't want it to seem like you didn't have it all figured out

LOL. If you want to demonstrate your superior debating skills I suggest you start by staying on topic. Start by explaining what you are referring to when you say we "threw away" players.

We are talking about a trade where we gave up 3 draft picks, not players. I hope that helps.

 

[Teeder9]

And for all those who say those picks had little value - look at it this way, those picks had enough value to get us a player like Dave Bolland. Timing is the problem here. To a contending team, that trade would be totally reasonable. We were not a contending team, and we just pissed away assets that could have been used for something that might help us become one down the road.

We traded a 2nd round pick for Holland as an example. Much more sensible because who knows how he pans out. Some are pretty high on him though and maybe he makes a contribution here for years to come. Or the Bernier trade, the 2nd round pick was a part of that, a great example of how much trading value 2nd round picks have. These picks have value, there is no question whatsoever about that.

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

 

[Teeder9]

LOL. If you want to demonstrate your superior debating skills I suggest you start by staying on topic. Start by explaining what you are referring to when you say we "threw away" players.

We are talking about a trade where we gave up 3 draft picks, not players. I hope that helps.

Like talking to a wall. Picks = players in every way, shape, or form. What you do with picks doesn't change what they are

 

[Gary Nylund]

God, I really hope that isn't the extent of your debate skills. Pray tell, who are these great players we threw away in the draft, and be specific, wouldn't want it to seem like you didn't have it all figured out

LOL. If you want to demonstrate your superior debating skills I suggest you start by staying on topic. Start by explaining what you are referring to when you say we "threw away" players.

We are talking about a trade where we gave up 3 draft picks, not players. I hope that helps.

Like talking to a wall. Picks = players in every way, shape, or form. What you do with picks doesn't change what they are

OK you asked "who are these great players", I responded we gave up picks not players, and your response is all picks are players. Is that about right?

I don't know who these players are or how their careers turn out and I don't see how anyone can and therefore your question is pointless. You were the one who used the phrase "great players" not me.

 

[Teeder9]

OK you asked "who are these great players", I responded we gave up picks not players, and your response is all picks are players. Is that about right?

I don't know who these players are or how their careers turn out and I don't see how anyone can and therefore your question is pointless. You were the one who used the phrase "great players" not me.

Cool, so you aren't upset about the picks/players after all. Could have just said that as well.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Cool, so you aren't upset about the picks/players after all. Could have just said that as well.

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.