Kyle Dubas - - Horrible Asset Mismanagement

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
He did not; that's being intentionally misleading. He traded for a player who was healthy and fully able to play when he joined us, who then got injured while in games with us, resulting in missed games.



Do you understand what the word "pre-existing" means?

Here, allow me to help you...

Definition of preexisting
: existing at an earlier time

a preexisting medical condition
 
Why does edmontoms cap have amy affect on our assets?

This is the dumbest thing I have seen on hf in a long time. Not suprised its coming from the dubas fan club. History has not been kind to them.
It is not dummer than the free asset brigade. Where is the Dubas fan club? Is that something you made up. Edmonton's cap doesn't affect our assets. Edmonton could have worked vout a deal with the Leafs for a sign and trade which would lower their cap hit, but they didn't step up, so there was no trade though they apparently offered a 6th or perhaps a 5th and a 7th, but they were far from meeting the asking price which was apparently a 2nd ( though it is really speculation on all of the picks).
 
It is not dummer than the free asset brigade. Where is the Dubas fan club? Is that something you made up. Edmonton's cap doesn't affect our assets. Edmonton could have worked vout a deal with the Leafs for a sign and trade which would lower their cap hit, but they didn't step up, so there was no trade though they apparently offered a 6th or perhaps a 5th and a 7th, but they were far from meeting the asking price which was apparently a 2nd ( though it is really speculation on all of the picks).
Part of the criticism though is in thinking a 2nd is an unreasonable expectation and that's it to your detriment to dismiss a lesser offer. Coming from someone who has liked plenty of Dubas moves, but not this one.
 
Do you understand what the word "pre-existing" means?
Yes. It means he had an issue in that area previously. We don't know if he's referring to his first injury while with the Leafs, or something else, but it's really quite irrelevant, because as you can clearly see, the reason he missed games with us was an injury during the Leaf game.
 
Yes. It means he had an issue in that area previously. We don't know if he's referring to his first injury while with the Leafs, or something else, but it's really quite irrelevant, because as you can clearly see, the reason he missed games with us was an injury during the Leaf game.

A flair up of his pre-existing injury.

Nick's own words. It's all in the tweet.

It's good when reporters ask the players those kinds of questions because then it eliminates the need for internet discussion board users to make up their own version of events, as they see fit
 
Part of the criticism though is in thinking a 2nd is an unreasonable expectation and that's it to your detriment to dismiss a lesser offer. Coming from someone who has liked plenty of Dubas moves, but not this one.
There was probably negotiation room. It could have turned into a prospect. Even if a second were too high an expectation a 7th and a 5th was too low.
 
Can someone answer this for me.

To do with Rielly.

Liljegren and Sandin are both RFAs next year.

Is it at all possible they are going to give them a more prominent role this year and see how they respond and base their need for Rielly off that?

If Rielly is your only option to be a heavy minute crunching D, you offer what you can afford, but if he is a luxury, maybe that number comes down.

The plan may be to discuss contracts after the Leafs have gotten a better look at the younger players, Rielly may be expendable shortly, or he may be a necessity.
 
A flair up of his pre-existing injury.
Caused by an injury in a Leaf game. If that injury in the Leaf game doesn't happen, he plays, just as he had been. This was also his 2nd injury while with the Leafs, weeks after his arrival, so your claim about what "pre-existing" is referring to is entirely baseless.
 
Can someone answer this for me.

To do with Rielly.

Liljegren and Sandin are both RFAs next year.

Is it at all possible they are going to give them a more prominent role this year and see how they respond and base their need for Rielly off that?

If Rielly is your only option to be a heavy minute crunching D, you offer what you can afford, but if he is a luxury, maybe that number comes down.

The plan may be to discuss contracts after the Leafs have gotten a better look at the younger players, Rielly may be expendable shortly, or he may be a necessity.

If the Leafs fail next season it may not matter ultimately.

With a new GM and a organizational shakeup I'm not sure Rielly would even want to stay in Toronto given the choice he has as a UFA...
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainCrunch17
If the Leafs fail next season it may not matter ultimately.

With a new GM and a organizational shakeup I'm not sure Rielly would even want to stay in Toronto given the choice he has as a UFA...

If the Leafs win next season it may not ultimately matter.

With the same cup winning team coming back he may take 1 million so they can repeat.

Trying to predict someone's emotions is insanity.
 
Caused by an injury in a Leaf game.

Zero proof of this.

If that injury in the Leaf game doesn't happen, he plays, just as he had been.

He re-aggravated a pre-existing injury that he'd been dealing with (Nick's words).

He missed time with Columbus prior to the trade (Columbus putting him on DTD).

That's what we know.



This was also his 2nd injury while with the Leafs, weeks after his arrival, so your claim about what "pre-existing" is referring to is entirely baseless.

No evidence of a 2nd injury. You are quite simple making this up. Everyone here can see that as well.

We have evidence of an injury sustained with the Blue Jackets, yes. And evidence of a flair-up of a pre-existing injury (which we have to assume was the Blue Jackets injury).

That's what we know.

Thankfully the reporter asked that question, Nick was honest, and revealed that he was acquired for a steep deadline price while not being 100%.

Terrible move by Dubas bleeding more organizational assets for another opening round exit.
 
Zero proof of this.
Of course there is. He was playing. He got injured in the game and left, as the tweet even identifies. Then he didn't play. This isn't rocket science.
He missed time with Columbus prior to the trade.
He missed the one game prior to the trade deadline, like most trade targets, with something that was described as "day to day". He then had weeks before he joined the team, and played as soon as his quarantine was over. If that injury in the Leaf game doesn't happen, then he continues to play, just as he had been. That's what we know. We also know that what kept him out of part of the playoffs was unrelated.
 
Just pointing how absurd it is to deal in hypotheticals like yours.

You assumed the Leafs would fail, then assumed Dubas would be fired, then assumed he wouldn't want to stay here.

It's the GM's job to deal in hypotheticals when planning for the future, by appraising the team's ability correctly.

On the basis of probability it's far more likely the Leafs crap out early (for the sixth time in a row), heck even miss the playoffs entirely, versus winning a Stanley Cup.

Historically teams that win the Cup have a track record of playoff success leading up to it.

You just don't go from winning 0 rounds in 17 years to 4 in a row.

That should be obvious.
 
It's the GM's job to deal in hypotheticals when planning for the future, by appraising the team's ability correctly.

On the basis of probability it's far more likely the Leafs crap out early (for the sixth time in a row), heck even miss the playoffs entirely, versus winning a Stanley Cup.

Historically teams that win the Cup have a track record of playoff success leading up to it.

You just don't go from winning 0 rounds in 17 years to 4 in a row.

That should be obvious.

Yep, in fact, remember the dominating playoffs Tampa put together in 2018-19? Or Washington from 07-17? Or St Louis from 67-18?

The NHL is an unpredictable league, which is why it is fun. You are supposed to evaluate hypotheticals, yes, but assuming players feelings based on hypotheticals is a stretch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Ad