Brad Treliving is doing a great job.

[Dekes For Days]

What is relevant is the fact that Gregor won the job over Lafferty.

No, your belief that that happened is not relevant. Gregor has nothing to do with anything being discussed. The issue is Treliving choosing Reaves over Lafferty. You (and a couple others) have decided to repeatedly insert Gregor into a discussion that has nothing to do with him, in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging the bad decision Treliving made for our 4th line RW spot.

So just to be sure: are you saying that due to cap constraints from Ryan Reaves there was no chance that Lafferty could make the team? If that is the case then I am surprised they didn’t trade Lafferty immediately rather than having him play a full camp more or less.

With Reaves here, we couldn't afford Lafferty on the team when healthy without losing somebody else. Reaves was also handed Lafferty's 4th line RW spot. I'm not sure why you find it surprising that he'd be traded before the cap came into effect, and as teams are building out their rosters and run into injuries. That's likely when you'd get the best return. It's also good to have bodies to provide competition in camp.

This isn't difficult. Treliving is in charge. Lafferty was here. Now, Lafferty is gone, and Reaves is here in his spot. It is factually undeniable that Treliving chose Reaves over Lafferty, and that was a bad decision. It's mind-boggling the lengths some are going to avoid that simple fact.

 

[thusk]

You guys aren't fully judging the Tkachuk trade correctly.

Treliving put himself in that situation by opting to bridge Tkachuk instead of signing him long term like Tkachuk initially wanted. Had he signed him to a 6+ year deal, maybe Tkachuk still demands a trade but Treliving isn't put in as dire of a situation. Instead Tkachuk's bridge deal expired and he said that he'd only sign a long term extension with a few specific teams which effectively made it a modified NTC

Its easy to talk about it 4 year later but come back when Tkachuk get signed

-He was 4th in pts in his team behind gaudreau, monahan and Lindholm.

At 7M, he was already the highest paid player of his team and how much it would cost for a 6y+

I give you an exemple, its like knies would still grow up and next season having a great season a get close a pts by game but still behind matthews marner and nylander in pts leader... do you want to give him a bridge deal or long term contract with more money... 3 years later its pretty easy to tell what was the right thing to do but when youre in middle of it, not as easy

 

[Leaf Fans]

No, your belief that that happened is not relevant. Gregor has nothing to do with anything being discussed. The issue is Treliving choosing Reaves over Lafferty. You (and a couple others) have decided to repeatedly insert Gregor into a discussion that has nothing to do with him, in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging the bad decision Treliving made for our 4th line RW spot.

With Reaves here, we couldn't afford Lafferty on the team when healthy without losing somebody else. Reaves was also handed Lafferty's 4th line RW spot. I'm not sure why you find it surprising that he'd be traded before the cap came into effect, and as teams are building out their rosters and run into injuries. That's likely when you'd get the best return. It's also good to have bodies to provide competition in camp.

This isn't difficult. Treliving is in charge. Lafferty was here. Now, Lafferty is gone, and Reaves is here in his spot. It is factually undeniable that Treliving chose Reaves over Lafferty, and that was a bad decision. It's mind-boggling the lengths some are going to avoid that simple fact.

It is not only my belief. It is fact, and facts are relevant. You can pretend they are not, but they are.

You are right it isn't difficult, yet you still manage to get it wrong.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It is not only my belief.

It is your belief. And it's a belief that, true or not, has zero relevance to the discussion. No other player is relevant. No other decision you think was made, or jobs you think were won is relevant. The discussion is about Reaves and Lafferty only. Treliving made a bad decision to choose Reaves over Lafferty for our 4th line RW spot.

3 years later its pretty easy to tell what was the right thing to do but when youre in middle of it, not as easy

It was really, really, really easy to see, even in 2019, that Tkachuk should have been signed for more than a bridge.

 

[GoonieFace]

I have never put another leaf fan on ignore but these dubasites are really testing my patience

I don’t know, I find it highly entertaining that someone will go to such lengths about a borderline NHL player like Lafferty

 

[ToneDog]

I don’t know, I find it highly entertaining that someone will go to such lengths about a borderline NHL player like Lafferty

They go on and on for Days.

 

[Peasy]

The equivalent of needing a safe space...

