JVR at the deadline

[nuck]

Doesn't JVR have a modified no trade clause? So pretty much what you're looking at is he's only going to a potential winner, or at least a team in the playoffs. So unless the Leafs are basement dwellers again, JVR is here to stay.

So he has a short list of clubs which are automatic, and a likely a few others which he would consider in addition. It just means he isn't a sure bet to be dealt, like he might be without a NT.

If the Leafs are wiling to take some salary back, he is dealable for a nice trade deadline overpayment, because he is in his prime and a club gets him for two playoffs instead of one. If a club is on his list, say the Rangers or Caps for example, and they have $3-$4M in 17-18 salary to send back in a dump, he is probably worth more than he would be in the summer when he has only one playoff to offer. If the clubs he likes are not really interested in him at the deadline then he likely moves in the summer when they have his full market to trade with and not just the rental market.

Its arguable whether they would deal him during a playoff race, so that is dependant on how good the offer would be and how important they think he is to them. I don't think they are a better club without him, and I am not sure how much they think he is needed to make the playoffs, but I would move him now for the right deal because I think they sink or swim with goaltending, not his scoring. It would be unfortunate if they kept him in hopes of a playoff and still got passed by other clubs.

 

[Oskar The Groucho]

Just trade him please dont let him walk for nothing.... Honestly now is the best time to trade him

 

[The CyNick]

We've had this discussion, it's tedious. There are numerous studies that show forwards peak at 26 or 27. They may not be done after that, but the returns get progressively worse with every successive year on the wrong side of 27.

You can still be a very effective player past your peak. For some reason I'm guessing you won't be advocating to get rid of Marner, Matthews, and Nylander when they hit 26. A more rational person would understand what attributes a player has that will deminish with age. JVR should be able to be a net presence with good hands for another decade if he chooses to.

I'm not saying keep him at all costs, but I don't think you guys who want to trade him for any 4th or 5th D man make a lot of sense. At the very least he can help us win in the playoffs for the next two seasons. That's more valuable to me than the type of player he will likely return, given the pending cliff he's about to fall off, as you pointed out.

 

[Kiwi]

Seems like a classic case of taking a #4 and asking him to be a #2. Has failed written all over it. My guess is he'll never be a true top pairing guy.

He's solid defensively and plays well with puck moving partners
He's doing that job with the Ducks now and he can take tough match ups

He would go a long way to shoring up the backend and slotting the other RD down a spot which makes the defense stronger as a group
You also upgrade defensively on JVR who is a black hole in his own end and that's a massive improvement defensively for the team as a whole

Not even taking the cap savings into account

 

[moon111]

As far as I know, it's more they have to ask him for the list. The list doesn't exist. So if they ask him, one he's going to be pissed. And then he HAS to be traded. He might not exactly be choosing quality trading partners. I think it doesn't play out well. And because of it, don't think the return would be as high as without the limited no-trade clause.

 

[Menzinger]

Right, so guys who don't solve our problem, but cost us assets. Not a big fan. I would rather sign guys who can replace our 5th and 6th guys and hope we find another top 4 internally.

Adding another top four D man instantly improves the team's defense - not sure how you could say that doesn't solve anything.

Ideally the Leafs can add in one from a trade and via internal development

 

[White Shadow]

You can still be a very effective player past your peak. For some reason I'm guessing you won't be advocating to get rid of Marner, Matthews, and Nylander when they hit 26. A more rational person would understand what attributes a player has that will deminish with age. JVR should be able to be a net presence with good hands for another decade if he chooses to.

I'm not saying keep him at all costs, but I don't think you guys who want to trade him for any 4th or 5th D man make a lot of sense. At the very least he can help us win in the playoffs for the next two seasons. That's more valuable to me than the type of player he will likely return, given the pending cliff he's about to fall off, as you pointed out.

I didn't say he wouldn't be effective. I simply stated he would regress while at the same time be paid more than he is now.

I don't think anyone agrees it's a good idea to pay someone more money to be less productive.

 

[MagicalRazor]

As far as I know, it's more they have to ask him for the list. The list doesn't exist. So if they ask him, one he's going to be pissed. And then he HAS to be traded. He might not exactly be choosing quality trading partners. I think it doesn't play out well. And because of it, don't think the return would be as high as without the limited no-trade clause.

our window closed last deadline , he had no list then . we could have traded him any where .

 

[hotpaws]

You can still be a very effective player past your peak. For some reason I'm guessing you won't be advocating to get rid of Marner, Matthews, and Nylander when they hit 26. A more rational person would understand what attributes a player has that will deminish with age. JVR should be able to be a net presence with good hands for another decade if he chooses to.

I'm not saying keep him at all costs, but I don't think you guys who want to trade him for any 4th or 5th D man make a lot of sense. At the very least he can help us win in the playoffs for the next two seasons. That's more valuable to me than the type of player he will likely return, given the pending cliff he's about to fall off, as you pointed out.

why do people always **** up a players age when they're trying to prove a point ?

He's 27 now and turns 28 in May but more importantly he'll be 29 at the start of his next contract he'll be 29 .

it's shocking after multiple examples some still haven't learned it's better to trade a player 1 year early than try to trade him a year too late

- gotta re sign Lupul , got no one to replace him and he'll be worth more extended
- gotta re sign Phaneuf , got no one to replace him and he'll be worth more extended
- JML , gotta re sign him

you said in a previous post you wanted to re sign him for 8 years at around 5m , i don't him accepting 5m and i don't see the Leafs offering him that term

 

[ShaneFalco]

Yeah as Leaf fans we should be the first ones to realize you don't sign a 29 year old to a long term contract. Especially someone who is one dimensional

 

[The CyNick]

I didn't say he wouldn't be effective. I simply stated he would regress while at the same time be paid more than he is now.

I don't think anyone agrees it's a good idea to pay someone more money to be less productive.

It's the nature of the system. You pay guys the most when they hit that age. Like I said, what about MNM? You gonna let them walk at 26?

 

[The CyNick]

why do people always **** up a players age when they're trying to prove a point ?

He's 27 now and turns 28 in May but more importantly he'll be 29 at the start of his next contract he'll be 29 .

it's shocking after multiple examples some still haven't learned it's better to trade a player 1 year early than try to trade him a year too late

- gotta re sign Lupul , got no one to replace him and he'll be worth more extended
- gotta re sign Phaneuf , got no one to replace him and he'll be worth more extended
- JML , gotta re sign him

you said in a previous post you wanted to re sign him for 8 years at around 5m , i don't him accepting 5m and i don't see the Leafs offering him that term

You're quoting me talking about ages of players not named JVR. Hard to have a discussion of you're not going to read what I write.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

It's the nature of the system. You pay guys the most when they hit that age. Like I said, what about MNM? You gonna let them walk at 26?

All of them will be much better players at that age than JVR is now, was, or will be.

Not to mention the Leafs could re-sign them long term when their ELC's are up at 21-22, and potentially carry them to their late 20's with those contracts.

Also I'd wager when the time comes, more people would be willing to re-sign two centres and a two-way high scoring winger long term at 29 than a one-dimensional winger at the same age.

 

[Kiwi]

It's the nature of the system. You pay guys the most when they hit that age. Like I said, what about MNM? You gonna let them walk at 26?

Will they be one dimensional floaters at that age?
Like JVR?

 

[The CyNick]

All of them will be much better players at that age than JVR is now, was, or will be.

Not to mention the Leafs could re-sign them long term when their ELC's are up at 21-22, and potentially carry them to their late 20's with those contracts.

Also I'd wager when the time comes, more people would be willing to resign two centres and a two-way high scoring winger long term at 29 than a one-dimensional winger at the same age.

I dunno, they will all be in their late 20s and about to fall off this imaginary cliff. We don't want to be invested in anyone like that. Best to rebuild at that point and not risk having great players that become slightly worse.

