GDT: Trade and Free Agency Thread - Training camp approaches

[4thline]

Because you're risking this entire window on a free agent market that could dry up before the trade deadline, let alone the draft.

Really it comes down to risking letting Rielly walk to sign either a) Lindholm (likely re-signed as he still fits ANA's youth movement), or b) Pulock (downgrade and also likely to re-sign). Klingberg would be a Barrie situation all over again.

Every other big name has already re-signed. You make these moves proactively, not reactively overpaying for what's left on the market at the last minute.

Except realistically, if we're letting Rielly walk it's because we're not spending into that tier of money, and looking more at another 2-3 Brodie/Muzzin type and a top 4 by committee, and there's almost always options at that level in UFA. Also, to be fair, the comparison we're making is using rental Rielly assets to get a D with term. Rental Rielly assets don't land that quality of dman with term

But that's atleast a coherent point, that this way there is a *chance* that the music stops and we don't get a chair.

But by and large the whole "disaster" "pathetic" stance is completely hypocritical unless coupled with a hardline stance that it had to be a trade for futures assets and we had to use them ourselves and NOT trade them for a replacement dman

 

[Dreakmur]

Rielly walking as a UFA is a disaster.

It would be nice to get something in return, but him walking opens up cap space to replace him.

Rielly could have been traded for futures and those futures could have been flipped for another defender with term. The futures they would acquire for Rielly would likely be better than the futures they sent to LA for Muzzin.

Which team would have wanted Rielly and paid a premium? I only saw a couple teams that would have even needed him.

If you flip Rielly and avoid the monumental screw up of letting him walk, you an go ahead and use some (or all) of the futures to plug that hole with something more long-term. They could even add on top of those futures for someone like Chychrun, for example.

Sitting on Rielly and letting him walk like Hyman is a terrible idea. Not suggesting that that is the current plan but it became way more of a possibility once the draft came and went.

They obviously haven’t decided to let him walk yet.

 

[Dreakmur]

Made this decision months ago?

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of procrastinating over something we can see coming for years yet we do absolutely nothing about it then throw our hands up because we've finally run out of options

We should know what Rielly wants, if it's to much he should have been traded and those assets put towards filling the hole he will have left (even if that solution is a downgrade with more term on there deal) instead of him leaving and no assets to help fill that hole next season

You people act like this is bloody rocket science and the future isn't a thing

You people act like not trading him means they didn’t look at that as an option. It’s quite likely they looked at trading him and just didn’t like the return.

 

[Kiwi]

Maybe it was sorted out already, and what they determined was their only realistic option was working something out with Rielly.

Sure, maybe our next #1D is a 25 foot sasquatch and the earth is flat to

But sure, it's sorted and every comment out of both sides mouths is complete bull****

 

[Kiwi]

You people act like not trading him means they didn’t look at that as an option. It’s quite likely they looked at trading him and just didn’t like the return.

So I'm supposed to believe that even though vastly inferior players were traded for significant returns there wasn't a market for Rielly?

Or our GM talking about getting through UFA and the draft then trying to sort something out with our extremely valuable pending UFA? After the market cooled?

Here's the thing, this management team has done this with every single pending UFA it's had (resign or walk) but I'm supposed to believe it was different this time?

Jesus, I may not agree with @4thline but at least he trys defending the thinking without this make-believe

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Sure, maybe our next #1D is a 25 foot sasquatch and the earth is flat to

But sure, it's sorted and every comment out of both sides mouths is complete bull****

You said they should have sorted this out months ago. How would you say they should have sorted it out (if trying to work something out with Rielly is not considered sorting it out)?

 

[Dreakmur]

So I'm supposed to believe that even though vastly inferior players were traded for significant returns there wasn't a market for Rielly?

Or our GM talking about getting through UFA and the draft then trying to sort something out with our extremely valuable pending UFA? After the market cooled?

Here's the thing, this management team has done this with every single pending UFA it's had (resign or walk) but I'm supposed to believe it was different this time?

Jesus, I may not agree with @4thline but at least he trys defending the thinking without this make-believe

It is possible for the GM to say one thing to the media and do something else behind the scenes. That’s what a smart GM would do.

 

[Fogelhund]

You said they should have sorted this out months ago. How would you say they should have sorted it out (if trying to work something out with Rielly is not considered sorting it out)?

There were multiple trades before the draft. Ryan Ellis, Risto, Jake Bean are a few of the D that got moved. Jake Bean was traded for a second.

Jake Bean would have made a nice addition to this team, especially at that price. Surely we could have moved Rielly at that point, for a 1st and second.... minimum.

 

[zeke]

There were multiple trades before the draft. Ryan Ellis, Risto, Jake Bean are a few of the D that got moved. Jake Bean was traded for a second.

Jake Bean would have made a nice addition to this team, especially at that price. Surely we could have moved Rielly at that point, for a 1st and second.... minimum.

were any of those guys traded because they were impending UFAs?

or are you expecting the leafs to be the only ones trading their impending UFAs?

 

[Fogelhund]

were any of those guys traded because they were impending UFAs?

or are you expecting the leafs to be the only ones trading their impending UFAs?

Risto is in the same boat as Rielly... one more year on his contract.

Stralman was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.

Leddy was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.

Bean was an expiring RFA, signed for three years at $2.33.... I think that contract will look mighty good by the end of it.

Ellis had six years left on his contract when traded.

So, yes, other teams have traded their impending UFA's.

 

[zeke]

Risto is in the same boat as Rielly... one more year on his contract.

Stralman was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.

Leddy was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.

Risto an awful contract traded by a league worst team.

Stralman and Leddy, both overpaid, dumped to get under the cap.

Bean was an expiring RFA, signed for three years at $2.33.... I think that contract will look mighty good by the end of it.

Ellis had six years left on his contract when traded.

so neither like Rielly.

 

[Fogelhund]

Risto an awful contract traded by a league worst team.

Stralman and Leddy, both overpaid, dumped to get under the cap.




so neither like Rielly.

You asked a question, I answered... other teams have traded their impending UFA's... for whatever reason.

If we can resign him to a decent contract, I hope we do. If we can't, then maybe he should have been moved.

 

[zeke]

You asked a question, I answered... other teams have traded their impending UFA's... for whatever reason.

the reason would be kind of an important part of the equation, no?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Risto is in the same boat as Rielly... one more year on his contract.
Stralman was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.
Leddy was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.
Bean was an expiring RFA, signed for three years at $2.33.... I think that contract will look mighty good by the end of it.
Ellis had six years left on his contract when traded.
So, yes, other teams have traded their impending UFA's.

Ristolainen was traded because Buffalo is tanking.
Stralman was traded as a cap dump.
Leddy was traded out of cap necessity.
Ellis had 6 years left.
Bean was a depth defenseman and an unsigned RFA.

None of these examples are anything close to the Rielly situation.

 

[ACC1224]

Risto is in the same boat as Rielly... one more year on his contract.

Stralman was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.

Leddy was traded with one year left on his contract, same as Rielly.

Bean was an expiring RFA, signed for three years at $2.33.... I think that contract will look mighty good by the end of it.

Ellis had six years left on his contract when traded.

So, yes, other teams have traded their impending UFA's.

Yes but none of them is Rielly so it's different.

 

[Fogelhund]

Ristolainen was traded because Buffalo is tanking.
Stralman was traded as a cap dump.
Leddy was traded out of cap necessity.
Ellis had 6 years left.
Bean was a depth defenseman and an unsigned RFA.

None of these examples are anything close to the Rielly situation.

and this is how forum discussions get spun completely in different directions.

@SeaOfBlue asked how others might have sorted out the Rielly situation differently.

I gave a few examples of trades made, including a couple of players whom might have been interesting here... Bean and Ellis. Multiple D were traded, Rielly might was as good as any traded, so it's probable that there would have been a market for him at the time, and we could have been in on a couple of attractive replacemetns.

@zeke asked if any were traded with one year left on their contract.

I showed three who were.

There was no original attempt to compare these, or another other contracts to Rielly, just answering straight questions, with straight answers... the circumstances not being the key... the key to this discussion was simply what could we have done differently... But, now this discussion is being spun on minutia...

 

[ACC1224]

and this is how forum discussions get spun completely in different directions.

@SeaOfBlue asked how others might have sorted out the Rielly situation differently.

I gave a few examples of trades made, including a couple of players whom might have been interesting here... Bean and Ellis. Multiple D were traded, Rielly might was as good as any traded, so it's probable that there would have been a market for him at the time, and we could have been in on a couple of attractive replacemetns.

@zeke asked if any were traded with one year left on their contract.

I showed three who were.

There was no original attempt to compare these, or another other contracts to Rielly, just answering straight questions, with straight answers... the circumstances not being the key... the key to this discussion was simply what could we have done differently... But, now this discussion is being spun on minutia...

HF should come with a warning to stay out of those rabbit holes.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

There were multiple trades before the draft. Ryan Ellis, Risto, Jake Bean are a few of the D that got moved. Jake Bean was traded for a second.

Jake Bean would have made a nice addition to this team, especially at that price. Surely we could have moved Rielly at that point, for a 1st and second.... minimum.

Moving Rielly out is not the issue. It never was the issue. We'd probably get something close to what Columbus got from Chicago for Jones.

It's finding someone to come back in to replace him that is the problem. You are looking at using all of those assets to get someone capable of replacing Rielly, especially if they have term. If we move Rielly, we are suddenly in that 1D market that has these ridiculously high prices.

Jake Bean has promise but he has sucked in the NHL to this point. There is a reason Carolina moved him despite having a hole at 3LD with Gardiner's injury (and chose to sign Cole instead). We might as well use Sandin at that point and even that is simply not good enough right now.

Ristolainen and Leddy are second pairing defensemen, and not really outstanding ones at that. They would be stop gaps for Rielly, but still not really good enough to replace him. Ristolainen especially was sold for an absolutely ridiculous price we should have not paid.

What are we giving up that is equivalent to Nolan Patrick, a young 2nd overall pick, and Myers, a young-ish 4/5, for Ellis? Maybe Dermott could have covered Myers, but what do we have that covers someone as valuable as Patrick/Glass?

 

[Fogelhund]

Moving Rielly out is not the issue. It never was the issue. We'd probably get something close to what Columbus got from Chicago for Jones.

It's finding someone to come back in to replace him that is the problem. You are looking at using all of those assets to get someone capable of replacing Rielly, especially if they have term. If we move Rielly, we are suddenly in that 1D market that has these ridiculously high prices.

Jake Bean has promise but he has sucked in the NHL to this point. There is a reason Carolina moved him despite having a hole at 3LD with Gardiner's injury (and chose to sign Cole instead). We might as well use Sandin at that point and even that is simply not good enough right now.

That's one of the major challenges with all of these discussions.... We don't know what is actually happening out there. Maybe Dubas offered up Rielly, and the returns weren't acceptable. We don't know which other teams made players available either... there could have been many other options for us... maybe some were reasonable asks, maybe some were too expensive... there is just so much that we as fans don't know, but we pretend to be absolute, as if a deal could have been made that help us.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

That's one of the major challenges with all of these discussions.... We don't know what is actually happening out there. Maybe Dubas offered up Rielly, and the returns weren't acceptable. We don't know which other teams made players available either... there could have been many other options for us... maybe some were reasonable asks, maybe some were too expensive... there is just so much that we as fans don't know, but we pretend to be absolute, as if a deal could have been made that help us.

I doubt it got to the point where he offered up Rielly, because he already figured out that nobody was available to replace him. I don't think Rielly's trade return is what fans should be concerned about. He would get a haul if he was moved. It is the fact that we are a competitive team, in the middle of a cup window, who would trade a #1 defenseman and not do anything to properly replace him.

Bean, Sandin, Ristolainen, and Leddy are not going to cut it. Ellis maybe would have, but at the same time, what are we paying to exceed or meet Patrick (read Glass) and Myers?

What would have made sense would be moving Rielly and getting Chychrun or Hanifin, but neither may be available for trade right now so they didn't even bother seeing what Rielly would have received. If they looked into those two (or other similar options) and either found they were not available or the price was out of reach, then what are we going to do?

 

[DraftSchmaft]

Moving Rielly out is not the issue. It never was the issue. We'd probably get something close to what Columbus got from Chicago for Jones.

It's finding someone to come back in to replace him that is the problem. You are looking at using all of those assets to get someone capable of replacing Rielly, especially if they have term. If we move Rielly, we are suddenly in that 1D market that has these ridiculously high prices.

Jake Bean has promise but he has sucked in the NHL to this point. There is a reason Carolina moved him despite having a hole at 3LD with Gardiner's injury (and chose to sign Cole instead). We might as well use Sandin at that point and even that is simply not good enough right now.

Ristolainen and Leddy are second pairing defensemen, and not really outstanding ones at that. They would be stop gaps for Rielly, but still not really good enough to replace him. Ristolainen especially was sold for an absolutely ridiculous price we should have not paid.

What are we giving up that is equivalent to Nolan Patrick, a young 2nd overall pick, and Myers, a young-ish 4/5, for Ellis? Maybe Dermott could have covered Myers, but what do we have that covers someone as valuable as Patrick/Glass?

There's no need to worry this much when you have the currency to make your team better.

Rielly === massive currency. The haul will be significant like you said. Something will open up. Sit on the currency and wait. We can't hold onto Rielly just because we're scared we can't replace him for this seasons run. Teams with picks and prospects have no problem winning bidding wars when players become available.

Trading Rielly right now should be the only option if he doesn't have a contract before the season starts. It's the best decision for long term success. Rielly doesn't offer elite D where we should be this insecure about it anyways. I will go out on a limb and suggest Dubas already has his eyes set on Hampus Lindholm. Once we have the assets from a Rielly trade secured, there will be tons of options for management to explore.

 

[Knies iT]

Except realistically, if we're letting Rielly walk it's because we're not spending into that tier of money, and looking more at another 2-3 Brodie/Muzzin type and a top 4 by committee, and there's almost always options at that level in UFA. Also, to be fair, the comparison we're making is using rental Rielly assets to get a D with term. Rental Rielly assets don't land that quality of dman with term

But that's atleast a coherent point, that this way there is a *chance* that the music stops and we don't get a chair.

But by and large the whole "disaster" "pathetic" stance is completely hypocritical unless coupled with a hardline stance that it had to be a trade for futures assets and we had to use them ourselves and NOT trade them for a replacement dman

I see your logic but I don't think it's a realistic approach.

You're not getting 2-3 Brodie/Muzzin types for Rielly's money. You're likely getting 1x Brodie and then a solid bottom pair type, max. That's also assuming you get a steal of a UFA like Brodie/Tanev, which is definitely not the norm. Championship teams don't build through FA. Look at how many key free agent contributors are playing on Tampa for example.

Next season the Leafs will absolutely need to give permanent roles to Sandin and Liljegren (+ obvious names like Muzzin, Brodie, Holl, and Dermott). That leaves 1 hole with Rielly gone, and if you're planning to add 2-3 more pieces then say goodbye to Liljegren/Sandin/Dermott. Way too much turnover and not enough youth.

Your mid-tier options next summer will be Leddy, Pulock, Manson, Ekholm. That list is likely cut in half due to re-signings, and almost all of them will pull 4.5m+ per year while being 31+ years old (save Pulock, who will be expensive for that reason).

The only attractive replacement option is Lindholm, but it's a pipe dream.

 

[LeafsOHLRangers98]

There were multiple trades before the draft. Ryan Ellis, Risto, Jake Bean are a few of the D that got moved. Jake Bean was traded for a second.

Jake Bean would have made a nice addition to this team, especially at that price. Surely we could have moved Rielly at that point, for a 1st and second.... minimum.

While I like Jake Bean, Liljegren had a similar age 20 season in the AHL to what Bean had at age 21. 0.75 PPG for Liljegren vs 0.81 for Bean while Bean had more PP time and played less on the PK.

Sandin can also get to that level eventually.

I'd rather have Rielly/Liljegren over Bean/Liljegren and a 1st as a contending team.

 

[4thline]

I see your logic but I don't think it's a realistic approach.

You're not getting 2-3 Brodie/Muzzin types for Rielly's money. You're likely getting 1x Brodie and then a solid bottom pair type, max. That's also assuming you get a steal of a UFA like Brodie/Tanev, which is definitely not the norm. Championship teams don't build through FA. Look at how many key free agent contributors are playing on Tampa for example.

Next season the Leafs will absolutely need to give permanent roles to Sandin and Liljegren (+ obvious names like Muzzin, Brodie, Holl, and Dermott). That leaves 1 hole with Rielly gone, and if you're planning to add 2-3 more pieces then say goodbye to Liljegren/Sandin/Dermott. Way too much turnover and not enough youth.

Your mid-tier options next summer will be Leddy, Pulock, Manson, Ekholm, Murphy. That list is likely cut in half due to re-signings, and almost all of them will pull 4.5m+ per year while being 31+ years old (save Pulock, who will be expensive).

The only attractive replacement option is Lindholm, but it's a pipe dream.

Miscommunication on my part. I know we're only getting 1 for that money, the committee comes when they're added to the 2 we already have (Muzzin/Brodie). IF we don't see movement from Dermott/Sandin that makes the whole discussion moot, and IF we don't re-sign Rielly, I think we're gunning for a 3-5m x 2 3 years type.

The overarching point is that "letting Rielly walk is a horrific disaster herp derp asset management" is poorly thought hyperbole for anyone that would be ok with
A. the centre piece being a dman with term
B. the return being moved for a dman with term
C. the return being moved at the deadline for a rental(s)

It's true, the optimum play would have been to trade Rielly for a Risto like return then get either Leddy or Goligoski to stop gap the year. Put it's not like the chance of re-signing Rielly + the value of Rielly above those alternatives vs. Sebastien Cossa etc. is some capital error.

 

[Dekes For Days]

@SeaOfBlue asked how others might have sorted out the Rielly situation differently.
I gave a few examples of trades made, including a couple of players whom might have been interesting here... Bean and Ellis.

Cost to acquire aside, Ellis costs 6.25m per year, is a right-side defenseman, and is signed for 6 years until he's 36, coming off a disappointing year. Not sure he would have been a great target for us. That's a big risk. Bean is nowhere close to an adequate Rielly replacement.