More so an annoyance free space. You guys don't add much to the conversations. But thanks for outing yourself as one

 

[ACC1224]

Was common knowledge amongst the media as well. There is always one or two though,

Maple Leafs trade Sam Lafferty to Canucks to open space for camp standouts

Were the Maple Leafs' cap puzzle not so "complex," as Sheldon Keefe put it Saturday night, they would have kept Sam Lafferty, not traded him to the Canucks as they did Sunday afternoon.

www.sportsnet.ca

Removing Lafferty from the picture opens room to sign fourth-line left wing Noah Gregor, a player Treliving targeted among many tryout options, to a one-year contract near the league minimum.

Moreover, it permits the Leafs to extend the tryout of teenage surprise Fraser Minten, a pure centreman on his $845,833 entry-level deal.

 

[Leaf Fans]

It is your belief. And it's a belief that, true or not, has zero relevance to the discussion. No other player is relevant. No other decision you think was made, or jobs you think were won is relevant. The discussion is about Reaves and Lafferty only. Treliving made a bad decision to choose Reaves over Lafferty for our 4th line RW spot.

It was really, really, really easy to see, even in 2019, that Tkachuk should have been signed for more than a bridge.

Yes, it is my belief, but as I said earlier. It is not only my belief - it is fact.
The facts are always relevant.
The discussion was never about Reeves and Lafferty. It remains about Gregor winning the job over Lafferty and the subsequent trade of Lafferty to Vancouver.
Yeah, Tkachuk should have been signed long term.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Maple Leafs trade Sam Lafferty to Canucks to open space for camp standouts

Were the Maple Leafs' cap puzzle not so "complex," as Sheldon Keefe put it Saturday night, they would have kept Sam Lafferty, not traded him to the Canucks as they did Sunday afternoon.

www.sportsnet.ca

Did you even read your own article?

Were the Toronto Maple Leafs' cap puzzle not so "complex," as Sheldon Keefe put it Saturday night, they would have kept Sam Lafferty, not traded him to the Vancouver Canucks as they did Sunday afternoon.

Know what would have made our "cap puzzle not so complex" and opened the space to keep Lafferty like they wanted? Not making the bad decision to choose Reaves over Lafferty.

Yes, it is my belief, but as I said earlier. It is not only my belief - it is fact. The facts are always relevant.

No, it is only your belief. And even facts are not universally relevant. For example, Wednesday comes after Tuesday is a fact, but it is not relevant to discussions about hockey decisions. Similarly, you can think that Gregor won a job over Lafferty for 4th line LW all you want, but it is not relevant to the discussion about Treliving's bad decision to choose Reaves over Lafferty for the 4th line RW spot.

 

[Gallagbi]

I'll throw this out there because it seems like a pissing match now, that ive also been guilty of.

Laff is a fourth line winger who had 2 options on this roster. We have 2 fourrh line wingers today, one Laff's proper side and one his off side.

They chose both Reaves and Gregor over Laff. You could throw Minten there too, but that was always a short decision IMO as he was destined to go back to junior.

For me, i was more excited to see Gregor - Kampf - Laff than any other 4th line combo, especially in a playoff series where their speed cluld be interesting.

 

[hotpaws]

Ok, stop defending your position and just consider. Can Treliving be trusted to trade Nylander for value that helps us win.
1964...Duff, Nevin, Collins, Arnie Brown, Seiling etc for Bathgste, McKenny and Lord Stanley's Cup.
Can Treliving be trusted. I say NO!

of course he can get value for Willie but i don't see him being offered better value than Willie would give us in our quest for the cup

No GM that's been around is perfect and while Tre wasn't at the top of my list i do give him credit for getting AM signed for 4 yrs when reports were he only wanted to go 2/3 yrs so i also have faith in him not completely getting bent over by Nylander , unless of course Willie is hell bent on shopping himself to the highest bidder .

 

[Guided by Veseys]

No, your belief that that happened is not relevant. Gregor has nothing to do with anything being discussed. The issue is Treliving choosing Reaves over Lafferty. You (and a couple others) have decided to repeatedly insert Gregor into a discussion that has nothing to do with him, in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging the bad decision Treliving made for our 4th line RW spot.

With Reaves here, we couldn't afford Lafferty on the team when healthy without losing somebody else. Reaves was also handed Lafferty's 4th line RW spot. I'm not sure why you find it surprising that he'd be traded before the cap came into effect, and as teams are building out their rosters and run into injuries. That's likely when you'd get the best return. It's also good to have bodies to provide competition in camp.

This isn't difficult. Treliving is in charge. Lafferty was here. Now, Lafferty is gone, and Reaves is here in his spot. It is factually undeniable that Treliving chose Reaves over Lafferty, and that was a bad decision. It's mind-boggling the lengths some are going to avoid that simple fact.

A simple yes would have sufficed. I just was unclear of what you were implying. I still find it a bit odd that in this market there were no trade rumours and that they ran with him in camp if they were 100% sure of getting rid of him, doesn’t seem to likely to me but it’s okay to disagree.

 

[TheRumble]

Its easy to talk about it 4 year later but come back when Tkachuk get signed

-He was 4th in pts in his team behind gaudreau, monahan and Lindholm.

At 7M, he was already the highest paid player of his team and how much it would cost for a 6y+

I give you an exemple, its like knies would still grow up and next season having a great season a get close a pts by game but still behind matthews marner and nylander in pts leader... do you want to give him a bridge deal or long term contract with more money... 3 years later its pretty easy to tell what was the right thing to do but when youre in middle of it, not as easy

It's easy to say because it was the incorrect move.

If you have a player that you peg as a future franchise player - which Knies is not, you extend him as early as possible and overpay him a year early rather than bridging him or letting his ELC expire. If it's a guy like a middle six forward, yeah, a bridge deal is fine.

Examples of instances where teams overpaid a guy early:

Jack Hughes, Leon Draisaitl, Clayton Keller, Nick Suzuki, Nathan Mackinnon (not the current contract, his previous one), Thomas Chabot, Jake Sanderson, David Pastrnak - pretty much all of them were on sweetheart deals because their teams extended them a year early. Nick Suzuki is still overpaid though.

Examples of what happens when you wait until a guy's ELC expires: Mitch Marner - scored 94 points and made his next contract much more expensive, William Nylander (holdout), Johnny Gaudreau (holdout with Flames), Ryan O'Reilly (offer sheeted), Shea Weber (offer sheeted), Jesperi Kotkaniemi (offer sheeted).

Examples of what happens when you sign a bridge deal: Subban - won the Norris during his bridge and made his next contract much more expensive. Tkachuck, demanded a trade. Laine, demanded a trade. Brayden Point - literally the only example of guy who signed a bridge and didn't sour his relationship with the team afterwards.

Of all the options you can do with an ELC after it's done, signing a bridge is probably the dumbest. Extending early is the smartest because it locks the player from doing any bad things except underperforming.

This is a concept that might come off as abstract to this forum but limiting the amount of bad things that can happen to your team is a good thing.

 

[Nineteen67]

Was common knowledge amongst the media as well. There is always one or two though,

Maple Leafs trade Sam Lafferty to Canucks to open space for camp standouts

Were the Maple Leafs' cap puzzle not so "complex," as Sheldon Keefe put it Saturday night, they would have kept Sam Lafferty, not traded him to the Canucks as they did Sunday afternoon.

www.sportsnet.ca

The cap allocations have been mismanaged for years causing them to make poor rosters decisions. Treliving has continued that trend by wasting ~ 5.5m on Klingberg (3 million over value), Kampf (1 million), and Reaves (1.5 million)

 

[ACC1224]

The cap allocations have been mismanaged for years causing them to make poor rosters decisions. Treliving has continued that trend by wasting ~ 5.5m on Klingberg (3 million over value), Kampf (1 million), and Reaves (1.5 million)

No argument there.

 

[thusk]

It's easy to say because it was the incorrect move.

If you have a player that you peg as a future franchise player - which Knies is not, you extend him as early as possible and overpay him a year early rather than bridging him or letting his ELC expire. If it's a guy like a middle six forward, yeah, a bridge deal is fine.

Examples of instances where teams overpaid a guy early:

Jack Hughes, Leon Draisaitl, Clayton Keller, Nick Suzuki, Nathan Mackinnon (not the current contract, his previous one), Thomas Chabot, Jake Sanderson, David Pastrnak - pretty much all of them were on sweetheart deals because their teams extended them a year early. Nick Suzuki is still overpaid though.

Examples of what happens when you wait until a guy's ELC expires: Mitch Marner - scored 94 points and made his next contract much more expensive, William Nylander (holdout), Johnny Gaudreau (holdout with Flames), Ryan O'Reilly (offer sheeted), Shea Weber (offer sheeted), Jesperi Kotkaniemi (offer sheeted).

Examples of what happens when you sign a bridge deal: Subban - won the Norris during his bridge and made his next contract much more expensive. Tkachuck, demanded a trade. Laine, demanded a trade. Brayden Point - literally the only example of guy who signed a bridge and didn't sour his relationship with the team afterwards.

Of all the options you can do with an ELC after it's done, signing a bridge is probably the dumbest. Extending early is the smartest because it locks the player from doing any bad things except underperforming.

This is a concept that might come off as abstract to this forum but limiting the amount of bad things that can happen to your team is a good thing.

For all those contract who goes well, you also having those contract who didn't
Monaha, kuznetsov, cirelli, jones, boeser who didn't always goes the right way

2- the fact tkachuk signed a bridge deal was not the reason he had been traded... he could had sign a long term deal and asking for a trade like eichel did and the result would be the same at the end

3- sign as early you can doesn't mean the player are interest to sign it... and signed a guy who had 49 points 8M + long term still risky

 

[Leaf Fans]

Did you even read your own article?

Know what would have made our "cap puzzle not so complex" and opened the space? Not making the bad decision to choose Reaves over Lafferty.

No, it is only your belief. And even facts are not universally relevant. For example, Wednesday comes after Tuesday is a fact, but it is not relevant to discussions about hockey decisions. Similarly, you can think that Gregor won a job over Lafferty for 4th line LW all you want, but it is not relevant to the discussion about Treliving's bad decision to choose Reaves over Lafferty for the 4th line RW spot.

They remain facts. The fact that Gregor won the job over Lafferty is completely relevent. It is what happened in camp.

 

[Dekes For Days]

They remain facts.

They remain your beliefs, and they are not relevant. The only relevant fact is that Treliving chose Reaves over Lafferty. That was a bad decision.

 

[GoonieFace]

of course he can get value for Willie but i don't see him being offered better value than Willie would give us in our quest for the cup

No GM that's been around is perfect and while Tre wasn't at the top of my list i do give him credit for getting AM signed for 4 yrs when reports were he only wanted to go 2/3 yrs so i also have faith in him not completely getting bent over by Nylander , unless of course Willie is hell bent on shopping himself to the highest bidder .

Willy is going to bend them over. Him making over $4 mil/year less than Marner for the past 5 seasons is reason enough for him to squeeze them, and I don’t blame him one bit

 

[Leaf Fans]

They remain your beliefs, and they are not relevant. The only relevant fact is that Treliving chose Reaves over Lafferty. That was a bad decision.

I believe the fact that Gregor won the job over Lafferty. That fact is definitely relevant.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I believe the fact that Gregor won the job over Lafferty. That fact is definitely relevant.

You have a belief that Gregor "won" the 4th line LW spot, despite all evidence suggesting it was a cap-related decision, but that belief is not relevant to the fact that Treliving chose Reaves over Lafferty for the 4th line RW spot. Gregor was not even competing for that spot. Reaves and Lafferty were. And Treliving handed it to the much worse, older, more expensive player, which was a bad decision.

 

[TheRumble]

For all those contract who goes well, you also having those contract who didn't
Monaha, kuznetsov, cirelli, jones, boeser who didn't always goes the right way

2- the fact tkachuk signed a bridge deal was not the reason he had been traded... he could had sign a long term deal and asking for a trade like eichel did and the result would be the same at the end

Kuznetov actually signed a bridge deal out of his ELC, he signed his third extension after. And it turned out pretty well, he was one of the reasons the Caps won the 17-18 Cup. It only soured in the last few seasons which will happen. Not all 8 years of an 8 year deal will go perfectly.

Monahan got injured. Bad luck

Tkahchuk wanted to sign long term with the Flames, one of the reasons why he demanded a trade was the bridge contract. If he had signed long term, he still could have demanded a trade but couldn't enforce his conditions on a trade. The Flames wouldn't have been limited in that instance since young players don't have NTCs.

3- sign as early you can doesn't mean the player are interest to sign it... and signed a guy who had 49 points 8M + long term still risky

Not if you know anything about hockey. The Devils are an analytically driven team, they recognized Hughes talent before hockey fans. Most young franchise players improve during their early 20's locking them up while they're young guarantees you their peak years at a discount.

 

[Nineteen67]

Willy is going to bend them over. Him making over $4 mil/year less than Marner for the past 5 seasons is reason enough for him to squeeze them, and I don’t blame him one bit

Matthews at fours yrs may have eliminated them from Cup contention when you factor in Willy’s cap and then Marner.

 

[80shockeywasbuns]

They remain your beliefs, and they are not relevant. The only relevant fact is that Treliving chose Reaves over Lafferty. That was a bad decision.

It’s the Patrick’s Wallet meme