Kadri player discssion thread.

[Falon]

Kadri can always be moved to the wing.

 

[leafs in five]

v concerned about the cap issues that could arise if we get to a point where we have too many good players

 

[Gary Nylund]

No, the Leafs are in a mess because they barely have any players as 'average' as Kadri, let alone better ones.

Yeah I wish all our players were as "average" as Kadri.

 

[Pookie]

Yeah I wish all our players were as "average" as Kadri.

That's the problem. They are.

 

[leafs in five]

That's the problem. They are.

oh you

 

[Gary Nylund]

oh you

I guess that's the way it is - some people come here to talk about hockey, some come here to be cute.

 

[Ovate]

Kadri can always be moved to the wing.

He's been pretty terrible at wing when he started playing for the Leafs.

It'd be better to Nylander and Marner moved to the wing before Kadri.

 

[Nithoniniel]

To spin off the conversation that Gary and I had earlier, later on we can't be giving out contracts that are just fair to players that are not our core players. But for the next years, that won't be a problem. As long as we don't give him max term, at least.

However, losing him and having zero center depth to insulate Nylander and Marner could be.

The thing that should be avoided is a fair contraxt over max term. Second on the list is moving him for a sub-par return.

This could change with his off-ice issues.

 

[Guy Boucher]

To spin off the conversation that Gary and I had earlier, later on we can't be giving out contracts that are just fair to players that are not our core players. But for the next years, that won't be a problem. As long as we don't give him max term, at least.

However, losing him and having zero center depth to insulate Nylander and Marner could be.

The thing that should be avoided is a fair contraxt over max term. Second on the list is moving him for a sub-par return.

This could change with his off-ice issues.

Given what happened his off-season with player contracts and the middle-class being squeezed, you can probably get away with signing him to reasonable money over just 4 years.

That way you have him around for most of the rebuild, plus he's still youngish at the end of his contract and can be traded for assets, and he won't stop us from signing any of our younger players.

 

[Menzinger]

I'd prefer to get him signed on a 4-5 year deal than a 6-8 one.

If his contract demands become a built lofty, as an RFA the leafs could move him for assets in the offseason. The team is in a win-win position. With Madri, they don't have to rush any move.

 

[Gary Nylund]

To spin off the conversation that Gary and I had earlier, later on we can't be giving out contracts that are just fair to players that are not our core players. But for the next years, that won't be a problem. As long as we don't give him max term, at least.

However, losing him and having zero center depth to insulate Nylander and Marner could be.

The thing that should be avoided is a fair contraxt over max term. Second on the list is moving him for a sub-par return.

This could change with his off-ice issues.

Agreed. A 5 years deal is fine. For this to happen I think these things need to happen:

1 - off-ice issues need to be fixed. I'm assuming the issues are minor (or they would have shipped him out already) and this can and will be done.

2 - he has to have a great year. I don't care about the points, he just has to play so that Babcock is happy with him and wants to keep him.

3 - a price has to be agreed on. This goes for all players so hopefully this can be done, 5.5-6m over 5 years seems about right assuming the above points are fulfilled.

 

[Anthrax442]

NHL is killing themselves with the whole "giving out ridiculously long deals" thing. His play warrants a 2-3 year deal max. I wouldn't give any player who isnt a superstar close to 5 years. Let them walk. If there will be more UFAs, they will lose power to negotiate.

 

[burpsalot]

NHL is killing themselves with the whole "giving out ridiculously long deals" thing. His play warrants a 2-3 year deal max. I wouldn't give any player who isnt a superstar close to 5 years. Let them walk. If there will be more UFAs, they will lose power to negotiate.

With the free agents signings & PTO's from this past summer we might get to that sooner than some players like.

 

[Nithoniniel]

NHL is killing themselves with the whole "giving out ridiculously long deals" thing. His play warrants a 2-3 year deal max. I wouldn't give any player who isnt a superstar close to 5 years. Let them walk. If there will be more UFAs, they will lose power to negotiate.

Letting him walk would be the absolute worst thing to do, from a asset management-standpoint.

 

[Menzinger]

Agreed. A 5 years deal is fine. For this to happen I think these things need to happen:

1 - off-ice issues need to be fixed. I'm assuming the issues are minor (or they would have shipped him out already) and this can and will be done.

2 - he has to have a great year. I don't care about the points, he just has to play so that Babcock is happy with him and wants to keep him.

3 - a price has to be agreed on. This goes for all players so hopefully this can be done, 5.5-6m over 5 years seems about right assuming the above points are fulfilled.

I think most people would have a hard time disagreeing with this - sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Ideally I wouldn't sign him for longer than 5 years - but I think the Leafs have put themselves in rather a strong negotiation position given his suspension last season. But if Babcock gives him the "ok" I can't see how anyone can object to the resigning based on "character issues"

 

[Ovate]

NHL is killing themselves with the whole "giving out ridiculously long deals" thing. His play warrants a 2-3 year deal max. I wouldn't give any player who isnt a superstar close to 5 years. Let them walk. If there will be more UFAs, they will lose power to negotiate.

If there are more UFAs, there are more holes in teams to fill and so teams also lose power to negotiate.

What's wrong with giving term to a young player? It's not like Kadri's going go decline considerably by age 30.

Term's an issue when it's given to 29 year old like Clarkson or Zajac. But giving term to a 25 year old just means you keep them through their prime.

 

[TheCLAM]

I like Kadri locked in for 3 years maximum. His body of work even taking into account a projected good season is too small to shell out big dollars

 

[Ovate]

I think most people would have a hard time disagreeing with this - sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Ideally I wouldn't sign him for longer than 5 years - but I think the Leafs have put themselves in rather a strong negotiation position given his suspension last season. But if Babcock gives him the "ok" I can't see how anyone can object to the resigning based on "character issues"

I'm good with a five or six year offer. I'd say start with a five year offer. If he wants more term, offer it to him at a lower cap hit.

My concern is that once his contract is up, he'll be looking for a big paying UFA retirement contract (like Kesler). In about three years after this one is when I see this team really get going, so if Kadri is re-signed to a five year deal, he's only in our cup window for two. Adding another year keeps him around at a reasonable price for longer.

 

[Swayze*]

If there are more UFAs, there are more holes in teams to fill and so teams also lose power to negotiate.

What's wrong with giving term to a young player? It's not like Kadri's going go decline considerably by age 30.

Term's an issue when it's given to 29 year old like Clarkson or Zajac. But giving term to a 25 year old just means you keep them through their prime.

Because if he craps the bed or plays mediocre, you're stuck with him for the duration and takes away flexibility

Trading a long term contract is very very tough now.

 

[TheCLAM]

If there are more UFAs, there are more holes in teams to fill and so teams also lose power to negotiate.

What's wrong with giving term to a young player? It's not like Kadri's going go decline considerably by age 30.

Term's an issue when it's given to 29 year old like Clarkson or Zajac. But giving term to a 25 year old just means you keep them through their prime.

Nope, more UFA's of similar talent decreases contract value. Teams have the ability to call-up young players on ELC's. Team's aren't at a disadvantage depending on how desperate they are to fill a position.

 

[HockeyCA]

In response to a question regarding Kadri's play:

"[o]bviously we're a better team with Bozak in the lineup."

It's going to be interesting to see opinions slowly start to change around here in regards to which player will be viewed as more important to the Leafs moving forward by those actually in a position to decide which direction the team will go. Maybe they will decide to keep both around, and maybe they won't. Right now I think Babcock thinks Bozak is the stronger all around player, who just so happens to be playing on a pretty reasonable contract.

Eventually I think we'll get to the point where all of very very strong "anti bozak" and "pro kadri" positions will be talked about by those so strongly currently opining them as if they never existed.

That's probably how it will go.

 

[Swayze*]

I'd be in no rush to lock him up

If he has another sub par year then you can lowball him

 

[Anthrax442]

This was never an issue pre 05 lockout. Leafs signed Mogilny to a 3 year x 5 mil deal. Nowadays he would get a 7 year front loaded deal. Why? The sooner the GMs stop giving out these stupid deals, the better it will be for the league. NBA teams have no problem letting their good players walk if they don't want to pay them.. Why can't the NHL be like that.

 

[Cor]

v concerned about the cap issues that could arise if we get to a point where we have too many good players

let's take it a couple steps back here

 

[hamzarocks]

This was never an issue pre 05 lockout. Leafs signed Mogilny to a 3 year x 5 mil deal. Nowadays he would get a 7 year front loaded deal. Why? The sooner the GMs stop giving out these stupid deals, the better it will be for the league. NBA teams have no problem letting their good players walk if they don't want to pay them.. Why can't the NHL be like that.

In the nba guys like danny green got 4 years 48 mill, hayward for jazz got 5 year 80 or 90 mill the mex contract. In the nba the cap is different. You can go into luxary tax and rise above the soft cap. Plus nba deals are only allowed to be 5 or 6 years max. Young players almost always get signed in the nba unless they hate their team and ask out, look at eric bledsoe , john henson, brandon knight, brandon jennings, enes kanter, etc good players that were resigned by their teams even if they were overpaid and not really needed