Trades & Free Agency Thread: Off-season Edition

[rumman]

I would love to take a run at Danault.

Kampf
Janrkrok
Robertson
Lily

I’d do that deal, is that cap switch pretty much a wash?

 

[ULF_55]

I think he's already made it.

I'm not sure he's making the team, but he isn't being demoted.

Treliving will protect the asset regardless of performance.

They have other he'd probably expose first.

 

[ULF_55]

I would love to take a run at Danault.

Kampf
Janrkrok
Robertson
Lily

Leafs are really really weak on defense.

Timmins is NHL only due to age and some games played.
Hakanpaa isn't healthy.
Move Liljegren and Leafs are down to 5 defenders.
Move Jarnkrok to defense? Sorry, injured.
Maybe Kampf?

 

[rumman]

I'm not sure he's making the team, but he isn't being demoted.

Treliving will protect the asset regardless of performance.

They have other he'd probably expose first.

Leafs have a quantity of NHL players, be nice to move a couple for more quality if possible. I’d hate losing a talent like Robertson et al for nothing……….

 

[rumman]

Leafs are really really weak on defense.

Timmins is NHL only due to age and some games played.
Hakanpaa isn't healthy.
Move Liljegren and Leafs are down to 5 defenders.

I’d move Lilly if there’s atrade that improves the team, he’s marginally better than the guys who would replace him imo……….

 

[ULF_55]

Leafs have a quantity of NHL players, be nice to move a couple for more quality if possible. I’d hate losing a talent like Robertson et al for nothing……….

Do the Leafs really have excess NHLers that they want to move that have any real value?

If any prospect shows potential, even waiving players from last year wouldn't cause me concern.

They weren't good enough last year, they are older, only change has been defense and goal.

Forwards weren't good enough last year, only improvement could come via prospects/youts.

 

[rumman]

Do the Leafs really have excess NHLers that they want to move that have any real value?

If any prospect shows potential, even waiving players from last year wouldn't cause me concern.

They weren't good enough last year, they are older, only change has been defense and goal.

Forwards weren't good enough last year, only improvement could come via prospects/youts.

My logic is I’d rather recoup assets than lose assets for nothing. Some waiver players aren’t worth much, some are worth a good equal return. The Idea of packaging 3 or four assets to obtain one better asset appeals to me if such a deal exists out there…….

 

[ULF_55]

I’d move Lilly if there’s atrade that improves the team, he’s marginally better than the guys who would replace him imo……….

It has to be on defense, not another 15 goal forward.

 

[rumman]

It has to be on defense, not another 15 goal forward.

Preferably, but plugging other holes will help the team overall……

 

[ULF_55]

Preferably, but plugging other holes will help the team overall……

There is already a hole on defense, this just makes a small hole bigger, and marginally improves forward ranks.

Of course Danault would be a daily reminder of how pathetic the 1st. line was against the Habs a few years ago in the playoffs.

Motivation?

 

[rumman]

There is already a hole on defense, this just makes a small hole bigger, and marginally improves forward ranks.

Of course Danault would be a daily reminder of how pathetic the 1st. line was against the Habs a few years ago in the playoffs.

Motivation?

That was only a example of what might be available, not sure who else is weak on the D or are in a rebuild where a younger Lilly gets you a old D man with some salary retained like that proposed deal involving Fowler……..

 

[Puckstuff]

That was only a example of what might be available, not sure who else is weak on the D or are in a rebuild where a younger Lilly gets you a old D man with some salary retained like that proposed deal involving Fowler……..

Liljegren needs to develop into a #4 D or his salary + picks needs to be turned into a #4 D.

Rielly - good enough #1
Tanev - good enough #2
McCabe - good enough #3
Liljegren - ??
OEL - Good #5
Hakanpaa/Benoit - Great #6/#7.

Liljegren developing into a #4 D is what can take this D-core go from average/top 15-18ish to potentially a top 10 D core IMO.

 

[ULF_55]

Liljegren needs to develop into a #4 D or his salary + picks needs to be turned into a #4 D.

Rielly - good enough #1
Tanev - good enough #2
McCabe - good enough #3
Liljegren - ??
OEL - Good #5
Hakanpaa/Benoit - Great #6/#7.

Liljegren developing into a #4 D is what can take this D-core go from average/top 15-18ish to potentially a top 10 D core IMO.

He's under contract for 2 years, so by end of this year Berube should have a good handle on who he is. Perhaps even by TD they decide keep or move.

Leafs defense is really bottom of each tier.
Bottom 1st. tier
Bottom 2nd. tier
Bottom 3rd. tier

At one time you might have had a couple mid-lower top tiers, but age hasn't passed them by. It has visited and made its presence known.

 

[Malachi Crunch]

I feel like Niemela is done here.

Does Niemela and Robertson get us an up and coming, cost-controlled, 3C?

 

[TMLAM34]

I feel like Niemela is done here.

