Proposal: Toronto - Colorado

[Foppberg]

This thread, just wow. I had thought a lot of Leafs fans had really started to come around when it came to evaluating the players on there own team.


This thread is certainly suggesting otherwise.

I know right? Leafs gunna Leaf..

 

[hector morrison]

Trade Gardiner++ for a slightly better Gardiner? sounds awesome.

Because we need offensive D who are **** in their own end.

You're right! To put it in a nutshell! Where did this ridiculous idea abort from? It really wasn't well conceived!

 

[Patagonia]

I thought Gardiner performed well in the playoffs? Didn’t fans want him gone after his repeated miscues? Barrie played really well on the 1st pairing, due to an EJ was injury. I guess after a few months it was forgotten.

 

[Gabe the Babe]

I dont think Barrie is that big an upgrade over Jake

Then f***ing keep Jake my guy ahaha. You guys all know Salic would never move Barrie for antrying around Gardener.

There’s been a lot of speculation about Nylander. Same with Barrie. There isn’t a pressing reason to trade Tyson unless it’s a firm upgrade where the Avs are in need. LHD when Girard and Zadorov are already there is not that need.

Avs do need wingers. But more of a Mark Stone type. Nylander is a great young winger. But in what looks to be a top 5 pick the Avs will either have that big body winger they need and start Jost at 2. Or jack Hughes. They need someone to protect our 2C starting in 2019-20 and Nylander isn’t that guy.

 

[SoulDynasty]

If Toronto worked on a basis of Nylander+Gardiner for Barrie+ something what could Avs add?

I'm open to moving both, getting an upgrade on the right side, but I think that the Avs need to add something to the deal frankly.

Would it be too much to ask what Toronto needs to add to get Ottawas first added?

In order to get the Sens first, you would need to throw in Matthews.

What I mean by that is we’re not trading it for anything less than an elite player. It was on the board for Karlsson, but now it’s no longer on the board unless you ridiculously want it.

 

[Liferleafer]

Leaf fans will riot on whatever player is offered in a trade.

Not only will they never agree, same comments about how under valued their players. Maybe Nylander is reading these boards and believes he deserves the $8M+ per.

Does this Board track the number of Locked Threads? I’m sure most of the closures involve the Leafs.

Please tell me why we Leafs fans should "agree" on a Barrie trade? Points? Yippe, Gardiner got 52 of 'em.

You want Leafs fans to "agree" on a trade....offer something that fills a need and doesn't require lube to get the deal done.

 

[FerrisRox]

well this certainly fits your M.O.....pick out one tree, ignore the forest and get out the soap box

A player who never plays in his own end is on the ice for less goals against than the best defensive player in the world who is, call it what you will, it's good for the bottom line of winning games to not be in your own end

This is now an entirely different thing that what you said previously.

The high flying Oilers of the 1980s weren't in their own zone that often because they were down at the other end of the ice overwhelming teams and Paul Coffey was posting a +60. The ice being tilted to one end didn't suddenly make him good defensively.

That's a moronic conclusion.

 

[Patagonia]

If Toronto worked on a basis of Nylander+Gardiner for Barrie+ something what could Avs add?

I'm open to moving both, getting an upgrade on the right side, but I think that the Avs need to add something to the deal frankly.

Would it be too much to ask what Toronto needs to add to get Ottawas first added?

Leafs opportunity to trade with the AVs have passed, especially if this involves the Sens 1st. The only players the AVs might have interest is Matthews and Reilly which are unlikely to be available.

Sens and AVs 2019 picks will choose from a Forward rich draft. AVs looking for either a 2C or more importantly RW, although less of a concern is another LHD. Hughes will be the top pick with many other Centres also available, but RW is Kakko, Podkolzin or Lavoie. With 12 of 15 top picks being Forwards, they have the option to grab a Dman if they fall.

Nylander or Marner are no longer players of interest. Next season they’ll draft to solve their problem or pursue Stone - UFA. Barrie will eventually be traded which will fill other needs.

So unless Matthews or Reilly are being offered, AVs have no reason to discuss trading with the Leafs.

 

[Liferleafer]

This is now an entirely different thing that what you said previously.

The high flying Oilers of the 1980s weren't in their own zone that often because they were down at the other end of the ice overwhelming teams and Paul Coffey was posting a +60. The ice being tilted to one end didn't suddenly make him good defensively.

That's a moronic conclusion.

Not sure if i am helping or hurting...but as an old guy that watched hockey in the '80s....Coffey was never good defensively, he was like a 4th forward....cold skate like the God Dam wind though.

 

[Patagonia]

Please tell me why we Leafs fans should "agree" on a Barrie trade? Points? Yippe, Gardiner got 52 of 'em.

You want Leafs fans to "agree" on a trade....offer something that fills a need and doesn't require lube to get the deal done.

Leafs have the need for a RHD which led to rumours on Barrie. AVs no longer have a need for either Nylander or Marner if the price is too high.

