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

[saltming]

Not necessarily directed at you but Edmonton has been mentioned a bunch of times during this celebration.
The same Edmonton team that Leaf fans make fun of all year for their dysfunction. Is the Leaf standard now that at least they aren't Edmonton?
I would hope we could set the bar a little higher.


No idea what that reference means.

I personally don't see it as a celebration and agree that it shouldn't be.
I'm looking at it practically, or at least I feel I am. Shit happens in real life and Imo its more important how we deal with that rather than dwelling on the problem.
My comparison to Edmonton was situational as it happened in the same draft and for the same purpose to show a contrast in how it was dealt with.
Maybe I'm looking for silver linings but if it was the other way around I would feel the opposite, that Dubas could have done better.

 

[justashadowof]

No idea what that reference means.

He was one of those dismantle the entire organization type of new blood GMs who tried to start from scratch with new scouting methods and sent the organization into a spiral for a decade.

 

[saltming]

Dubas himself traded the 29th overall in 2015 for the 34th overall for the cost of a 3rd round pick. That's hardly a mere 7th round pick for a movement 5 places in the same range.

More to that draft, he went from 24th to 29th for the cost of a late 2nd (61st overall), then 29th to 34th for the cost of a 3rd (68th overall). That's a cost of a late 2nd and early 3rd for moving from 24th overall to 34th overall.

Maybe we can stop pretending that the price was low. It was in the vicinity of a 2nd and 3rd round pick compensation.

Tbh I'm just regurgitating what was said by an analyst on Twitter that made sense to me. Also, the point that Edmonton paid more to dump salary still stands that in the grand scheme the move dubas made was better than others and thus could have been worse. So he did well with the cards he was delt is the point

 

[ACC1224]

I personally don't see it as a celebration and agree that it shouldn't be.
I'm looking at it practically, or at least I feel I am. Shit happens in real life and Imo its more important how we deal with that rather than dwelling on the problem.
My comparison to Edmonton was situational as it happened in the same draft and for the same purpose to show a contrast in how it was dealt with.
Maybe I'm looking for silver linings but if it was the other way around I would feel the opposite, that Dubas could have done better.

All good, sounds like we see it pretty much the same.

 

[saltming]

As much as you want to live in fantasy land the first round of the playoffs is never "basically the conference finals".

When you claim that the sky is the limit to your made up claims. It is a proper representation of how absolutely dumb the claim that a first round loss was "basically the conference finals" is.

I think it was the pseudo Superbowl to be honest the winner of our first round series would definitely challenge the Rams on the grid iron.



Edmonton gave up basically what we gave up to dump Ritchie lol

When Dubas does it "it's only a future 2025 at the most A+" Holland does it and i it shows how good of a GM dubas is

Lol there were lots who thought it was too much to give up to move Ritchie

All good, sounds like we see it pretty much the same.

Agreed

 

[BertCorbeau]

As much as you want to live in fantasy land the first round of the playoffs is never "basically the conference finals".

When you claim that the sky is the limit to your made up claims. It is a proper representation of how absolutely dumb the claim that a first round loss was "basically the conference finals" is.

I think it was the pseudo Superbowl to be honest the winner of our first round series would definitely challenge the Rams on the grid iron.



Edmonton gave up basically what we gave up to dump Ritchie lol

When Dubas does it "it's only a future 2025 at the most A+" Holland does it and i it shows how good of a GM dubas is

Uhh not really.

Edmonton gave up 3 spots in the first round and two drafted picks (a 2nd and a 3rd)..

Leafs gave up one draft pick. And they also acquired a serviceable bottom pairing RHD to help the right away.

 

[kb]

Uhh not really.

Edmonton gave up 3 spots in the first round and two drafted picks (a 2nd and a 3rd)..

Leafs gave up one draft pick. And they also acquired a serviceable bottom pairing RHD to help the right away.

It really tells you the strength of the argument when someone has to omit facts or outright lie.

And yet doesn't know when to stop.

 

[zeke]

Hope Dubas learned his lesson from last offseason - no more midrange contracts.

He aced the cheapo portion of the UFA market last year so just keep doing that and pool together the Ritchie and Mrazek typ contracts for a bigger fish.

 

[justashadowof]

Tbh I'm just regurgitating what was said by an analyst on Twitter that made sense to me. Also, the point that Edmonton paid more to dump salary still stands that in the grand scheme the move dubas made was better than others and thus could have been worse. So he did well with the cards he was delt is the point

No worries. I'm just trying debunk this spin that there was little cost. In fact I believe Dubas paid a similar price to move Mrazek than Edmonton did.

I think I did a good job of illustrating that the movement of 25th to 38th is approximately a late 2nd and an early 3rd based on trades Dubas himself engineered at the 2015 draft.

In summary:

Toronto:
2015 draft: 24th to 34th for the cost of the 61st (2nd) and 68th (3rd).
2022 draft: 25th to 38th worth AT LEAST a 2nd and 3rd, Mrazek moved for the cost of 25th to 38th.
Therefore moving Mrazek cost at least a 2nd and a 3rd.

Edmonton:
2022 draft: Kassian moved for the cost 29th to 32th plus a 2nd and a 3rd.
2018 draft: Leafs moved 25th to 29th for the cost of a 3rd. That means Edmonton's move of 29th to 32th is worth no more than a 3rd probably a 4th.
Therefore moving Kassian cost about a 2nd, 3rd and a 4th (late 3rd) AND Edmonton still picked in the 1st round.

 

[rocketman588]

The trade really depends on who we pick up

If we get helly for example sure it'll be an A+

If we're rolling Murray and Talbot we just wasted a first for nothing

 

[saltming]

No worries. I'm just trying debunk this spin that there was little cost. In fact I believe Dubas paid a similar price to move Mrazek than Edmonton did.

I think I did a good job of illustrating that the movement of 25th to 38th is approximately a late 2nd and an early 3rd based on trades Dubas himself engineered at the 2015 draft.

In summary:

Toronto:
2015 draft: 24th to 34th for the cost of the 61st (2nd) and 68th (3rd).
2022 draft: 25th to 38th worth AT LEAST a 2nd and 3rd, Mrazek moved for the cost of 25th to 38th.
Therefore moving Mrazek cost at least a 2nd and a 3rd.

Edmonton:
2022 draft: Kassian moved for the cost 29th to 32th plus a 2nd and a 3rd.
2018 draft: Leafs moved 25th to 29th for the cost of a 3rd. That means Edmonton's move of 29th to 32th is worth no more than a 3rd probably a 4th.
Therefore moving Kassian cost about a 2nd, 3rd and a 4th (late 3rd) AND Edmonton still picked in the 1st round.

This is what I read. Obviously you will grasp it better than I. Also what is the relevance of going back to draft years previous?

 

[Antropovsky]

Recency bias, and an real inability/shortcoming of a lot on here to see anything beyond what a player does in blue & white. Unless of course they have obvious success with a cup winner after leaving here.
Mrazek was a worthy gamble and if he played to his decade long career average he would have been a fine signing and a good insurance policy for the situation we’re now in with jack supposedly pricing himself out of town.
Unfortunately the player sucked ass this year for various reasons and the group decided to a clean slate was needed.
I’m not sure how any level headed person would interpret this as anything else

How sure are we that we will get a goalie that is more proven than Mrazek and will that goalie be paid less money for a shorter term than Mrazek? We will see.... we paid a good asset for the opportunity to see. Campbell stumbled hard for a bit during the seasons, I dont know I want to invest big term and cap space on a player with such a small sample size.

 

[Stephen]

Look at it this way. If the blackhawks wanted to trade up from 38 to 25 and said we’ll give you a 7th leafs say no. That is why the value thing is wrong. The trade down wasn’t equivalent to giving up a 7th.

Solid trade by the leafs I just diagreee with the value they are giving it.

Agreed. Seems like there’s some confusion over the “trade value” of a trade up from late 30s to mid 20s in real life trades vs the historical value of those picks based on someone’s value model which is not shown.

Which conceptually doesn’t even make that much sense.

 

[Trapper]

2

This is what I read. Obviously you will grasp it better than I. Also what is the relevance of going back to draft years previous?

2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Why does this team always have to compare itself to not being as bad as other bad things?

 

[saltming]

2

2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Why does this team always have to compare itself to not being as bad as other bad things?

Not saying it does however doing what needs to be done is important no?
Comparison is fair when evaluating the competencey of the move based on the market it was made in, other wise how would you rate if a move is good or bad?

Look at it this way. If the blackhawks wanted to trade up from 38 to 25 and said we’ll give you a 7th leafs say no. That is why the value thing is wrong. The trade down wasn’t equivalent to giving up a 7th.

Solid trade by the leafs I just diagreee with the value they are giving it.

Trading up and down are completely different though. Also you forgot to add the value of moving the contract

 

[deprw]

You're still trying to debate the merits of the decisions. Read my last post again more slowly and try and let what is being said actually sink in.

And I answered you already, that we didn't know back then at summer we signed Tavares, that we had two 10 million youngsters on last year of ELC. It would have been pretty bold assumption to make in that point. I think everyone knew at that point that Matthews will cost like Eichel.

So you basicly give up on most coveted asset on free agency and top3 free agent during our rebuild for the fact that we might have to dump Marleau, if everything goes like in the movies.

I'm really down to shitting on Dubas for signing eventually those RFA contracts or in hindsight think about if signing Tavares was mistake, it's easily debatable, but we tend to read this situation with the knowledge we later had and then judge those moves based on information we didn't have back then. Even with that information it would have been scrutinized move not to sign Tavares to make room for last year of Marleau.

You don't usually get elite talent from free agency, you get tier2 or tier3 that you will overpay tier above. If you think we should have kept that cap room, then it's basicly Lous mistake to hinder us from not getting best player from the market of last ten years. Lou would have made that move himself and handled Marleau situation accordingly when time comes.

Like we did. That 2019 Boston series was closest to this day and well worth of that Tavares singning and getting rid of Marleau. At least for me. That Kadri suspension and losing that game seven still stungs.

After that you get into that cap hassle like any good team when ELC players graduate and since landscape changed after McDavid that you really pay your youngsters it's league wide struggle. How many rebuilding team has won with near ELC talent since 2010 Blackhawks? None.

I just don't get why we still even discuss about this Marleau contract. Mrazek was different situation and actually lands fully on Dubas.

Funny thing is that if you look that 2021 goalie situation I still think Mrazek was right gamble, it didn't work out and we pay the price. Luckily it didn't affect our last season too much, but now it's really up to Dubas to make right decision on goaltending.

 

[ShaneFalco]

How sure are we that we will get a goalie that is more proven than Mrazek and will that goalie be paid less money for a shorter term than Mrazek? We will see.... we paid a good asset for the opportunity to see. Campbell stumbled hard for a bit during the seasons, I dont know I want to invest big term and cap space on a player with such a small sample size.

Nope - injury prone and seems to go through mental lapses. It's gotta be a trade me thinks

 

[Trapper]

Not saying it does however doing what needs to be done is important no?
Comparison is fair when evaluating the competencey of the move based on the market it was made in, other wise how would you rate if a move is good or bad?

What the next narrative here?
Dubas has to trade the 1st round pick down to get rid of the problem he created to what? possibly re-sign the guy (Campbell) to more money that people say isn’t good enough (but be declared a smart signing after it happens).
Let’s call a spade a spade here. The Dubas core and salary structure only results in him constantly throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks. The plan is reactive and not proactive.

 

[saltming]

What the next narrative here?
Dubas has to trade the 1st round pick down to get rid of the problem he created to what? possibly re-sign the guy (Campbell) to more money that people say isn’t good enough (but be declared a smart signing after it happens).
Let’s call a spade a spade here. The Dubas core and salary structure only results in him constantly throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks. The plan is reactive and not proactive.

No narrative. I've already said it was a mistake and that in reality these things happen to everyone and every organization and its very important to see how one gets out of said predicament. The method of saving what you can is pretty important.
There is no, and has never been a flawless GM. Mistakes happen to every team every year. How does the GM deal with it? Retain half the salary to burden the cap for years? Trade prospects? Draft picks? The choice should be dependant on where the team is and its strengths relative to that moment.
This Imo is where we should also be evaluating the GM.

 

[Stephen]

What the next narrative here?
Dubas has to trade the 1st round pick down to get rid of the problem he created to what? possibly re-sign the guy (Campbell) to more money that people say isn’t good enough (but be declared a smart signing after it happens).
Let’s call a spade a spade here. The Dubas core and salary structure only results in him constantly throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks. The plan is reactive and not proactive.

The Leafs cap management feels like a Jenga tower the past couple of years.

In order to make the top heavy forward construction work you need to keep hollowing out the middle of the roster and other key positions.

When we still had Andersen, we had a workhorse goalie who was a bit of a headcase playing in front of a porous defense.

Then we got better on defense but had to make a long bet on darkhorse goalies.

Now that one has emerged but we paid the other guy, we need to dip into our draft capital to get out of a straight jacket. All the while, our second line seems to be springing some holes and the forward depth in the bottom six went from a strength to kind of thin.

Feels like we need to take one or two steps back as an organization and really regenerate and get healthier from a depth, cap perspective.

 

[ToneDog]

What the next narrative here?
Dubas has to trade the 1st round pick down to get rid of the problem he created to what? possibly re-sign the guy (Campbell) to more money that people say isn’t good enough (but be declared a smart signing after it happens).
Let’s call a spade a spade here. The Dubas core and salary structure only results in him constantly throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks. The plan is reactive and not proactive.

Gospel.

 

[rocketman588]

Agreed. Seems like there’s some confusion over the “trade value” of a trade up from late 30s to mid 20s in real life trades vs the historical value of those picks based on someone’s value model which is not shown.

Which conceptually doesn’t even make that much sense.

We got a 4th for a 16 spot trade down in the third

If it's a worth 7 for the same move then dubas made the best trade off all time in round 3.

I have no idea what the chart is using to determine the value I assume it has to be difference in % of time making an impact in the NHL or something and that change in % is the difference of a 7th rounder making the impact in the league because it's not based off of traditional trade value

 

[justashadowof]

I don't say this often here but that Earl Schwartz guy is either an idiot or a liar. There is no evidence to support that moving from 25th to 38th is worth only a 7th.

 

[ToneDog]

I don't say this often here but that Earl Schwartz guy is either an idiot or a liar. There is no evidence to support that moving from 25th to 38th is worth only a 7th.

Was going to ask WTF is Earl Schwartz? Another Leaf Twitter shill ??

 

[saltming]

Was going to ask WTF is Earl Schwartz? Another Leaf Twitter shill ??

Writer for leafs nation I believe