Kadri player discssion thread.

[Hockey Talker29]

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.

If there was any market for Bozak at all, he'd already be gone.

He's here because he's basically untradeable.

He's too good to send down to the minors or buy-out, since we currently don't need the cap-room or the roster spot.

So, we keep him around.

If a team was willing to give us a 2nd rounder, without us retaining salary, he'd be dealt in the blink of an eye.

Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger basically alluded to that multiple times since the trade deadline last year.

 

[HockeyCA]

If there was any market for Bozak at all, he'd already be gone.

He's here because he's basically untradeable.

He's too good to send down to the minors or buy-out, since we currently don't need the cap-room or the roster spot.

So, we keep him around.

If a team was willing to give us a 2nd rounder, without us retaining salary, he'd be dealt in the blink of an eye.

Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger basically alluded to that multiple times since the trade deadline last year.

I think Mike Babcock disagrees with you.. Because it seems to me that he thinks Bozak is one of the better forwards this team has.

 

[Suntouchable13]

I think Mike Babcock disagrees with you.. Because it seems to me that he thinks Bozak is one of the better forwards this team has.

Well, unfortunately he is and that's why we are a bottom 5 team. Don't say it like it's a good thing Bozak is one of the better forwards on this team.

 

[VainGretzky]

I'd be in no rush to lock him up

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

Double edged sword and if he steps up and has a breakout year which I think he will it will leave less money to attract FA down the road when were competitive again and with Babcock at the coaching helm I think this will be a lot sooner then people think.

 

[burpsalot]

Double edged sword and if he steps up and has a breakout year which I think he will it will leave less money to attract FA down the road when were competitive again and with Babcock at the coaching helm I think this will be a lot sooner then people think.

3-4 years max for everybody, unless he's a real superstar.

 

[Hockey Talker29]

I think Mike Babcock disagrees with you.. Because it seems to me that he thinks Bozak is one of the better forwards this team has.

Babcock is utilizing the pieces that he has. Bozak probably is one of the team's better forwards at the moment. But that doesn't mean he's in the long-term plans.

All indications are that the GMs do not see him that way. I can't blame them. He's past his prime years, and is signed to an inflated contract.

I expect he'll be dealt as soon as a team is willing to take on his full salary. It wouldn't surprise me if the consideration in return becomes incredibly low (i.e. a late pick or future considerations).

From an asset management perspective, his current value is unlikely to drop any further, so it's worth it to try to see if we can get to a point where he can actually get us a draft pick of some substance in return.

 

[VainGretzky]

3-4 years max for everybody, unless he's a real superstar.

Well with Clarkson Kessel and Phaneuf how can I argue with you

 

[Pookie]

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.

If you are talking Center depth for 3 years, Bozak could fit that bill. A 3 year deal would take him into the early side of his 30s. A natural progression would be to then step aside and youth takes over.

I don't see him as part of the long term future but a 2-3 year bridge?

They could do worse and he already has 2 years remaining on his deal after this year. Just let him play out his current contract and 4.2M cap hit.

 

[HockeyCA]

Well, unfortunately he is and that's why we are a bottom 5 team. Don't say it like it's a good thing Bozak is one of the better forwards on this team.

My overall point is that if he views Bozak as perhaps the best center the Leafs currently have on the roster, then those who hold the opinion that the Leafs should move Bozak while signing Kadri to a long term deal are essentially in conflict with perhaps the best head coach in the entire league..

And I think I would trust his judgment on what it takes to build a winning hockey club over anyone on a "fan" message board.

But I also see your point in regards to how we should view our current group of players. I think we just disagree as to which players of the current group can and should be part of the eventual solution.

 

[Gary Nylund]

My overall point is that if he views Bozak as perhaps the best center the Leafs currently have on the roster, then those who hold the opinion that the Leafs should move Bozak while signing Kadri to a long term deal are essentially in conflict with perhaps the best head coach in the entire league..

