Tribute Jack Campbell Discussion

[Legion34]

Track records are great but so far this year his track record has not been good so unless he has some miraculous turn around he will be hard to move at his current price

5 games? NHL GMs have longer memories than that.

3.8 is 1b goalie territory. We are talking Reimer. Bernier khodobin halak territory


Mrazek is easily that. I was on the record wanting to give Campbell the reigns to try to get a younger goalie…….. 3.8 for a 1a goalie is fine value.

5 games and a groin pull doesn’t change a 29’year old goalies value

 

[sparxx87]

Based on what? I swear people here don’t pay attention to anything outside the leafs sphere. Mrazek is a good goalie signed to a good deal.

Ironic you say that.

If he’s a good goalie on a good deal, why would they move him for nothing but cap space? And how is it you describe Mrazek as stable when he’s spent so much time on IR, unavailable to play for his teams? This has become a pattern at this point over several years.

Your blind optimism is admirable, though.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Ironic you say that.

If he’s a good goalie on a good deal, why would they move him for nothing but cap space? And how is it you describe Mrazek as stable when he’s spent so much time on IR, unavailable to play for his teams? This has become a pattern at this point over several years.

Your blind optimism is admirable, though.

We wouldn't - unless we really need the cap space.

 

[sparxx87]

We wouldn't - unless we really need the cap space.

If they’re able to re-sign Campbell for the $5M-$6M he’s expected to fetch, won’t that almost certainly be the case?

Can they really afford that much money on their backup goalie regardless?

 

[ToneDog]

If Mrazek is all the things you claim he is why would the Leafs even consider getting rid of him?

Better yet why are they not playing him more ? I personally think he is a good goalie and I would play him but I also don't think it will be as easy to move him as some of the optimists do.

 

[Gary Nylund]

If they’re able to re-sign Campbell for the $5M-$6M he’s expected to fetch, won’t that almost certainly be the case?

Probably.

Can they really afford that much money on their backup goalie regardless?

Probably not.

 

[ToneDog]

If they’re able to re-sign Campbell for the $5M-$6M he’s expected to fetch, won’t that almost certainly be the case?

Can they really afford that much money on their backup goalie regardless?

They can't afford Jack at 5-6m and Mrazek at 3.8m and it wouldn't be wise to spend that much on goaltending when 4 forwards are taking half the cap.

If Jack gets close to his asking, he's gonna be playing most of the games. What team with a cap crunch has 3.8m sitting on the bench ??

 

[Gary Nylund]

Better yet why are they not playing him more ? I personally think he is a good goalie and I would play him but I also don't think it will be as easy to move him as some of the optimists do.

I think they should be playing him more as well. As for moving him, I understand why people say he'll be easy to move but it's also true IMO that it might not be that simple. Yes he is a goalie with an established track record signed to a fair contract and he hasn't played enough this season to say he's not that good any more. On the other hand, if he doesn't play than eventually his value will go down for sure and if he only plays 10 games this season, he will be hard to move. And the longer they wait to play him, the more pressure there will on him to play well and every start will be magnified in terms of impact on his value.

They really need to start playing him more, like as of yesterday!

 

[ToneDog]

I think they should be playing him more as well. As for moving him, I understand why people say he'll be easy to move but it's also true IMO that it might not be that simple. Yes he is a goalie with an established track record signed to a fair contract and he hasn't played enough this season to say he's not that good any more. On the other hand, if he doesn't play than eventually his value will go down for sure and if he only plays 10 games this season, he will be hard to move. And the longer they wait to play him, the more pressure there will on him to play well and every start will be magnified in terms of impact on his value.

They really need to start playing him more, like as of yesterday!

I believe he played 12 games last year. Yeah pretty sure there is a GM out that that will be glad to pay up and take 2 more years at 3.8 in cap space and owed 8.6m in real dollars. God bless the Leaf optimists.

 

[Legion34]

Better yet why are they not playing him more ? I personally think he is a good goalie and I would play him but I also don't think it will be as easy to move him as some of the optimists do.

because he was hurt and they are playing 2 games a week.

