Trades & Free Agency Thread: Off-season Edition

[SprDaVE]

The term is irrelevant. If the Leafs haven't won within 4-6 years they'll likely have to retool/rebuild anyways.

5 or 6 years for 5 mil is fair value for him. Sign him up.

Pretty much. In the short term this is good and that's clearly the focus.

 

[Rare Jewel]

$5m for a guy for a guy who is best suited to a 3rd pair and has hard time cracking 20 points is a pass for me.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The term is irrelevant. If the Leafs haven't won within 4-6 years they'll likely have to retool/rebuild anyways.

I love McCabe and hope we re-sign him, but term is never irrelevant. We've got quite a few years left of the core 3 being high end players, and we don't know what the team's situation will be even when they do start to wind down. A GM should not be making moves with the idea that seasons 4-6 years from now can just be written off.

 

[SprDaVE]

I love McCabe and hope we re-sign him, but term is never irrelevant. We've got quite a few years left of the core 3 being high end players, and we don't know what the team's situation will be even when they do start to wind down. A GM should not be making moves with the idea that seasons 4-6 years from now can just be written off.

But I think we forget that so much can happen in 4-6 years. Trades, LTIR, exceeded performances, etc. It's not ALWAYS a negative thing. It's not about those years being written off.

Being cautious is always good, but sometimes you need to take risks and worry about that stuff later. A good GM should be able to navigate it in due time. Quite frankly, in 4-6 years, the Leafs will probably be in a much different state quality wise and Treliving likely won't be here.

 

[Sypher04]

For me one game in 7 years means matthews is just as much to blame as Mitch
Both can’t make a difference when it counts
Like game 7 for example

It’s definitely not just 1 game in 7 years but yes he needs to be better

 

[SprDaVE]

$5m for a guy for a guy who is best suited to a 3rd pair and has hard time cracking 20 points is a pass for me.

He's mostly a defensive defenseman and had a career year last season. 5M for a hard hitting defensive defenseman with capable skills isn't really outlandish at all. If you go to free agency to find a better defenseman, you'll probably pay at the very least just as much but likely much more.

The Kraken gave an 5.25M extension to Larsson.

 

[Dekes For Days]

But I think we forget that so much can happen in 4-6 years. Trades, LTIR, exceeded performances, etc. It's not ALWAYS a negative thing.
Being cautious is always good, but sometimes you need to take risks and worry about that stuff later. A good GM should be able to navigate it in due time.

That a lot can happen in 4-6 years is the whole point. You can't just conclude that because our stars will be 30, we'll be in a rebuild and thus anchors and things affecting us negatively won't matter. A lot can happen to CBAs in 4-6 years too, and age-related declines don't always happen in ways that allow for permanent LTIRs, so the idea that there will always be a 'get out of jail free' card is also shortsighted. Tanev will likely provide issues for us, while we are still competitive. OEL will likely provide issues for us, while we are still competitive.

"Worry about that stuff later" is not how GMs should be thinking, and what it usually means is "leave that problem for the next guy". It's like Lou reincarnate. A good GM may be able to navigate it, but it's far from a guarantee that we will have a good GM. In the last couple decades, we only had one, and it only lasted 5 years because we bungled the re-signing.

What a good GM should be able to do is navigate the present without screwing over the future in the first place.

 

[SprDaVE]

That a lot can happen in 4-6 years is the whole point. You can't just conclude that because our stars will be 30, we'll be in a rebuild and thus anchors and things affecting us negatively won't matter. A lot can happen to CBAs in 4-6 years too, and age-related declines don't always happen in ways that allow for permanent LTIRs, so the idea that there will always be a 'get out of jail free' card is also shortsighted. Tanev will likely provide issues for us, while we are still competitive. OEL will likely provide issues for us, while we are still competitive.

"Worry about that stuff later" is not how GMs should be thinking, and what it usually means is "leave that problem for the next guy". It's like Lou reincarnate. A good GM may be able to navigate it, but it's far from a guarantee that we will have a good GM. In the last couple decades, we only had one, and it only lasted 5 years because we bungled the re-signing.

