Confirmed with Link: [TOR/CHI] G Petr Mrazek & 25th Overall Pick to CHI for 38th Overall Pick

[The Podium]

We signed a sieve who ended up costing us a first rounder. So Leafy to celebrate. We got out of a bad situation we created, so you’re happy for it but it’s simple, Peter Mrazek was a net negative for the Leafs, and there is no disputing it. He goes down on the FAIL side of the ledger for Dubas and if you can’t accept that, an internal rethink required.

It didn’t cost them a first rounder

 

[Nineteen67]

3 of last 4 drafts no first rounder.

When I don’t want to attend an event, I RSVP as A Dubas 1st round pick.

 

[The Podium]

The best part about all this, every who wanted Mrazek gone, is still bitching now that Mrazek was gone.

And the people are bitching, are literally bitching at an arbitrary cutoff of #32.

If Dubas trades back to #32, or if there were 38 teams in the league, I bet no one complains

 

[Ciao]

I think the Leafs may have had their clocks cleaned on this deal.

Mrazek is capable of putting in two good seasons to complete his contract. It was a panic move.

I'm not sold on any of the available free agents as a clear upgrade, and at what cost?

Good thing I'm not in not in charge of the Leafs

 

[Nineteen67]

It didn’t cost them a first rounder

Wait, what?

 

[Stephen]

That isnt what hes saying. Hes saying the difference in expected value of the two picks in terms of drafting an effective player.

As in the model hes using says the chance of a 25th overall pick being an effective NHLer vs fhe 38th is about the same chance as having an additional 6th round pick. It's a bit lower than some of the other pick value models I've seen though.

Hes not saying on the trade market value, hes just saying essentially the leafs arent giving up much in terms of quality of prospect they will get at 38 vs 25

Assigning retroactive value to picks based on historical aggregate of drafts isn’t necessarily going to give you a good picture of what players are available on draft day. Since year to year since each draft has radically different quantities and qualities of prospects.

 

[Kazparov]

Good trade.

 

[DarkKnight]

It didn’t cost them a first rounder

Huh.

When I don’t want to attend an event, I RSVP as A Dubas 1st round pick.

When you think we had no first rounders the last two years because of Foligno and Mrazek isn’t a good look for a GM, sorry.

Anyways, we move forward, see what else he does.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Huh.
View attachment 566122

By your same logic, we could say that we traded Mrazek for a high 2nd round pick.

Or we could just be honest and acknowledge that the trade was Mrazek for 13 negligible draft slots.

 

[DarkKnight]

By your same logic, we could say that we traded Mrazek for a high 2nd round pick.

Logic left you years ago bruh.

 

[Stephen]

I think the Leafs may have had their clocks cleaned on this deal.

Mrazek is capable of putting in two good seasons to complete his contract. It was a panic move.

I'm not sold on any of the available free agents as a clear upgrade, and at what cost?

Good thing I'm not in not in charge of the Leafs

Dubas needs to take a deep breath and put the cone of silence back on. He’s talking a lot in public and it’s not doing any favours from a PR stance to talk up the possibility of using Mrazek one day only to pay a premium disposal cost and admit that dropping in the draft isn’t ideal.

 

[The Podium]

 

[Stephen]

By your same logic, we could say that we traded Mrazek for a high 2nd round pick.

Or we could just be honest and acknowledge that the trade was Mrazek for 13 negligible draft slots.

Yep. 13 draft spots at the top of the draft.

 

[4thline]

I don’t agree with this line of thinking, which I’ve seen presented by several people, not just yourself.

Chicago was willing to essentially buy a move up the draft using cap space, that doesn’t at all mean they would have had any interest in parting with a 2nd rounder to make the same move. Those are different cost/benefits.

Not necessarily Chicago. It's possible that no one with the right combination of picks was willing to trade up, and that this cap space was the only viable option to extract value out of a trade back that we were set on doing based on the draft board, but with how common those drop back trades are it seems unlikely. Could also be that the pick value was small. More like the SDA drop back than the Niemela.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Logic left you years ago bruh.

Oh, I have plenty of logic "bruh". What would be illogical is claiming Mrazek cost us a 1st round pick, when he actually cost us 13 rather negligible draft slots.

 

[DarkKnight]

Oh, I have plenty of logic "bruh". What would be illogical is claiming Mrazek cost us a 1st round pick, when he actually cost us 13 rather negligible draft slots.

“Obviously, you don’t want to move down in the draft”. Kyle Dubas

 

[The Podium]

Wait, what?

Huh.
View attachment 566122


When you think we had no first rounders the last two years because of Foligno and Mrazek isn’t a good look for a GM, sorry.

Anyways, we move forward, see what else he does.

It didn’t cost them a first rounder, Marleau cost them a first rounder.

There was a pick 13 spots later in return. It cost them 13 spots in the draft.

25 for Mrazek and 38

That’s the deal as much as you guys wanna exaggerate the loss

In fact, to the same extent of exaggeration, draft boards very so much that it’s realistically possible the Leafs pick the same player at 38 that they would have at 25. So technically the Leafs traded literally nothing to get rid of Mrazek.

 

[Nineteen67]

By your same logic, we could say that we traded Mrazek for a high 2nd round pick.

Or we could just be honest and acknowledge that the trade was Mrazek for 13 negligible draft slots.

or just say the self inflicted wound only cost 13 draft slots

 

[DarkKnight]

It didn’t cost them a first rounder, Marleau cost them a first rounder.

There was a pick 13 spots later in return. It cost them 13 spots in the draft.

25 for Mrazek and 38

That’s the deal as much as you guys wanna exaggerate the loss

In fact, to the same extent of exaggeration, draft boards very so much that it’s realistically possible the Leafs pick the same player at 38 that they would have at 25. So technically the Leafs traded literally nothing to get rid of Mrazek.

Okay who was our first rounder last night? Are you Dubas trolls for real.

Later lol.

 

[ULF_55]

By your same logic, we could say that we traded Mrazek for a high 2nd round pick.

Or we could just be honest and acknowledge that the trade was Mrazek for 13 negligible draft slots.

Let's break it down.

Leafs trade 25th. overall for $3.8mm in capspace.
Leafs trade Mrazek for 38th. overall pick.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yep. 13 draft spots at the top of the draft.

13 draft slots in the late 1st early 2nd range, which is pretty negligible, especially in a draft like this.

“Obviously, you don’t want to move down in the draft”. Kyle Dubas

Doesn't change what the trade actually was.

 

[thewave]

Wait, what?

The old Jedi mind trick. Never gets old.

 

[ACC1224]

The best part about all this, every who wanted Mrazek gone, is still bitching now that Mrazek was gone.

And the people are bitching, are literally bitching at an arbitrary cutoff of #32.

If Dubas trades back to #32, or if there were 38 teams in the league, I bet no one complains

You didn't want Mrazek gone?
Thought that was unanimous among Leaf fans?

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Assigning retroactive value to picks based on historical aggregate of drafts isn’t necessarily going to give you a good picture of what players are available on draft day. Since year to year since each draft has radically different quantities and qualities of prospects.

While I think that's fair - its also an argument to use this approach over multiple drafts, since I don't think anyone knows exactly at the time of the draft that a draft is strong or weak. Take 2012 for example, I don't think in the moment anyone thought it was that bad of a class.

If you do this over say, 10 years - you will average out and likely come out ahead.

 

[ACC1224]

Logic left you years ago bruh.