Toggle sidebar

Tribute Jack Campbell Discussion

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The best part is the posters criticizing Dubas now for not signing Campbell to a longterm starting contract in the offseason were the same ones saying then that Campbell couldn't be relied upon performance wise or healthwise and that Mrazek would likely be the starter this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ANDI P IS CUTE, LeafParade, The Podium and 3 others
zeke said:
The best part is the posters criticizing Dubas now for not signing Campbell to a longterm starting contract in the offseason were the same ones saying then that Campbell couldn't be relied upon performance wise or healthwise and that Mrazek would likely be the starter this year.
Click to expand...

Not me. I thought it made sense to give Campbell a shot at the starter's job when Fred really started slipping and he's done just about everything you could ask to prove he's up for it (aside from a bit of a shaky outing in Game 7 vs. MTL). I may not be right often, but it looks like I might have been right on this one.

In my opinion, Dubas should've put his faith in Campbell this off-season by inking him to a long-term deal. Then figure out what is left over for the backup/1B. If that's Mrazek, great. If that didn't leave room for Mrazek or someone comparable, then you start looking at cheaper options. But not getting cost certainty on Campbell when our cap is so tight was a mistake (IMO).

In a perfect world with unlimited resources, allowing Jack to play out his contract and then re-evaluate would have made sense. But we don't live in that world and I think betting on Jack was a gamble worth taking.

Now, Dubas might not have the same level of faith in Campbell that I do. Or maybe Jack had no inclination to re-sign last year and wanted to bet on himself to raise his stock. If it's the latter, there's not much Dubas could do. Though I would argue that in that case, investing a significant chunk of change (and term) in Mrazek was short-sighted since it further limits what kind of raise we can offer Jack. I am not one who believes Mrazek's contact will be easily moved if he has a lackluster and/or injury-plagued season. If Campbell was open to it (and I suspect he would have been), last off-season seems like the optimal time to get a bit of a deal on a guy who was ready to take on the starter's job but didn't have the track record to demand huge money. Given Jack's story and the way he talks about his experience in Toronto, I think he would have been agreeable to a long-term commitment from the Leafs at a team-friendly figure.

I am not one to crap on Dubas. I certainly don't look for reasons to bitch about him. I don't advocate him being fired. But being proactive in resigning key guys has not been his forte and may ultimately be his Achilles heel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Nylund
zeke said:
The best part is the posters criticizing Dubas now for not signing Campbell to a longterm starting contract in the offseason were the same ones saying then that Campbell couldn't be relied upon performance wise or healthwise and that Mrazek would likely be the starter this year.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. They set it up that way.

They think they are smart, but if they were....they would recognize that this team is very close right now.

But not a lot of bright ones are here anymore. They got driven away by the negative and tr*lling posters that we seem to have a lot of left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leafidelity, The Podium and thinkblue
LeBrun rumblings: Jack Campbell's next contract, Ducks' GM search, Eric Staal's future - The Athletic

Sources said this week there haven’t been any material talks between the Leafs and Campbell’s camp led, by agent Kurt Overhardt, over the past month, so basically things went quiet once the regular season began.

Campbell, a pending UFA, is obviously looking at a sizeable raise over his $1.65 million AAV. It’s pretty clear he wants to stay in Toronto where he loves it and has found a great career opportunity. It’s also pretty clear where the market is for starting goalies.

The Cal Petersen extension stings the Leafs. I suspect they were not thrilled with it. Petersen, 27, signed it after just 54 games in the NHL. Campbell, 29, is approaching 100 games. You better believe Overhardt will bring up that contract in his discussions with the Leafs if he didn’t already back in September when it was signed.

On the flip side, Juuse Saros has a deeper track record than Campbell and signing for $5 million will be useful for the Leafs in their efforts to get Campbell for less than $5 million a year. The bottom line is, if Campbell is staying in Toronto past this season, given the Leafs’ cap issues, his AAV probably has to start with a “4” even though the market would seemingly indicate around $5 million a year or more is his value on a 4-5 year deal if he has another solid year.

“It is hard to see how he wouldn’t be ahead of Petersen and (Linus) Ullmark, and he might end up ahead of (Elvis) Merzlikins as well,’’ said one rival NHL team executive.

That would be tough for the Leafs to make work.

But let’s see how the season plays out. If Campbell shows durability and leads the Leafs over the playoff hump, that’s a win-win for both sides and I would imagine the Leafs would gladly perform cap gymnastics to lock him up.

Even as it stands with the Morgan Rielly extension, Toronto once again will have a tricky offseason cap-wise. The Campbell contract obviously adds to that.

And no doubt Leafs management will point out in their talks with Campbell’s camp that Rielly left money on the table to extend with the Leafs. They will hope Campbell does the same to make it work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saffronleaf
hockeywiz542 said:
LeBrun rumblings: Jack Campbell's next contract, Ducks' GM search, Eric Staal's future - The Athletic

Sources said this week there haven’t been any material talks between the Leafs and Campbell’s camp led, by agent Kurt Overhardt, over the past month, so basically things went quiet once the regular season began.

Campbell, a pending UFA, is obviously looking at a sizeable raise over his $1.65 million AAV. It’s pretty clear he wants to stay in Toronto where he loves it and has found a great career opportunity. It’s also pretty clear where the market is for starting goalies.

The Cal Petersen extension stings the Leafs. I suspect they were not thrilled with it. Petersen, 27, signed it after just 54 games in the NHL. Campbell, 29, is approaching 100 games. You better believe Overhardt will bring up that contract in his discussions with the Leafs if he didn’t already back in September when it was signed.

On the flip side, Juuse Saros has a deeper track record than Campbell and signing for $5 million will be useful for the Leafs in their efforts to get Campbell for less than $5 million a year. The bottom line is, if Campbell is staying in Toronto past this season, given the Leafs’ cap issues, his AAV probably has to start with a “4” even though the market would seemingly indicate around $5 million a year or more is his value on a 4-5 year deal if he has another solid year.

“It is hard to see how he wouldn’t be ahead of Petersen and (Linus) Ullmark, and he might end up ahead of (Elvis) Merzlikins as well,’’ said one rival NHL team executive.

That would be tough for the Leafs to make work.

But let’s see how the season plays out. If Campbell shows durability and leads the Leafs over the playoff hump, that’s a win-win for both sides and I would imagine the Leafs would gladly perform cap gymnastics to lock him up.

Even as it stands with the Morgan Rielly extension, Toronto once again will have a tricky offseason cap-wise. The Campbell contract obviously adds to that.

And no doubt Leafs management will point out in their talks with Campbell’s camp that Rielly left money on the table to extend with the Leafs. They will hope Campbell does the same to make it work.
Click to expand...

rival team thinks he is worth more than he is worth. Surprise!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hockeywiz542 and saffronleaf
Menzinger said:
Giving him a longer term deal off of just 29 good games, and considering he's never played a full season as even a 1b was a risk very few GMs would have taken
Click to expand...
isn't 4 years at 5 million, just as risky as 8 years at 2.5 million. It's still 20 million at the end of the day. One has an AAV we could handle. Would Campbell take the security over the cash is the dilemma.
 
Confucius said:
isn't 4 years at 5 million, just as risky as 8 years at 2.5 million. It's still 20 million at the end of the day. One has an AAV we could handle. Would Campbell take the security over the cash is the dilemma.
Click to expand...
He would be off the books in 4 years, that’s obviously preferable
 
ACC1224 said:
He would be off the books in 4 years, that’s obviously preferable
Click to expand...
I think we can't afford him at 5, besides it's more than likely he won't be worse than a mediocre backup.

The 2.5 is a pipe dream now I agree but my proposal is still valid, give him a max deal which would yield a low AAV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACC1224
when was the first day he could have signed a new deal ?

I know he didn’t sign then, I’m just trying to understand the details of player signing
 
Jack's playing his ass off and has been our MVP , didn't expect him to play this well , hopefully he can keep it up and we don't wear him out .

The guy's pushing 30 and hasn't made jack shit so far so hopefully his play enables him to hit the jackpot (lame puns intended , lol) even if i messes with our cap . He's a great person from all accounts and deserves to set himself and his family up for the future financially .
 
  • Like
Reactions: acrobaticgoalie and Confucius
Confucius said:
isn't 4 years at 5 million, just as risky as 8 years at 2.5 million. It's still 20 million at the end of the day. One has an AAV we could handle. Would Campbell take the security over the cash is the dilemma.
Click to expand...

I think he'd prefer the four year deal if he felt it wouldn't be his last NHL contract. The max term deal would probably only be tougher for the team in the (unlikely?) event of a buyout. I figure the AAV will ultimately settle somewhere in between the two amounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Confucius
Buds17 said:
I think he'd prefer the four year deal if he felt it wouldn't be his last NHL contract. The max term deal would probably only be tougher for the team in the (unlikely?) event of a buyout. I figure the AAV will ultimately settle somewhere in between the two amounts.
Click to expand...
Probably.

All I was trying to say is, I'd rather sign him for too long than pay market rate for a 3 or 4 year deal. Not to try and rip the guy off but if I was Dubas I would be pushing the side, here you are guaranteed for 8 years for x amount. as opposed to xx amount for 2 or 3 years like Mrazek and many others. Would you really want to go through negotiations every 3 years? Hopefully your health and game doesn't deteriorate. I'd offer security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buds17
zeke said:
The best part is the posters criticizing Dubas now for not signing Campbell to a longterm starting contract in the offseason were the same ones saying then that Campbell couldn't be relied upon performance wise or healthwise and that Mrazek would likely be the starter this year.
Click to expand...
I’m not a Dubas fan but you can’t fault him for that. Campbell didn’t have the resume to sign a big contract. This isn’t an 18 year old Matthews who you gave pegged as franchise center.
Too much unknown and the right thing was done here. It’s up to Campbell to play his contract for the future. Then we have decisions to make.
We may or may not be able to keep him. If he gives a team deal ok, If he tests free agency, we can be outbid like Hyman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leaf Rocket and ACC1224
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom