Confirmed with Link: Leafs trade Beck, Finn, Gibson, Nilsson and Verhaeghe for Grabner

[BlueBaron]

The concerning thing is that only 1 of these prospects needs to pan out for us to lose this trade...

Grabner is here 1 year and that is all...

Beck - 4th line
Nilsson - 6-7th defenseman
Finn -??
Verhaeghe - ??
Gibson - AHL goalie

And if Grabner is flipped for a 2nd+ at the deadline what happens to your theory ?

Moving Finn surprises me. Strangely I think this is one of the few times I see an NHL team doing what I do in NHL16, move all your 3 star and under prospects and try and replace them with 4 star plus.

There is risk involved but it also fills the gaping hole that is our right wing. He is kind of Phil Kessel lite.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Those adequate prospects were all gone within 2 years. The kids we pick over the next 2 years will be adequate prospects coming along with all our other prospects plus they'll be Hunter picks.

The idea behind bringing in Hunter was to let him find the kids, not force him to develop what he deems as mediocre prospects because that's what is here now. Remember the term Scorched Earth? This is a part of that process.

We don't know that. Just like pretty much any prospect, what they were going to become is still up in the air.

And if part of Scorched Earth is just throwing away assets, then it's a part I really don't support. Asset management didn't just suddenly become unimportant today.

And if Grabner is flipped for a 2nd+ at the deadline what happens to your theory ?

Moving Finn surprises me. Strangely I think this is one of the few times I see an NHL team doing what I do in NHL16, move all your 3 star and under prospects and try and replace them with 4 star plus.

There is risk involved but it also fills the gaping hole that is our right wing. He is kind of Phil Kessel lite.

Yeah well in EA's NHL, anything 3 star or worse had no chance to become an NHL player. That's why it works there, that's why you don't see it happen in real life.

And it'd take a lot for Grabner to return a 2nd+. Let's hope it happens, but based on what he has done now for the last 3-4 years, then that's very optimistic.

 

[Warden of the North]

Nilsson is the only one that concerns me.

Will have to see what Grabner gets us at the deadline

 

[WTFMAN99]

And if Grabner is flipped for a 2nd+ at the deadline what happens to your theory ?

Moving Finn surprises me. Strangely I think this is one of the few times I see an NHL team doing what I do in NHL16, move all your 3 star and under prospects and try and replace them with 4 star plus.

There is risk involved but it also fills the gaping hole that is our right wing. He is kind of Phil Kessel lite.

Then we get a lottery ticket and hope Hunter does better with the 2nd round pick then our previous scouts, or maybe a 3rd round pick. Or Grabner is plagued by injury issues and we get a 4th (or later).

Hard to say for now, just saying it is a weird deal. I don't outright hate it, i'm "uneasy" for now and hope those guys bust now, or don't have wicked careers lol.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Yeah Nilsson looked really solid until he got hurt last year .. Verhaeghe got buried behind the depth, but I still was intrigued at what he could do in the AHL .. And Finn, well as a high second round pick you hate giving up on him so soon, but he did have a rough go last year and an underwhelming rookie tournament. Would have been nice to see him try and have a good year this year.

The only ones who I could care less about are Beck and Gibson

Grabner could go to a contender at the deadline looking or some depth scoring if salary is retained ... Assuming he's healthy and played decent this year

 

[Jack Bauer]

Seems like the Leafs aren't intentionally tanking, but trying to make it a competitive and professional environment (which is a change in culture for sure). In doing so it will make the Leafs a better place for youngsters like Nylander to play and flourish since there will be a better supporting cast and proper coaching involved.

At the same time this move, as noted in Lou's comments, will help add roster flexibility via contracts being moved out. How that will be used it to be determined (maybe taking a bad contract back in a trade for a draft pick/prospect or signing some of the PTO's to a one year deal) but in the interim the Leafs were able to acquire a player who could give them some returns at the deadline.

It's a risk to move those prospects out without trying to develop them further, and hope those PTO's/Grabner can play well enough for a contract. But I'll trust Hunter's scouting eye on the situation as he probably would have been the guy who said those kids were expendable.

