Trades & Free Agency Thread: Off-season Edition

[Torontonian]

Toronto has started to take risk and buy high on players now with Treliving at the helm, like Woll as an example and hope it pays off in years 2-3 when they potentially could make double the money.

Toronto should be doing the same thing with Knies and be giving him the Alex Tuch deal, maybe a little less AAV but long years, Is he woth 4m-4.5m in years 1 and 2? probably not, but you get the pay off in years 3 to 7.

That's how good teams are able to constantly add. Toronto for the past 5 years has paid the full price for a player coming off their best years.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Toronto has started to take risk and buy high on players now with Treliving at the helm, like Woll as an example and hope it pays off in years 2-3 when they potentially could make double the money.

Toronto should be doing the same thing with Knies and be giving him the Alex Tuch deal, maybe a little less AAV but long years, Is he woth 4m-4.5m in years 1 and 2? probably not, but you get the pay off in years 3 to 7.

That's how good teams are able to constantly add. Toronto for the past 5 years has paid the full price for a player coming off their best years.

Is Knies eligible for an extension? I would easily do that

 

[Torontonian]

Is Knies eligible for an extension? I would easily do that

This is his last year of his ELC, so I think he was eligible July 1st to sign an extension. He's a RFA in the summer.

 

[SprDaVE]

Toronto has started to take risk and buy high on players now with Treliving at the helm, like Woll as an example and hope it pays off in years 2-3 when they potentially could make double the money.

Toronto should be doing the same thing with Knies and be giving him the Alex Tuch deal, maybe a little less AAV but long years, Is he woth 4m-4.5m in years 1 and 2? probably not, but you get the pay off in years 3 to 7.

That's how good teams are able to constantly add. Toronto for the past 5 years has paid the full price for a player coming off their best years.

He definitely should wait and bet on himself so he might not want to but if there's interest, the Leafs should take a chance and sign him long-term before he has a break out season.

 

[Torontonian]

He definitely should wait and bet on himself so he might not want to but if there's interest, the Leafs should take a chance and sign him long-term before he has a break out season.

He probably should, but it's also hard to turn down 30m of money as well at that age. The point/message I was trying to get across though, about people complaining about all the money always going towards raises every year and never having money to get upgrades, is Toronto has done a really poor job at getting any value deals because they never take a risk to sign a player before he hit's there career year.

Woll is a good example of that, If he puts up a .918% and a 2.60GA this year, next summer he could ask for 5m-5.5m but Toronto being proactive saves themselves 2m. There's risk to it but you should be taking the chance on some players.

Nylander is another example (sometimes the player does bet himself like in this case). but if Toronto was able to sign him on July 1st 2023 when he was eligible for a extension, they could have saved themselves 2m-2.5m if they gave him 9m/9.5m.

 

[SprDaVE]

He probably should, but it's also hard to turn down 30m of money as well at that age. The point/message I was trying to get across though, about people complaining about all the money always going towards raises every year and never having money to get upgrades, is Toronto has done a really poor job at getting any value deals because they never take a risk to sign a player before he hit's there career year.

Woll is a good example of that, If he puts up a .918% and a 2.60GA this year, next summer he could ask for 5m-5.5m but Toronto being proactive saves themselves 2m. There's risk to it but you should be taking the chance on some players.

Nylander is another example (sometimes the player does bet himself like in this case). but if Toronto was able to sign him on July 1st 2023 when he was eligible for a extension, they could have saved themselves 2m-2.5m if they gave him 9m/9.5m.

100%

 

[ULF_55]

Personally... I would have moved Marner to Seattle for Wright + 2024 1st round pick. Wright will be a decent 2C in this league, and could have slotted in as the 3C to start the year, and at some point... whether that's this year, or next, they could swap. Clearly that didn't happen, so here we are.

You mean you would have liked to move marner ...

marner isn't moving.

 

[Fogelhund]

You mean you would have liked to move marner ...

marner isn't moving.

Yes... I agree and have said as much previously... the post you quoted was I would have... Clearly we can't trade for their 2024 1st round pick at this point... that already happened. I also agree that it looks like Marner isn't moving.

 

[ULF_55]

Yes... I agree and have said as much previously... the post you quoted was I would have... Clearly we can't trade for their 2024 1st round pick at this point... that already happened. I also agree that it looks like Marner isn't moving.

Okay, just sounds like if you were GM you would have moved him.
But you couldn't even if you were GM.
marner was never in play.

Now all the players without a NMC should be in play if it makes the team better.

Trouble is they really don't have much capital, neither player nor draft.

With their Cap situation, even using assets like Cowan+ for a center would be difficult, unless targeting a 3rd. liner.

McGroarty - Robertson type deal ... sure ... but don't overpay for some over demanding college player.

 

[ULF_55]

Nylander is another example (sometimes the player does bet himself like in this case). but if Toronto was able to sign him on July 1st 2023 when he was eligible for a extension, they could have saved themselves 2m-2.5m if they gave him 9m/9.5m.

July 2023, they might have got in at around 10 - 10.5, but I doubt he would have taken less than that.
My opinion, part of his agent's approach was backpay based on 3 other double digits earning 50%+ more over 5 years.

 

[ULF_55]

Is Knies eligible for an extension? I would easily do that

Nashville did that with Arvidsson ... worked out well.

Not sure you could get someone do that today with the Cap projections.

 

[VanW27]

Okay, just sounds like if you were GM you would have moved him.
But you couldn't even if you were GM.
marner was never in play.

Now all the players without a NMC should be in play if it makes the team better.

Trouble is they really don't have much capital, neither player nor draft.

With their Cap situation, even using assets like Cowan+ for a center would be difficult, unless targeting a 3rd. liner.

McGroarty - Robertson type deal ... sure ... but don't overpay for some over demanding college player.

I mean you could. If you want to move Marner you say "agree to a trade or you sit out the 24/25 season."

Mitch isnt going to watch millions of dollars disappear into thin air by sitting out his contract year.

If the last 5+ years have taught us anything, everyone should know it is a business first foremost for both sides, player and owner.

 

[Gaberd2608]

Toronto has started to take risk and buy high on players now with Treliving at the helm, like Woll as an example and hope it pays off in years 2-3 when they potentially could make double the money.

Toronto should be doing the same thing with Knies and be giving him the Alex Tuch deal, maybe a little less AAV but long years, Is he woth 4m-4.5m in years 1 and 2? probably not, but you get the pay off in years 3 to 7.

That's how good teams are able to constantly add. Toronto for the past 5 years has paid the full price for a player coming off their best years.

I agree with you. The time to do this was with Matthew, Marner, and Nylander. It wad obvious all 3 were going to be good players.

Not doing this really caused us major cap problems for years.

Knies is going to be a 50+ point player. If we can get him on some term now Brad needs to do it.

Woll makes me nervous but given the situation not sure there was another better goalie that would have been cheaper. He needs to stay healthy.

 

[ULF_55]

I mean you could. If you want to move Marner you say "agree to a trade or you sit out the 24/25 season."

Mitch isnt going to watch millions of dollars disappear into thin air by sitting out his contract year.

If the last 5+ years have taught us anything, everyone should know it is a business first foremost for both sides, player and owner.

Realistically, teams would still offer him the moon, and he'd still get paid for this year.

IMO it would hurt the Leafs more than marner.

 

[VanW27]

Realistically, teams would still offer him the moon, and he'd still get paid for this year.

IMO it would hurt the Leafs more than marner.

He'd still get a lot for sure. But I think missing an entire season would have some impact especially considering the scrutiny he's under for playoff performance and then the circus that would follow him for a team to just say "stay home". Even 500k less a year is 3.5 million dollars on an 7 year deal.

He could do a 1 year prove it deal after but there's big risk with that. Get injured and now youre not losing a couple million, you're losing 10s of millions.

To the second point, it would hurt the Leafs more. It's kinda moot, this isn't a cup contender. So what we're a fringe playoff team losing in the first round instead of a comfortable 5/6 seed losing in the first round, whats the difference? It's obviously a nuclear option but if the decision has been made that the team isn't resigning him, getting something, even if the return is just some picks and prospects, helps the team more than getting nothing.

 

[Fogelhund]

I mean you could. If you want to move Marner you say "agree to a trade or you sit out the 24/25 season."

Mitch isnt going to watch millions of dollars disappear into thin air by sitting out his contract year.

If the last 5+ years have taught us anything, everyone should know it is a business first foremost for both sides, player and owner.

Of course the reality is you can't sit a player out a season.

 

[VanW27]

Of course the reality is you can't sit a player out a season.

Of course you can. You're not forced to play anyone

 

[ACC1224]

I mean you could. If you want to move Marner you say "agree to a trade or you sit out the 24/25 season."

Mitch isnt going to watch millions of dollars disappear into thin air by sitting out his contract year.

If the last 5+ years have taught us anything, everyone should know it is a business first foremost for both sides, player and owner.

Even ignoring a team would never be that short sighted to do that, you can't just sit a player for the season.
He's a Union member, they have rights.

 

[Fogelhund]

Of course you can. You're not forced to play anyone

There is a Collective Bargaining Agreement, which won't allow a team to do that. The Leafs would end up in court, lose, be black marked by the union and then be a very unattractive place to sign future UFA's. Not only is it not possible, it's a terrible idea.

 

[Martin Skoula]

There is a Collective Bargaining Agreement, which won't allow a team to do that. The Leafs would end up in court, lose, be black marked by the union and then be a very unattractive place to sign future UFA's. Not only is it not possible, it's a terrible idea.

He isn’t owed powerplay time as the QB or being linemates with the best player on the team and there’s a strong argument that he’s not the best option available for filling those roles. The best choice for the team’s success is not the best choice for Marner’s personal numbers going into a contract year. Paul and Ferris may consider treating Marner the same way Nylander has been a crime and great offense to the god’s honor but I assure you no one else will see it this way.

 

[VanW27]

There is a Collective Bargaining Agreement, which won't allow a team to do that. The Leafs would end up in court, lose, be black marked by the union and then be a very unattractive place to sign future UFA's. Not only is it not possible, it's a terrible idea.

He has to be on the roster, you dont have to play him. Besides it would never come to that. If Mitch and his camp had any sense when presented with a "we dont want you" ultimatum he'd accept a trade.

To the unattractive to UFAs point, everyone always says that, and it's never true. Vegas treats players like a kid trading cards around. Philly use to run players out of town all the time and coveted UFAs would sign there over and over. It's just as much a business to the players. Regardless of what they say in their interviews on July 2nd they go where the money is, period.

 

[Eye Test]

Not that I would do it but for argument sake he doesn’t need to play lol there’s a pressbox for a reason if that’s the way leafs wanted to roll.

Dumb idea though

 

[Fogelhund]

He has to be on the roster, you dont have to play him. Besides it would never come to that. If Mitch and his camp had any sense when presented with a "we dont want you" ultimatum he'd accept a trade.

To the unattractive to UFAs point, everyone always says that, and it's never true. Vegas treats players like a kid trading cards around. Philly use to run players out of town all the time and coveted UFAs would sign there over and over. It's just as much a business to the players. Regardless of what they say in their interviews on July 2nd they go where the money is, period.

Ok.. which players did Vegas sit out?

Or just list all of the NHL players, teams have ever chosen not to play.

Just one scenario.

He isn’t owed powerplay time as the QB or being linemates with the best player on the team and there’s a strong argument that he’s not the best option available for filling those roles. The best choice for the team’s success is not the best choice for Marner’s personal numbers going into a contract year. Paul and Ferris may consider treating Marner the same way Nylander has been a crime and great offense to the god’s honor but I assure you no one else will see it this way.

This is true. You can under utilize someone... just enough that a grievance isn't filed. You can choose not to give them the best opportunities. They do have to be dressed, and play though.

But then... which organization or coach would make choices to not put their best players on the ice in key situations? Which team or coach would choose to perform less than their best?

It's just a situation that would never happen for a multitude of reasons.

 

[1specter]

He probably should, but it's also hard to turn down 30m of money as well at that age. The point/message I was trying to get across though, about people complaining about all the money always going towards raises every year and never having money to get upgrades, is Toronto has done a really poor job at getting any value deals because they never take a risk to sign a player before he hit's there career year.

Woll is a good example of that, If he puts up a .918% and a 2.60GA this year, next summer he could ask for 5m-5.5m but Toronto being proactive saves themselves 2m. There's risk to it but you should be taking the chance on some players.

Nylander is another example (sometimes the player does bet himself like in this case). but if Toronto was able to sign him on July 1st 2023 when he was eligible for a extension, they could have saved themselves 2m-2.5m if they gave him 9m/9.5m.

Well said.

 

[VanW27]

Ok.. which players did Vegas sit out?

Or just list all of the NHL players, teams have ever chosen not to play.

Just one scenario.

They do have to be dressed, and play though.

No need to give a scenario.

1. It's a pretty unique situation

2. Lots of players have waived their NMCs for a trade. Do you think it was all sunshine and lollipops behind the scenes before the player agreed?

I'm no CBA expert and could be wrong but I'd be shocked if you could file a grievance because you think you deserve more ice time or are healthy scratched.

As a final note on this. I'm not saying it will happen (it wont) or even that it should. Merely responding to the idea that there was no way to trade Marner if he didn't want it. You can in fact pressure him to a point he would be stupid not to waive.