Toggle sidebar

Around the League - PLAYOFFS!?

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogelhund said:
Go back and look at the Salary Cap. We simply didn't have enough room, to pay Hyman $5 mil. That was the end of the flat cap, for three years in a row at $81.5 mil.

After the core 4, the biggest forward contracts were Kerfoot @ $3.5 mil, and Mikheyev at $1.645 mil... Sure, we can make the argument that we should have traded Kerfoot, and kept Hyman, but that's still only $3.5, and I doubt that would have been enough as he signed for $5.5 mil.

It wasn't about wanting him, we just couldn't afford him at that price... it's that simple. Had we not had the Covid period, we would have likely kept him... .that's just stuff happening, not anybody's fault.
Click to expand...
It's not that Hyman's contract would have been able to be fit into the cap structure. A few moves could have been made (like you mention above) that could have fit him in.

It's that a lot of us thought that $4.5 was the max to go with him. Maybe $5 million tops if he signed 5 years or less. But the biggest issue was having to give him 8 years at that term, which while it could have been fit under the cap, we just didn't know how the contract would age in Years 5 to 8. It's not like he had a Tavares track record being a star in the league.

Push comes to shove, I would have liked to have seen the team retain him (at $4.5 per for 8 years), as he is the exact type of player we need. Bunting was an adequate replacement, and Bertuzzi just hasn't been it this year. He would look great beside Matthews and Marner. But as I suggested a couple days ago, we likely aren't getting the same Hyman we see today. Matthews and Marner would make him a 60 to 70 point getter. McDavid somehow has made him a 50-goal, PPG player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncleben, The Podium, ToneDog and 1 other person
Jimmy Firecracker said:
Hyman was making $2.25 million his last season here. Combining that cap hit of his with Kerfoot’s $3.5 million and the sum total is $5.75 million between them. It could’ve been done, Leafs just needed to be willing to move Kerfoot which it doesn’t seem like they were.

Hyman did have injury issues and 7 years for a player who plays a physically taxing style entering his 30s is risky. But if the choice was between re-signing Hyman or holding on to Kerfoot I’d rather the Leafs just signed Hyman. Kerfoot never solidified himself as 3C and was often used as a LW anyway and Hyman would’ve looked better there than him.
Click to expand...

The math just doesn't work... You don't get to move out two bodies, and just have one on the roster. Plus other players on the roster had small raises, so there isn't the money you are guessing there is... seriously, actually look at the roster and the cap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kb
ACC1224 said:
There's always a way to make it work if you choose but like I said, I remember the length being the issue with his history of injuries.
Click to expand...



We can say all we want, and we can talk about finding a way to make it work, and we could have.. just needed to ice 19-20 players regularly...

Before anyone comes back and say, we could have.. .please look at the rosters, and the dollars there... there just wasn't a way to do that type of money by that time.

CincoHolio said:
I always saw Hyman on a Marchand-light-like trajectory. It was clear his offensive game was still developing in front of our eyes even as a Leafs player.

Couple his incremental offensive improvements with his other-worldly work effort, yeah...still don't understand why guys like Engvall and Kerfoot were chosen over guys like him.

I suspect a certain GM's ego played a part in choosing to retain these players over Hyman. Such an incredibly average GM made to look like some kind of (falsely anointed) wunderkind thanks in no small part to having the backing of a world-class support system around him. Good riddance KD you schmuck!
Click to expand...
We lacked the cap space to keep Hyman. It's that simple, and revisionist history doesn't change that at all, despite a desire to put the blame on someone.

Engvall was at $1.25 mil. Kerfoot was $3.5 mil. Eliminate them both, run a short roster, and you still don't get to $5.5 mil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leaf Rocket, stickty111 and kb
Fogelhund said:
We can say all we want, and we can talk about finding a way to make it work, and we could have.. just needed to ice 19-20 players regularly...

Before anyone comes back and say, we could have.. .please look at the rosters, and the dollars there... there just wasn't a way to do that type of money by that time.


We lacked the cap space to keep Hyman. It's that simple, and revisionist history doesn't change that at all, despite a desire to put the blame on someone.

Engvall was at $1.25 mil. Kerfoot was $3.5 mil. Eliminate them both, run a short roster, and you still don't get to $5.5 mil.
Click to expand...
They are hoping we all forget.

The ones that choose to forget context (to further their....narrative/reasons) really muck up these pages with their untruths . Same ones.....every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leaf Rocket, Fogelhund and stickty111
Fogelhund said:
We can say all we want, and we can talk about finding a way to make it work, and we could have.. just needed to ice 19-20 players regularly...

Before anyone comes back and say, we could have.. .please look at the rosters, and the dollars there... there just wasn't a way to do that type of money by that time.


We lacked the cap space to keep Hyman. It's that simple, and revisionist history doesn't change that at all, despite a desire to put the blame on someone.

Engvall was at $1.25 mil. Kerfoot was $3.5 mil. Eliminate them both, run a short roster, and you still don't get to $5.5 mil.
Click to expand...
Andersen's $5 million cap hit was coming off the books the same time. Hyman's salary would have seamlessly taken that cap hit. That's without the maneuvering that could have been done with Kerfoot or Engvall (or Johnsson and Holl).

Again, it wasn't so much fitting him in as it was the length of contract it would have taken to retain him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jmo89, Bomber0104 and ACC1224
TheTotalPackage said:
Andersen's $5 million cap hit was coming off the books the same time. Hyman's salary would have seamlessly taken that cap hit. That's without the maneuvering that could have been done with Kerfoot or Engvall (or Johnsson and Holl).

Again, it wasn't so much fitting him in as it was the length of contract it would have taken to retain him.
Click to expand...
You didn't look at the actual roster and cap situation did you?

Was your plan to have no goalie as well? Did we replace a goalie? Was it at no cap hit?
 
Fogelhund said:
We can say all we want, and we can talk about finding a way to make it work, and we could have.. just needed to ice 19-20 players regularly...

Before anyone comes back and say, we could have.. .please look at the rosters, and the dollars there... there just wasn't a way to do that type of money by that time.


We lacked the cap space to keep Hyman. It's that simple, and revisionist history doesn't change that at all, despite a desire to put the blame on someone.

Engvall was at $1.25 mil. Kerfoot was $3.5 mil. Eliminate them both, run a short roster, and you still don't get to $5.5 mil.
Click to expand...
No one is blaming anyone for anything(that I can see). I don't need to go back and look at it, I remember what happened.
There is always a way to fit a player in if you choose, they chose not to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bomber0104
Fogelhund said:
You didn't look at the actual roster and cap situation did you?

Was your plan to have no goalie as well? Did we replace a goalie? Was it at no cap hit?
Click to expand...
Yes I did. Did you? If so, you would have seen that Jack Campbell was already signed for that upcoming season at less than half of what Andersen was at. You would have also noticed that Petr Mrazek was signed for $3.8 million that year for three years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bomber0104
Jojalu said:
This phrase is so misused and is not even true.

This only applies if skill doesn't work.

In almost every sport the most skilled are the hardest working. It's how they become the best.
Click to expand...
Won’t that just means the same. Skills still needs wills to be the best.
Maybe the proper way to say is
Wills and skills beat everything
Wills alone will beat skills alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jojalu
ACC1224 said:
No one is blaming anyone for anything(that I can see). I don't need to go back and look at it, I remember what happened.
There is always a way to fit a player in if you choose, they chose not to.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly right.
I looked at the 21-22 roster just now, if they wanted Hyman, they could had trade away Kerfoot and not sign Petr and just resign Hyman and use Hutch as backup to Campbell. Not to mention not signing Richtie as UFA.
They choose not to bc Dubas and MGT didn’t think Hyman was worth what he was asking.
I don’t think Hyman would have gotten 50goals if he stays here and if he maintained his level of play, does he worth his current contract?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeaOfBlue, TMLegend, TheTotalPackage and 3 others
ACC1224 said:
There's always a way to make it work if you choose but like I said, I remember the length being the issue with his history of injuries.
Click to expand...

Yeah for the record, I was fine letting Hyman go, figuring he’d hit a wall at some point, but I’m also not the GM who developed him from 2016 onwards.

Looking at the cap sheet from 2021-22, the Leafs spent some decent coin on the Mrazek, Ritchie and Kase contracts, and 2 of them ended up being fairly toxic negative value deals. Mrazek and Ritchie ended up costing over $6 million combined. Mrazek required a trade down of 13 epic draft slots to get rid of. Ritchie was packaged off with a disposal cost of a 2nd to get Lyubushkin 1.0.

So there was probably a way to get Hyman back, even if you’re tinkering with the very margins of the roster, but it’s obviously the road not taken.

Just don’t buy the idea that “nothing could have been done.” That seems to be the common refrain about the previous era. Just so intelligent yet falling into these no win scenarios and getting beat up by hindsight. You’re paid to have foresight once in a while too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzinger, Gabriel426, Bomber0104 and 4 others
Am I wrong, or is this deadline a lot quieter the week before the actually date?

I seem to recall a tonne of moves early the past two years
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncleben
TheTotalPackage said:
It's not that Hyman's contract would have been able to be fit into the cap structure. A few moves could have been made (like you mention above) that could have fit him in.

It's that a lot of us thought that $4.5 was the max to go with him. Maybe $5 million tops if he signed 5 years or less. But the biggest issue was having to give him 8 years at that term, which while it could have been fit under the cap, we just didn't know how the contract would age in Years 5 to 8. It's not like he had a Tavares track record being a star in the league.

Push comes to shove, I would have liked to have seen the team retain him (at $4.5 per for 8 years), as he is the exact type of player we need. Bunting was an adequate replacement, and Bertuzzi just hasn't been it this year. He would look great beside Matthews and Marner. But as I suggested a couple days ago, we likely aren't getting the same Hyman we see today. Matthews and Marner would make him a 60 to 70 point getter. McDavid somehow has made him a 50-goal, PPG player.
Click to expand...

This is the best post on the Hyman situation

Jojalu said:
Am I wrong, or is this deadline a lot quieter the week before the actually date?

I seem to recall a tonne of moves early the past two years
Click to expand...

There’s not a ton of players on the market
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncleben and Jojalu
That is very unexpected. Ruff was seen as fantastic and such a get last year when the Devils surged, and they even extended him last fall. Green had a rough time in Vancouver so we'll see how that helps them, if at all.

Sullivan might be next.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom