Proposal: Toronto-Calgary

[Randy Randerson]

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of Zaitsev's play in his first season either, but I do think in a 2nd pair role where there is a first pair that soaks up the tougher minutes, he could be fine. I just think he needs someone to carry him to be good, and I think he gets paid as a D that should be carrying a 2nd pair. Again, not the end of the world, just that I think Toronto needs to be very efficient in it's spending on D going forward, and I don't think Zaitsev represents efficient spending. Either way, I think for this year, he probably has value in his bounce back potential as getting two guys to play the right side would be a very tall order.

I agree that they need someone on the right side to fix their issues breaking out on that side, so unless they feel like someone on the left can play the right, they need a new body in. I don't think they need to be a star, grabbing an underrated RHD would be great. I wish they had grabbed Demers when Florida was offering him up as he is very underrated and makes less than $4M with the money help back on his deal.

I think the Leafs have more time than most believe and don't need to rush into anything if there isn't a good option available. They are one of the better teams in the East as is, the trade deadline will shake some things use, and I really don't think it would be that terrible to see exactly what they have and look to address in the next off season.

I think everyone that has a RHD that they like is holding right now, doesn't seem like anyone has them to spare other than a few teams that are going to be tanking. I'd love to get a Demers but I have a feeling we will be looking at a Tanev/Petry or just waiting on developing a solution internally

I think that Zaitsev's contract will average mid-2nd pairing money as the inflation hits so I'm fine with him if he plays 2nd pairing. I do see more that I like in him than you do which is fine, but I think he'll play with a guy better than him in either Gardiner or Dermott so as long as that combo is a good 2nd pairing on the whole then that's all that really matters to me

 

[Danny1237]

I think everyone that has a RHD that they like is holding right now, doesn't seem like anyone has them to spare other than a few teams that are going to be tanking. I'd love to get a Demers but I have a feeling we will be looking at a Tanev/Petry or just waiting on developing a solution internally

I think that Zaitsev's contract will average mid-2nd pairing money as the inflation hits so I'm fine with him if he plays 2nd pairing. I do see more that I like in him than you do which is fine, but I think he'll play with a guy better than him in either Gardiner or Dermott so as long as that combo is a good 2nd pairing on the whole then that's all that really matters to me

That's fair enough. Yeah, Demers has carved out a big role for himself in Phoenix, so I don't see him as being available. More or less just lamenting that the Leafs didn't get involved when he was available, as the price was insanely reasonable. Even if the Leafs had to pay a little more just to get Florida to trade him within the division.

I think Petry or Tanev would be solid additions and really would change how the Leafs D functions. I like Petry a little more in the short term, less injury history, a bit better at moving the puck, but just having a guy to play with Rielly that is a contributor and not just hanging on will make the Leafs harder to pressure in their own zone.

I think the Leafs will be waiting to see what shakes loose throughout the season. This is more an interesting topic for discussion simply because it's really the only area the Leafs should be doing anything, which is a good sign for them. Truthfully, the pressure to rush into something isn't nearly as large given their current situation.

 

[Randy Randerson]

That's fair enough. Yeah, Demers has carved out a big role for himself in Phoenix, so I don't see him as being available. More or less just lamenting that the Leafs didn't get involved when he was available, as the price was insanely reasonable. Even if the Leafs had to pay a little more just to get Florida to trade him within the division.

I think Petry or Tanev would be solid additions and really would change how the Leafs D functions. I like Petry a little more in the short term, less injury history, a bit better at moving the puck, but just having a guy to play with Rielly that is a contributor and not just hanging on will make the Leafs harder to pressure in their own zone.

I think the Leafs will be waiting to see what shakes loose throughout the season. This is more an interesting topic for discussion simply because it's really the only area the Leafs should be doing anything, which is a good sign for them. Truthfully, the pressure to rush into something isn't nearly as large given their current situation.

I like Petry too, there was some productive conversation in the Petry to the Leafs thread as well so I'd be happy if we went that way to at least make our defense respectable while we try to develop Liljegren/Durzi/Rasanen. A shot suppressing type is something we could really use

in the meantime I don't think it's the difference between us making the playoffs and not, so agree we can wait

 

[HoweHullOrr]

I think everyone that has a RHD that they like is holding right now, doesn't seem like anyone has them to spare

Ya, that's what many (including me) have been calling the market, or market conditions for some time now. Top-4, let alone a top 4 RHD are in very low supply and very high demand. That's why we've been talking about these trades for a couple years and yet nothing has materialized. Don't think this situation is going to change anytime soon and I've always found it amusing to see how many "our scraps (package) for your top-4 D" trade proposals we've generated over the last couple of years. GMs know the market and aren't giving up their top-4 D for anything less than something that we would find rather painful to give up.

