zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
As much as they try, they can't actually make up new rules to screw the leafs.
Prospect Info: Marlies/Prospects Thread
- Thread starter uncleben
- Start date
-
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
As much as they try, they can't actually make up new rules to screw the leafs.
Super Mega
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2013
- 2,710
- 401
Because other teams have a cheaper guy filling his role. He's a middle 6 guy making too much money
SeaOfBlue
The Passion That Unites Us All
- Aug 1, 2013
- 35,591
- 16,777
Highly unlikely. Paces for ~35 points a year without any kind of real PP time and is one of the better PKers in the league. Not to mention his versatility of being able to play in a top 6 in case of injury, and filling in at both center and wing.
Guys like Kerfoot are rarely getting less than his 3.5 mill price tag. If Kerfoot could take draws properly, he'd probably be making north of 4 mill on the open market. Our only hope for replacing him would be an internal option like Engvall or Brooks (or even Hirvonen, Abramov, or SDA) eventually being able to replace him while they are still cheap, or hitting on a bargain bin guy like Kampf or Semyonov. Otherwise, we'd need to downgrade his spot with an inferior option (like Kampf or Semyonov) or make a lateral move that won't really save us cap space nor upgrade his spot.
SeaOfBlue
The Passion That Unites Us All
- Aug 1, 2013
- 35,591
- 16,777
Totally fine with that. I would probably be more torn up about losing Anderson or Engvall (or even Brooks) than him.
It was only one game, but he was outplayed by numerous guys who are likely going to be playing in the AHL next year on both teams... And most of his competition outplayed him in that game too. If another team wants an over-the-hill veteran who should likely not be anything more than a filler 4th liner at this point, then save us the contract spot and the money.
Regardless, that unnecessary extra year on his deal tells me he is waiver fodder. I don't remember the last time a team claimed a guy with more than one year left on his deal, because usually they don't want the monetary and contract spot commitment on a fringe NHLer. The extra year should eliminate any real question about him getting claimed on waivers.
To be fair just a couple years ago the league did make a new rule to specifically screw the Leafs, the offseason training thing they put in place because other teams didn't like the Leafs basically running training camp at the mastercard centre before training camps officially opened.
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
Mitch nylander
One of the biggest fans from a bipolar fanbase
- Jun 2, 2016
- 4,832
- 6,572
I don't understand the waiving Spezza talk. He won't be playing in the AHL, and he is simply better than your dime dozen players in Semyonov/Engvall/Anderson/Brooks.
Let's be real the lineup will end up something like this
Ritchie - Matthews - Marner
Bunting - Tavares - Nylander
Kerfoot - Kampf - Kase
Mikheyev - Spezza - X
X will be between - Brooks, Engvall and Simmonds. I think they carry an extra dman in Menell or Liljegren.
Robertson and Semyonov likely go down because of their waiver exemption. Anderson, hasn't showed enough to show that he is ready to play a regular shift over brooks, Engvall and Simmonds. Losing him wouldn't really upset me, he's 23 now and hasn't really made a statement on why he should be in the lineup over others. I personally see their being better players on waivers, allowing him the potential to slide through.
I personally think the X ends up being Simmonds because of his 2 year deal and because he likely doesn't report to the AHL.
With the leafs only having cap space for one extra player, maybe Mikheyev gets moved for some picks to allow 2 of the players in x.
Let's be real the lineup will end up something like this
Ritchie - Matthews - Marner
Bunting - Tavares - Nylander
Kerfoot - Kampf - Kase
Mikheyev - Spezza - X
X will be between - Brooks, Engvall and Simmonds. I think they carry an extra dman in Menell or Liljegren.
Robertson and Semyonov likely go down because of their waiver exemption. Anderson, hasn't showed enough to show that he is ready to play a regular shift over brooks, Engvall and Simmonds. Losing him wouldn't really upset me, he's 23 now and hasn't really made a statement on why he should be in the lineup over others. I personally see their being better players on waivers, allowing him the potential to slide through.
I personally think the X ends up being Simmonds because of his 2 year deal and because he likely doesn't report to the AHL.
With the leafs only having cap space for one extra player, maybe Mikheyev gets moved for some picks to allow 2 of the players in x.
SeaOfBlue
The Passion That Unites Us All
- Aug 1, 2013
- 35,591
- 16,777
It has nothing to do with putting them in the AHL, which I said multiple times. It has to do with being able to being able to give Spezza games off during the season, which almost certainly will happen, and you take him off the cap during those days.
I don't see why this is controversial. We did it a half dozen times with Spezza last year after we waived him. He didn't play a single game for the Marlies. I'm saying we will do the same thing with Simmonds because he should be getting the same treatment as Spezza and should also clear waivers, and Semyonov, who does not need waivers and will likely be part of that rotation if he can't take a permanent spot.
Ideally, if Semyonov or Brooks or someone else shows they can take a full time spot, then you trade Engvall and rotate between Spezza, Simmonds, and that other guy for 2 4th line jobs. Keefe can choose between physicality (Simmonds), offense (Spezza), and defense/two-way (Semyonov/Brooks/Amadio).
Not sure where the waive Spezza stuff came from. I can't remember the exact circumstance last year, but I am not sure if they would be the same this time around.
If we opted to waive Spezza in the hopes that he clears, he effectively becomes a 2 way deal from what I remember? making daily paper transactions more feasible and accruing the most possible cap on a day to day basis, which effectively may help us come TDL time.
That said, this league will not be fooled twice by this. As much as we, and other fanbases may think we are a joke of a franchise. Hockey minds in the NHL don't. We are still in that 2nd tier of true contenders, with a chance of emerging into that top tier. If Spezza hits waivers, what is stopping another team from putting in a claim, regardless of him saying he will retire if claimed? If he retires, the Leafs get worse... That is a win for any team competing against us. Spezz is still extremely effective. It's actually shocking how effective he still is at his age. Just such a smart hockey player to have down the lineup, let alone have in the room/organization. A competing team putting in a claim and therefore forcing Spezz to retire would be an addition by subtracting a talented player from their competition.
I really have no clue what the rules are when it comes to this shit, could Spezz "retire" and then come out of retirement in the same day? That seems like a circumvention of the CBA to me. Not sure I'd want to risk that, because we've seen the penalties they've handed out for other circumventions of the cap.
Spezz is not hitting waivers again IMO, I think it was very much a one off. Not sure I see a huge benefit in doing it again.
If we opted to waive Spezza in the hopes that he clears, he effectively becomes a 2 way deal from what I remember? making daily paper transactions more feasible and accruing the most possible cap on a day to day basis, which effectively may help us come TDL time.
That said, this league will not be fooled twice by this. As much as we, and other fanbases may think we are a joke of a franchise. Hockey minds in the NHL don't. We are still in that 2nd tier of true contenders, with a chance of emerging into that top tier. If Spezza hits waivers, what is stopping another team from putting in a claim, regardless of him saying he will retire if claimed? If he retires, the Leafs get worse... That is a win for any team competing against us. Spezz is still extremely effective. It's actually shocking how effective he still is at his age. Just such a smart hockey player to have down the lineup, let alone have in the room/organization. A competing team putting in a claim and therefore forcing Spezz to retire would be an addition by subtracting a talented player from their competition.
I really have no clue what the rules are when it comes to this shit, could Spezz "retire" and then come out of retirement in the same day? That seems like a circumvention of the CBA to me. Not sure I'd want to risk that, because we've seen the penalties they've handed out for other circumventions of the cap.
Spezz is not hitting waivers again IMO, I think it was very much a one off. Not sure I see a huge benefit in doing it again.
stickty111
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2017
- 27,260
- 34,233
Mitch nylander
One of the biggest fans from a bipolar fanbase
- Jun 2, 2016
- 4,832
- 6,572
Is the taxi squad still in place this year? If so it makes sense, but if not how do you plan on waiving them without sending them to the minors?
Someone can correct me with the exact details. But when someone passes through waivers, you have X amount of days afterwards where they are exempt from passing through waivers. So you "waive" them once, and then shift him in and out of the line-up for the next month without ACTUALLY having to send them to the minors. They are in the minors in spirit, basically getting games off and not counting towards the cap with the big club. They don't physically go anywhere.
If you can't carry 13 forwards because of cap space, you waive Spezza at the point in the season where he needs rest, and then have him rotate in and out of the lineup for a month.
SeaOfBlue
The Passion That Unites Us All
- Aug 1, 2013
- 35,591
- 16,777
You can do paper transactions. We did it all the time, even before taxi squad.
Mitch nylander
One of the biggest fans from a bipolar fanbase
- Jun 2, 2016
- 4,832
- 6,572
Makes sense didn't think of that.
Realistically I only see us losing, Engvall and Brooks to waivers. Anderson, Amadio along with the others should clear.
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
It is pretty funny how the no-depth leafs are always the ones having their players claimed on waivers.
LeafChief
Matthew Knies Enthusiast
nuck
Registered User
- Aug 18, 2005
- 11,758
- 2,767
Lots of people were talking about Kerfoot but the time for making a change this year is past and he seems to be someone that Keefe likes. A 12g forward is a overpaid at 3.5 but he was 1.87 and 1.89 pp60 before last season and if he does that again he is around Palat and Cirelli for the last two Cup teams and they got paid more. He didn't have a great year but was still a lot better than the actual "bad" players on the team. I much prefer him as a 12:00- 13:00 a night winger than a wannabe center but he goes where they tell him and doesn't take nights off.
SeaOfBlue
The Passion That Unites Us All
- Aug 1, 2013
- 35,591
- 16,777
He is much better than a 12-13 minute winger.
14:30 a night is a good amount for him if he is not playing PP. Maybe can get a little bit more if they are giving Matthews/Marner less ice time.
I think he is a great fit as a 3C too. Just needs a guy like Spezza to split draws for him, or to get back to 2018-2019 when he was 56% in the dot. Faceoffs are really what is keeping him from being a high end center, because he has the IQ, two-way ability, and natural feel to play that position quite well.
uncleben
Global Moderator
I don't really know where they're standing on that now, but the League was cracking down on that a few years ago.
If you assign a player to the minors, they have to be separated - can't stay in the city, practicing with the main club, has to be on the move within a minimum amount of time, etc.
For a team like Toronto, it's not a big deal, because the player just drives down the street instead of having to take a plane across the country to demonstrate it's not just a "workaround" paper transaction
3.5 million is too much for a middle 6. 2.5 is clearly indicative of poor cap management forcing us to go bargain hunting. Well managed teams sign their middle forwards in a precise band of 2.6-3m
Apex Predator
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 4,500
- 4,799
Is it though? Look at some of the top teams and see what they pay their middle 6. I don’t think Keefoot is all that great but at 3.5 I think it’s fine. It’s only an issue here because we are up against the cap.
Please show me a good, well managed team that has all 6 middle six forwards making precisely 2.6-3 million.
On second thought, are you joking?
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
- Status
