Confirmed with Link: TRADE: Sharks trade G Mackenzie Blackwood, F Givani Smith, 2027 5th to COL for G Alexandar Georgiev, F Nikolai Kovalenko, '26 2nd, Cond'l '25 5th

Alaskanice

Registered User
Sep 23, 2009
7,368
8,284
1 1/2 hours away
When you say things like this you shred your credibility. Do you sincerely think that's why the trade happened? Toronto really wanted Matt Benning, and hence the Sharks could pry Liljegren from them?

Not to mention, a cromulent example was right there: Burroughs netted the Sharks Grundstrom.
My credibility is shredded because I think Liljegren is better? I’m not sure many will contest me on that.
As for Grundstrom over Burroughs, again, I think he’s better.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,943
6,476
My credibility is shredded because I think Liljegren is better? I’m not sure many will contest me on that.
As for Grundstrom over Burroughs, again, I think he’s better.
No, the assertion in your original statement is that the Sharks signing Benning was good because they traded Benning for Liljegren. Benning was a warm body in that trade.
 

Patty Ice

Mighty Luca
Feb 27, 2002
14,599
4,910
Not California
The only true stinkers against are Caleb Addison, Mike Hoffman, Thrun, Lindblom and maybe Burroughs

Only one I don't agree with is Thrun. He still has time to prove himself. Although a Luca defensive pairing would have been sweet. However, no guarantee Grier even picks Marrelli since he still had a chance to but maybe with an extra third he does.
 

Cas

Conversational Black Hole
Sponsor
Jun 23, 2020
6,022
8,729
I don't think signing Benning or not signing Benning would've made the difference in acquiring Liljegren. If it wasn't him, it would've been someone else.
Could have been Burroughs just as easily.

Benning really was just a bad signing and I am so, so happy I don't have to watch him any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Desert Eagle

Cas

Conversational Black Hole
Sponsor
Jun 23, 2020
6,022
8,729
I never heard that Burroughs was potentially a part of that trade.
If we didn't have Benning, assuming we wind up signing Burroughs (I think it's a reasonable possibility to happen regardless), we probably keep Burroughs and then dump him for Liljegren instead.

Benning was, as was said, a warm body for the Leafs to throw into the AHL for depth. Burroughs would be the same - an awful, sub-NHL level defenseman whose sole positive attribute is that he is right-handed.

If neither Benning nor Burroughs were on the team, we'd have sent someone else - a no-name signed to be a warm body, an AHL defenseman like Carlsson, whatever. Getting Liljegren for picks and a warm body doesn't justify signing Benning for that kind of contract in the first place; we just managed to dump that contract and get something out of it (well, really the 3rd and 6th).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,975
8,367
If we didn't have Benning, assuming we wind up signing Burroughs (I think it's a reasonable possibility to happen regardless), we probably keep Burroughs and then dump him for Liljegren instead.

Benning was, as was said, a warm body for the Leafs to throw into the AHL for depth. Burroughs would be the same - an awful, sub-NHL level defenseman whose sole positive attribute is that he is right-handed.

If neither Benning nor Burroughs were on the team, we'd have sent someone else - a no-name signed to be a warm body, an AHL defenseman like Carlsson, whatever. Getting Liljegren for picks and a warm body doesn't justify signing Benning for that kind of contract in the first place; we just managed to dump that contract and get something out of it (well, really the 3rd and 6th).
I'm still trying to get over that unjustifiable Benning contract that destroyed this franchise. If we hadn't traded Benning when we did the Sharks would have likely moved to Quebec by now.
 

Alaskanice

Registered User
Sep 23, 2009
7,368
8,284
1 1/2 hours away
If we didn't have Benning, assuming we wind up signing Burroughs (I think it's a reasonable possibility to happen regardless), we probably keep Burroughs and then dump him for Liljegren instead.

Benning was, as was said, a warm body for the Leafs to throw into the AHL for depth. Burroughs would be the same - an awful, sub-NHL level defenseman whose sole positive attribute is that he is right-handed.

If neither Benning nor Burroughs were on the team, we'd have sent someone else - a no-name signed to be a warm body, an AHL defenseman like Carlsson, whatever. Getting Liljegren for picks and a warm body doesn't justify signing Benning for that kind of contract in the first place; we just managed to dump that contract and get something out of it (well, really the 3rd and 6th).
The depths of what you know. Impressive.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
18,748
21,859
Vegass
Hoffman wasn't a signing or solo trade. He was part of the Karlsson return and this was likely necessary for salary matching.
I meant it as the only real negative players he’s brought in, but you are correct. Same could have been said for Lorentz.

Truly, the absolute worst punishment for trading Karlsson.
I’d still say Ruuta because of the second year and higher cap but either or.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,777
15,575
Folsom
Could have been Burroughs just as easily.

Benning really was just a bad signing and I am so, so happy I don't have to watch him any more.
It could've been literally anyone. It was really only for the contract slot. The cap wasn't a concern for the Sharks. Anyone making what Benning did or less would've worked for the Leafs because they would've just buried them either way.

I don't think Benning was a bad signing considering the time we're talking about here. They were going into a rebuild and had no righties after Karlsson then. They needed plugs until they found some opportunities because nobody wanted to be here and we had nothing really coming soon through the system. Now that it's been a little over two years and we lucked into Ceci and Liljegren, he wasn't going to be needed with guys like Thompson and Pohlkamp potentially in a depth role soon. The term was obviously ridiculous but ultimately harmless because of the low cap figure.

The reason we got Liljegren will either be because of taking Ceci or because of Hertl getting what he did to help get us Askarov since the 3rd Nashville sent back in that deal. Because whichever 3rd that ends up being is the best asset Toronto is getting in return for Liljegren.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
18,748
21,859
Vegass
Only one I don't agree with is Thrun. He still has time to prove himself. Although a Luca defensive pairing would have been sweet. However, no guarantee Grier even picks Marrelli since he still had a chance to but maybe with an extra third he does.
I don't blame Grier for taking a shot. I just don't think it's going to work out is all.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
18,748
21,859
Vegass
He has NHL qualities but I never expected him to be more than a 5/6 type maybe an occasional fill-in for the top 4.
Fair, my only issue is it was a 2024 3rd when we were clearly going to be one of the worst teams. It essentially ended up being the 66th pick. I had high hopes for Henry but I wouldn't be surprised if Grier tries to move off of his million dollar hit next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patty Ice

The Nemesis

Semper Tyrannus
Apr 11, 2005
89,981
35,447
Langley, BC
I meant it as the only real negative players he’s brought in, but you are correct. Same could have been said for Lorentz.


I’d still say Ruuta because of the second year and higher cap but either or.

I don't count it as a negative because of extenuating circumstance (the cap balancing).

If he had made the Karlsson deal and was given the option of Hoffman and some other better players of equal cap hits off the Pens/Habs, then yeah, that's a negative. But I'm willing to bet that taking Hoffman's contract was a necessity of the deal because of the amount was needed to keep things copacetic.

I don't hold a GM responsible for taking a bad player if they make the deal knowing that's what they're getting for a good reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hangemhigh

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
18,748
21,859
Vegass
I don't count it as a negative because of extenuating circumstance (the cap balancing).

If he had made the Karlsson deal and was given the option of Hoffman and some other better players of equal cap hits off the Pens/Habs, then yeah, that's a negative. But I'm willing to bet that taking Hoffman's contract was a necessity of the deal because of the amount was needed to keep things copacetic.

I don't hold a GM responsible for taking a bad player if they make the deal knowing that's what they're getting for a good reason.
I didn't say it was a negative against Grier. I said the only negative players as in their production was more hurtful than helpful.
 

matt trick

Registered User
Jun 12, 2007
10,219
2,326
Ps: the bad moves by Grier (if attempting to get wins if the metric) are many. Goodrow, Kunin, lindbom, g smith, sturm, dyllandrea, grundstrom, benning, kostin, zadina, Burroughs, Vanecek, and many others. These guys combine for 10s of millions a year. Compared to salary, their production is poop.

***However, since dead cap space means nothing when losing is ok, they are all overlooked or even praised despite historic losing.

Strongly disagree with this take.

Sure, $10s of millions is technically accurate, but 12 replacement level players is $9.3M in minimum cap space of their own. For all players (even though they weren’t all here at the same time), quick mental math says we’re at about $24M. Accounting for minimum contracts, we’re talking about a little more than $1M incremental per player above replacement. In theory, you could have 8 guys at $1M and 3 and $4M and spend the same cap space that way, but also need a few that can pk, a few with some toughness (so your teens don’t get bullied) and a few centers. Unless that’s your incremental $12M spend that $1M is now like $2M for 4 of them.

Also, any acquisitions need to be willing to come to a league worst team (in a high tax/HCOL area) and for many of them, there was no Celebrini yet. That alone may require a 25-50% premium on that $1M (or whatever is paid). It’s also worth noting that Sturm, Benning, Kunin, Goodrow, and Dellandrea are noted for their leadership, and that’s pretty important when you’re going to lose a lot of games.

Critically, none of these contracts carryover to a time when Celebrini, Smith, and Askarov will be up for new contracts. This was on a team that was designed to tank during the Bedard/Carlsson/Fantilli, Celebrini, Hagens, and if needed, McKenna years.

Hoffman was shit, but he- and Rutta-was the fee to get Dickinson. Lindbolm was an upside play but with his injuries, it didn’t work out. If he got back to his peak he’d have been worth a 2nd or 3rd at the deadline. Grier picked the wrong reclamation project with him, but it was the right strategy for a tank team. Kunin, as much as everyone shits on him, is on pace for 20 goals/30 points and is a solid gritty forward. He’s a great fourth liner or a league average third liner. I’d argue every one of those guys excluding Hoffman and Goodrow is worth their contract, and the only two we paid for, cost a 3rd (Kunin) and a 4th (Dellandrea) which could be recouped by trading them when their contracts are up.

Rather than wishing Grier acquired fictional free agents, who do you Grier could have and should have signed, and how much of a premium in dollars or years would those players require once you account for taxes, HCOL, the potential downside in future earnings given

If I recall, you really didn’t like Wennberg to start the year, and he’s been about as good of a free agent signing as we could have asked for, and the term is ideal. Should we move on, I imagine he’ll get back a 2nd at the next deadline.

Each of Grier’s below average moves- Burns, Essimont, Benning/Boroughs term, Lindbolm, and Goodrow- are explainable and none negatively impact the team in the compete window (Celebrini/Smith/Askarov’s second contract).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Please disable your adblocker on HFBoards.com

It looks like your adblocker is attempting to interfere with the intended operation of this site. Support us by allowing our site to function as we intended. Please disable your adblocker and add us to your allowlist.

Frequently Asked Questions
I'm not using a blocker. Why am I seeing this message?
You're likely seeing this message because an app or extension on your computer is blocking ads. The app or extension may be a "privacy" or "malware" blocker, or a VPN.

I disabled my blocker. Why am I still seeing this message?
It's common to have two or more adblocking extensions running at the same time. See the question above.