 

[Drake1588]

While it’s at least closer to the right idea for Toronto than, say, trading for Simmonds this summer, this isn’t the kind of defenseman they need to add. They have depth enough in 5/6/7 defense. Where Toronto needs help is in the area of 1/2/3 defensemen.

Beyond that, depth goaltending has minimal value around the league. Everyone has tweener goalies.

 

[pheasant]

While it’s at least closer to the right idea for Toronto than, say, trading for Simmonds this summer, this isn’t the kind of defenseman they need to add. They have depth enough in 5/6/7 defense. Where Toronto needs help is in the area of 1/2/3 defensemen.

Beyond that, depth goaltending has minimal value around the league. Everyone has tweener goalies.

I agree completely. But it's still worth talking about since we have heard TO is shopping their depth goaltending, and CGY is a team that might want to add a backup G.

Stone isn't great. But any addition would be a welcome one for the Leafs blueline. You can prop up Carrick with all the stats you want, it won't matter. It's abundantly clear that Babcock doesn't trust him. Last year Polak was often in the lineup over this guy.

Now consider that Stone is a very similar player to Polak, just 4 years younger. I would bet Babcock would rather have him on the roster over Carrick. So there's something to this.

 

[Advanced stats]

If none of
Carrick
Marincin
Holl
Ozhiganov
Borgman
Rosen
Liljeren

Can claim that bottom pairing spot, than maybe I'd take a flyer on Stone .

At this point, all those guys deserve a shot though.

 

[Ainsy01]

The last thing the flames need is an unproven fringe-starter. We have two in the minors. The second last thing the flames need is to be retaining salary. Calgary has shopped the goal tending bargain-bin for years and have yet to find someone to bring the squad to the next level. The flames need (after this season) a proven starter that is between 25-30 years old at about 5 - 6 million AAV over the next 4 or 5 years. So, who fits the description you might ask ? Well...

- Andersen
-Vasilevsky
-Hellebuyck
-Jones
-Murray
-Gibson

You can see how acquiring a goaltender of this caliber may problematic for Calgary, as 4 of 6 were drafted/developed, and the others (Andersen, Jones) came over in high-value trades within the pacific division, meaning CGY likely never had a chance to acquire, unless your GM is Wilson and deals through eastern conference teams (LA -Boston - SJ in this case). Its worth mentioning that neither were true #1's on their teams at the time they were moved.

Its a damn shame that Gillies isnt even close to being on this list at this point in his career (24 years old this season). If he doesn't make a massive leap this year the flames goal-tending carousel will continue to spin round and round, and will likely prevent the flames from become an annual contender.

 

[Danny1237]

I like Petry too, there was some productive conversation in the Petry to the Leafs thread as well so I'd be happy if we went that way to at least make our defense respectable while we try to develop Liljegren/Durzi/Rasanen. A shot suppressing type is something we could really use

in the meantime I don't think it's the difference between us making the playoffs and not, so agree we can wait

I am glad you said shot suppression type, as that leads me to believe you are open to anybody who has shown an ability to suppress shots, regardless of what skills they use to do it. A lot of what you read on boards is the leafs need a tough, shot blocking, shut down D who makes life hard in front of the net. That would be great, but all the guys who do those things while actually being good are playing somewhere and likely impossible to get. There are plenty out there that are terrible D but still get overrated. If the Leafs end up paying out big significant money to a Kris Russell type, their D will never be good.There are plenty of good defenders who get undervalued because they get viewed as busted PP guys, but they actually move the puck smartly, challenge the center ice and blue lines well to create icings and turnovers, and are good at turning loose pucks into possession for their own team. Even the guys who fit that mold of a good shutdown guy tend to do some things that surprise people Josh Manson is a nasty defender, who likes to throw the body, but he actually creates quite a bit of offense 5 on 5, and he blocks very few shots for a guy who plays as many minutes as he does against top lines and on the PK.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Ya, that's what many (including me) have been calling the market, or market conditions for some time now. Top-4, let alone a top 4 RHD are in very low supply and very high demand. That's why we've been talking about these trades for a couple years and yet nothing has materialized. Don't think this situation is going to change anytime soon and I've always found it amusing to see how many "our scraps (package) for your top-4 D" trade proposals we've generated over the last couple of years. GMs know the market and aren't giving up their top-4 D for anything less than something that we would find rather painful to give up.

I think there's still scenarios when GM's with those assets to trade would rather get futures than find no buyer, like the Larsson/Hall trade is looking more and more like an outlier than the standard. But I think the scenario has to be right, like a team has to be in clear rebuild mode where it doesn't make sense to hold on the guy

I am glad you said shot suppression type, as that leads me to believe you are open to anybody who has shown an ability to suppress shots, regardless of what skills they use to do it. A lot of what you read on boards is the leafs need a tough, shot blocking, shut down D who makes life hard in front of the net. That would be great, but all the guys who do those things while actually being good are playing somewhere and likely impossible to get. There are plenty out there that are terrible D but still get overrated. If the Leafs end up paying out big significant money to a Kris Russell type, their D will never be good.There are plenty of good defenders who get undervalued because they get viewed as busted PP guys, but they actually move the puck smartly, challenge the center ice and blue lines well to create icings and turnovers, and are good at turning loose pucks into possession for their own team. Even the guys who fit that mold of a good shutdown guy tend to do some things that surprise people Josh Manson is a nasty defender, who likes to throw the body, but he actually creates quite a bit of offense 5 on 5, and he blocks very few shots for a guy who plays as many minutes as he does against top lines and on the PK.

ya I'm not hung up on a specific archetype of player as long as they're effective. I just want someone who's going to be low event in our end of the ice and able to get the puck back & transition it out of the zone effectively, doesn't matter to me if they're 5'9" and not physical. I want 2 goal leads in the 3rd to be safe

ultimately I think we're an honest top pairing RHD away from being "complete", but a bandaid guy who is ideally a 2nd pairing player but not completely over his head on the 1st pairing would be nice in the meantime. It will take too much to get the piece that we really need in trade, like a Parayko/Trouba, so I'll settle for something less that's still effective for non-roster assets then try to develop Liljegren in to the ideal solution

 

[HoweHullOrr]

I think there's still scenarios when GM's with those assets to trade would rather get futures than find no buyer, like the Larsson/Hall trade is looking more and more like an outlier than the standard.

Yes, I hope there is a GM out there that is willing to trade for futures as you say. That would be ideal, but it doesn't seem to happen very often.

Is there a "standard" though?

I find this "debate-worthy" for sure as there is no clear cut answer and different points of view can be debated. I think its very hard to conclude that the Larsson/Hall trade is an outlier because that implies a statistically significant number of these trades to be convinced that the sample is sufficient enough to draw conclusions from. I don't think there are sufficient numbers of these trades so that we can talk about trade trends. GMs seem loathe to make trades of this ilk and they happen infrequently. Its possible that given the circumstances of very small supply and high demand, that a Hall for Larsson trade is within the realm of possibilities that a GM (given real world conditions) must consider.

If these trades were easy enough to do (along the lines of what we hope for in our various trade proposals) and happened frequently enough, then one should ask the obvious question: "Why haven't we been able to consummate a trade along these lines then"? We have competent management no doubt, and we've had this definite need for at least 2 years, so I'd think those points need to be factored in.

I haven't really formulated solid conclusions myself, but I do find that I debate entirely opposite positions on this subject in my own mind.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Is there a "standard"?

I find this "debate-worthy" for sure as there is no clear cut answer and different points of view can be debated. I think its very hard to conclude that the Larsson/Hall trade is an outlier because that implies a statistically significant number of these trades to be to be convinced that the sample is sufficient enough to draw conclusions from. I don't think there are sufficient numbers as GMs seem loathe to make trades of this ilk and they happen infrequently. Its possible that given the circumstances of very small supply and high demand, that a Hall for Larsson trade is within the realm of possibilities that a GM (given real world conditions) must consider.

If these trades were easy enough to do (along the lines of what we hope for in our various trade proposals) and happened frequently enough, then one should ask the obvious question: "Why haven't we been able to consummate a trade along these lines then"? We have competent management no doubt, and we've had this definite need for at least 2 years, so I'd think those points need to be factored in.

well there's usually some sort of norm that the market converges to, like I'm sure that even GM's use previous trades for similar players as benchmarks to see if they're getting hosed and they know they'll take media scrutiny if they pay more than the last guy

I do think that the Larsson/Hall trade will show as an outlier, partially because Hall really excelled last year which wasn't foreseeable, but its always the trade that gets referenced by those with a RHD to trade where Hamonic & Vatanen have gotten a lot less since

I think there's only a few scenarios that result on a rare commodity being traded - one is an overpayment, another is that the selling team has a reason to move on their guy (rebuild, overabundance at the position, trade for a position of need, etc) and I think we probably haven't found the right set of circumstances & haven't been willing to overpay. Also suspect that HF is more concerned about the Leafs D than the brass is, we really need a top pairing guy and we're not getting that via trade without losing a core piece so I think that would be off the table, and we coasted to the playoffs last year so I'm sure that the brass feels like we can do the same again this year with the offensive upgrades. I think if our management felt like they were desperate, we would have made an overpayment move by now...but, I have no special insight so its speculation on my part