Not sure what your point is.
Not suggesting Teilly is bad, nor was Hyman, but you can add huge balance to your team with a 2 or 3 for 1 trade, much like trading 4 prospects for a very good player. Just saying.
Speculation: Michael Bunting (a realistic look at)
- Thread starter ottomaddox
- 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
Not suggesting Teilly is bad, nor was Hyman, but you can add huge balance to your team with a 2 or 3 for 1 trade, much like trading 4 prospects for a very good player. Just saying.
123offtheglass
Registered User
As a big Zach Hyman fan, I'm very happy we have Bunting instead at 950k.
He's an even better fit & still has time to develop his game as a late bloomer.
He's an even better fit & still has time to develop his game as a late bloomer.
HamiltonNHL
Resigning Marner == Running it back
- Jan 4, 2012
- 22,710
- 13,885
All the people laughing at the leafs saying he couldn't replace Hyman...well he replaced Hyman seamlessly
Not really. Bunting was trending as a goal scorer and Mitch has always been a play maker
Perfect complementary player.
pacing for over 50 points.
Tight within the team, and fighting for the puck and ice all over the place.
Great signing so far
pacing for over 50 points.
Tight within the team, and fighting for the puck and ice all over the place.
Great signing so far
hotpaws
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 22,109
- 6,697
What’s funnier is the Leaf fans that believed he was irreplaceable
I always said I’d love one Zach Hyman on every line. (Jake Muzzin.m too, actually)
But it’s the profile that matters.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
I want a microphone on this guy all game, I want to know what he says to the opposing players that makes them hate Bunting so much. When they go after him, it's not just your a nuisance I'm goign to face wash you, it's I F-ing hate you, I want to kick the crap out of you ... First time since Tucker that we had a pest who can actually play the game.
Love this guy!
Love this guy!
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
I don't have a dog in this fight but the screen capture was a bit misleading, Mitch has played 33 games, Bunting 42.
Mess
Global Moderator
It wasn't an either/or choice as Leafs could have had both as Bunting is just a low $950k add.
Hyman was making $2.25 mil and now making $5.5 mil which is only $3.25 mil more ... So instead of signing Ritchie for $2.5 mil who has been a complete bust and given that money to Hyman instead, with some other minor adjustment you could have had both.
Leafs are still missing a top 6 capable forward in addition to having Bunting and could have had.
Hyman -- Matthews -- Marner
Bunting -- Tavares -- Nylander
Keefe recently tried new combos to create a stronger top 9 but it failed because he is essentially missing someone like Hyman to complete that, so he abandoned that plan.
If Dubas goes out and trades another 1st round pick this year for a rental like Foligno last year to play in the top 6, then the cost to replace Hyman includes that investment as well, as that rental forward wouldn't be required. IMO
Now had Dubas not foolishly protected Holl in expansion, and instead newly acquired Jared McCann [41 games 19 goals 11 assists 30 points] and then with him and Bunting in the top 6, you would have replaced Hyman and not needed to invest more assets and draft capital later and could have built a strong top 9 unit. Paying McCann $2.9 mil seems a lot brighter than paying Ritchie $2.5 mil to sit in the pressbox if that was the plan without Hyman.
Just to clarify - and setting aside the fact that the long term commitment, not his cap hit this year, is what makes Hyman's contract look so bad - you believe they could have made up a $3 million cap difference between Ritchie and Hyman by making another "minor adjustment"?
The difference between Hyman and Ritchie is 3m, which is a lot more than a "minor adjustment". Ritchie is also in his mid-20s, has a better track record than what he's shown here so far, and was only signed for 2 years, whereas Hyman's contract ends when he's 36. Signing Hyman for 5.5m would not have been a good idea, regardless of what else we did.
No we're not. Bunting and Kerfoot are both top-6 capable forwards, who have fit very well next to our 4 elite forwards.
We have an extremely strong top 9. Keefe didn't try out different combinations to "create a stronger top 9". He did it to test out different looks in case they're needed down the line. We were always going to go back to our current optimal line combinations, and Hyman wouldn't change that.
Not only is there no indication of that happening, but also, no it doesn't. That's horrible logic. If anything, keeping Hyman would have increased the need to acquire a rental, because his 5.5m cap hit would have prevented us from acquiring or keeping a bunch of our other quality depth that we now don't have any need or desire to upgrade.
Protecting Holl was and still is the correct move. You would think somebody that has historically put such an exaggerated emphasis on defense would know this.
The "goal" with Ritchie was for the team to be able to play a "different brand" of hockey in the playoffs as required by the opponent. Jared McCann doesn't really do that.
The other element at play in your suggestion -- let's say Holl goes in the XD, and they go and spend $1m on a #6/7 defenceman to backfill. It leaves you with a full cap hit (Engvall, Spezza, or Simmonds being the 13th forward), and a defence comprised of Rielly, Brodie, Muzzin, Liljegren, Sandin, Dermott, and $1m UFA. That's a pretty big hole on the right side of the 2nd pair.
The Podium
Registered User
Ritchie to Hyman is 3 million, not 500k like you’re suggesting…
Paying McCann 2.9 mill isn’t realistic when you would have to replace Holl at #4D, in this scenario, which would cost hell of a lot more than his current 2mill.
You’re understanding of the cap, and basic math skills, are laughably elementary.
This is the roster you are suggesting with only 1.9 mill to add a #4D
Not to mention, Kerfoot with Tavares and Nylander has outproduced McCann while being an integral part of our PK and is significantly better defensively. Fair, McCanns linemates are inferior, but the difference is made up by a PP1 role where McCann has 1/3rd of his offence, a luxury he wouldnt have in Toronto. With that said, I dont think McCann would be an upgrade in the top 6, maybe not even in the top 9 as Mikheyev would be bumped to the 4th line in this scenario.
Last edited:
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
The math is not that simple. If you keep Hyman in your scenario that could mean no Kase, no Kampft and no Spezza. I think we are a better team with Kase, Kampft, Spezza, Bunting than we are with Bunting & Hyman.
Saying if we didn't sign Ritchie then we'd have that cap, no one knows that a player is going to be a bust. If other GM's knew Kase, Kampft and Bunting would be this good , there would have been more competition for them.
TheGreatOne11
Registered User
I'm very happy we gave him the two years, two year run before we can't afford him
lol.But hopefully we can.
Y'all know this "but we could have both" is Mess drawing attention away from the fact he campaigned hard that Bunting was an Amadio/Ho-Sang level signing right?
The Podium
Registered User
My personal favorite was Kase being an LTIR signing to gain more cap space
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 78,334
- 45,565
Another Horton to cancel out a 1.25m Marleau
