Eklund Rumor: Leafs in on Cam Fowler

[Liferleafer]

Fowler to Toronto for...........free?

(it's a good deal for the Leafs..)

This is a deal i could get behind!

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Or you know, he was just pointing out (using the most recent cup champions as an example) that the defence doesn't have to be the strength of a team in terms of name recognition and asset allocation for a team to be successful, and that while certainly not world beaters the Leafs current group should be quite fine for a development year, and be good enough for the team to show large improvement.

Or

Lol dumbdumb made man for man direct comparison which is garbage

Which was incorrect and contradictory yet still vague to attempt to make some statement that the Leafs could be similar even though when you get right down to it and stop the verbal tap dance, they can't. Otherwise known as BS.

Um no...you said you can't win without great defense (which was the basis of your reasoning behind trading our only !LW for Fowler)....i showed an example that you actually can. That's why i kept using the term "on paper".

Letang/Maata/Dumoulin/Lovejoy/Cole/Schultz/Pouliot....that's on paper. So, if you looked at that prior to the playoffs, would you have called that a cup winning D? Does that look like something that should beat the Hawks D? The Ducks D? Nashville? LA? They played great...yes, not sure how that makes my point utter garbage...because my exact point was maybe the Leafs D can play well as well. At no point did i say the Leafs D was better....comparable...the same....

Actually, I never said that you can't win without a great defense. I said that blue line depth is important and I've made comments specifically referencing puck-movement capabilities. You didn't show an example at all that you can win w/o what I was actually referencing. You misrepresented what I said and tried to refute that misrepresentation. However, even if we give you what you're saying, you still have no basis to say that the Leafs are anything similar to that to justify even bringing up as a point so what does it matter? It's still a garbage point.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Fowler to Toronto for...........free?

(it's a good deal for the Leafs..)

The Leafs have the best prospect pool in the NHL they can make a deal without JVR

 

[4thline]

Which was incorrect and contradictory yet still vague to attempt to make some statement that the Leafs could be similar even though when you get right down to it and stop the verbal tap dance, they can't. Otherwise known as BS.

.

How is it incorrect and contradictory? It's a transitive argument relative to team success/ expectations. Even if that core's play doesn't match the Pen's (which is unlikely but far from impossible), it doesn't have to be "sufficient" for the Leafs this year.

That the leafs d (as it stands on paper) is sufficient to be a better team than last year, support constructive development, and maybe claw out of the basement to just be a non-playoff team or even bubble rather than cellar dweller is less of a stretch than the Pen's d being cup worthy, and look what happened. The Leafs forwards sans JVR, are arguably not.

I'm not particularly against trading JVR for the right d-man, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's got to be the right fit. I really wish we had've signed Demers

 

[Pinkfloyd]

How is it incorrect and contradictory? It's a transitive argument relative to team success/ expectations. Even if that core's play doesn't match the Pen's (which is unlikely but far from impossible), it doesn't have to be "sufficient" for the Leafs this year.

That the leafs d (as it stands on paper) is sufficient to be a better team than last year, support constructive development, and maybe claw out of the basement to just be a non-playoff team or even bubble rather than cellar dweller is less of a stretch than the Pen's d being cup worthy, and look what happened. The Leafs forwards sans JVR, are arguably not.

Saying you don't need a great defense to win and then point to a defense that won because they played great is a contradictory statement. That by default is incorrect.

The point is poor both because it is likely worded terribly and because the substance simply isn't there. It's an attempt to be vague and say that under the false assumption that the Pens D wasn't great that the Leafs with a D that would not be classified as great could perform like they hope. Problem is that the premise is wrong while in the context of this conversation also a misrepresentation. The other is that since it's trying to be purposely vague, it's trying to ignore the fact that for that relative argument to be made, you have to look at what is there and that is what they're trying to avoid because it voids the argument and premise.

As for JVR, the Leafs could trade JVR and they wouldn't be any better or worse for it. There's value in his production but when it comes to wins and losses, his impact is not irreplaceable.

 

[4thline]

Saying you don't need a great defense to win and then point to a defense that won because they played great is a contradictory statement. That by default is incorrect.