And I think I would trust his judgment on what it takes to build a winning hockey club over anyone on a "fan" message board.

But I also see your point in regards to how we should view our current group of players. I think we just disagree as to which players of the current group can and should be part of the eventual solution.

That's a pretty big IF. I'd say the odds of him thinking that are near zero.

 

[Menzinger]

Babcock is utilizing the pieces that he has. Bozak probably is one of the team's better forwards at the moment. But that doesn't mean he's in the long-term plans.

All indications are that the GMs do not see him that way. I can't blame them. He's past his prime years, and is signed to an inflated contract.

I expect he'll be dealt as soon as a team is willing to take on his full salary. It wouldn't surprise me if the consideration in return becomes incredibly low (i.e. a late pick or future considerations).

From an asset management perspective, his current value is unlikely to drop any further, so it's worth it to try to see if we can get to a point where he can actually get us a draft pick of some substance in return.

Yep, agreed completely.

Babcock uses Bozak because he has two - the team really doesn't have a lot of centre options. I suspect the ram is trying to "rehab" Bozak and see if they can turn him into a pice that other teams may value.

 

[Bluelines]

That's a pretty big IF. I'd say the odds of him thinking that are near zero.

How did you come-up with those odds?

 

[Menzinger]

If you are talking Center depth for 3 years, Bozak could fit that bill. A 3 year deal would take him into the early side of his 30s. A natural progression would be to then step aside and youth takes over.

I don't see him as part of the long term future but a 2-3 year bridge?

They could do worse and he already has 2 years remaining on his deal after this year. Just let him play out his current contract and 4.2M cap hit.

But we don't know what kind of player Bozak is without Kessel and with his usage reduced.

We know Kadri is capable of hitting 50 points without needing to ride another players coat tails. Personally I think Kadri can be a useful player on a good team - Bozak just seems to be the definition of a placeholder

I suspect that management will want to be competitive in a year or two (ie Hunter's reference to a 5 year plan) - I think they'd pick the player they value more in that time set.

We know the management team were listening to offers for Bozak at the previous draft and we know they value things like advanced stats - these things don't bold well for his future with the Leafs.

 

[Pookie]

But we don't know what kind of player Bozak is without Kessel and with his usage reduced.

We know Kadri is capable of hitting 50 points without needing to ride another players coat tails. Personally I think Kadri can be a useful player on a good team - Bozak just seems to be the definition of a placeholder

I suspect that management will want to be competitive in a year or two (ie Hunter's reference to a 5 year plan) - I think they'd pick the player they value more in that time set.

We know the management team were listening to offers for Bozak at the previous draft and we know they value things like advanced stats - these things don't bold well for his future with the Leafs.

Well here's the thing. We don't know what kind of player Bozak is without Kessel but so far... and it's really early... Babcock has gone to him as the forward that leads all forwards in ice time and kept the "A" with him.

At the end of the day, a 2-3 year bridge means nothing really. The team won't be good. So maybe Bozak puts up 30 points. Who cares? We are simply filling roster space until youth takes over

You say Kadri is a 50 point guy. Maybe. He is also on a bit of a downward trend. He has also been suspended for off ice issues. He may clean it up. He may light it up. Or not.

Bozak has 3 years left on his deal and a 4.2M cap hit.

Kadri will need a long(er) term deal.

Bozak is what Bozak is. We don't know what Kadri is.

Bozak is the sure thing.

Kadri is the risk.

Why gamble with another bad contract when it doesn't matter?

Kadri generally makes sense if you are thinking 5 years down the road and competing for 5-8 years. But to get there, you need an long term one and to accept the risk of having an untradeable contract if it goes sour.

 

[Menzinger]

I'd certainly admit there is risk with a Kadri contract, but given his age I'd feel more comfortable with him on a multi year deal, than continue to have Bozak who's turning 30, and that we've likely seen the best of in terms of play. Even if Kadri plateaus at 45 points, paired with good possession numbers 5 million is hardly a terrible contract, if anything it's market value for a player of that type.