Does Niemela and Robertson get us an up and coming, cost-controlled, 3C?

I was wondering about him, he hasn’t played a pre-season game yet has he?

 

[Al14]

Liljegren needs to develop into a #4 D or his salary + picks needs to be turned into a #4 D.

Rielly - good enough #1
Tanev - good enough #2
McCabe - good enough #3
Liljegren - ??
OEL - Good #5
Hakanpaa/Benoit - Great #6/#7.

Liljegren developing into a #4 D is what can take this D-core go from average/top 15-18ish to potentially a top 10 D core IMO.

Rielly is NOT NEAR good enough #1. He is weak on D and has no shot from the point!!!

Rielly is a decent #2, and a great #3 on a Stanley Cup winning team.

JMHO.

 

[Malachi Crunch]

I was wondering about him, he hasn’t played a pre-season game yet has he?

I don't think so. He just played in the rookie tournament and looked pretty good there. It's a bit baffling. I can only conclude that he's not a Berube type of guy.

 

[WTFMAN99]

I don't think so. He just played in the rookie tournament and looked pretty good there. It's a bit baffling. I can only conclude that he's not a Berube type of guy.

Or got banged up.

 

[Malachi Crunch]

Or got banged up.

Possible, but I've heard nothing.

 

[Fogelhund]

I feel like Niemela is done here.

Does Niemela and Robertson get us an up and coming, cost-controlled, 3C?

I think that is a massive leap in jumping to conclusions about Niemela. I'm not sure why he hasn't played a game as of yet though.

I am unaware of any up and coming, cost controlled 3C that could be on the market. The only guy that I can make a case that they'd be interested in moving him, would be Laughton. At $3 mil, that's a tough cap for us to swallow, and would require moving more than just Niemela and Robertson.

 

[Knies iT]

Liljegren needs to develop into a #4 D or his salary + picks needs to be turned into a #4 D.

Rielly - good enough #1
Tanev - good enough #2
McCabe - good enough #3
Liljegren - ??
OEL - Good #5
Hakanpaa/Benoit - Great #6/#7.

Liljegren developing into a #4 D is what can take this D-core go from average/top 15-18ish to potentially a top 10 D core IMO.

I would rank it as the following:

Rielly - more appropriately a #2
Tanev - high end complimentary #3 (factoring in age)
McCabe - good #4
OEL - good #5 (ideally leading a bottom pair)
Liljegren - average #5
Benoit - good #6
Hakanpaa - great #7

The problem with the D configuration is the top 4 on that list have an average age of ~32 years old, with OEL and Tanev both carrying significant term as 33 and 35 year olds. So, whether you're bullish/bearish on what # D they are, you have to imagine each of them slightly regress moving forward. A lot of the additions are short-term band-aids.

IMO, what's more important than Liljegren developing to a #4 is adding another 26-28 year old that is at worst 2nd pair quality (i.e. Provorov). Signing OEL complicates this because his term makes the left side a log jam, while not really moving the needle.

Rielly - Tanev
xxxxx - McCabe
OEL - Liljegren
[Benoit]

 

[Lightsol]

Perfect scenario to get rid of Lilly……….

"Everyone's always complaining about how we don't keep our young players, so clearly the solution is to trade one of only two D-men we have under 29!"

 

[rumman]

"Everyone's always complaining about how we don't keep our young players, so clearly the solution is to trade one of only two D-men we have under 29!"

I only complain about getting rid of young players that are good like Marchment, happy to get rid of the ones that won’t amount to much. We git a plethora of 5/6/7 D men that are a lot cheaper than Lilly……

 

[WTFMAN99]

I would rank it as the following:

Rielly - more appropriately a #2
Tanev - high end complimentary #3 (factoring in age)
McCabe - good #4
OEL - good #5 (ideally leading a bottom pair)
Liljegren - average #5
Benoit - good #6
Hakanpaa - great #7

The problem with the D configuration is the top 4 on that list have an average age of ~32 years old, with OEL and Tanev both carrying significant term as 33 and 35 year olds. So, whether you're bullish/bearish on what # D they are, you have to imagine each of them slightly regress moving forward. A lot of the additions are short-term band-aids.

IMO, what's more important than Liljegren developing to a #4 is adding another 26-28 year old that is at worst 2nd pair quality (i.e. Provorov). Signing OEL complicates this because his term makes the left side a log jam, while not really moving the needle.

Rielly - Tanev
xxxxx - McCabe
OEL - Liljegren
[Benoit]

Hakanpa is a great #6

I don't disagree on the rest.

Rielly-Tanev
X-McCabe
OEL-Hakanpaa
Benoit

If Pettersson isn't extending in Pittsburgh - that's the target

 

[weems]

You'd have to think Calgary will listen to offers this season on both Andersson and Weegar.

This is most likely not a playoff team the next few seasons, so don't really understand the point of keeping these two while their value starts to diminish.