If your goalie is hot and likes that rhythm you keep playing him. They already said when the sched ramps up it will be a more even split

 

[ToneDog]

because he was hurt and they are playing 2 games a week.

If your goalie is hot and likes that rhythm you keep playing him. They already said when the sched ramps up it will be a more even split

I'd like to see him given a stretch of games to see if he can be the #1. This would give the Leafs some leverage when negotiating with Soup and might allow them to move Soup if push came to shove (although that would take one big set of onions). Of course if 35 blows out his groin again ....

 

[Stephen]

A perfect goalie tandem partner for Campbell is Anthony Stolarz in Anaheim. He’s behind Gibson and in front of Dostal and has 1 year left on his deal after this season.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I believe he played 12 games last year. Yeah pretty sure there is a GM out that that will be glad to pay up and take 2 more years at 3.8 in cap space and owed 8.6m in real dollars. God bless the Leaf optimists.

The fact that he's played so little this season is definitely becoming more concerning as time goes by.

because he was hurt and they are playing 2 games a week.

If your goalie is hot and likes that rhythm you keep playing him. They already said when the sched ramps up it will be a more even split

I understand the thinking behind that but I don't agree. I think they should be playing him more already, 2 games a week or not. There's only so many games left in the season and this point, I'd say that establishing Mrazek's trade value in case we need to move him is probably more important then a few points in the standings.

 

[sparxx87]

The fact that he's played so little this season is definitely becoming more concerning as time goes by.



I understand the thinking behind that but I don't agree. I think they should be playing him more already, 2 games a week or not. There's only so many games left in the season and this point, I'd say that establishing Mrazek's trade value in case we need to move him is probably more important then a few points in the standings.

The other line of thinking would be more interest in seeing Jack Campbell carry a full season starter workload before agreeing to pay him as such. That’s still a fair question I’d have at the negotiating table.

Never understand why they signed Mrazek in the first place.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Just gonna say, I think people are crazy to be talking about offering a huge contract to Campbell. I still have a dozen questions about him, his physical ability to play long stretches of games, his ability to do what he has long term, his mental toughness in the playoffs, etc. Think about how many goalies over the years had a great season or two and then fell off a cliff. Jim Carey won the friggin' Vezina. Raycroft the Calder. I've seen so many hot goalies come and go. 3 years ago I was furious with Dubas for letting McElhinney go. Now I'm eternally grateful.

And I'll say again, Campbell still seems loose to me and gets out of position a lot. I like him, we're lucky to have him but I am completely unsold on a large, long term contract. Especially at his age. I would 100% let someone else risk a big contract for him which means @ToneDog has a pretty good point about a deadline deal.

 

[ToneDog]

The other line of thinking would be more interest in seeing Jack Campbell carry a full season starter workload before agreeing to pay him as such. That’s still a fair question I’d have at the negotiating table.

Never understand why they signed Mrazek in the first place.

Signing Mrazek was insurance in case Campbell could not handle the #1G duties. Clearly he has/can so the Mrazek deal looks unnecessary in hindsight IMO.

 

[Mess]

When I set my expectations on this season I have to admit that Jack Campbell was the #1 X-factor for me as to where the Leafs would finish in the Atlantic Div.

JC had never played more than 30 games in a season or starts and was suppose to be only a 1A or 1B in a split tandem netminding plan this year.

Well Campbell's play, his nightly steady performance and his All-Star game named near league leading stats have exceeded all expectations.

Not only should Mrazek have played 10 or more of Campbell's starts of the Leafs 36 games played but Campbell's lights out play is the #1 reason for Leafs current success in the Atlantic race.

 

[sparxx87]

Signing Mrazek was insurance in case Campbell could not handle the #1G duties. Clearly he has/can so the Mrazek deal looks unnecessary in hindsight IMO.

Nah I get the need for insurance, I just didn’t like Mrazek as a candidate. He’s wildly inconsistent and his health has been a concern over the last two years. For that kind of money it needed to be someone more reliable.

I would have been looking at $2M or less. There’s a few names in that bracket that would have been more appealing than Mrazek for the money they paid IMO

 

[Gary Nylund]

The other line of thinking would be more interest in seeing Jack Campbell carry a full season starter workload before agreeing to pay him as such. That’s still a fair question I’d have at the negotiating table.

Never understand why they signed Mrazek in the first place.

I assume the thinking was that they would go with a tandem which is logical but then Mrazek got hurt.

I'm sold on Campbell, in fact I was sold on him last summer. Can never be 100% sure of course but I'm sold enough that I'd get him signed and then focus on bumping up Mrazek's value - not doing that could become a huge problem because it's almost impossible to see how we could afford them both next season. The only way that comes to mind is trade Marner and be OK with spending ~10 million of the cap on goalies, not sure anyone wants to see that (though it might be preferable to not being able to afford Campbell).

 

[Gary Nylund]

Just gonna say, I think people are crazy to be talking about offering a huge contract to Campbell. I still have a dozen questions about him, his physical ability to play long stretches of games, his ability to do what he has long term, his mental toughness in the playoffs, etc. Think about how many goalies over the years had a great season or two and then fell off a cliff. Jim Carey won the friggin' Vezina. Raycroft the Calder. I've seen so many hot goalies come and go. 3 years ago I was furious with Dubas for letting McElhinney go. Now I'm eternally grateful.

And I'll say again, Campbell still seems loose to me and gets out of position a lot. I like him, we're lucky to have him but I am completely unsold on a large, long term contract. Especially at his age. I would 100% let someone else risk a big contract for him which means @ToneDog has a pretty good point about a deadline deal.

What's the alternative? I get it, Campbell's a gamble but if not Campbell then what, roll with Mrazek as our #1? Bring back Reimer? The problem is the lack of alternatives but in any case, Jack's been so good for us that I'd rather roll with him then to back to square one.

 

[Racer88]

Better yet why are they not playing him more ? I personally think he is a good goalie and I would play him but I also don't think it will be as easy to move him as some of the optimists do.

That was kind of my thoughts……but what do we know. Lol

 

[ToneDog]

Nah I get the need for insurance, I just didn’t like Mrazek as a candidate. He’s wildly inconsistent and his health has been a concern over the last two years. For that kind of money it needed to be someone more reliable.

I would have been looking at $2M or less. There’s a few names in that bracket that would have been more appealing than Mrazek for the money they paid IMO

Possible Dubas panicked and jumped to the front of the line to overpay Mrazek. $3.8x3 looks rich for a goalie who has had a history of health issues over the last two years. Add that he is owed more real dollars than his cap hit and it looks worse IMO. Needed to hit on a Darth Vador but imagine the toxicity level with a miss and Campbell proving he could not handle the #1G role. Dubas should be thanking his lucky stars that Soup has exceeded expectation by a huge margin.

 

[Racer88]

Possible Dubas panicked and jumped to the front of the line to overpay Mrazek. $3.8x3 looks rich for a goalie who has had a history of health issues over the last two years. Add that he is owed more real dollars than his cap hit and it looks worse IMO. Needed to hit on a Darth Vador but imagine the toxicity level with a miss and Campbell proving he could not handle the #1G role. Dubas should be thanking his lucky stars that Soup has exceeded expectation by a huge margin.

I think you are 100% correct

 

[ShaneFalco]

Posted this earlier

Gotta question the thinking on Soup - one question was can he stay healthy (he has), but if he couldn't, your next option is an often injured backup. He stays healthy and plays well, price goes up, he plays crappy and your next best option is an oft-injured backup

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

What's the alternative? I get it, Campbell's a gamble but if not Campbell then what, roll with Mrazek as our #1? Bring back Reimer? The problem is the lack of alternatives but in any case, Jack's been so good for us that I'd rather roll with him then to back to square one.

I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people than me that follow the league better and know what options will be available. Presumably, Dubas and his staff are researching this as well. I'd rather gamble on Mrazek than give Campbell something like $6.5M x 6 though.