Trades & Free Agency Thread: 2024-2025 - Trade Deadline Approaches

[Rare Jewel]

Do you really think we would have won 2 cups the way the rest of the team played?

Maybe not, but a team with...

Matthews - Nylander
Kadri - Marner

Rielly - Pietrangelo


That may have been a better way to spread the cap around and likely have yielded more than one playoff-round win.

 

[notDatsyuk]

I’m not saying the Leafs would have won. I’m saying that Pietrangelo has been a more important player in the playoffs than Nylander over the last 6 years. Pietrangelo would have been the Leafs best defenseman over that entire period. Nylander has never been the Leafs best forward.

In the playoffs he has been, but that's damning with faint praise.

"1D for 2 cups" isn't saying we would have won?

 

[Americanadian]

"1D for 2 cups" isn't saying we would have won?

No. I was saying Pietrangelo was a 1D for 2 cups. I’m sorry you misunderstood.

Would Nylander have been the best forward in the playoffs for any team that’s won a cup?

 

[ULF_55]

Yes - how could they have afforded the additional 2M that he took over Nylander. Might have had to move off Kerfoot or no Brodie signing.


Are you saying Nylander>Matthews? Im not sure anyone will agree with you here.

I’m saying Pietrangelo>Nylander from 2018 to today.

And I'm saying they wouldn't have won anything with Pietrangelo because they have never been 1 defender away from winning the Cup.

 

[Americanadian]

And I'm saying they wouldn't have won anything with Pietrangelo because they have never been 1 defender away from winning the Cup.

Fully agree but they would have been a better team with the better player in a more impactful position.

 

[notDatsyuk]

No. I was saying Pietrangelo was a 1D for 2 cups. I’m sorry you misunderstood.

Would Nylander have been the best forward in the playoffs for any team that’s won a cup?

Got it - thanks.

We don't know, just like we don't know if that trade would have made a big difference. Pietrangelo instead of either JT or Mitch might have been better.

 

[ACC1224]

I’m not saying the Leafs would have won. I’m saying that Pietrangelo has been a more important player in the playoffs than Nylander over the last 6 years. Pietrangelo would have been the Leafs best defenseman over that entire period. Nylander has never been the Leafs best forward.

Yeah, this would have been a no brainer. Pietrangelo would still be the #1 here.

3rd best forward for a #1 D, anyone makes that move.

 

[Americanadian]

Got it - thanks.

We don't know, just like we don't know if that trade would have made a big difference. Pietrangelo instead of either JT or Mitch might have been better.

The proposed deal was after Tavares was signed and it was for Nylander:

31 Thoughts: Examining why a Nylander-Pietrangelo deal never materialized – Sportsnet.ca

 

[thewave]

And I'm saying they wouldn't have won anything with Pietrangelo because they have never been 1 defender away from winning the Cup.

Terrible Tending back then as well. Very inconsistent. Team talked about building from the net out and never did it.

 

[notDatsyuk]

The proposed deal was after Tavares was signed and it was for Nylander:

31 Thoughts: Examining why a Nylander-Pietrangelo deal never materialized – Sportsnet.ca

I know that, but I'm saying that if we had not signed JT and signed Pietrangelo the next year, or if we had traded Marner for Pietrangelo, it may have been better than if we had traded Nylander for Pietrangelo.

It's all idle speculation anyway.

 

[Americanadian]

I know that, but I'm saying that if we had not signed JT and signed Pietrangelo the next year, or if we had traded Marner for Pietrangelo, it may have been better than if we had traded Nylander for Pietrangelo.

It's all idle speculation anyway.

Why would trading Marner on his ELC be better? Marner has been significantly better than Nylander since 2018.

For the record I would have traded both players a long time age. I just don’t understand how trading Nylander for Pietro 6 years ago is a no-go but moving Marner in the same deal would be a good move.

 

[ULF_55]

Fully agree but they would have been a better team with the better player in a more impactful position.

That is possible, but not guaranteed.

Now if they had drafted Werenski instead of marner they'd have had a #1 defender for ...

 

[Americanadian]

That is possible, but not guaranteed.

Now if they had drafted Werenski instead of marner they'd have had a #1 defender for ...

If they had drafted Pastrnak instead of Nylander they would have had another 60 goals scorer. If they would have drafted Thomas instead of Liljegren they would have had another point per game C. If they would have drafted Kyrou over Korshkov they would have had another point per game winger. Let me go back through the draft over the last 15 years and I’ll build you the best team in the NHL. What is your point?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Well, you did reference a model, So I thought some prior team could be given as an example. Committing money to worse players." That idea, in a vacuum, may sound right. But that completely ignores the context of a team.

Models are general frameworks, not specifics. The model isn't "4 forwards for X money". The model is pay your stars and find efficiencies in your depth. And it's how most successful teams are built.

You've got a very low bar for using the term "great." Being handed all the core pieces to a team and failing to get out of 1st round in all but one time is not what I would describe as "great." And the rest is opinion., mostly influenced by the 'we can, we will" BS

I don't have a low bar for great. I just don't base my evaluation of a team and everybody associated with it exclusively by the team's playoff series outcome without context. The timing of one goal being the entire basis for whether a team is good or bad? I find that lazy and ridiculously simplistic. A 110-115 point top 5 in the league team with strong goal differentials and underlying metrics is great.

As for the rest, it's not "we can and we will bs". It's just the realities of our situation. Superstars are reliable, and relative to impact, they are generally one of the more efficient contract types. The cap is going to skyrocket and plummet these cap percentages. Our realistic pathways for replacing his impacts in ways that would necessitate moving him would be drawing from the least efficient contract types - mid tier UFAs. Treliving has not historically been great in that area.

Can you give me one example of a move you didn't like that he made?

Are we talking hindsight or at the time? Because a lot of people like hindsight bashing and some things didn't work out as expected, but I'm more focused on things where I disagree with the reasoning behind it. For example, I don't think we needed a Simmonds or NAK role... I wouldn't have targeted Foligno... I wouldn't have taken Joey Anderson over a 2nd... We probably didn't need to spend a 3rd And 5th on Rittich and Hutton... etc.

And I'll say this as not an advocate of Treliving, but what different should he have done?

Not sign a 37 year old Reaves for 3 years... Not spend 4.2m on a broken down Klingberg to be our top 4 defenseman... Not rely on a broken down Hakanpaa... Not sign Bertuzzi for 5.5m... Not sign Kampf for 2.4m... Not give Liljegren 3m then not play him then trade him for low picks and a cap dump... Not kill our transition ability getting multiple clones of the same one dimensional defensemen at the deadline...Not hire Berube... Not supplement rookies with horrible defensive forwards... Etc. His focus and understanding of what we need seems to be wrong, and his competency in executing any plan seems to be lacking. If he starts doing more good things, I'd love him.

As for the contract stuff. Utterly disagree. If you, as a GM, aren't using the wealth of the Toronto Maple Leafs to your advantage to actually compete against non-tax teams, which means getting AAVs nearer to what your competitors are paying. Then you're not doing it right. Why are you paying lump sums to that degree?

We did utilize our wealth to ensure that our tax situation didn't impact our AAVs. That's why they got the signing bonuses. We weren't going to have AAVs equal to what competitors were paying, because our competitors were signing worse players.

Without John, Matthews' 2nd deal is either under Eichel's AAV (giving the team more cap space in those years) for shorter or possibly over ($11.6m) but for 7 or 8 seasons.

Matthews was always making that, regardless of who else was here. Eichel's cap hit percentage under an 81.5m cap was 10.9m, and McDavid's was 13.6m (with a negotiated worth of 14.4m). And whether or not people want to admit it, he was closer to McDavid than Eichel at their respective points of signing.

Who's a worse player?

MacKinnon and Barkov were much worse players when they signed their post-ELC contracts.

Yes, but that was with Mackinnon @ $6.3. You can have 3 of them if one of them is on a sweat deal like that. But they're projecting Mac @ 12.6 , Rantanen @ $13-$14m, and then Makar eventually @ $15m. That you can't do

Doesn't sound like Rantanen would have gotten 13-14m, and that's absolutely something you can do. Even with Rantanen at 13m, that's mid-low 30% for a few years and then dropping. For your 3 best players. That's never been a barrier to winning. They just didn't value him very highly.

How else are we supposed to judge them?

You judge them by the entirety of their impact, offensive and defensive, regular season and playoffs, all game states, with full context. Not just by their overall point production in a fraction of their least representative games without any context.

Yes, which is a 90ish point player. An example would be nice. A player who's paid on his 3rd contract based on the pace rather than the actual numbers put up.

It's a 100+ point two-way, all-situations player. You're including past situational factors outside his actual performance that have no relevance to his future. You've been talking a lot about Mackinnon. His career high in raw points was the same 99 points when he signed. Was he just some 90 point player?

 

[Rare Jewel]

Models are general frameworks, not specifics. The model isn't "4 forwards for X money". The model is pay your stars and find efficiencies in your depth. And it's how most successful teams are built.

I don't have a low bar for great. I just don't base my evaluation of a team and everybody associated with it exclusively by the team's playoff series outcome without context. The timing of one goal being the entire basis for whether a team is good or bad? I find that lazy and ridiculously simplistic. A 110-115 point top 5 in the league team with strong goal differentials and underlying metrics is great.

As for the rest, it's not "we can and we will bs". It's just the realities of our situation. Superstars are reliable, and relative to impact, they are generally one of the more efficient contract types. The cap is going to skyrocket and plummet these cap percentages. Our realistic pathways for replacing his impacts in ways that would necessitate moving him would be drawing from the least efficient contract types - mid tier UFAs. Treliving has not historically been great in that area.

Are we talking hindsight or at the time? Because a lot of people like hindsight bashing and some things didn't work out as expected, but I'm more focused on things where I disagree with the reasoning behind it. For example, I don't think we needed a Simmonds or NAK role... I wouldn't have targeted Foligno... I wouldn't have taken Joey Anderson over a 2nd... We probably didn't need to spend a 3rd And 5th on Rittich and Hutton... etc.

Not sign a 37 year old Reaves for 3 years... Not spend 4.2m on a broken down Klingberg to be our top 4 defenseman... Not rely on a broken down Hakanpaa... Not sign Bertuzzi for 5.5m... Not sign Kampf for 2.4m... Not give Liljegren 3m then not play him then trade him for low picks and a cap dump... Not kill our transition ability getting multiple clones of the same one dimensional defensemen at the deadline...Not hire Berube... Not supplement rookies with horrible defensive forwards... Etc. His focus and understanding of what we need seems to be wrong, and his competency in executing any plan seems to be lacking. If he starts doing more good things, I'd love him.

We did utilize our wealth to ensure that our tax situation didn't impact our AAVs. That's why they got the signing bonuses. We weren't going to have AAVs equal to what competitors were paying, because our competitors were signing worse players.

Matthews was always making that, regardless of who else was here. Eichel's cap hit percentage under an 81.5m cap was 10.9m, and McDavid's was 13.6m (with a negotiated worth of 14.4m). And whether or not people want to admit it, he was closer to McDavid than Eichel at their respective points of signing.

MacKinnon and Barkov were much worse players when they signed their post-ELC contracts.

Doesn't sound like Rantanen would have gotten 13-14m, and that's absolutely something you can do. Even with Rantanen at 13m, that's mid-low 30% for a few years and then dropping. For your 3 best players. That's never been a barrier to winning. They just didn't value him very highly.

You judge them by the entirety of their impact, offensive and defensive, regular season and playoffs, all game states, with full context. Not just by their overall point production in a fraction of their least representative games without any context.

It's a 100+ point two-way, all-situations player. You're including past situational factors outside his actual performance that have no relevance to his future. You've been talking a lot about Mackinnon. His career high in raw points was the same 99 points when he signed. Was he just some 90 point player?

I'm not interested in this pissing match anymore, go answer my questions in the other post.

 

[thusk]

2018, so it would likely have been a short-term gain but a long-term loss.


We might have won a series in 19 or 20 or 21, but with the team without Nylander it's unlikely we would have won much more. Now Willy is reaching his peak and Petro is declining.

If we could have traded Marner for him that might have been a different story.

By getting a more balanced team... who know what would happen... but no doubt Pietrangelo would had better impact than Nylander when D always been leafs #1 issue. Should get a #1 D who made leafs won a cup, i don't know but he would raised leafs chance for sure

And the problem i saw a lot is when people watching the stats but not the impact a player having on the ice.

Same way than even if Tkachuk had better stats than Barkov, impact of barkov had been much higher than Tkachuk on both time panthers reach the final.

Even if Kessel had better stats than crosby in 2016 run, impact of crosby had been much higher than Kessel.

 

[Dekes For Days]

So, there are two questions I'm interested in getting your take on.

1. How much are you willing to give him, and for how long?
2. In the event Marner does not re-sign (for whatever reason), what would be your course of action from that point?

1. I'd like to keep it under 14m, for as long as possible.
2. Accept that we're probably not winning this era, and prepare myself for a rebuild when Matthews walks. If we let Marner walk, it's not only a massive uphill battle to get back to neutral (let alone improve), but it signifies that our management really has no clue what they're doing, and we don't have much hope. I guess my actual answer is fire all management, from MLSE president to assistant coach. Find somebody competent.

 

[Rare Jewel]

1. I'd like to keep it under 14m, for as long as possible.
2. Accept that we're probably not winning this era, and prepare myself for a rebuild when Matthews walks. If we let Marner walk, it's not only a massive uphill battle to get back to neutral (let alone improve), but it signifies that our management really has no clue what they're doing, and we don't have much hope. I guess my actual answer is fire all management, from MLSE president to assistant coach. Find somebody competent.

So, throw in the towel if they don't keep Marner?

Okay then...

 

[Dreakmur]

2. Accept that we're probably not winning this era, and prepare myself for a rebuild when Matthews walks. If we let Marner walk, it's not only a massive uphill battle to get back to neutral (let alone improve), but it signifies that our management really has no clue what they're doing, and we don't have much hope. I guess my actual answer is fire all management, from MLSE president to assistant coach. Find somebody competent.

That's the crux of the disagreement. You seem to think the best way to win is spend a pile of money on a few elite players, regardless of position, and then bargain hunt on everything else. That's very difficult when too many of those players are in hockey's the least impactful position. The salary cap basically forces the law of diminishing returns onto a hockey team's roster. Paying too much in one area isn't efficient, and paying too much in non-impact positions is foolish.

It's not a new issue. Pick ONE of Marner or Nylander, and invest the extra cap space into more important positions - Centers, Defensemen, and Goalies. Balance the roster for greater returns on your cap money spent.

As for finding somebody competent, I'd look to see what's happening in Pittsbough to see what your version of competence has accomplished...

So, throw in the towel if they don't keep Marner?

Okay then...

I would say that keeping Marner is throwing in the towel (unless they trade Nylander, which they can't)

 

[ToneDog]

He had to want to come here first off. I don't know if that was the case

His family is in King City. He's probably more about family than money like Tavares.

 

[ULF_55]

If they had drafted Pastrnak instead of Nylander they would have had another 60 goals scorer. If they would have drafted Thomas instead of Liljegren they would have had another point per game C. If they would have drafted Kyrou over Korshkov they would have had another point per game winger. Let me go back through the draft over the last 15 years and I’ll build you the best team in the NHL. What is your point?

Exactly.

And the reality is adding Vasilevskiy and Pietrangelo doesn't guarantee anything.

Unless a miracle happens and shrinking violets grow thorns and then who knows?

 

[Rare Jewel]

That's the crux of the disagreement. You seem to think the best way to win is spend a pile of money on a few elite players, regardless of position, and then bargain hunt on everything else. That's very difficult when too many of those players are in hockey's the least impactful position. The salary cap basically forces the law of diminishing returns onto a hockey team's roster. Paying too much in one area isn't efficient, and paying too much in non-impact positions is foolish.

It's not a new issue. Pick ONE of Marner or Nylander, and invest the extra cap space into more important positions - Centers, Defensemen, and Goalies. Balance the roster for greater returns on your cap money spent.

As for finding somebody competent, I'd look to see what's happening in Pittsbough to see what your version of competence has accomplished...

Oh, you've done it now.... lol

But yeah, the issue wouldn't be nearly as complicated if it were not for two issues: Positional glut and playoff performance.

 

[thewave]

His family is in King City. He's probably more about family than money like Tavares.

I don't think that matters as much anymore. I see a very clear desire for max money with least taxes from basically all players

 

[Americanadian]

Exactly.

And the reality is adding Vasilevskiy and Pietrangelo doesn't guarantee anything.

Unless a miracle happens and shrinking violets grow thorns and then who knows?

The original post I quoted said trading Nylander for Pietrangelo in 2018 was a bad deal. We have conclusive evidence that Pietrangelo outperformed Nylander since then.