Waived: Petr Mrazek (Cleared)

GirardSpinorama

Registered User
Aug 20, 2004
21,816
10,808
Think most would agree that Lyubushkin is better than Hagg.
No, Hagg is similarly just an injury replacement like Lyubushkin. Think most would agree that Dubas gave up assets to clean up his own mess when all he had to do was not sign Ritchie.
 

Legion34

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
18,981
9,000
I’m not sure what the heck is going on.
Leafs signed sateri. Why would he come play in the A?

Would kalgren be the backup?

Campbell
Kalgren/sateri

Mrazek
Kalgren/sateri
Hutch.

Phx goalie.

Makes no sense. If we are acquiring a goalie. Why sign sateri

If mrazek will get claimed. Why not just give a conditional 7th in 2025…. Unless he refused a trade?

If we waive mrazek. How can we have a goalie on emergency recall? Kalgren.

Campbell can’t play. If mrazek and sateri gets claimed who are our goalies?
 

GirardSpinorama

Registered User
Aug 20, 2004
21,816
10,808
That is a hundred percent not true. The big consensus was that they Leafs had upgraded from Fredrik Andersen which was a laughable take from the get go, made particularly funny when the team that led Mrazek signed Andersen.
I think most people would agree that Carolina is just a much smarter and savyer team than the Leafs. It was almost like Mrazek for Andersen trade, and I'd go with Carolina's management any day.
 

Iwishihadaspacebar

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
1,350
1,559
I can see someone taking Mrazek. He hasn't worked out in Toronto but his numbers up to this point have been solid. Whether he never settled, or has been injured or whatever, he's worth a team like Buffalo looking at him until the younger guys develop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhysicalGraffiti

Srsly

Registered User
Feb 8, 2011
2,511
978
Upland
That is a hundred percent not true. The big consensus was that they Leafs had upgraded from Fredrik Andersen which was a laughable take from the get go, made particularly funny when the team that led Mrazek signed Andersen.
The consensus was that the team viewed Campbell as an upgrade. Which was justifiable at the time and even in the first half of the season where he put up vezina quality numbers prior to his slump in January. I don’t think anyone saw Mrazek as the starter but more as a veteran NHL backup(which sounded ok before he was injured in the first game and proceeded to put up career worse numbers)
 

cjm502

Holy Jumpin!
Jun 22, 2010
1,854
1,101
Mid Michigan
Mrazek has a lot of talent, it sucks he never put it together. He always seemed a little overconfident or cocky to me, which isn't always the worst for a goalie, but in his case it certainly doesn't seem to have helped.
 

TheBeastCoast

Registered User
Mar 23, 2011
32,457
33,589
Dartmouth,NS
A conditional 2nd is a poor way to name it. It is Arizona's choice whether or not its a 2nd in 2025 or a 3rd in 2023. It's a guaranteed 2nd round pick in 2025 for Arizona unless they can make something better out of it.
It is literally a conditional 2nd though? Just because you don't think it fits doesn't mean it isn't a conditional 2nd round pick. I would imagine they will likely just take the 3rd regardless.
 

1989

Registered User
Aug 3, 2010
10,475
4,139
What's the (unlikely) goalie situation in Toronto if both Mrazek and Sateri are claimed off waivers?
 

GirardSpinorama

Registered User
Aug 20, 2004
21,816
10,808
It is literally a conditional 2nd though? Just because you don't think it fits doesn't mean it isn't a conditional 2nd round pick. I would imagine they will likely just take the 3rd regardless.
Arizona is guaranteed at least a 2nd round pick in 2025. Toronto has no control over whether or not the pick is a 2nd or 3rd, Arizona does. Semantics, but I just wanted to clarify that it is at least a 2nd round pick.

Anyways, its still not asset that a team should burn. Poor asset management to say the least.
 

Martin Skoula

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
12,205
17,168
Arizona is guaranteed at least a 2nd round pick in 2025. Toronto has no control over whether or not the pick is a 2nd or 3rd, Arizona does. Semantics, but I just wanted to clarify that it is at least a 2nd round pick.

Anyways, its still not asset that a team should burn. Poor asset management to say the least.

What does "at least" a 2nd round pick mean? You mean "at most" a 2nd in 3 years, the other option is a lower pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Insidefi

Taylorst

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
1,937
470
I would think if any deal between Toronto and Chicago would include Mrazek going back to Chicago it helps Toronto capwise and gives Chicago a cheap veteran goalie for 2 years...
 

GirardSpinorama

Registered User
Aug 20, 2004
21,816
10,808
What does "at least" a 2nd round pick mean? You mean "at most" a 2nd in 3 years, the other option is a lower pick.
The other option is Arizona's choice.

It could potentially be higher/better. For example, in 2023 the leafs could have a bad season, making their 3rd closer to a 2nd. Arizona could trade that away for a 2024 2nd or other assets.
 
Last edited:

Legion34

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
18,981
9,000
Ok so if he clears. Toronto can “call him back up” as an emergency for 30 days right?

Still wouldn’t be enough time for the season.
 

D Wakaluk

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
1,880
3,375
stuck in the '90s
I remember saying that they will drive him out of town.

I also remember some advanced stats leaf geeks bringing up that Mrazek will be excellent for them.

Such a shitty trade from the get go.

And no one will claim him
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad