GDT: Trades & Free Agency -- Off-season edition

[4thline]

Please tell me how and why you considered this team to be Stanley Cup contenders back then with these results?

2019-2020 results

Team Record: 36-25-9 (SO: 1-5) - 81 points
Finishing 3rd in the NHL's Atlantic Division
Postseason: 2-3
Lost NHL qualifying round
Qualifying round - Lost to Columbus Blue Jackets 3-2

2020-2021 results

Team Record: 35-14-7 (SO: 1-0) - 77 points
Finishing 1st in the NHL's North Division
Postseason: 3-4
Lost first round
First Round - Lost to Montreal Canadiens 4-3

The years before the decision are what you should be looking at. Back to back 100 point seasons, game 7 losses, with the MMN really early in their careers and still growing. The expectation was 100% for the team to improve from there and take the next step. The fanbase was salivating.

The right long term move would have been to ride out 2019-2020 as a "down" year and come back after, but that would not have been acceptable to the fanbase, and likely not ownership.

 

[SprDaVE]

Depends how much you like McCabe on the right. If you think Ferraro will shine in the top 4 on a good team, you're not getting his equivalent in UFA at 3.25, unless it's as a big gamble. Then you move McCabe to the one of the spots on the right (with at his cap even 3rd pair with Benoit is viable) and have lots of options in UFA

That's fine if we had at least one very good to great RHD. At least one. Maybe that changes by the end of the off-season, but spending even more assets on a LHD seems just as weird as trading for a winger. We already lack picks and cap so every addition needs to be with a vision here. It only makes sense if you think Ferraro can be a huge addition and the cost is relatively low.

I prefer McCabe on the left but in a pinch he definitely seems capable to play the right.

 

[TheMadHatTrick]

No we couldn't, you can't forcibly LTIR a guy against his will,

Joffrey Lupul and Matt Murray say hi.

What do you think Robidas Island was a resort?

We needed to resign Kapanen and Johnsson
That's what the money went towards and **** knows what Marner would be making now if we bridged him, 12M at least

There's no flow chart indicating what the money was or was not directed towards, so no, I don't buy this explanation. The Leafs had 8.79 million in cap space entering that off-season, which rose to 11.4 million after we traded Zaitsev and Connor Brown to Ottawa.

We had more than enough to bridge Marner for one year at anywhere between Barkov's cap hit of 5.7 million and Nathan Mackinnon's 6.3 million, and still had enough to sign Johnsson and/or Kapanen.

Even if we had to dump one (which we ended up doing anyway) you don't throw away assets in order to resign 3rd liners that are still RFAs. Not when that same offseason you were able to sign Spezza for 700K and Mikheyev for 925K.

Who knows what Marner would be making now. But when Marner signed that deal he had only just turned 22, meaning he still had 4 years left before becoming a UFA. Dubas would only have had to bridge him for 1 year until Marleau's contract was off the books, then he could have let Marner's agent violate him all he wanted.

Less term means less aav, that's the reason team's bridge guys if it doesnt work for their cap structure. Instead, Dubas paid Marner for a career year of 94 points, which he then followed up with two consecutive injured years of 67 points.

If Dubas had the brains and balls to bridge him at the time, he would have not only kept a valuable asset (which became Seth Jarvis), but Marner's leverage would have been much weaker coming off 67 points for two straight years, in conjunction with the team's playoff failures.

The attempts to try to justify this awful asset management (Seth Jarvis could be our Marner replacement right now), and piss-poor negotiating boggles the mind. It would be the same thing if Tre was to trade our 1st this year to clear Tavares contract just to overpay Bertuzzi and Domi. You're acting like Dubas had no other choice but to make that trade, but that's even close to the reality. There were other pieces that could have been moved around before getting desperate.

 

[Leafs87]

I was impressed with Brads FA last year (aside from Kling and letting Schenn walk). Let’s see what he does this year

 

[Fogelhund]

That rookie GM had a much longer resume than nepo baby Dubas

Ah.. so it's not the rookie part you have an issue with, and it's inclusion in the prior statement is irrelevant?

Joffrey Lupul and Matt Murray say hi.

What do you think Robidas Island was a resort?

View attachment 881883


There's no flow chart indicating what the money was or was not directed towards, so no, I don't buy this explanation. The Leafs had 8.79 million in cap space entering that off-season, which rose to 11.4 million after we traded Zaitsev and Connor Brown to Ottawa.

We had more than enough to bridge Marner for one year at anywhere between Barkov's cap hit of 5.7 million and Nathan Mackinnon's 6.3 million, and still had enough to sign Johnsson and/or Kapanen.

Even if we had to dump one (which we ended up doing anyway) you don't throw away assets in order to resign 3rd liners that are still RFAs. Not when that same offseason you were able to sign Spezza for 700K and Mikheyev for 925K.

Who knows what Marner would be making now. But when Marner signed that deal he had only just turned 22, meaning he still had 4 years left before becoming a UFA. Dubas would only have had to bridge him for 1 year until Marleau's contract was off the books, then he could have let Marner's agent violate him all he wanted.

Less term means less aav, that's the reason team's bridge guys if it doesnt work for their cap structure. Instead, Dubas paid Marner for a career year of 94 points, which he then followed up with two consecutive injured years of 67 points.

If Dubas had the brains and balls to bridge him at the time, he would have not only kept a valuable asset (which became Seth Jarvis), but Marner's leverage would have been much weaker coming off 67 points for two straight years, in conjunction with the team's playoff failures.

The attempts to try to justify this awful asset management (Seth Jarvis could be our Marner replacement right now), and piss-poor negotiating boggles the mind. It would be the same thing if Tre was to trade our 1st this year to clear Tavares contract just to overpay Bertuzzi and Domi. You're acting like Dubas had no other choice but to make that trade, but that's even close to the reality. There were other pieces that could have been moved around before getting desperate.

Lupul was healthy enough to play, until tested by independent doctors, and proven he wasn't healthy enough... and then strangely, never played again anywhere else... despite these claims of being healthy.

 

[JKG33]

Ah.. so it's not the rookie part you have an issue with, and it's inclusion in the prior statement is irrelevant?

He was far more inexperienced than Zito, and under qualified

 

[TMLAM34]

Driedger is 2nd in the AHL playoffs in SV%. UFA this season who deserves another NHL shot. I would love him as a back up if the Leafs were to bring in a marquee goalie and deal Woll.

I’d honestly be open in signing him regardless. I definitely think he’s capable of being at least a solid backup and he’ll probably be cheaper than Brossoit or Stolarz and put up similar numbers. When/if Woll goes down, if any of those 3 is our starter we’re not in a good spot regardless.

 

[Fogelhund]

He was far more inexperienced than Zito, and under qualified

Can't answer the question?

Ah.. so it's not the rookie part you have an issue with, and it's inclusion in the prior statement is irrelevant?

 

[4thline]

That's fine if we had at least one very good to great RHD. At least one. Maybe that changes by the end of the off-season, but spending even more assets on a LHD seems just as weird as trading for a winger. We already lack picks and cap so every addition needs to be with a vision here. It only makes sense if you think Ferraro can be a huge addition and the cost is relatively low.

I prefer McCabe on the left but in a pinch he definitely seems capable to play the right.

It's tight, but if you assume
all of Robertson/Liljegren/Jarncrok/Kampf are gone
Dewar/Kunin/Blais at a combined 4m (should be less)
Brossoit at 2.5

Knies-Matthes-Nylander
McMann-Tavares-Marner
xxx/Holmberg- xxx/Holmberg- Kunin
Blais-Dewar-Greb
Reaves

Rielly-xxx
Ferraro-xxx
Benoit-McCabe
875k 7D

Woll
Brossoit

with 13.8 across 3C/LW + 1RD + 2RD. Like I said, tight. But with a Benoit-McCabe 3rd pairing, you could take some weight off the other pairs- no one needs to be sheltered. A 6.5m and 3.5m would go a long way, leaving 3.8 to fill out the 3rd line. 10m (or potentially a hair more) should be enough to get two of

Montour
Pesce
Roy
DeMelo
Walker
Carrier
Tanev
Hakanpaa
Dumba

 

[Captain Crunch]

The years before the decision are what you should be looking at. Back to back 100 point seasons, game 7 losses, with the MMN really early in their careers and still growing. The expectation was 100% for the team to improve from there and take the next step. The fanbase was salivating.

The right long term move would have been to ride out 2019-2020 as a "down" year and come back after, but that would not have been acceptable to the fanbase, and likely not ownership.

I totally agree with that, but Dubas and Shanahan failed miserably when they gave in to those 3 with the contracts they gave them. They did quite well in the 2018-19 season, I believe Marner had his career year. They also did fine in the playoffs, although Matthews, Marner, and Tavares finished as minus players.

But the thing I keep coming back to is how management backed themselves into a corner by paying those 3 that much before they had really proven themselves as playoff performers. And of course not having enough cap room to properly address the defense and goaltending.

 

[Kurtz]

Can't say I've seen much of him, and obviously the stats on paper don't look great. But he's also on a legit awful team, and D and goaltending in particular are hard to assess on awful teams.

Benoit is a great example. Take him out of Anaheim, and all of a sudden he looks way better on paper and was very effective for his caphit.

I haven't seen much of him either, but on paper, a guy who likes to skate the puck out, hits, blocks shots, plays 22m/game, has a positive takeaway-giveaway ratio (pretty impressive on SJ), is just entering his prime and has a team-friendly cap hit sounds pretty perfect. Only thing missing is that point shot on the PP that we're looking for, but otherwise might be a real good fit.

 

[TMLAM34]

If Philadelphia is willing to retain 2.75 million per on Sean Couturier, would/should we have interest? Still a huge risk given his age, contract and injury history but that means he could potentially come pretty cheap. One of the games best two-way centers and finally played a full season but had some issues with the coaching staff.

Bottom three lines I’m thinking could look like this with a couple other moves.

Knies - Couturier - Nylander
Joshua - Tavares - McMann
Holmberg - McBain - Boyd

 

[The Management]

Not necessarily opposed to names like Ferraro and Brossoit, but I'll be pretty disappointed if we don't swing higher than that. Maybe higher caliber players come in free agency (Montour, Skjei, et. al). The savings in goal could go toward rebuilding the blueline.

I'm always sort of torn on the goaltending question, because on the one hand, goalies are hard to predict and it's risky to commit significant cap to them. Edmonton has gone far with Skinner. Vegas won with Hill, and Colorado with Kuemper (both teams had excellent bluelines however). Winnipeg got blown up, despite having Hellebuyck. So maybe a tandem of Woll and Brossoit is the savvy play, if you can convert those cap savings into quality on the back-end.

Then you've got Bobrovsky, whose contract was perceived as a boat anchor (and was for quite some time to be fair), putting on an absolute clinic in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Shesterkin was great for the Rangers this year. Different ways to approach the position, but sort of makes you envious of teams with cemented top-notch goaltending.

 

[613Leafer]

Not necessarily opposed to names like Ferraro and Brossoit, but I'll be pretty disappointed if we don't swing higher than that. Maybe higher caliber players come in free agency (Montour, Skjei, et. al). The savings in goal could go toward rebuilding the blueline.

I'm always sort of torn on the goaltending question, because on the one hand, goalies are hard to predict and it's risky to commit significant cap to them. Edmonton has gone far with Skinner. Vegas won with Hill, and Colorado with Kuemper (both teams had excellent bluelines however). Winnipeg got blown up, despite having Hellebuyck. So maybe a tandem of Woll and Brossoit is the savvy play, if you can convert those cap savings into quality on the back-end.

Then you've got Bobrovsky, whose contract was perceived as a boat anchor (and was for quite some time to be fair), putting on an absolute clinic in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Shesterkin was great for the Rangers this year. Different ways to approach the position, but sort of makes you envious of teams with cemented top-notch goaltending.

I think it highlights the importance of a good blueline, and not overpaying a mediocre starter.

Ottawa for example gave Korpisalo a big long-term contract, and we easily could have done the same with Samsonov, or trading for Markstrom would amount to the same thing. I'd rather avoid that, invest that $$ in the blueline, and go with a Woll + Stolarz or Broissoit tandem. Pretty sure Broissoit with a good blueline does better than Samsanov/Markstrom with a poor blueline, plus a good blueline helps our offence because it can recover the puck and move the puck up the ice more effectively than a poor blueline.

However, if you can get a legit top 5ish goalie, those handful of guys are pretty consistently good to very good, and can make a big difference (Hellebuyck's playoff performance aside, he's obviously had a huge impact on the Jets over the past 5+ years).

 

[Fogelhund]

If Philadelphia is willing to retain 2.75 million per on Sean Couturier, would/should we have interest? Still a huge risk given his age, contract and injury history but that means he could potentially come pretty cheap. One of the games best two-way centers and finally played a full season but had some issues with the coaching staff.

Bottom three lines I’m thinking could look like this with a couple other moves.

Knies - Couturier - Nylander
Joshua - Tavares - McMann
Holmberg - McBain - Boyd

He had an ok start to last year, but then just fell apart near the end of the season. 8 points in the last 32 games, and a minus 22 over that period. He's not a guy who you want to give second line minutes to, I just don't think he can handle that workload, and it's why he declined with Philly. If you could get him a third line pay, for a third line cost, he'd probably be decent. His offensive side isn't what it once was, that much is for sure. He's probably a $2.5 mil to $3 mil guy these days, not someone you pay assets for, and then have him at a $5 mil cap hit, hoping he can be your 2C.

One of the other problems, is his contract is to the end of 2029-30....

Is it worth the risk at 50% retained? Maybe... At $3.875... but the cost couldn't be a lot... like change of scenery swap with Kampf maybe? It's still a big risk... and you still have Tavares as your 2C, and Couts as your 3C.

 

[JKG33]

Can't answer the question?

Ah.. so it's not the rookie part you have an issue with, and it's inclusion in the prior statement is irrelevant?

Depends on your definition of rookie. I have a hard time calling a 50 something year old with 25 years of experience a rookie, but a 30 year old with 4 years? Absolutely

 

[Fogelhund]

Depends on your definition of rookie. I have a hard time calling a 50 something year old with 25 years of experience a rookie, but a 30 year old with 4 years? Absolutely

 

[The Management]

I think it highlights the importance of a good blueline, and not overpaying a mediocre starter.

Ottawa for example gave Korpisalo a big long-term contract, and we easily could have done the same with Samsonov, or trading for Markstrom would amount to the same thing. I'd rather avoid that, invest that $$ in the blueline, and go with a Woll + Stolarz or Broissoit tandem. Pretty sure Broissoit with a good blueline does better than Samsanov/Markstrom with a poor blueline, plus a good blueline helps our offence because it can recover the puck and move the puck up the ice more effectively than a poor blueline.

However, if you can get a legit top 5ish goalie, those handful of guys are pretty consistently good to very good, and can make a big difference (Hellebuyck's playoff performance aside, he's obviously had a huge impact on the Jets over the past 5+ years).

Yeah, also a fan of Anthony Stolarz, consistently respectable numbers and was only a shade below 0.900 twice in his entire career, both times behind porous defense groups in 2018-2019 Edmonton and 2022-2023 Anaheim. I'd be a fan of that pickup.

 

[Captain Crunch]

We added him when Matthews and Marner were 20, and Nylander was 21.

Lining up with Kapanen and Johnsson was irrelevant until we signed Tavares.



I remember exactly what happened… and I remember exactly what I suggested as an alternative strategy… and hindsight has proven me right.



Yes, prematurely. We had some good young forwards and no defensemen. The results speak for themselves.



Taking a step forward isn’t the same as contending. We were several years away from contending, but we skipped steps and never ended up getting there.



There was no need to get out of it until several other bad cap decisions were made.




As i suggested at the time, we should have moved Kapanen and Johnsson at the peak of their value when they were RFAs. Not only would we have not spent the 1st to move Marleau, but we would have added a 1st and a 2nd.

Great post!

 

[Captain Crunch]

I am not saying we should keep Marner, I am saying other teams might have reason to believe he could get different results in a new environment and I cited a couple of relevant examples.

I am very much in the "trade Marner" camp and also believe he was signed to a bad contract. I am able to separate these feelings and opinions from the fact that Covid messed up a plan that Dubas had, even though Friedman' statement is correct...you still need to have a plan when you are running a business.

The problem with his plan was that it was totally centered on those forwards rather than the entire team. I was so glad when Tre spoke about it now being about the "team" rather than "the core and everybody else"!

 

[mydnyte]

I don't get the Ferraro interest. Seems like another dime a dozen #4-6 type that the Leafs already have 4 of

i agree.
if you flipped Lily and Ferraro, Lily would prob have much better offensive numbers and look like a top pairing d-man because of the opportunity he would have with their lack of depth, and the disregard of poor play because the team sucks.
and if Ferraro was here playing in Lil's spot, he'd have worse offensive numbers, and likely be the whipping boy that Lil is now.

Lily is a better player than Ferraro, he's just been misused/abused by Keefe going back to the Marlies.

 

[Captain Crunch]

Two things.

(1) I am not bringing excuses for failures. I am saying we won't know if Dubas would have had more success with his plan if the cap went up.

(2) It's not hard to imagine that this team may have had different results with Hyman, a top 4 D and a goalie that they could have fit in with $20M in additional cap space on top of the four. This MAY have been the plan that Covid messed up. Here is a quote from an article on the Athletic in October 2020.

"Toronto would be at the front of the line for Pietrangelo’s services, pushing the bidding sky high.

But with the cap potentially flat (or near flat) for years, giving a nearly 31-year-old free agent more than 10 percent of your cap space for seven years is a tough ask."

It seems Vegas is okay with having done that!

 

[Brobust]

i agree.
if you flipped Lily and Ferraro, Lily would prob have much better offensive numbers and look like a top pairing d-man because of the opportunity he would have with their lack of depth, and the disregard of poor play because the team sucks.
and if Ferraro was here playing in Lil's spot, he'd have worse offensive numbers, and likely be the whipping boy that Lil is now.

Lily is a better player than Ferraro, he's just been misused/abused by Keefe going back to the Marlies.

Liljegren had a lot of flaws when he first got the AHL. He was shot happy and played without vision. Rather than mould him and fix his deficiencies, the leafs just kind of killed his identity. A lot of that is probably on Keefe.

 

[Kurtz]

i agree.
if you flipped Lily and Ferraro, Lily would prob have much better offensive numbers and look like a top pairing d-man because of the opportunity he would have with their lack of depth, and the disregard of poor play because the team sucks.
and if Ferraro was here playing in Lil's spot, he'd have worse offensive numbers, and likely be the whipping boy that Lil is now.

Lily is a better player than Ferraro, he's just been misused/abused by Keefe going back to the Marlies.

I don't follow your logic.

What makes you think he'd have better offensive numbers on a significantly poorer offensive team? We've been desperate for offense from our blueline for years, and Lil has given us nothing. What has he shown you that makes you think he'd be a good offensive player on a different team? His skating, vision, shot, etc are completely unremarkable, and he usually plays pretty tentative on top of that.

Ferraro's profile is quite different...how many times have you actually seen him play?

 

[TMLAM34]

He had an ok start to last year, but then just fell apart near the end of the season. 8 points in the last 32 games, and a minus 22 over that period. He's not a guy who you want to give second line minutes to, I just don't think he can handle that workload, and it's why he declined with Philly. If you could get him a third line pay, for a third line cost, he'd probably be decent. His offensive side isn't what it once was, that much is for sure. He's probably a $2.5 mil to $3 mil guy these days, not someone you pay assets for, and then have him at a $5 mil cap hit, hoping he can be your 2C.

One of the other problems, is his contract is to the end of 2029-30....

Is it worth the risk at 50% retained? Maybe... At $3.875... but the cost couldn't be a lot... like change of scenery swap with Kampf maybe? It's still a big risk... and you still have Tavares as your 2C, and Couts as your 3C.

Definitely a huge risk and might not be worth it even at 50% retained. I’m just trying to go through the NHL centers and see if there are any trade options if we loose out on either Lindholm or Stephenson which will probably be the case.

Not many options available out there.