Confirmed with Link: [TOR/OTT] Matt Murray (25% retention), a 3rd in 2023 and a 7th in 2024 for Future Considerations.

[ITM]

You already hear now if it doesn’t work out we always have in season trades.

It's definitely a peculiar circularity we're inflicting upon ourselves. Repeatedly.

Don't mind the Samsonov gamble. Would have preferred him with Lindgren (the irony) or Lankinen. But asset acquisition relies so much on timing. And there's a string of moves where the identification of right order is just so peculiar.

As usual, hoping for the best.

 

[Sypher04]

I don’t understand how these two apologist narratives jive. We had to take the 75 percent retention or Ottawa wouldn’t make the deal but in no way were we desperate or scrambling to fill the net. If we weren’t desperate then we simply walk away from a bad deal, yet we took it.

The Nets wanted Barnes, the Raptors don’t like that deal and because they aren’t desperate, the GM simply said no and get back to us when a better arrangement makes it attractive. See how it works.

If we weren’t in panic mode, Ottawa never has any leverage. They were desperate to rid themselves from that contract, the entire hockey world knew. Trouble for us, the hockey world also knew we were in a corner when it came to filling the net during a pivotal time, hence the ridiculous retention acceptance.

I’m cheering he regains his form and stays healthy, but we wasted cap money we couldn’t afford, which further exasperates the nickel and dime routine we find ourselves in now.

I think it probably comes down to assessment of the player and how you feel. I think the Leafs targeted Murray because they actually, rightly or wrongly, have confidence in the player to continue to bounce back and didn’t want to lose him to another club over the retention. I’m not sure I see it as desperate necessarily, but it may in the long run prove ill advised. We will have to wait and see I suppose. That all said, I’d have happily foregone the 3rd we received if we could have moved it to a third team to receive additional retention. I have to assume that was explored and either there was a lack of willingness from another team to facilitate it or that their ask was much higher than the 3rd.

This all said, if Murray has a solid or better year, this trade becomes a pretty clear win. Just hard to not view it as risky until we see how it all unfolds.

I’m a generally optimistic person so I’m feeling fairly good tbh

 

[Dekes For Days]

Don't mind the Samsonov gamble. Would have preferred him with Lindgren (the irony) or Lankinen.

Lankinen has been bad his entire career, and Lindgren has a grand total of 29 NHL games. Those would have been way, way bigger risks than Murray.

 

[kb]

I think it probably comes down to assessment of the player and how you feel. I think the Leafs targeted Murray because they actually, rightly or wrongly, have confidence in the player to continue to bounce back and didn’t want to lose him to another club over the retention. I’m not sure I see it as desperate necessarily, but it may in the long run prove ill advised. We will have to wait and see I suppose. That all said, I’d have happily foregone the 3rd we received if we could have moved it to a third team to receive additional retention. I have to assume that was explored and either their was a lack of willingness from another team to facilitate it or that their ask was much higher than the 3rd.

This all said, if Murray has a solid or better year, this trade becomes a pretty clear win. Just hard to not view it as risky until we see how it all unfolds.

This is an excellent take.

I would also like to point out that the 25% retention moved Murray from the 5th highest goalie cap hit to where the Leafs are paying him the 22nd highest cap hit in the league. So the retention itself was a form of risk mitigation along with the 2 draft picks.

Of course we all wanted more, but with the reports of a second suitor now, it was a take it or move on scenario.

It's a calculated gamble that could go either way. But if he played up to last year's form after returning from being waived (minus the last game), it's a solid risk to take.

 

[Gary Nylund]

This is an excellent take.

I would also like to point out that the 25% retention moved Murray from the 5th highest goalie cap hit to where the Leafs are paying him the 22nd highest cap hit in the league. So the retention itself was a form of risk mitigation along with the 2 draft picks.

Of course we all wanted more, but with the reports of a second suitor now, it was a take it or move on scenario.

It's a calculated gamble that could go either way. But if he played up to last year's form after returning from being waived (minus the last game), it's a solid risk to take.

Calculated gamble seems accurate to me and it definitely has the potential to pay off big. Amazing that the majority is acting as if we lost this gamble before Murray's even played a game.

 

[Stephen]

Contextually, I designate Lankinen a 1b for our club, not Nashville's.

Well, his job in Nashville is going to be a lot easier than in a tandem arrangement here. But I don’t mind Lankinen generally as a stop gap.

 

[Beaumaris]

Oh if only Murray could be Eddie The Eagle 2.0, the crease would be cleared:

Coming up 50 years following the Leafs,and for me Eddie easily the best goalie.
in the Leafs net.

If Samsonov wins the job in camp, he should start regardless of salary.

Of course

 

[ACC1224]

Coming up 50 years following the Leafs,and for me Eddie easily the best goalie.
in the Leafs net.

Yep, same for me. He made it look so easy.

 

[Beaumaris]

Yep, same for me. He made it look so easy.

And clutch.

 

[Hoglund4MvP]

Only Dubas would gamble on a goalie who missed 25 games due to a concussion and had to shut it down after attempting to come back. 6 first round losses in a row and we're going with the current day Ondrej Kase of goalies.

If any other team did this after 6 first round losses we'd laugh at them but because it's the idiot, it's suddenly a calculated gamble. It was nothing but caving out of desperation and falling for this second team in the mix bluff (if it is true Leafs aren't behind this rumor).

This is an excellent take.

I would also like to point out that the 25% retention moved Murray from the 5th highest goalie cap hit to where the Leafs are paying him the 22nd highest cap hit in the league. So the retention itself was a form of risk mitigation along with the 2 draft picks.

Of course we all wanted more, but with the reports of a second suitor now, it was a take it or move on scenario.

It's a calculated gamble that could go either way. But if he played up to last year's form after returning from being waived (minus the last game), it's a solid risk to take.

Right, right. After he gets ridiculed by the whole world suddenly reports out of a second team in the mix. I wonder what organization is behind this rumor

 

[kb]

Right, right. After he gets ridiculed by the whole world suddenly reports out of a second team in the mix. I wonder what organization is behind this rumor

Maybe because it wasn't originally known at the time? I would not be the least bit surprised if Ottawa found a second suitor to leverage.

Not sure I understand why it's a such a stretch to believe their was another suitor considering Murray turned down a trade to Buffalo a few days before.

 

[saltming]

I don’t understand how these two apologist narratives jive. We had to take the 75 percent retention or Ottawa wouldn’t make the deal but in no way were we desperate or scrambling to fill the net. If we weren’t desperate then we simply walk away from a bad deal, yet we took it.

The Nets wanted Barnes, the Raptors don’t like that deal and because they aren’t desperate, the GM simply said no and get back to us when a better arrangement makes it attractive. See how it works.

If we weren’t in panic mode, Ottawa never has any leverage. They were desperate to rid themselves from that contract, the entire hockey world knew. Trouble for us, the hockey world also knew we were in a corner when it came to filling the net during a pivotal time, hence the ridiculous retention acceptance.

I’m cheering he regains his form and stays healthy, but we wasted cap money we couldn’t afford, which further exasperates the nickel and dime routine we find ourselves in now.

Not sure if it was panic. Dubas said they identified and really wanted Murray. This is big in the new goalie department.
Apparently elkin identified something in Murray's movement that can be fixed and should bring him back to scratch.
Something about stance width and post work. All things Murray was doing last season, until injury, and his numbers in that time were good.
So panic or aggressively going after your target? No clue but the way dubas spins it, it's the latter.

 

[kb]

Calculated gamble seems accurate to me and it definitely has the potential to pay off big. Amazing that the majority is acting as if we lost this gamble before Murray's even played a game.

That's exactly where I am at too. Calculated gamble with upside, but also comes with some downside risks.

All the Leafs need is steady league average goaltending - which they didn't really didn't get much of after New Years.

 

[banks]

The Samsonov move changes my view of the Murray trade a bit. It's just less crazy when you see the tandem together. I think Samsovov has some big potential.

 

[Clark4Ever]

That's exactly where I am at too. Calculated gamble with upside, but also comes with some downside risks.

All the Leafs need is steady league average goaltending - which they didn't really didn't get much of after New Years.

I would be shocked if our goaltending numbers are worse than last season with a Murray/Samsonov tandem.

 

[All Mod Cons]

Dubas' last calculated gamble, Campbell was highly lauded as a great gamble. Turned out, it was a poor choice. But now he has a new calculated gamble. At some point, he'll want to stop gambling, or become better at it.

 

[Tak7]

..but isn't the point of acquiring a good backup is to have a goalie that could step in and handle starts if there is an injury?

Sure.

Point is, it still wasn't their plan.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Point is, it still wasn't their plan.

You don't know what their plan was.

 

[saltming]

Dubas' last calculated gamble, Campbell was highly lauded as a great gamble. Turned out, it was a poor choice. But now he has a new calculated gamble. At some point, he'll want to stop gambling, or become better at it.

At least Murray has proven his worth and is of he can return to form whereas Campbell has nothing to say he could be a quality starter.

 

[ToneDog]

Dubas' last calculated gamble, Campbell was highly lauded as a great gamble. Turned out, it was a poor choice. But now he has a new calculated gamble. At some point, he'll want to stop gambling, or become better at it.

Since Dubas arrived, which goalie gamble has worked for him if not Soup ?? Odds are lower they work for a goalie the Sens paid us to take and one who Caps could not trade (rumoured) before not qualifying him.

 

[kb]

At least Murray has proven his worth and is of he can return to form whereas Campbell has nothing to say he could be a quality starter.

If I'm another team looking at the Leafs from afar, what Campbell showed in his first and only real season as a starter is a big question mark.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Contextually, I designate Lankinen a 1b for our club, not Nashville's.

Murray and Samsonov are better than Lankinen. Lankinen is the equivalent to Mrazek.

 

[Tak7]

You don't know what their plan was.

Of course we do - when they brought back Campbell, it was still Fred who was starting more games.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Of all the goalies that changed teams this summer, is Murray the best playoff goalie under 30?

 

[saltming]

If I'm another team looking at the Leafs from afar, what Campbell showed in his first and only real season as a starter is a big question mark.

Completely agreed.
IMHO taking a chance on Campbell is way bigger that taking a chamber on Murray.
For one Campbell was trending down and Murray was trending up. Then the big one is past accomplishments. One has, the other has not.
Also there is logic behind the Murray and samsonov picks, identified flaws that can be fixed that they have already been working on during last season. Not sure what the logic is giving Campbell that term and money