What a good GM should be able to do is navigate the present without screwing over the future in the first place.

Yeah so worry about the now. It's not destroying anything yet nor is it completely destroying in the future. We're trying to win some cups while we have a good team. GMs very rarely worry about long-terms deals because that's the business. You want to win now and thus you put the priority on the now. Term typically means lesser cap hits for primed players.

Maybe in 3-5 years OEL is traded, maybe Tanev is "retired". Maybe McCabe is in the same boat. Maybe Rielly is traded. So many maybe's that sometimes you have to take some form of risk that the present quality means you're taking a risk on the long-term cap. Maybe we're swimming in cups. I dunno.

If we let McCabe walk and not give in on term, then you're likely trading or signing a player with a similar cap hit/term but maybe a bit younger, and more assets given if you're trading. He's a good player that has fit in what we need more of, so I think it's a good bet that he'll provide some good minutes for most of that contract.

 

[Dekes For Days]

$5m for a guy for a guy who is best suited to a 3rd pair and has hard time cracking 20 points is a pass for me.

He's pretty easily a second pairing defenseman, and he paced for 31 points with barely any PP time last year. In fact, he's been above 20 points in each of the last 3 years.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yeah so worry about the now.

I am. Right now, our GM has been too easily committing term to players in or through their late 30s.

If we let McCabe walk and not give in on term, then you're likely trading or signing a player with a similar cap hit/term but maybe a bit younger, and more assets given if you're trading.

I don't want to let McCabe walk. I just don't want to keep signing players through their late 30s.

 

[SprDaVE]

I am. Right now, our GM has been too easily committing term to players in or through their late 30s.

I don't want to let McCabe walk. I just don't want to keep signing players through their late 30s.

That's fair. I don't disagree. I wish our management was more aggressive on the trade market.

If you're not giving a little longer term to McCabe, he's costing over 6M probably. That's why they are agreeing on something like this. He wasn't going to get a paycut after achieving season bests since landing here. It's the same idea with Tanev.

 

[Rare Jewel]

He's mostly a defensive defenseman and had a career year last season. 5M for a hard hitting defensive defenseman with capable skills isn't really outlandish at all. If you go to free agency to find a better defenseman, you'll probably pay at the very least just as much but likely much more.

The Kraken gave an 5.25M extension to Larsson.

Larsson is a better player, so that's a good idea for him and will be shorter-term than the proposed McCabe deal.

 

[Rare Jewel]

He's pretty easily a second pairing defenseman, and he paced for 31 points with barely any PP time last year. In fact, he's been above 20 points in each of the last 3 years.

Well, on this team. But I mean Simon Benoit got 20 minutes a night on more than a few occasions.

He was signed by Chicago @ 4, and that's about right for him for about three years. Any more than that, and they could/should probably find someone else.

 

[Dekes For Days]

That's fair. I don't disagree. I wish our management was more aggressive on the trade market.
If you're not giving a little longer term to McCabe, he's costing over 6M probably. That's why they are agreeing on something like this. He wasn't going to get a paycut after achieving season bests since landing here. It's the same idea with Tanev.

We're not really getting lesser AAVs though.

The last team paid a better Tanev 4.5m for a 4 year contract without decline years. Now suddenly we need to give him a 6 year term through heavy decline years to get the same cost? Last year, OEL cost 2.25m for his age 32 season. He played bottom pairing and now suddenly we need to give him a 4 year term through worse ages plus a 1.25m raise to sign him? We got 30 year old Muzzin and Brodie to sign 4 year deals in the 6-7% range. I don't see why getting an older McCabe at a reasonable cost would require 6 years.

And even if it was lowering the AAVs, I'd still rather pay marginally more now to not pile up problems for when we're still trying to be competitive a few years from now.

 

[1specter]

McCabe is not a third pairing D lol that's ludicrous. That being said 6 years is a bit iffy, would much rather 4 given his age.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Well, on this team.

On any team.

 

[Rare Jewel]

On any team.

Nah, not on a team with a good D-core. You'll need a very good righty with him to have him as 2nd pair consistently, which the Leafs don't currently have.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Nah, not on a team with a good D-core. You'll need a very good righty with him to have him as 2nd pair consistently.

That's really not supported by anything. He's shown to be a good second pairing defenseman, regardless of strength of team or partner.

 

[Menzinger]

That a lot can happen in 4-6 years is the whole point. You can't just conclude that because our stars will be 30, we'll be in a rebuild and thus anchors and things affecting us negatively won't matter. A lot can happen to CBAs in 4-6 years too, and age-related declines don't always happen in ways that allow for permanent LTIRs, so the idea that there will always be a 'get out of jail free' card is also shortsighted. Tanev will likely provide issues for us, while we are still competitive. OEL will likely provide issues for us, while we are still competitive.

"Worry about that stuff later" is not how GMs should be thinking, and what it usually means is "leave that problem for the next guy". It's like Lou reincarnate. A good GM may be able to navigate it, but it's far from a guarantee that we will have a good GM. In the last couple decades, we only had one, and it only lasted 5 years because we bungled the re-signing.

What a good GM should be able to do is navigate the present without screwing over the future in the first place.

This is all valid, and I used.to agree quite strongly with this position.

But a lesson I've seemed to pick up in recent years is just grab the player you want and find a way to deal with it if/when it becomes an issue. Vegas for example hasn't let contract stuff stop them from making necessary moves they get who the need to get and then do what they need to clear room. The Leafs haven't let guys like Robidas, Muzzin, Murray stop them either.

And you're right that we can't necessarily assume that the team will be rebuilding. Id wager Matthews is likely going to finish his career with the Leafs - but the fact is he's also only signed for the next 4 seasons at present - those years obviously need to be prioritized for competitiveness rather than the longer 5,6,7,8 year period.

 

[1specter]

Nah, not on a team with a good D-core. You'll need a very good righty with him to have him as 2nd pair consistently, which the Leafs don't currently have.

McCabe literally carried a cast-off from a lottery team in Benoit and made him look borderline second-pair calibre, he also handled hard match-ups in the playoffs quite well and was the most reliable d-man in the elimination games (5-7).

 

[613Leafer]

McCabe literally carried a cast-off from a lottery team in Benoit and made him look borderline second-pair calibre, he also handled hard match-ups in the playoffs quite well and was the most reliable d-man in the elimination games (5-7).

McCabe is a good jack of all trades top 4 dman.

He has decent size but isn't huge, decent but non-elite offence, decent but non-elite defence, can play special teams, is physical, is a LHD that can play on the right side more effectively than most, etc.

He's the type of guy you could sort of pair with almost anyone. Obviously his age and the potential contract is a concern, but we'd certainly miss him if he walks and have no one internally ready to fill a similar role.

 

[LeafEgo]

We need to keep McCabe but I'm wondering why the 4.9x4 DeMelo deal isn't more than enough.

 

[ULF_55]

We need to keep McCabe but I'm wondering why the 4.9x4 DeMelo deal isn't more than enough.

Like a precious metals, by weight?

 

[BertCorbeau]

We need to keep McCabe but I'm wondering why the 4.9x4 DeMelo deal isn't more than enough.

Toronto inflation

 

[Skullz]

We're not really getting lesser AAVs though.

The last team paid a better Tanev 4.5m for a 4 year contract without decline years. Now suddenly we need to give him a 6 year term through heavy decline years to get the same cost? Last year, OEL cost 2.25m for his age 32 season. He played bottom pairing and now suddenly we need to give him a 4 year term through worse ages plus a 1.25m raise to sign him? We got 30 year old Muzzin and Brodie to sign 4 year deals in the 6-7% range. I don't see why getting an older McCabe at a reasonable cost would require 6 years.

And even if it was lowering the AAVs, I'd still rather pay marginally more now to not pile up problems for when we're still trying to be competitive a few years from now.

Cap is going up, I'd imagine that spikes the AAV on long term deals.