I just commented Leafs and AVs are no longer good trading partners. They will use the 2019 draft to continue adding to fill an area of need. Barrie will be traded elsewhere to continue the rebuild.

Leafs keep their players and try working around their salary cap problems.

 

[FerrisRox]

Not sure if i am helping or hurting...but as an old guy that watched hockey in the '80s....Coffey was never good defensively, he was like a 4th forward....cold skate like the God Dam wind though.

I'm in the same boat, watched his career and you are illustrating my point.

Suggesting that you are "good defensively" simply because you are in the other end of the ice is ridiculous simplification.

 

[Randy Randerson]

This is now an entirely different thing that what you said previously.

The high flying Oilers of the 1980s weren't in their own zone that often because they were down at the other end of the ice overwhelming teams and Paul Coffey was posting a +60. The ice being tilted to one end didn't suddenly make him good defensively.

That's a moronic conclusion.

lol, it is not. I don't know what you get out of picking internet fights on mundane components of someones point, then building straw men to try to come away with the high ground but it's literally every interaction I have on here with you. I hope your life has enough joy that you aren't depending on this for validation, honestly

 

[He Is Knocking]

The rest of the league is the Leaf's farm clubs. These proposals just keep getting more ridiculous

 

[tucker3434]

I bet we could have a Nathan MacKinnon for Connor Brown trade thread and still have leafs fans telling us their guy is better. There’s always an obscure stat to prop up as proof.

 

[FerrisRox]

lol, it is not. I don't know what you get out of picking internet fights on mundane components of someones point, then building straw men to try to come away with the high ground but it's literally every interaction I have on here with you. I hope your life has enough joy that you aren't depending on this for validation, honestly

It is not? So Paul Coffey was good defensively? Okie doke.

Mudane components of someone's point? It was your entire point. I'll grant you it was much of a point at all, but it was your entire point, that Gardiner was somehow good defensively because he was in the offensive zone a lot.

It's a bit puzzling that you seem surprised that someone is having discussions in a discussion group. What did you think was going to happen here? You would say your silly comments and people would just read them and nobody would comment?

A good way to avoid comments and discussion - which strangely you appear to seek - is to not say ridiculous things or things with no basis in fact. To suggest Paul Coffey - or Jake Gardiner - are good defensively because they are in the offensive zone is likely not going to be ignored because it's an insane thing to say. When you do that, you are going to have people comment and correcting the things you say.

It's also a little odd that you seem to think that people that disagree with you are "picking a fight with you." This is a discussion board with a lot of different opinions. Not everyone is going to agree with what you have to say but that doesn't mean they are picking a fight with you, it simply means they don't agree with you.

 

[Randy Randerson]

It is not? So Paul Coffey was good defensively? Okie doke.

Mudane components of someone's point? It was your entire point. I'll grant you it was much of a point at all, but it was your entire point, that Gardiner was somehow good defensively because he was in the offensive zone a lot.

It's a bit puzzling that you seem surprised that someone is having discussions in a discussion group. What did you think was going to happen here? You would say your silly comments and people would just read them and nobody would comment?

A good way to avoid comments and discussion - which strangely you appear to seek - is to not say ridiculous things or things with no basis in fact. To suggest Paul Coffey - or Jake Gardiner - are good defensively because they are in the offensive zone is likely not going to be ignored because it's an insane thing to say. When you do that, you are going to have people comment and correcting the things you say.

It's also a little odd that you seem to think that people that disagree with you are "picking a fight with you." This is a discussion board with a lot of different opinions. Not everyone is going to agree with what you have to say but that doesn't mean they are picking a fight with you, it simply means they don't agree with you.

I see you're continuing down the same path of focusing on and twisting one minute point.

I have plenty of positive interactions on here, in this very thread you can go back and see that something that started as an argument ended with both sides closer together not further apart. Honestly, does that happen for you? If winning internet arguments is the important thing for you, fine, but it might be worth changing your approach if you want to talk about a game you must like with other people in the same boat

if you never play defense, you're helping your team win games. That's the point, and Coffey's 4 cup rings should help that to resonate

 

[FerrisRox]

I see you're continuing down the same path of focusing on and twisting one minute point.

I have plenty of positive interactions on here, in this very thread you can go back and see that something that started as an argument ended with both sides closer together not further apart. Honestly, does that happen for you? If winning internet arguments is the important thing for you, fine, but it might be worth changing your approach if you want to talk about a game you must like with other people in the same boat

if you never play defense, you're helping your team win games. That's the point, and Coffey's 4 cup rings should help that to resonate

Focusing on one minute point? It's the only point. It's what the post was about. If I were to focus on literally any other thing, I would be off topic. What are you talking about?

If you think I take any joy or pride in "winning an internet argument" with someone that thinks Jake Gardiner is good defensively you are sorely mistaken. That would be like bragging about being the valedictorian of summer school.

As for the actual topic, nobody disputed that point, in fact, when I responded to your initial post, I said that very thing. Being in the other zone all the time certainly helps you win, but it doesn't mean you are good defensively.