We will just have to wait and see what management decides.

 

[RLF]

3-4 years max for everybody, unless he's a real superstar.

Exactly my thinking as well. No offence to Kadri, but if he is projected as our second line centre...why lock him up for 5 or 6 years at 5+ million per year? By year 3 of the deal, we may have already developed a young second line centre who is just as good/better and would cost less. If not, we re-sign Kadri for another 3-4 years if he has continued to prove himself. We need to stop the long term stuff unless it's a no brainer(ie probably Rielly).

3 years at $5-$5.5 if he has a positive season all around is more than a fair contract at this point for Naz.imo

 

[hamzarocks]

Well here's the thing. We don't know what kind of player Bozak is without Kessel but so far... and it's really early... Babcock has gone to him as the forward that leads all forwards in ice time and kept the "A" with him.

At the end of the day, a 2-3 year bridge means nothing really. The team won't be good. So maybe Bozak puts up 30 points. Who cares? We are simply filling roster space until youth takes over

You say Kadri is a 50 point guy. Maybe. He is also on a bit of a downward trend. He has also been suspended for off ice issues. He may clean it up. He may light it up. Or not.

Bozak has 3 years left on his deal and a 4.2M cap hit.

Kadri will need a long(er) term deal.

Bozak is what Bozak is. We don't know what Kadri is.

Bozak is the sure thing.

Kadri is the risk.

Why gamble with another bad contract when it doesn't matter?

Kadri generally makes sense if you are thinking 5 years down the road and competing for 5-8 years. But to get there, you need an long term one and to accept the risk of having an untradeable contract if it goes sour.

kadri is better player than bozak right now, yet offers more potential. He is better offensively, has better advance stats for the past 3 or 4 years., and plays a better game. He generates more chances and is better at utilizing his teammates. Plays die on bozaks stick. He also plays 16:35 TOI compared to kadri who plays 17 mins. He has a better f/o yes he wins 57 percent vs kadri who wins 49 percent. Kadri is not a risk or unknown, he is a 40-50 point second line center who is playing much better like a number one line center this year.

 

[Ovate]

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.

The chance that a player actually declines (not just a brief slump) before 30 is very low.

A five year extension is a 10% chance that Kadri declines and we're stuck paying him $5.5M for a couple years when he's only worth $3.5 versus a 90% chance that he doesn't decline and we get to keep a good player around on a good deal for a couple more years during our cup window.

Percentages are obviously not exact, but declining before 30 is very rare.

 

[HockeyCA]

The chance that a player actually declines (not just a brief slump) before 30 is very low.

A five year extension is a 10% chance that Kadri declines and we're stuck paying him $5.5M for a couple years when he's only worth $3.5 versus a 90% chance that he doesn't decline and we get to keep a good player around on a good deal for a couple more years during our cup window.

Percentages are obviously not exact, but declining before 30 is very rare.

You can really only have so many 5+ million dollar players on your cap.. About 5-6, I would say. To win a Stanley Cup you realistically need a bona fide #1 D, G, and a C. You can't win otherwise. Perhaps you can win with an upper echelon #2 G (Crawford comes to mind), but the Blackhawks are such a great team it's almost irrelevant.

My point is, does Kadri belong in one of those 5-6 or so slots? Just don't see it. He's too one dimensional without being elite offensively. His work ethic is suspect and is lazy defensively (he's a one zone player). It's a point of emphasis that Babcock is trying desperately to address.

On top of all of that he's actually been suspended by the team for off ice conduct detrimental to the team. I wouldn't go so far to say he's a cancer in the room, but i wouldn't say his conduct should be confused for anything but what it is, incredible immaturity for a 25-26 year old man. So my apologies if I'm not jumping on the bandwagon for a mediocre one dimensional player who so far has had one good 40 game stretch in his career and not much else.

 

[Gary Nylund]

How did you come-up with those odds?

Why do you ask?

 

[Gary Nylund]

You can really only have so many 5+ million dollar players on your cap.. About 5-6, I would say. To win a Stanley Cup you realistically need a bona fide #1 D, G, and a C. You can't win otherwise. Perhaps you can win with an upper echelon #2 G (Crawford comes to mind), but the Blackhawks are such a great team it's almost irrelevant.

My point is, does Kadri belong in one of those 5-6 or so slots? Just don't see it. He's too one dimensional without being elite offensively. His work ethic is suspect and is lazy defensively (he's a one zone player). It's a point of emphasis that Babcock is trying desperately to address.

On top of all of that he's actually been suspended by the team for off ice conduct detrimental to the team. I wouldn't go so far to say he's a cancer in the room, but i wouldn't say his conduct should be confused for anything but what it is, incredible immaturity for a 25-26 year old man. So my apologies if I'm not jumping on the bandwagon for a mediocre one dimensional player who so far has had one good 40 game stretch in his career and not much else.

You're overthinking this - cup, 5-6 slots etc. We're nowhere close to a cup, we're re-building. Signing Kadri who is arguably our best forward assuming we don't have to overpay is sensible. Teams tend to try to sign their best players, there's a reason for that.

Nobody's asking you jump on anything so no need to apologize.

 

[Purity*]

He's too one dimensional without being elite offensively. His work ethic is suspect and is lazy defensively (he's a one zone player). It's a point of emphasis that Babcock is trying desperately to address.

He's actually fine defensively and is one of our best players at zone entries (far better than our other center options). Calling him a one-zone player is completely false.

 

[HockeyCA]

You're overthinking this - cup, 5-6 slots etc. We're nowhere close to a cup, we're re-building. Signing Kadri who is arguably our best forward assuming we don't have to overpay is sensible. Teams tend to try to sign their best players, there's a reason for that.

Nobody's asking you jump on anything so no need to apologize.

Just to be clear, you want to sign a player to a long term contract we both agree will most likely never be a part of the eventual solution because he's not good enough? I think where we disagree is how Kadri is going to progress moving forward. I would say we should try and maximize an asset pretty soon here, because I think his value will only start to decline as the player gets older and his production doesn't increase. He's also going to be approaching UFA free agency, which means a team is going to be forced into making a potential long term commitment or lose him for nothing. You obviously think he's going to show further progression making him a more attractive asset. This year really is the make or break in that regard. I think the Leafs should move him before whatever "upside" he has left is lost to reality and actual production. Guess we'll see.

 

[HockeyCA]

He's actually fine defensively and is one of our best players at zone entries (far better than our other center options). Calling him a one-zone player is completely false.

I think it was Babcock that said in the media that Kadri needs to start eliminating a lot of the minuses that seem to be attracted to his name every season. I've already given up on him becoming better in the face off circle. I don't see that miraculously changing anytime soon.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Just to be clear, you want to sign a player to a long term contract we both agree will most likely never be a part of the eventual solution because he's not good enough? I think where we disagree is how Kadri is going to progress moving forward. I would say we should try and maximize an asset pretty soon here, because I think his value will only start to decline as the player gets older and his production doesn't increase. He's also going to be approaching UFA free agency, which means a team is going to be forced into making a potential long term commitment or lose him for nothing. You obviously think he's going to show further progression making him a more attractive asset. This year really is the make or break in that regard. I think the Leafs should move him before whatever "upside" he has left is lost to reality and actual production. Guess we'll see.

We don't agree on that. If by eventual solution you mean winning the cup then I think we're so far away from that it's not a serious consideration. We're re-building, he's one of our best players, it makes sense to me that keeping him is the "default" decision. He's not that old that declining due to age is an issue either.

Babcock will decide, I'm not worried. I like Kadri as a player, the off-ice "issues" are the wild card. I'm not too worried about that TBH, if there were serious issues I think they would have decided to trade him last season. They decided not to and instead, gave him a public kick in the butt so to speak which would suggest they think he's worth keeping.