It's a loss for the Leafs if they're unable to use those contract spots and get assets with them, or if they're unable to get anything for Grabner. And it's only a lopsided deal if this happens PLUS one or two of those prospects that went to the Isles pan out to be a player in the long run.

Yeah a problem we were going to run into in 3 weeks was a large amount of players on the Marlies and no ability to sign more then 1 unsigned prospect/PTO/waiver claim.

This allows us to sign a few more 1 way NHL contracts to make the team more competitive and make it harder for a Nylander to make it which should help his development as well as open up a spot for a Freddy Gauthier to get some ice time for the Marlies.

Ice time on the Marlies was going to be tough to come by for a Gauthier. Now it's a bit of a clearer picture for him to be a #3/4 C at the AHL which is where he should be.

This is all still a work in progress as our new management team starts to implement the discussions and thoughts they've had all summer as they start to see how the kids prepared for this training camp.

I'll accept Mark Hunters opinion on those kids any day and as a Leafs fan I understand why he'd view them all as expendable with players like Joly and Brouillard in camp as unsigned FA's plus the potential value of a Boyes or Glencross in March.

 

[Jumptheshark]

September 17, 2015
MAPLE LEAFS ACQUIRE MICHAEL GRABNER FROM NY ISLANDERS

The Toronto Maple Leafs announced today that the team has acquired forward Michael Grabner from the New York Islanders in exchange for forwards Taylor Beck and Carter Verhaeghe, defencemen Matt Finn and Tom Nilsson, and goaltender Christopher Gibson.
Grabner has skated in 317 NHL games between the Islanders and Vancouver Canucks, collecting 95 goals and 60 assists for 155 career points. Last season, he registered 13 points (8 goals, 5 assists) in 34 regular season games. The 27-year-old was selected by Vancouver in the first round (14th overall) of the 2006 NHL Entry Draft.

Source: My TSN Bellmedia email. An email straight from Maple Leafs media

interesting

Beck never plays a game for you guys--he is a 4th liner that is not that physical
Gibson is a goalie that is a dime a dozen
Finn Dead weight as a d-man--stats i saw suggested he strugged in the echl and staying healthy
Nilsson-I like Swedes and Swedish D-men but he is not on my radar
Carter Verhaeghe--did the full pull in Junior and this is his first full year as a pro

Grabner is a guy who either you love or hate--if he is on the third line with no special team minutes--you will hate him--bad 5 on 5 but can work PP time

 

[WTFMAN99]

interesting

Beck never plays a game for you guys--he is a 4th liner that is not that physical
Gibson is a goalie that is a dime a dozen
Finn Dead weight as a d-man--stats i saw suggested he strugged in the echl and staying healthy
Nilsson-I like Swedes and Swedish D-men but he is not on my radar
Carter Verhaeghe--did the full pull in Junior and this is his first full year as a pro

Grabner is a guy who either you love or hate--if he is on the third line with no special team minutes--you will hate him--bad 5 on 5 but can work PP time

He's also a good PK guy.

 

[Jack Bauer]

We don't know that. Just like pretty much any prospect, what they were going to become is still up in the air.

And if part of Scorched Earth is just throwing away assets, then it's a part I really don't support. Asset management didn't just suddenly become unimportant today.

Those assets even when drafted were long shots. Finn was the safest bet and he immediately regressed even at the junior level.

We do have a better idea of how those kids were going to turn out because they weren't exactly drafted yesterday. The time to make a decision on their future within this organization was this season. They were going to be the next Ross and Biggs tossed in to even out contracts in a deal.

Their play last season determined their own fate. The contract space created is a part of the asset management now as your argument looks at it from a 5 vs 1 and those in favor clearly see it as a 5 vs 5. Come October those prospects are all replaced in the organization by better hockey players. Is that not good asset management? Nobody was exactly beating down our door to get Matt Finn or Chris Gibson. We've probably been trying to move all of those players since last season ended.

 

[maplehawk]

people need to realize that the value we get in this deal does not rely solely on what we flip grabner for at the deadline.

it includes what we get for glencross, boyes, setoguchi, fraser...

