The decisions around next season's goaltending won’t get much harder than this for Kyle Dubas and the Leafs.
theathletic.com
I’d argue there’s less risk going the trade route.
Send an asset out for Cam Talbot or Jonathan Quick or James Reimer, all of whom are heading into the last year of their contracts, and if it doesn’t work out the Leafs could still pivot. They wouldn’t be boxed into a corner.
Commit to Campbell or Kuemper on a pricey, long-term contract and if things go quickly awry the Leafs would be stuck.
If they aren’t sold on the short-term (hopeful) trade fixes, or Campbell or Kuemper, the Leafs could make a play for a high roller like John Gibson – if they believed his ability/upside was higher and thus worth the risks. Gibson’s got a huge contract himself, hasn’t performed great in recent years, and would require a haul of juicy assets for the rebuilding Anaheim Ducks.
So, a no-go in all likelihood on that front.
The short-term trade types don’t feel like terrible options, especially when weighed against the splashy, long-term commitments the free agents will require. (It’s too bad for the Leafs that Semyon Varlamov seems to be unavailable. He would be the ultimate Band-Aid solution.)
Reimer actually outplayed Campbell last season (in the goals saved above-expected department) in almost the same number of games, and his cap hit for next season is tiny ($2.25 million) compared to what Campbell will fetch. Save coin there and the Leafs have more to spend elsewhere (2C?). San Jose has reason to wheel and deal: They’ve got three goalies and a new GM in Mike Grier who may look to turn some things over and rebuild.
Quick, too, performed quite well for the Kings last season. He is also 36 and probably tops out at 50 starts. But he’s all the big-game experience you could ask for. Would Kings GM Rob Blake even want him to move him given the franchise’s upward trajectory, not to mention Quick’s stature within the organization?
Quick’s cap hit next season is also $5.8 million. Would the Kings retain half of that if they were willing to deal Quick? Would the acquisition cost, a little higher for the retention, be worthwhile when the Leafs can trade for others like Talbot and Reimer (no retention) or simply sign Campbell or Kuemper in free agency – albeit with the long-term risks? Maybe.
Talbot is another one-year option, though less appealing than Reimer or Quick. He’s 35 and something of a journeyman, and it has to mean something that the Wild went out and acquired Fleury in the first place at last year’s deadline.
Maybe this: Talbot gave up 17 goals more than expected last season.
Dealing for Ottawa’s Matt Murray, even at half-price (he’s got two years left on his deal with a $6.25 million cap hit), would be an even bigger gamble, with the risk/cost far outweighing the upside. (Let the Senators buy him out and it’s a different story.)
The lowest risk route would have the Leafs trade for Reimer, sign a veteran like Jaroslav Halak in free agency, and see how that works. If it’s a disaster, they can deal for another goalie from a team that’s out of the playoff mix. (An often forgotten reality from last season: The Leafs had some of the worst goaltending in the league for half a season and still finished with 115 points. Even if the goaltending is bad, they’re still getting by in the regular season.)
Jake Allen will be on the last year of his deal with Montreal ($2.8 million cap hit). So will Red Wings No. 2 Alex Nedeljkovic. If the Islanders flame out next season, Varlamov is bound to be available ($5 million cap hit) too.
..................
If I’m ranking the paths to a puzzle that might not have all the pieces:
1. Trade for Reimer (or someone similar with similar upside and risk)
2. Pay Kuemper
3. Pay Campbell
None are obvious. None are easy. And none may be all that reassuring. The decisions won’t get much harder than this for Dubas and the Leafs.