Then I gave the example of Paul Coffey and said his offensive skills didn't mean he was good defensively and you disagreed and said that it in fact does mean he's good defensively, and now you are moving the goalposts and saying it helps you win games. Surely you can see they aren't the same thing, no?

 

[Randy Randerson]

Focusing on one minute point? It's the only point. It's what the post was about. If I were to focus on literally any other thing, I would be off topic. What are you talking about?

If you think I take any joy or pride in "winning an internet argument" with someone that thinks Jake Gardiner is good defensively you are sorely mistaken. That would be like bragging about beating a Special Olympian in a foot race or boasting about the valedictorian of summer school.

As for the actual topic, nobody disputed that point, in fact, when I responded to your initial post, I said that very thing. Being in the other zone all the time certainly helps you win, but it doesn't mean you are good defensively.

Then I gave the example of Paul Coffey and said his offensive skills didn't mean he was good defensively and you disagreed and said that it in fact does mean he's good defensively, and now you are moving the goalposts and saying it helps you win games. Surely you can see they aren't the same thing, no?

taking "the best way to be good at defense is to never be in your own end" and not getting that it means the best way to achieve the purpose of being good at defense, keeping the puck out of your own net, is by not being in your own end seems intentional for the sake of picking a fight.

you're the only person that's taken any issue with that point, so you're either the only one who didn't get it or you're just a troll

you spend a lot of time picking fights and trying to get the last word in for someone who doesn't take any joy in winning internet arguments

 

[FerrisRox]

taking "the best way to be good at defense is to never be in your own end" and not getting that it means the best way to achieve the purpose of being good at defense, keeping the puck out of your own net, is by not being in your own end seems intentional for the sake of picking a fight.

you're the only person that's taken any issue with that point, so you're either the only one who didn't get it or you're just a troll

you spend a lot of time picking fights and trying to get the last word in for someone who doesn't take any joy in winning internet arguments

You are certainly entitled to claim that Jake Gardiner is good defensively and you're entitled to back up that opinion by defining being good defensively by things that he does that have absolutely nothing to do with playing defensively.

What you are not entitled to is your own facts, and when someone disputes the claim that being good defensively doesn't require any defensive play it's just plain strange to claim that that is someone "picking a fight with you" or "trying to win an internet argument."

This is a discussion board. It's filled with opinions and conversations where people have differing opinions. These aren't "fights." You seem to think people are keeping score and trying to "win" arguments. It's about discussing hockey. I really don't think anyone here is keeping score.

If you think anytime someone disagrees with you they are picking a fight with you, you might be a lot more comfortable in the Maple Leafs newsgroup rather than out in the main rooms.

 

[Randy Randerson]

You are certainly entitled to claim that Jake Gardiner is good defensively and you're entitled to back up that opinion by defining being good defensively by things that he does that have absolutely nothing to do with playing defensively.

What you are not entitled to is your own facts, and when someone disputes the claim that being good defensively doesn't require any defensive play it's just plain strange to claim that that is someone "picking a fight with you" or "trying to win an internet argument."

This is a discussion board. It's filled with opinions and conversations where people have differing opinions. These aren't "fights." You seem to think people are keeping score and trying to "win" arguments. It's about discussing hockey. I really don't think anyone here is keeping score.

If you think anytime someone disagrees with you they are picking a fight with you, you might be a lot more comfortable in the Maple Leafs newsgroup rather than out in the main rooms.

lol, I am not biting on your straw man. Head over to your internet argument tally scoreboard, chalk one more up for yourself and pat yourself on the back....today is a good day for you

 

[Halla]

so toronto moves gardiner,johnsson and a 3rd for a smaller rhd version of gardiner?

yeah nah

 

[Halla]

Gardiner has 95pts and is +33 over the past 2 seasons and people think leafs need to add significantly to get a dude that has 95pts and is a -49 over the same time frame?

Barrie makes Gardiner look like Vlasic in his own end. no thanks

 

[Halla]

The Avs were under a way different management model when they had O'Reilly. This trade is essentially the Avs trading a far superior and younger version of Gardiner for an expensive older version and parts.

The only player the Avs have interest in is Nylander. That would likely be a 1 for 1 trade.

Gardiner and Barrie have the same # of pts the last 2 years but Jake is a +82 better
but Barrie is far superior? lol

also barrie doesnt get you close to Nylander.

 

[Liferleafer]

I'm in the same boat, watched his career and you are illustrating my point.

Suggesting that you are "good defensively" simply because you are in the other end of the ice is ridiculous simplification.

Can't argue that. Lets face it, no team plays 60 minutes in the offensive zone, a true "good defensively" player/Dman negates chances while playing in their own end....that's what the Leafs need....we have offensive D out the hoo ha.

 

[I am Canadian]

Gardiner and Barrie are relatively comparable players, don't think it makes sense to lose Johnsson to swap them out. Barrie doesn't improve the Leaf's team defensive play.