 

[Jack Bauer]

Nilsson is the only one that concerns me.

Will have to see what Grabner gets us at the deadline

I agree Nilsson has the best upside and that is still 3rd pair and probably as a call up through the season.

Certainly nothing to get worked up over when you can bring in the same calibre as a UFA on a short term deal.

 

[Jack Bauer]

people need to realize that the value we get in this deal does not rely solely on what we flip grabner for at the deadline.

it includes what we get for glencross, boyes, setoguchi, fraser...

Yes or what we do with Joly or another youngster at camp like Donaghey last year.

I view Donaghey as a better prospect then Finn right now even with the knee injury last season and he was undrafted.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Seems like the Leafs aren't intentionally tanking, but trying to make it a competitive and professional environment (which is a change in culture for sure). In doing so it will make the Leafs a better place for youngsters like Nylander to play and flourish since there will be a better supporting cast and proper coaching involved.

At the same time this move, as noted in Lou's comments, will help add roster flexibility via contracts being moved out. How that will be used it to be determined (maybe taking a bad contract back in a trade for a draft pick/prospect or signing some of the PTO's to a one year deal) but in the interim the Leafs were able to acquire a player who could give them some returns at the deadline.

It's a risk to move those prospects out without trying to develop them further, and hope those PTO's/Grabner can play well enough for a contract. But I'll trust Hunter's scouting eye on the situation as he probably would have been the guy who said those kids were expendable.

It's a loss for the Leafs if they're unable to use those contract spots and get assets with them, or if they're unable to get anything for Grabner. And it's only a lopsided deal if this happens PLUS one or two of those prospects that went to the Isles pan out to be a player in the long run.

I have to think at some time when Babcock was hired in between Lou's hiring. Shanahan was convinced by Babcock that this team is not as bad as the one that played last season under Horachek.

The plan is always to draft and develop. There is no NHL team I know that does not value draft picks.

Once Babcock was hired I could never picture a bottom 5 finish for this team.

I think Grabner will help this team. He is a terrific skater, decent PK player, with a decent touch around the net. Giving up Verhaeghe is the only sore spot with me. The others not so much.

Lou is probably not finished. He has 4 spots open for deals. We have some bottom 6 bodies, I can't wait to see what else he has in stored for this team. One thing I have observed from Lamoriello all these years, he does not wait for things to happen, he will make them happen. A very pragmatic approach.

Team is likely to be better than some expect them to be.

 

[RLF]

Where those players were picked is now irrelevant. It's what their value is now that's important.

Not 1 of those players get us an asset like any 1 of the PTO's could. So 4-5 PTO's plus Grabner could bring us 3-4X the value of those 4 prospects would have right now. Plus it opens up Marlie ice time for other prospects.

Really is a win/win all around. Hell the upside for any of them is depth players. None ever considered top 4 D/top 6 F/starting goalie material except for Finn in his draft year and even he now is a bottom pair prospect at best.

I would agree with the bolded on some of the players, I was more putting into context of what was given up for a former waiver wire player, so I disagree it is irrelevant because most are so young, they haven't even had a chance to reach the potential they showed which set their draft position.

You are banking your analysis of a win for us on the PTO's and Grabner definitely making the team and playing well enough that another team will want them at the TDL and gives us decent picks...and we haven't even selected the team yet or signed any of these guys.

If this is a prelude to another bigger deal which we get a good return and needed contract spaces, I will call it a win then. Otherwise, I think I will wait and see if any of the PTO's actually get signed for starters before I declare it a win because I am not writing off every guy we moved quite yet.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Those assets even when drafted were long shots. Finn was the safest bet and he immediately regressed even at the junior level.

We do have a better idea of how those kids were going to turn out because they weren't exactly drafted yesterday. The time to make a decision on their future within this organization was this season. They were going to be the next Ross and Biggs tossed in to even out contracts in a deal.

Their play last season determined their own fate. The contract space created is a part of the asset management now as your argument looks at it from a 5 vs 1 and those in favor clearly see it as a 5 vs 5. Come October those prospects are all replaced in the organization by better hockey players. Is that not good asset management? Nobody was exactly beating down our door to get Matt Finn or Chris Gibson. We've probably been trying to move all of those players since last season ended.

I see a lot of fan rationale and jumping to conclusions here. We have no reason to think this was the season to make decision on any prospect. We have no reason to think the team has been shopping them. We have no reason to think that their play last season determined their fate, especially not when some of them actually had good seasons. You are creating a narrative.

Good asset management includes sending off prospects for good value. Not getting rid of assets as soon as you don't really like for bad returns just to have others take their spots.

And yes, contract spots are part of the assets we get. There must have been better ways to get them.

 

[Warden of the North]

I see a lot of fan rationale and jumping to conclusions here. We have no reason to think this was the season to make decision on any prospect. We have no reason to think the team has been shopping them. We have no reason to think that their play last season determined their fate, especially not when some of them actually had good seasons. You are creating a narrative.

Good asset management includes sending off prospects for good value. Not getting rid of assets as soon as you don't really like for bad returns just to have others take their spots.

And yes, contract spots are part of the assets we get. There must have been better ways to get them.

You also need to factor what we'll get for the guys we sign to PTOs with the newly acquired contract spots.

 

[Nithoniniel]

You also need to factor what we'll get for the guys we sign to PTOs with the newly acquired contract spots.

Oh sure, but like I said. I'm pretty sure we could have gotten rid of contract spots while giving up worse assets, or at least getting something better back.

I agree with the idea, I don't like the execution. We gave up too much in prospects for not enough of a player back.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I would agree with the bolded on some of the players, I was more putting into context of what was given up for a former waiver wire player, so I disagree it is irrelevant because most are so young, they haven't even had a chance to reach the potential they showed which set their draft position.

You are banking your analysis of a win for us on the PTO's and Grabner definitely making the team and playing well enough that another team will want them at the TDL and gives us decent picks...and we haven't even selected the team yet or signed any of these guys.

If this is a prelude to another bigger deal which we get a good return and needed contract spaces, I will call it a win then. Otherwise, I think I will wait and see if any of the PTO's actually get signed for starters before I declare it a win because I am not writing off every guy we moved quite yet.

They're really not all that young though as their place in the organization was replaced by players acquired over the past 15 months.

After a season or 2 of pro hockey as an organization you have a pretty good idea of who the future NHL players are in your group.

Grabner in the 1st month plays more NHL hockey for us then any of them ever would. Plus it opens up 4 other spots.

You can't wait on a Finn or Gibson to take that next step forever just because you have them. The plan over the next 18-24 months simply did not include them.

I have no issue with the analysis phase of Hunter and Shanahan and Dubas deciding that these kids were not going to pan out to being top NHL talent. Especially when the potential for PTO's to be flipped for picks can set us up better for a draft then trading those prospects ever would have especially after another mediocre season.

The decision was made that Gibson was #5 on the depth chart. Finn and Nilsson probably not in the top 6 for the Marlies and Verhaeghe had no room against the Nylander's Brown's and Gauthier's who need the ice time so we can see if they also need to be moved on from or built around.

We traded 5 players so that we can bring in 5 new players. The 5 we moved were getting us nothing as individuals. Because the trade brought back 1 player does not change the reason why the trade was done or how it should benefit us moving forward with added flexibility.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Oh sure, but like I said. I'm pretty sure we could have gotten rid of contract spots while giving up worse assets, or at least getting something better back.

I agree with the idea, I don't like the execution. We gave up too much in prospects for not enough of a player back.

Have you seen where we ranked those players when they were here? I don't think 1 of them was even top 10. Trading 5 prospects outside your top 10 for an NHL player is a win in this league. Especially when you're preaching the type of rebuilding that results in acquiring and using a lot of draft picks.

 

[Warden of the North]

Oh sure, but like I said. I'm pretty sure we could have gotten rid of contract spots while giving up worse assets, or at least getting something better back.

I agree with the idea, I don't like the execution. We gave up too much in prospects for not enough of a player back.

If it was that easy dont you think we could have done it though?

 

[Nithoniniel]

They're really not all that young though as their place in the organization was replaced by players acquired over the past 15 months.

After a season or 2 of pro hockey as an organization you have a pretty good idea of who the future NHL players are in your group.

Grabner in the 1st month plays more NHL hockey for us then any of them ever would. Plus it opens up 4 other spots.

You can't wait on a Finn or Gibson to take that next step forever just because you have them. The plan over the next 18-24 months simply did not include them.

I have no issue with the analysis phase of Hunter and Shanahan and Dubas deciding that these kids were not going to pan out to being top NHL talent. Especially when the potential for PTO's to be flipped for picks can set us up better for a draft then trading those prospects ever would have especially after another mediocre season.

The decision was made that Gibson was #5 on the depth chart. Finn and Nilsson probably not in the top 6 for the Marlies and Verhaeghe had no room against the Nylander's Brown's and Gauthier's who need the ice time so we can see if they also need to be moved on from or built around.

We traded 5 players so that we can bring in 5 new players. The 5 we moved were getting us nothing as individuals. Because the trade brought back 1 player does not change the reason why the trade was done or how it should benefit us moving forward with added flexibility.

Here you bring some good arguments. I could start buying that these were the prospects that needed to go. I'm not sure I do, as with their dedication to ECHL I would think Verhaeghe would go there to develop for a year while AHL is full, but I see a point.

But then we give them up plus Beck for a guy that the last two seasons are barely an upgrade on him. Not very impressive.

I understand a part of the reason is that Islanders needed Grabner gone. That should have been an opportunity to use though, yet the value isn't on our side.

Have you seen where we ranked those players when they were here? I don't think 1 of them was even top 10. Trading 5 prospects outside your top 10 for an NHL player is a win in this league. Especially when you're preaching the type of rebuilding that results in acquiring and using a lot of draft picks.

I do not agree. At all. Especially when one of the players included in the deal is an NHL player as well.

If it was that easy dont you think we could have done it though?

Not easy of course. But that line could be said about every deal that gets done. If Washington couldn't get better than Erat for Forsberg, wouldn't they have done it? Well sure, doesn't change the fact that the trade was awful.

 

[Keeping it Blue]

Always when a trade happen people believe that the players involved were never discussed with another team.

We could have gotten X from someone else but they made this trade instead. Well, they probably would have made that deal then.

Contract spots are valuable to other teams as well.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Always when a trade happen people believe that the players involved were never discussed with another team.

We could have gotten X from someone else but they made this trade instead. Well, they probably would have made that deal then.

Contract spots are valuable to other teams as well.

And this retort always comes back. If Washington could have gotten more for Forsberg, don't you think they would have? Obviously, Forsberg was only worth a broken down Erat.

There's no need for oversimplification either way there. Bad deals are done and can be done by a lot of different reasons, not just because that's the best they could get.

 

[Faltorvo]

You also need to factor what we'll get for the guys we sign to PTOs with the newly acquired contract spots.

it's more accurate to say "might" get,no?

you want to talk about ifs and buts? look at booth, no one wanted him, santa,winnek you say? ya they had worth before the season started, we bid for them

grabner missed like 80 games the past 2 seasons

these PTOs? that stands for professional try out= washed out scrubs that no one is willing to even offer a 1 year league minimum for , that's bottom of the barrel folks, that's the purest term for a SCRUB

that's what we are making contract space for? this is our effort to make this a better team?

Burke pulled the same stunt with a young kid named stralman, he did not fit burkes "style or eye test" , how many here thought he was a "nothing " moved out piece when it happened?

guessing that kids are busts in their early 20s has always been our Achilles heal.

 

[CabanaBoy5]

Average prospects who have proven very little for a proven NHLer with speed to burn?....a no-brainer. Leafs Nation never ceases to amaze, falls in love with their prospects just because they are there's. The key to a rebuild is not to have quantity of prospects, but quality of prospects. Looking at the most recent Rookie Tournament and play from last year, we've lost prospects who are meh. The most impressive prospects, were Joly, Brouillard, Nylander, Kapanen, Marner, Dermot, etc.