 

[The CyNick]

Will they be one dimensional floaters at that age?
Like JVR?

Nylander possibly

 

[Walshy7]

All of them will be much better players at that age than JVR is now, was, or will be.

Not to mention the Leafs could re-sign them long term when their ELC's are up at 21-22, and potentially carry them to their late 20's with those contracts.

Also I'd wager when the time comes, more people would be willing to resign two centres and a two-way high scoring winger long term at 29 than a one-dimensional winger at the same age.

all 3 are better now in all round games, 2 of them on pace for more points in their rookie seasons and the other on pace for 2 points less. I guess marners on pace may have dropped quite a bit

 

[hotpaws]

You're quoting me talking about ages of players not named JVR. Hard to have a discussion of you're not going to read what I write.

you seemed like you were making a comparison to the JVR trade talk considering that's what this discussion is about

and if you weren't why would you be bringing up trading the players you mentioned ?

 

[Walshy7]

Nylander possibly

Nylander is already a lot better 2way player than JVR and that saying something considering he still has room for improvement

 

[The CyNick]

you seemed like you were making a comparison to the JVR trade talk considering that's what this discussion is about

and if you weren't why would you be bringing up trading the players you mentioned ?

Man, these are a struggle. I would encourage you to read the entire conversation, but I'll help you out.

The one dude mentioned that guys fall off a cliff starting at 26. I asked do we use that same rule for our other players, or for some reason does it only apply to players the dude wants to trade.

 

[The CyNick]

Nylander is already a lot better 2way player than JVR and that saying something considering he still has room for improvement

If he ever did anything worthwhile defensively, I would have remembered it.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

I dunno, they will all be in their late 20s and about to fall off this imaginary cliff. We don't want to be invested in anyone like that. Best to rebuild at that point and not risk having great players that become slightly worse.

Not all players are equal. I personally don't think that teams should avoid signing every player about to hit 30, but there are certainly types of players you avoid signing at that age. Poor defensively, lackadaisical wingers are one of them.

Team situation with regards to the cap also matters. JVR at $5 million (and that's optimistic) is $5 million taken away from paying MNM, and $5 million away from signing a defenseman to shore up our backend.

 

[White Shadow]

It's the nature of the system. You pay guys the most when they hit that age. Like I said, what about MNM? You gonna let them walk at 26?

Maybe. Who knows where the team is or where they are physically at that time. Ridiculous hypothetical that in no way has any bearing on JVR.

Maybe they get locked up til or 30 and you don't make that decision at 26. Maybe we have 2 more teenagers break in the way these kids have done.

 

[Pookie]

why do people always **** up a players age when they're trying to prove a point ?

He's 27 now and turns 28 in May but more importantly he'll be 29 at the start of his next contract he'll be 29 .

it's shocking after multiple examples some still haven't learned it's better to trade a player 1 year early than try to trade him a year too late

- gotta re sign Lupul , got no one to replace him and he'll be worth more extended
- gotta re sign Phaneuf , got no one to replace him and he'll be worth more extended
- JML , gotta re sign him

...

I agree though think asset management is complicated.

Age is a number and there are inherent risks with that number. Skills decline with age. Injury risks increase.

But there's not a hard line as to what age makes sense to keep on a team. Clearly, vets help. And you don't just jettison a guy because he's 29.

For me, the line depends on the status of your core. If your core is good and young you want players that can supplement and support that. To be peaking when they are peaking and you probably want to be thinking of the next replacement crop.

For the Leafs, probably not contenders for 3-4 years.

Which means JVR will be over 30 when it matters. Probably not worth taking the long term risk on at this point. If we need a 30+ year old to play the role he will be playing at that point, we can get a free agent.

That's asset management.

If you buy that, it's worth noting that a contentious player is about 7 months younger than JVR and might be worth looking at too.

I think people forget that time moves on and the value a player has today isn't the same value they will have when it matters.

 

[Canada4Gold]

nvm.