Toggle sidebar

Trades and Free Agency - 2022 Off-season

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
cookie said:
$1M per capfriendly
Click to expand...
Maybe Sandin not being signed has less to do with money than it has to do with opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised if Dubas and Co. are still evaluating a trade option involving Sandin. RFA rights make him mire valuable as an acquiring team could negotiate their own contract with him. Maybe I'm drinking the crazy juice or am just really itching for something big to happen. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antropovsky
LeafChief said:
Mikey Anderson about to re-sign for 1 year with LA. Could be another good Sandin contract comp along with Brannstrom.
Click to expand...

If it came to a trade and Sandin isn't packaged for a bigger fish, I would be happy to deal him in a deal with a non contender for a 1st round pick. Think Romanov to the Island. Basically would want to reset the entire timeline on that asset or have an asset to package off at the deadline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Punch Drunk Loov, TML Dynasty, hockeywiz542 and 1 other person
This trade won't happen really but wonder how people would fee on a

Erik Karlsson@50% for Jake Muzzin deal?

Almost equal AAV (EK is lower at 50 by a smudge). We take on 3 extra years though

However EK65 on the leafs could be a 7-8M player if utilized well

We would need a LHD with some grit and physicality.

I'd package Sandin+1st+ 2nd + Kerfoot for Chychuran as a second deal and see if the yotes would bite on that

Rielly - Chychuran
Brodie - EK65
Gio - Lilijgren
 
hamzarocks said:
This trade won't happen really but wonder how people would fee on a

Erik Karlsson@50% for Jake Muzzin deal?

Almost equal AAV (EK is lower at 50 by a smudge). We take on 3 extra years though

However EK65 on the leafs could be a 7-8M player if utilized well

We would need a LHD with some grit and physicality.

I'd package Sandin+1st+ 2nd + Kerfoot for Chychuran as a second deal and see if the yotes would bite on that

Rielly - Chychuran
Brodie - EK65
Gio - Lilijgren
Click to expand...
Arizona won't
 
I don't even want Simmonds as the 13th forward. Over an 82 game span your 13th forward will see games. Should always strive to start most optimal lineup given the circumstances and Simmonds is not a guy I'd want as a reserve when I have to dip into forwards past 12. Just move on already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25 and fahad203
Havoc said:
I don't even want Simmonds as the 13th forward. Over an 82 game span your 13th forward will see games. Should always strive to start most optimal lineup given the circumstances and Simmonds is not a guy I'd want as a reserve when I have to dip into forwards past 12. Just move on already
Click to expand...

Even as a 13th forward that role should go to Marlie like Steeve or Anderson. Otherwise they'll never get NHL experience.

This is how we lost players like Marchment because we played our overager underachieving vets over them . They never got a full opportunity to show
 
  • Like
Reactions: Havoc and geo25
fahad203 said:
Even as a 13th forward that role should go to Marlie like Steeve or Anderson. Otherwise they'll never get NHL experience.

This is how we lost players like Marchment because we played our overager underachieving vets over them . They never got a full opportunity to show
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't see the point of the Marlies to be honest. If you're never going to play them, trade them for picks, then trade the picks for better players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25
fahad203 said:
Even as a 13th forward that role should go to Marlie like Steeve or Anderson. Otherwise they'll never get NHL experience.

This is how we lost players like Marchment because we played our overager underachieving vets over them . They never got a full opportunity to show
Click to expand...
While I agree with the sentiment, when Marchment (24) was traded he was losing games to the likes of Gauthier (24), Engvall (23), Timashov (22), Mikheyev (24), Moore (24), Shore (26), Petan (24), Brooks (23), Aberg (25) in the bottom 6 and 13th F slot, while younger guys like Kapanen (23) and Johnsson (24) were getting top 6 chances.

He didn't lose a spot due to legacy vet contracts, he simply couldn't beat out the guys his age and younger for a spot.

Ironically enough, the guy we traded him for is now roughly the age Marchment was then, and is pretty infamously in a 'put up or shut up' position (or already written off by the fanbase), and actually IS going up against a couple legacy players who have been pencilled in for their name only
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dekes For Days, cookie, hockeywiz542 and 2 others
Only in Toronto do they get excited about sigining a guy to a pto that 31 other teams didn't want lmao
 
fahad203 said:
Even as a 13th forward that role should go to Marlie like Steeve or Anderson. Otherwise they'll never get NHL experience.

This is how we lost players like Marchment because we played our overager underachieving vets over them . They never got a full opportunity to show
Click to expand...

Oh I see where other posters got for their bad ideas from. That someone would think Marchment didn’t get a chance, due to playing vets over them, suggests a complete disconnect, or lack of knowledge of the prospect, or team at the time. A really terrible take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dekes For Days and LeafChief
tony135420 said:
Maybe Sandin not being signed has less to do with money than it has to do with opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised if Dubas and Co. are still evaluating a trade option involving Sandin. RFA rights make him mire valuable as an acquiring team could negotiate their own contract with him. Maybe I'm drinking the crazy juice or am just really itching for something big to happen. ;)
Click to expand...

Re: opportunity, Sandin has to kick down the door and make himself an impact player by playing hockey. If he's going to miss time, stunt himself developmentally and struggle down the road, he's basically going to be putting an expiry date on his Leaf career.
 
uncleben said:
While I agree with the sentiment, when Marchment (24) was traded he was losing games to the likes of Gauthier (24), Engvall (23), Timashov (22), Mikheyev (24), Moore (24), Shore (26), Petan (24), Brooks (23), Aberg (25) in the bottom 6 and 13th F slot, while younger guys like Kapanen (23) and Johnsson (24) were getting top 6 chances.

He didn't lose a spot due to legacy vet contracts, he simply couldn't beat out the guys his age and younger for a spot.

Ironically enough, the guy we traded him for is now roughly the age Marchment was then, and is pretty infamously in a 'put up or shut up' position (or already written off by the fanbase), and actually IS going up against a couple legacy players who have been pencilled in for their name only
Click to expand...
Marchment never lost to any of those guys. 4 games does not make an assessment. They either had no patience or really believe in Malgin. If it's the latter, this season is the final conclusion for the trade. Malgin has one last chance to tie / win it for us with a breakout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Minty Cowboy
Havoc said:
Marchment never lost to any of those guys. 4 games does not make an assessment. They either had no patience or really believe in Malgin. If it's the latter, this season is the final conclusion for the trade. Malgin has one last chance to tie / win it for us with a breakout.
Click to expand...

Marchment didn’t get a greater chance here, because all of those players outperformed him at lower levels, and often significantly. Marchment’s AHL performance was mostly non-remarkable and he was well behind most of the guys mentioned by @uncleben He was also behind Engvall, who wasn’t mentioned. 14th in Marlies scoring, even behind Sandin.

He didn’t get more than 4 games in the NHL, as he hasn’t earned it yet, and we had three full seasons in the organization to assess him. One mediocre ECHL season and two in the AHL.

That being said, the trade was a mistake, and I thought it was weird at the time, as he was the one big physical body we had. It just didn’t make sense.

But, the premise that he didn’t get a chance because of vets is patently false. He didn’t get a chance at that point, because we had young players who at the time were showing far more and were better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzinger, geo25, stickty111 and 1 other person
Fogelhund said:
Marchment didn’t get a greater chance here, because all of those players outperformed him at lower levels, and often significantly. Marchment’s AHL performance was mostly non-remarkable and he was well behind most of the guys mentioned by @uncleben He was also behind Engvall, who wasn’t mentioned. 14th in Marlies scoring, even behind Sandin.

He didn’t get more than 4 games in the NHL, as he hasn’t earned it yet, and we had three full seasons in the organization to assess him. One mediocre ECHL season and two in the AHL.

That being said, the trade was a mistake, and I thought it was weird at the time, as he was the one big physical body we had. It just didn’t make sense.

But, the premise that he didn’t get a chance because of vets is patently false. He didn’t get a chance at that point, because we had young players who at the time were showing far more and were better.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that the whole trade didn't make any sense and was a mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemontree
Fogelhund said:
Marchment didn’t get a greater chance here, because all of those players outperformed him at lower levels, and often significantly. Marchment’s AHL performance was mostly non-remarkable and he was well behind most of the guys mentioned by @uncleben He was asking behind Engvall, who wasn’t mentioned. 14th in Marlies scoring, even behind Sandin.

That being said, the trade was a mistake, and I thought it was weird at the time, as he was the one big physical body we had. It just didn’t make sense.

But, the premise that he didn’t get a chance because of vets is patently false. He didn’t get a chance at that point, because we had young players who at the time were showing far more and were better.
Click to expand...
Marchment was the poster boy for our revamped development system with Barbara going out of her way to praise how far he came. The premise being proven false is perhaps correct but there is also no proof to show who Marchment was actually behind. His breakout in Florida proved that the calm hype surrounding his call-up was not exaggerated. None of those players listed excluding Mikheyev were penciled in as long term players for us so I don't think it's worth the time to even rank anyone. What is the difference in ranking for that group? Most likely insignificant.

Also, I'm not taking sides, but I will point out that if we are going to place Marchment behind the players listed above, you need to make sure none of the guys listed did not make the team due to a fraction of the reason being vets blocking them in the bottom 6. You only need to show that one got blocked. If Marchment is placed behind them, then logically that means he is blocked by vets too. That actually shows the dangers of rostering vets that shouldn't be on the roster. The odds of losing someone good increases when you get into the circumstance of having to group them with players like gauthier engvall timashov etc. and then only giving them 4 games to separate themselves. Maybe with 1 less useless vet he gets a game 5 and that game 5 was the one he flashes the potential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom