GDT: Trade and Free Agency Thread - 2021/22 PART IX

[Fogelhund]

YOU KNOW IVE BEEN SEEING THIS SINCE 19..

I am joking I am sorry I just can't help it.

What do you guys prefer Lindholm or Klingberg?

I don't think Klinberg adds what we need.

We need to be better defensively, and tougher to play against. Klingberg doesn't do that for us.

 

[Fogelhund]

Yeah except those trades don't mean much. The Marleau trade was bad but again it was to clean up 2 time GM of the year mistakes. What were you actually expecting to get for Barabanov, Joshua? If those are F trades, then everytime any GM makes a trades for future considerations, it's F for them. You might need to rethink your evaluation on those trades. The only F's I see which clearly were bad was Marchment, Foligno, and Marleau.

It's like calling Lou trading those 4 or 5 prospects for Grabner an F when it isn't. Are we now calling that trade an F for Lou considering how good Verhargae has become? I call those the C's where it's small trades and don't mean much. Now if those picks end up being good for those teams, then sure but you can't say that now.

I don't get it man... like Barabanov was sent packing, as he just wasn't making an impact here. Dubas gave him a chance to succeed elsewhere, and he has. We earned respect from future signees... there just wasn't the same opportunity here, behind Nylander and Marner, nor should there have been. He's not the bottom six guy we need. To call that a loss... I mean... LOL

A sure sign that we've struggled a few games, when people start losing their crap around here again... what a group.

 

[thusk]

So 7 trades get a grade better than C+ and 40 worse than B-.

C is neutral not good/not bad kind

to name a few, Kyle Clifford for future considerations, Barabanov for Anti Suomela, Ben Hutton for a 5th, Rittich for a 3rd, Foligno trade, Riley Nash for a 7th, Marchment for Malgin, Dakota Joshua for nothing, the Marleau trade, etc.

Edit: and to clarify, if we spent an asset (draft pick) and got nothing back (Baptiste, Rittich, Hutton, etc) I considered that F worthy.

Barabanov, marchment they trade it unstead of losing those player on waiver with player who didnt have any kind of impact with the team. Can we really talk about good or bad trade?

Marleau, it was not dubas fault to pay 6.25M for a 4th line caliber player. So they had to pay a high price to clear space because of lou deal.

Trade late pick who will probably giving you 0 nhl game in carreer for a depht player when can help you in case of injury. Can we talk about good or bad trade?

Rittich was all about andersen health, no body knew of andersen would be able to come back before the end of regular season. It was to avoid to reach playoff with hutchinson as starting goalie.

All those trade for me are just neutral, it was not good or bad trade.

 

[SprDaVE]

He didn't get the memo? I thought scoring was the problem in the playoffs?

You don't think it was?

 

[uncleben]

Complaining we didn't sign Joshua and his 5 pts in 24 games instead giving him a chance somewhere else, and in the same breath complaining we acquired Clifford for literally nothing... C'mon

If you're going to take such issue to such nothing trades that have had no negative impact on the team, then literally every other GM must be littered with Fs too

 

[SeaOfBlue]

The context there is wild lol

We traded nothing for Riley Nash. We gave up a 4th for Hutton and he did well. Matt Martin was an easy W. Leivo is nothing and the trade was to give him a chance elsewhere.

So I guess Dubas lost the Foligno, Marchment and Rittich deals.

Which is funny because the usual Dubas complainers were the ones who were most happy we got Foligno lol

Almost like every GM has bad trades.

Wouldn't even count those, if we are not including hindsight.

Marchment was a mediocre middle-6 AHLer here. He worked out elsewhere. It happens. Malgin still has a better shot at turning into something here than Marchment did, so I would want Dubas to continue making those trades (because next time, it could easily work out in our favour). Rittich was necessary insurance given the injury histories of Campbell and Andersen.

For me, the only 'F' Dubas has made was that Foligno trade. That is the only move that was so short-sighted and stupid that it deserved an 'F' from the beginning. I almost feel like Dubas was not the one pushing it, because it goes against pretty much everything he preaches as a GM... And I doubt he makes that kind of move again. Didn't like it from the beginning, and unsurprisingly, it didn't work out in the end.

Another move which I think deserves a low grade is signing Thornton. He was clearly not good enough to earn a spot in our lineup but we were effectively forced to play him out of respect. The only good thing was that he was vet minimum. It wouldn't be a bad move if we weren't forced to play him.

Seems like the main thing that Dubas needs to do is to stop chasing grit and intangibles. His worst moves are all rooted in doing that at the cost of effectiveness (Thornton, Foligno, maybe Ritchie but at least he had upside, etc.). You don't need to get a bunch of finesse either, but you need to be able to bring something tangible to the table on top of the intangibles/grit, and Dubas has done a great job at adding guys like Hyman, Moore, Bunting, etc. who fit that role perfectly. Maybe not the biggest or most physical, but they work hard, have the skill to contribute, and "are hard to play against".

Not all moves work out, and unless we are doing a pure binary evaluation, most of his moves have upside and make a lot of sense. Some of his bets don't work out (Vesey, Ritchie) and some do (Kampf, Kase, Bunting). Evaluate those bets (Ritchie seems to be his skating while Vesey just didn't have a lot of offensive skill) to see if there is maybe a pattern that can improve your process efficiency/effectiveness. Otherwise, there is no such thing as a "perfect" process and certainly a few failures (and we are talking about very few failures here) should not cause you to make monumental changes to your process/philosophy when you have significantly more successes.

 

[Torontonian]

If it's a d-man he's targeting, I am going to assumes it Giordano or Hampus Lindholm, I think he got his Bruan type d-man in Lybushkin and Both d-man I mentioned are better then Holl on the 2nd pairing with Muzzin.

 

[thusk]

Wouldn't even count those, if we are not including hindsight.

Marchment was a mediocre middle-6 AHLer here. He worked out elsewhere. It happens. Malgin still has a better shot at turning into something here than Marchment did, so I would want Dubas to continue making those trades (because next time, it could easily work out in our favour). Rittich was necessary insurance given the injury histories of Campbell and Andersen.

For me, the only 'F' Dubas has made was that Foligno trade. That is the only move that was so short-sighted and stupid that it deserved an 'F' from the beginning. I almost feel like Dubas was not the one pushing it, because it goes against pretty much everything he preaches as a GM... And I doubt he makes that kind of move again. Didn't like it from the beginning, and unsurprisingly, it didn't work out in the end.

Another move which I think deserves a low grade is signing Thornton. He was clearly not good enough to earn a spot in our lineup but we were effectively forced to play him out of respect. The only good thing was that he was vet minimum. It wouldn't be a bad move if we weren't forced to play him.

Seems like the main thing that Dubas needs to do is to stop chasing grit and intangibles. His worst moves are all rooted in doing that at the cost of effectiveness (Thornton, Foligno, maybe Ritchie but at least he had upside, etc.). You don't need to get a bunch of finesse either, but you need to be able to bring something tangible to the table on top of the intangibles/grit, and Dubas has done a great job at adding guys like Hyman, Moore, Bunting, etc. who fit that role perfectly. Maybe not the biggest or most physical, but they work hard, have the skill to contribute, and "are hard to play against".

Not all moves work out, and unless we are doing a pure binary evaluation, most of his moves have upside and make a lot of sense. Some of his bets don't work out (Vesey, Ritchie) and some do (Kampf, Kase, Bunting). Evaluate those bets (Ritchie seems to be his skating while Vesey just didn't have a lot of offensive skill) to see if there is maybe a pattern that can improve your process efficiency/effectiveness. Otherwise, there is no such thing as a "perfect" process and certainly a few failures (and we are talking about very few failures here) should not cause you to make monumental changes to your process/philosophy when you have significantly more successes.

I gave 2 F

Foligno and kadri trade because of barrie was worst than gardiner .

 

[saffronleaf]

Dubas' comments are troubling.

Team needs a #1G, Top 4 D, Top 6 F

 

[Buds17]

YOU KNOW IVE BEEN SEEING THIS SINCE 19..

I am joking I am sorry I just can't help it.

What do you guys prefer Lindholm or Klingberg?

I think the team now has enough quantity (and hopefully quality) in terms of RHD. Lindholm would fill a much bigger need in the event Muzzin isn't able to return.

 

[ACC1224]

You don't think it was?

What I or you think is irrelevant. What Dubas thinks is what's important.

 

[Burnie97]

I can only assume he's thinking here that he wants to send a message of support and confidence in the in hopes they (the goalies) turn it around and don't shitcan our season. They've been awful this year.

Well up until Christmas goaltending was pretty outstanding. Since then yes... I 100 precent agree.

 

[Burnie97]

He didn't get the memo? I thought scoring was the problem in the playoffs?

I still think getting another D is a good idea but I also think the LW can use an upgrade forsure too.

It all depends on Muzzin obviously but yeah they see the extra D as the biggest need.

 

[HEAVY DUTY]

Dubas' comments are troubling.

Team needs a #1G, Top 4 D, Top 6 F

Agreed. I can understand forgoing a #1G (due to the limited market) but both Top 4 D and Top 6 F are necessary acquisitions or this team will not get out of the 1st rd against FLA or TB.

Holl isn't working out and Tavares needs a legit LW to play with him. Kerfoot isn't cutting it anymore.

 

[ACC1224]

I still think getting another D is a good idea but I also think the LW can use an upgrade forsure too.

It all depends on Muzzin obviously but yeah they see the extra D as the biggest need.

Yep a top 6 winger, a top 4 D and a goalie. How they are ranked changes by the day.

 

[The Podium]

Dubas' comments are troubling.

Team needs a #1G, Top 4 D, Top 6 F

What do you want him to say? He only has limited cap space and if he throws his team under the bus that can wreck confidence.

I bet he’s looking at more than just D considering the Leafs have sent their AGM to scout Vancouver, who have no good D available, a few times.

 

[stickty111]

I don't get it man... like Barabanov was sent packing, as he just wasn't making an impact here. Dubas gave him a chance to succeed elsewhere, and he has. We earned respect from future signees... there just wasn't the same opportunity here, behind Nylander and Marner, nor should there have been. He's not the bottom six guy we need. To call that a loss... I mean... LOL

A sure sign that we've struggled a few games, when people start losing their crap around here again... what a group.

I know. Like are we now calling Leivo a bad trade? Giving him an opportunity to succeed when Babcock wasn't going to play him?
I really see 3 bad trades and one of them was he had no choice on.

 

[stickty111]

Dubas' comments are troubling.

Team needs a #1G, Top 4 D, Top 6 F

Agreed. I can understand forgoing a #1G (due to the limited market) but both Top 4 D and Top 6 F are necessary acquisitions or this team will not get out of the 1st rd against FLA or TB.

Holl isn't working out and Tavares needs a legit LW to play with him. Kerfoot isn't cutting it anymore.

Thats literally GM talk.
He is just going to say the obvious stuff. He's not going to say we want all 3 things otherwise he loses leverage in deals.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

So if Muzzin is hurt... money for lw and d

If Muzzin is in... still another D?

Goalies aren't changing

So we already added a defenseman, and if Muzzin is not out permanently, we are already going to have two really good defensemen sitting in the pressbox... but the priority is to add a 9th defenseman or upgrade on one of the existing 8?

Unless he is being purposefully misleading and vague and by focusing on "defense" he actually means he is going to add a forward who can improve the defensive play of the entire unit (something Keefe has emphasized the entire season). That is going to pay out a lot more dividends than adding or upgrading our current defensemen, especially given the disparities in depth at the two positions.

Quite frankly, the best play here is to add something to the bottom 6 (or, if we can do so with a deal that makes sense, the 2LW spot and move Kerfoot down to the bottom 6) that allows our 4th line to have more of an impact at ES. Either make it better defensively so you can take pressure off of the 3rd line and let them get more offensive opportunities, or make it a better offensively-oriented line so that it can provide more scoring depth.

That will also help with defense and depth. Our 4th line gets hemmed in more than any other, so adding a guy who doesn't let that happen is a plus defensively. And then if Simmonds is our 13th forward, then we have at least one quality depth guy. Plus, putting him in fewer games may allow him to emphasize the qualities that allow him to excel (mostly his physicality) more in the games he does play.

 

[SprDaVE]

What I or you think is irrelevant. What Dubas thinks is what's important.

Let's shut it down then.

 

[ACC1224]

Let's shut it down then.

You lost me. Shut what down?

 

[Burnie97]

So we already added a defenseman, and if Muzzin is not out permanently, we are already going to have two really good defensemen sitting in the pressbox... but the priority is to add a 9th defenseman or upgrade on one of the existing 8?

Unless he is being purposefully misleading and vague and by focusing on "defense" he actually means he is going to add a forward who can improve the defensive play of the entire unit (something Keefe has emphasized the entire season). That is going to pay out a lot more dividends than adding or upgrading our current defensemen, especially given the disparities in depth at the two positions.

Quite frankly, the best play here is to add something to the bottom 6 (or, if we can do so with a deal that makes sense, the 2LW spot and move Kerfoot down to the bottom 6) that allows our 4th line to have more of an impact at ES. Either make it better defensively so you can take pressure off of the 3rd line and let them get more offensive opportunities, or make it a better offensively-oriented line so that it can provide more scoring depth.

That will also help with defense and depth. Our 4th line gets hemmed in more than any other, so adding a guy who doesn't let that happen is a plus defensively. And then if Simmonds is our 13th forward, then we have at least one quality depth guy. Plus, putting him in fewer games may allow him to emphasize the qualities that allow him to excel (mostly his physicality) more in the games he does play.

Yeah I agree. Good post. Another D is never going to hurt but I only see it if another D is going out to give it a different mix.

The goalies even though they haven't been good for a while finding an upgrade will be very difficult. I think it's sink or swim. We need Campbell to be early season Campbell. Simple as that.

As for what the majority of your post was about... yes exactly... another Bunting type on 2LW. I hope Robertson can show me something here leading up to the deadline but I think one more guy like bunts just pushes certain guys to different spots in the lineup and Leafs will be rolling 4 lines easy with plenty of depth.

They have at least 1 move left. We'll see what Dubas does but it's the last kick at the can for a bunch of people.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I gave 2 F

Foligno and kadri trade because of barrie was worst than gardiner .

I am fine with the Kadri trade, at least in terms of trade value. That is a lot more than Kadri should have been able to get.

Fit-wise, not ideal. Barrie was not what we needed (although certainly better than Gardiner), but he was also not Dubas' first choice. Dubas' first choice was Brodie. It ended up working well in the end because we got the best of both deals: Kerfoot instead of Jankowski, and Brodie instead of Barrie.

Honestly, you have to do something where the value or the fit is totally off to earn an 'F' in my books. A lot of other GM's do that constantly, but we haven't see Dubas do that very often (really, only Foligno fits the bill for me). Sure, Barrie as an offensive defenseman was probably not what we needed, but he was a top 4 RHD at least (and was a really good one once Babcock was fired). Kerfoot fit in extremely well with our team. And getting a top 4 RHD with major retention for a full year + a guy like Kerfoot was the most that Kadri was ever going to receive in a trade if we didn't just want pure futures.

 

[Torontonian]

Dubas' comments are troubling.

Team needs a #1G, Top 4 D, Top 6 F

I think "need" is incorrect on Top 6 F, it would be real nice to add one and put us that much deeper upfront, but the forwards have been more then fine, we are on pace on having 9 forwards have over 15G this season. I would be shocked to see Tavares not be able to score for the rest of the season.

Before having goaltending issues from Campbell, we were alright at that as well. It definitely is troubling if he doesn't have some sort of improvement these final 32 game, a top 4 D would be the biggest need if the goaltending fixes it self.

 

[nuck]

Whatever changes he makes, I hope sooner rather than later (except probably goal as that might be a big cost if Campbell bounces back). As far as later additions Tampa has won 2 Cups doing it although they were adding 2 year guys. I am convinced the historic lack of success for rentals is connected to the limited time they have to adapt to new club. 9-10 games isn't enough.