The point is poor both because it is likely worded terribly and because the substance simply isn't there. It's an attempt to be vague and say that under the false assumption that the Pens D wasn't great that the Leafs with a D that would not be classified as great could perform like they hope. Problem is that the premise is wrong while in the context of this conversation also a misrepresentation. The other is that since it's trying to be purposely vague, it's trying to ignore the fact that for that relative argument to be made, you have to look at what is there and that is what they're trying to avoid because it voids the argument and premise.

As for JVR, the Leafs could trade JVR and they wouldn't be any better or worse for it. There's value in his production but when it comes to wins and losses, his impact is not irreplaceable.

Let's simplify this
Defence not so good on paper can be greater than the sum of it's parts and be good enough (great is your word) to win the cup. They played "great" relative to their nominal and expected ability, but they were not a "great" defence. They got the job done.

Slightly lesser defence on paper can be greater than the sum of its parts and be more than good enough for a developing non playoff team. They will not be "great" and probably not even "good", but there's enough youngish top 7 quality guys with possibly more to show that there's a decent chance that a couple rise to the occasion that they get the job done.

And neither is Fowler's. Hence robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Ciao]

Fowler to Toronto for...........free?

(it's a good deal for the Leafs..)

Now this is more like it!

Lou would probably throw Lupul into the deal, just out a sense of decency and from the goodness of his heart!

The Leafs wouldn't want to say they got the player for nothing!

(As ridiculous as it is, it is no more ridiculous from the leafs' end than many of the JVR+ deals earlier suggested.)

 

[Ciao]

Saying you don't need a great defense to win and then point to a defense that won because they played great is a contradictory statement. That by default is incorrect.

The point is poor both because it is likely worded terribly and because the substance simply isn't there. It's an attempt to be vague and say that under the false assumption that the Pens D wasn't great that the Leafs with a D that would not be classified as great could perform like they hope. Problem is that the premise is wrong while in the context of this conversation also a misrepresentation. The other is that since it's trying to be purposely vague, it's trying to ignore the fact that for that relative argument to be made, you have to look at what is there and that is what they're trying to avoid because it voids the argument and premise.

As for JVR, the Leafs could trade JVR and they wouldn't be any better or worse for it. There's value in his production but when it comes to wins and losses, his impact is not irreplaceable.

Still on the JVR for Fowler thing?

How many days/posts is it now?

Isn't everyone persuaded yet? If they aren't, keep calm and post on!

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Let's simplify this
Defence not so good on paper can be greater than the sum of it's parts and be good enough (great is your word) to win the cup. They played "great" relative to their nominal and expected ability, but they were not a "great" defence. They got the job done.

Slightly lesser defence on paper can be greater than the sum of its parts and be more than good enough for a developing non playoff team. They will not be "great" and probably not even "good", but there's enough youngish top 7 quality guys with possibly more to show that there's a decent chance that a couple rise to the occasion that they get the job done.

And neither is Fowler's. Hence robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Even worded like that, you have to take into account who they had, what skills they had, and come to an answer as to why it worked. That kind of stuff isn't universal and awfully difficult to replicate. There's absolutely no reason to use that in any way, shape, or form for any sort of application towards the Leafs. It makes the attempted point useless because it has no practical application to the subject of the Leafs. It's just a vague and hopeful remark thinking that it could apply but it doesn't.

The difference between JVR and Fowler is that Fowler actually plays a position and brings skills that have a significant impact on a team's ability to win. Wingers are the least important position on the ice and only those that have elite skills truly have an impact on winning and losing.

Still on the JVR for Fowler thing?

How many days/posts is it now?

Isn't everyone persuaded yet? If they aren't, keep calm and post on!

Well, it is a conversation. That's kind of what these boards are for and there's no need for your patronizing because it has been calm.

 

[Greg Schuler]

Um no...you said you can't win without great defense (which was the basis of your reasoning behind trading our only !LW for Fowler)....i showed an example that you actually can. That's why i kept using the term "on paper".

Letang/Maata/Dumoulin/Lovejoy/Cole/Schultz/Pouliot....that's on paper. So, if you looked at that prior to the playoffs, would you have called that a cup winning D? Does that look like something that should beat the Hawks D? The Ducks D? Nashville? LA? They played great...yes, not sure how that makes my point utter garbage...because my exact point was maybe the Leafs D can play well as well. At no point did i say the Leafs D was better....comparable...the same....

A couple of things:

The playoffs are the ultimate micro event. Small sample size and whatnot. Any team can play at a high level for a short period of time.

Defense is more than just the defenseman. It is the goaltending, the forwards and the system. The Pittsburgh blueline was aided by the play of the forwards and the system that emphasized not spending time in the defensive zone.

Depth only matters if the players can actually play. The best way to succeed is to put players in positions where you enhance what they do well and limit their opportunities to fail. Some people call that sheltering. It might mean the top pair plays 30 minutes a night and the other two pairs play corresponding shifts.

Last, you can be successful any number of ways in the NHL. Look at the run of past Cup winners - Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, for example, as well as Pittsburgh. Different styles of play and different emphasis.

There is not one correct way to "win" or "defend".

 

[lindholmie]

The Leafs have the best prospect pool in the NHL they can make a deal without JVR

sure if youre gonna include one of your good young pieces. Not kapanen/brown/whatever else

 

[Kiwi]

At least 1-2 more years. And not once, in any of my posts, have i bashed Fowler. I just don't want to create a big hole to fill a small hole. If we were talking JVR+ for Lindholm (obviously not happening) or JVR for Vataenen (RHD is a bigger need...plus i like his defense better than Fowler's) then sure, but LHD who are puck movers we have.

D that can move the puck are a plus not a minus
Having Fowler play beside Rielly on the first pair as a tandem that could last for a decade is a very tantalising thought
Vatanen as much as I like him is not as valuable to us as Fowler bar the RD thing
Fowler logs the toughest minutes against the other teams best players night in and night out Vatanen has not had to do that on a consistent basis as yet
Rielly is playing RD so getting a PMD like Fowler is acceptable especially as there is very little RD available
I like JVR but I don't want to be the team giving him his next contract Fowler I could live with

 

[4thline]

Even worded like that, you have to take into account who they had, what skills they had, and come to an answer as to why it worked. That kind of stuff isn't universal and awfully difficult to replicate. There's absolutely no reason to use that in any way, shape, or form for any sort of application towards the Leafs. It makes the attempted point useless because it has no practical application to the subject of the Leafs. It's just a vague and hopeful remark thinking that it could apply but it doesn't.

The difference between JVR and Fowler is that Fowler actually plays a position and brings skills that have a significant impact on a team's ability to win. Wingers are the least important position on the ice and only those that have elite skills truly have an impact on winning and losing.

It doesn't apply in your opinion which you are treating as fact. And even if you are right in this specific instance, a team failing in the application of a concept does not invalidate the concept. It is universal that a well put together team/ d-core etc can be greater and more effective than the on-paper sum of its parts. That you personally don't think that the Leafs group can doesn't invalidate that. Where you're right is that the application of that is not universal, because if it were so formulaic than it would be predictable, and as such impossible to be greater than the paper sum.

Oddly enough the "who they had, what skills they had, and come to an answer as to why it worked" is why many of are (while not necessarily against the trade) not for this. We need to see what he have and how they work before going out and adding, especially not at the cost of a top line player with rarish skillset. We don't think that Fowler is necessarily the guy to commit to.

To paraphrase you "there's more than one way to skin a cat, but you can't be sure that any given way will work" which you're then turning into "the way I think they should do it is the only valid way, other way's don't apply"



Like those top 30 league wide in goal scoring, top 10-15ish by position? You're vastly understating the marginal drop off to his likely replacement on the roster, without even getting into the possible trickle down through the line up.

 

[DopeyFish]

sure if youre gonna include one of your good young pieces. Not kapanen/brown/whatever else

You honestly think Fowler is worth Matthews, Marner or Nylander? LOL

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It doesn't apply in your opinion which you are treating as fact. And even if you are right in this specific instance, a team failing in the application of a concept does not invalidate the concept. It is universal that a well put together team/ d-core etc can be greater and more effective than the on-paper sum of its parts. That you personally don't think that the Leafs group can doesn't invalidate that. Where you're right is that the application of that is not universal, because if it were so formulaic than it would be predictable, and as such impossible to be greater than the paper sum.

Oddly enough the "who they had, what skills they had, and come to an answer as to why it worked" is why many of are (while not necessarily against the trade) not for this. We need to see what he have and how they work before going out and adding, especially not at the cost of a top line player with rarish skillset. We don't think that Fowler is necessarily the guy to commit to.

To paraphrase you "there's more than one way to skin a cat, but you can't be sure that any given way will work" which you're then turning into "the way I think they should do it is the only valid way, other way's don't apply"



Like those top 30 league wide in goal scoring, top 10-15ish by position? You're vastly understating the marginal drop off to his likely replacement on the roster, without even getting into the possible trickle down through the line up.

It's a fact that it's not applicable because in the context of this conversation, it's merely an abstract thought. There's nothing of actual substance to make the blue line point regarding the Pens and how it relates to the Leafs. It's purposely vague to avoid the details of it because the details of it would invalidate that point.

Your paraphrasing is just a classic misrepresentation of the argument because you don't agree with what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say it's the only valid way. Nowhere did I say that other ways don't apply. The least you could do is argue the actual words and arguments rather than make it into something it isn't and argue against that.

 

[Avs44]

You honestly think Fowler is worth Matthews, Marner or Nylander? LOL

That's not what he said.

 

[Holymakinaw]

The Leafs have the best prospect pool in the NHL

No, they don't.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

No, they don't.

Yes they do just based off their forward depth alone they have the top farm system in the NHL

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

sure if youre gonna include one of your good young pieces. Not kapanen/brown/whatever else

So you think Cam Fowler is Norris caliber, you must think that to believe he is worth a top 5 prospect in the NHL

 

[Avs44]

So you think Cam Fowler is Norris caliber, you must think that to believe he is worth a top 5 prospect in the NHL

Did he say that? No, he did not. It wouldn't be asking too much for you to put a little bit of thought into this before you post. The Ducks really are a team that are trying to contend now. They moved Andersen for picks, but they've publicly acknowledged that they want to add a top six left wing, and forward is a major area of need for them, so it's very simple logic to think that if they are moving one of their more valuable trade chips, Fowler, they want to fill that need. You said the Leafs could pull Fowler off without JVR, with prospects. However, knowing that Anaheim would prefer an NHL calibre top six left wing, knowing that Anaheim wants to contend, and knowing that Fowler is one of their best trading chips...don't you think that would need a premium if all they are getting is a futures package, AKA something so good they could not possibly turn it down? Do you actually think Brown level prospects would be that premium that could remotely justify them actually making their current roster quite a bit worse by losing Fowler, and not improving their "win now" team an ounce? If you actually think that is true, then please let me direct DopeyFish's "LOL" at you. A prospect deal without a top, drastic overpayment prospect would basically be the last ditch absolute worst case scenario for Anaheim - and if they actually reach that point (can't address top six forward need with Fowler, only being offered prospects, have to make a move to clear cap), why wouldn't they just dump Despres off for a prospect and keep the better and only slightly more expensive Fowler?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Did he say that? No, he did not. It wouldn't be asking too much for you to put a little bit of thought into this before you post. The Ducks really are a team that are trying to contend now. They moved Andersen for picks, but they've publicly acknowledged that they want to add a top six left wing, and forward is a major area of need for them, so it's very simple logic to think that if they are moving one of their more valuable trade chips, Fowler, they want to fill that need. You said the Leafs could pull Fowler off without JVR, with prospects. However, knowing that Anaheim would prefer an NHL calibre top six left wing, knowing that Anaheim wants to contend, and knowing that Fowler is one of their best trading chips...don't you think that would need a premium if all they are getting is a futures package, AKA something so good they could not possibly turn it down? Do you actually think Brown level prospects would be that premium that could remotely justify them actually making their current roster quite a bit worse by losing Fowler, and not improving their "win now" team an ounce? If you actually think that is true, then please let me direct DopeyFish's "LOL" at you. A prospect deal without a top, drastic overpayment prospect would basically be the last ditch absolute worst case scenario for Anaheim - and if they actually reach that point (can't address top six forward need with Fowler, only being offered prospects, have to make a move to clear cap), why wouldn't they just dump Despres off for a prospect and keep the better and only slightly more expensive Fowler?

Nope but he imply the price would be Mathews Nylander or Marner and I thinl we can both agree Fowler isn't worth those guys. I didn't even say I wouldn't move JVR for him just that I feel the Farm system was strong enough to get it done without him because I do feel that way.

 

[lindholmie]

Did he say that? No, he did not. It wouldn't be asking too much for you to put a little bit of thought into this before you post. The Ducks really are a team that are trying to contend now. They moved Andersen for picks, but they've publicly acknowledged that they want to add a top six left wing, and forward is a major area of need for them, so it's very simple logic to think that if they are moving one of their more valuable trade chips, Fowler, they want to fill that need. You said the Leafs could pull Fowler off without JVR, with prospects. However, knowing that Anaheim would prefer an NHL calibre top six left wing, knowing that Anaheim wants to contend, and knowing that Fowler is one of their best trading chips...don't you think that would need a premium if all they are getting is a futures package, AKA something so good they could not possibly turn it down? Do you actually think Brown level prospects would be that premium that could remotely justify them actually making their current roster quite a bit worse by losing Fowler, and not improving their "win now" team an ounce? If you actually think that is true, then please let me direct DopeyFish's "LOL" at you. A prospect deal without a top, drastic overpayment prospect would basically be the last ditch absolute worst case scenario for Anaheim - and if they actually reach that point (can't address top six forward need with Fowler, only being offered prospects, have to make a move to clear cap), why wouldn't they just dump Despres off for a prospect and keep the better and only slightly more expensive Fowler?

exactly. this exactly.

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

Did he say that? No, he did not. It wouldn't be asking too much for you to put a little bit of thought into this before you post. The Ducks really are a team that are trying to contend now. They moved Andersen for picks, but they've publicly acknowledged that they want to add a top six left wing, and forward is a major area of need for them, so it's very simple logic to think that if they are moving one of their more valuable trade chips, Fowler, they want to fill that need. You said the Leafs could pull Fowler off without JVR, with prospects. However, knowing that Anaheim would prefer an NHL calibre top six left wing, knowing that Anaheim wants to contend, and knowing that Fowler is one of their best trading chips...don't you think that would need a premium if all they are getting is a futures package, AKA something so good they could not possibly turn it down? Do you actually think Brown level prospects would be that premium that could remotely justify them actually making their current roster quite a bit worse by losing Fowler, and not improving their "win now" team an ounce? If you actually think that is true, then please let me direct DopeyFish's "LOL" at you. A prospect deal without a top, drastic overpayment prospect would basically be the last ditch absolute worst case scenario for Anaheim - and if they actually reach that point (can't address top six forward need with Fowler, only being offered prospects, have to make a move to clear cap), why wouldn't they just dump Despres off for a prospect and keep the better and only slightly more expensive Fowler?

Despres is damaged goods until he proves otherwise with his play on the ice.
It would be very doubtful any GM would take a gamble on Despres.
The Ducks reality is that they will lose Fowler, Vatanen or Lindholm soon and probably for less then their perceived value due to their internal cap.

 

[Avs44]

Nope but he imply the price would be Mathews Nylander or Marner and I thinl we can both agree Fowler isn't worth those guys. I didn't even say I wouldn't move JVR for him just that I feel the Farm system was strong enough to get it done without him because I do feel that way.

And as I just said, I think it's rather silly to think the Leafs farm system, without their top prospects, is enough to really tempt Anaheim in the slightest. It's silly from a Leafs perspective to think that Marner, for example, would have to move to get Fowler, and it's silly from a value perspective, but it seems almost equally silly to think that a Brown level prospect would get it done, both from Anaheim's perspective, and a value perspective. One is far too much, one is far too little, yet Anaheim has the player, so they can dictate the price. If it doesn't fit their needs, there's no reason for them to accept futures that are only "fair" in value. Yet you and another Leafs fan went after that Ducks fan who basically said just that.

 

[Avs44]

Despres is damaged goods until he proves otherwise with his play on the ice.
It would be very doubtful any GM would take a gamble on Despres.
The Ducks reality is that they will lose Fowler, Vatanen or Lindholm soon and probably for less then their perceived value due to their internal cap.

Possibly. I'll be surprised if they trade Fowler for cents on the dollar, and I'll be surprised if they don't get a top six forward back. I'm still leaning on Detroit, just after the season starts. Detroit right now can't take on salary since they're up against the cap, but they can use LTIR once the season starts to get well under, and Anaheim wouldn't have to pay too much in extra salary if the trade happens quickly. I also think they might just wait out Rakell and Lindholm to get nervous before they panic with Fowler.