Toggle sidebar

Value of: Which bad contract could the Leafs trade Tavares for?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Syckle78 said:
That's what he always does at this point. Starts deflecting by attacking people for talking about the leafs. every.single.thread.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see this dandy. My bad. My apologies I didn’t think that the guy literally obsessively posting in every single leaf thread when he’s not a leaf fan, to rile people up (there’s a word for that), didn’t warrant an actual response.

For context though. Matthews had 7 shots on goal in game 6. How many games have you seen someone get ‘dominated’ that had 7 shots on goal? Think it’s probably plausible that he was trying to motivate Matthews and Marner to play harder knowing they were the 2 most likely players to create a goal? Let me guess, no. Shocking.
 
Namikaze Minato said:
Close but I would prefer Vancouver retaining on Pettersson to match Kerfoots 3.5 million going back. I would do this:

To Vancouver: Kerfoot, Engvall, Semyonov and a 2023 3rd round pick

To Toronto: Pettersson (retained) and a 2024 4th round pick
Click to expand...

I'm sure you would. Perhaps you should start a thread that asks which bad contract Vancouver could take for Pettersson though. This whole thread is on your OP, not anyone replying with, what I can only assume is, a bad joke.

Besides, we can happily return Dickinson, since our third line center spot will be occupied by Tavares, apparently.

Plus, bad math. Petey makes more then 7 million, so any trade to get him at 3.5 needs a third team to take a little salary.
 
Cogburn said:
I'm sure you would. Perhaps you should start a thread that asks which bad contract Vancouver could take for Pettersson though. This whole thread is on your OP, not anyone replying with, what I can only assume is, a bad joke.

Besides, we can happily return Dickinson, since our third line center spot will be occupied by Tavares, apparently.

Plus, bad math. Petey makes more then 7 million, so any trade to get him at 3.5 needs a third team to take a little salary.
Click to expand...
Pierre Engvall also has a salary, so the trade works with the cap. Hope thats not too difficult to understand.
 
AvroArrow said:
I'll be the first to admit he's not an 11M dollar player, but he's still extremely serviceable and would be a legitimate 1C on most teams in the league.
Click to expand...
That’s good you’ll admit it, unfortunately most Leaf fans think it’s a good contract.
 
The90 said:
I didn’t see this dandy. My bad. My apologies I didn’t think that the guy literally obsessively posting in every single leaf thread when he’s not a leaf fan, to rile people up (there’s a word for that), didn’t warrant an actual response.

For context though. Matthews had 7 shots on goal in game 6. How many games have you seen someone get ‘dominated’ that had 7 shots on goal? Think it’s probably plausible that he was trying to motivate Matthews and Marner to play harder knowing they were the 2 most likely players to create a goal? Let me guess, no. Shocking.
Click to expand...
Every single analyst and expert said Matthews/Marner were a massive let down. Hell they even said it themselves. But hey I guess since Matthews had a bunch of perimeter shots one game it means he was great in your eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive
Seras said:
Unfortunately most people forget he was a UFA and costed no assets to acquire.
Click to expand...
Yes and now he’s screwed up your whole teams salary cap allocation to the point that if those three don’t produce, you don’t win (example: all your playoffs).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive
nbwingsfan said:
Yes and now he’s screwed up your whole teams salary cap allocation to the point that if those three don’t produce, you don’t win (example: all your playoffs).
Click to expand...

Yes, if your good players aren't good then your in trouble, good read.

Thankfully Tavares is very good and they have played 4 games and have 78 remaining.

Very dramatic and emotional though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The90
Seras said:
Yes, if your good players aren't good then your in trouble, good read.

Thankfully Tavares is very good and they have played 4 games and have 78 remaining.

Very dramatic and emotional though.
Click to expand...
No one is talking about this season. He’s shown already the last two seasons that his contract was a mistake (without trading Marner or Matthews) and it’s not going to age well.
 
nbwingsfan said:
That’s good you’ll admit it, unfortunately most Leaf fans think it’s a good contract.
Click to expand...

It's not a good contract, but he's also not a bad player or just a cap dump. For what he brings, 9.5M is fair value, but as a UFA you always have to overpay and outbid teams. But he still provides a lot when he's on the ice. Good leadership, good on faceoffs, good offensively. People are blowing the contract thing out of proportion acting like he's some plug/cap dump, when that's not the case. 200 points as a leaf in 205 games. We are more than happy to hold on to him. Like I said in my OP, he would be the #1C on most teams in the league, being 1 or 1.5m overpaid doesn't change that, but yes it does effect depth signings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The90
The90 said:
I notice no one mentions he’s 2 years removed from a career high too. It’s almost like he’s still a very good player.
Click to expand...
When you’re getting up there in age, a two year drop in production is not a good sign. Some Leaf fans are starting to notice the decline in play already, some will never admit fault with their team
 
nbwingsfan said:
When you’re getting up there in age, a two year drop in production is not a good sign. Some Leaf fans are starting to notice the decline in play already, some will never admit fault with their team
Click to expand...
Some also notice how he’s now playing 2 less minutes a night. And those minutes are being given to Matthews who saw the opposite in his production. Some also aren’t all that concerned with their 2c producing at a 70+ point pace. Some don’t see that as a problem, but some do, you’re right. You’re one of them. Must suck to have a 2c capable of that production. How many teams in the league have that? Not many. Sounds like a terrible problem to have
 
  • Like
Reactions: banks
nbwingsfan said:
Every single analyst and expert said Matthews/Marner were a massive let down. Hell they even said it themselves. But hey I guess since Matthews had a bunch of perimeter shots one game it means he was great in your eyes.
Click to expand...
yet another Empty quote about analyst and expert. Most said they didn’t produce. The rocket Richard winner shot at 3%. Not because of your made up ‘perimeter shots’ but because he couldn’t finish grade A chances. You very clearly never actually watched the games.

A few fun facts for your bs arguments:
-5 of the 7 shots were high danger scoring chances his second highest total in the playoffs
-His expected goals for was 1.25 which doesnt account for ‘who’ is shooting the puck (probably a good chance the Richard winner would’ve been expected to score more than 1.5) Also good for his second highest total in the playoffs
-also, expected goals against that as you say he was ‘dominated in’ was .61.
- his Corsica? 56.25%

The eye test and every single other stat from actually watching that game should’ve told you that he outplayed his opponent, played well and lost. Which is exactly my point. Every player after said something along the lines of ‘we needed to be better’ of course they did, ultimately they lost. Doesn’t mean they played bad.

[MOD]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The90 said:
Some also notice how he’s now playing 2 less minutes a night. And those minutes are being given to Matthews who saw the opposite in his production. Some also aren’t all that concerned with their 2c producing at a 70+ point pace. Some don’t see that as a problem, but some do, you’re right. You’re one of them. Must suck to have a 2c capable of that production. How many teams in the league have that? Not many. Sounds like a terrible problem to have
Click to expand...
Not many teams have as brutal depth as the Leafs do either, which is the whole problem with his contract. He’s not a bad player, but it’s way too much money for a guy who is only a 70pt player now when you are already putting so much money in two other forwards
 
nbwingsfan said:
Not many teams have as brutal depth as the Leafs do either, which is the whole problem with his contract. He’s not a bad player, but it’s way too much money for a guy who is only a 70pt player now when you are already putting so much money in two other forwards
Click to expand...
Great. And Nylander should be making more. Works out just fine. Find me a team in the league that doesn’t have a few players that they’d wish were paid a bit less. It’s a non issue for the leafs and leaf fans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom