Proposal: Yet another Toronto/Anaheim proposal

SuperGM17

Registered User
Jun 17, 2015
234
6
British Columbia
Before I start I would just like to say i'm not a Toronto fan nor am i an Anaheim fan. To add to that i dont know the cap limitations this would cause so im just kind of ignoring cap. To add to both of those i points i probably dont know the real value of either of these players and dont know if it has been offered before but here we go.


Toronto receives:
Cam Fowler
Clayton Stoner

Anaheim receives:
JVR
Hunwick
 

Halla

Registered User
Jan 28, 2016
14,727
3,779
Before I start I would just like to say i'm not a Toronto fan nor am i an Anaheim fan. To add to that i dont know the cap limitations this would cause so im just kind of ignoring cap. To add to both of those i points i probably dont know the real value of either of these players and dont know if it has been offered before but here we go.


Toronto receives:
Cam Fowler
Clayton Stoner

Anaheim receives:
JVR
Hunwick

this offer isnt very good. Hunwick is probably only worth a 3rd, but stoner is probably worth a negative 2nd and 3rd.

Fowler is basically JVR, 2nd,3rd,3rd in this proposal.

I think if the leafs are taking on a bottom pairing dman making 3.25 with term, and unloading a guy making 1.2 with an expiring contract, they need a sweetner.


Fowler,Stoner,2nd rd, 3rd rd for JVR,Hunwick
 

YennoItFlames

Registered User
Sep 1, 2016
322
0
Would that save enough cap to sign? Or would Ana need more going out? Kesler? To cgy? For Backlund + 2nd + Klimchuk
 

scan15*

Registered User
May 11, 2016
1,113
0
GTA
Toronto should at least get a couple of picks for Stoner because it's basically JVR for Fowler, which is fair, but then Toronto takes Stoner for free.
 

russ4king

Registered User
Sep 10, 2002
1,629
29
Welland
Visit site
Leafs aren't taking Stoner.

How about this....Fowler, Anaheim 1st in 17 for JVR (50% retained)

That should give you enough room to sign Lindholm. Once you demote Stoner or trade him.
 

xxreact9

Registered User
Jun 4, 2012
1,486
2
Another "everyone wants Anaheim's top young D but doesn't want to pay anywhere near enough" thread.

An absolute fact in this situation is JVR by himself won't net Fowler right now. It just won't. So offer more or stop asking for Fowler and be content with having the worst blueline in the league while your media makes headlines like "Frederik Andersen with another brutal effort throwing the game away...".

Always the goalies fault. The city has ran 4-5 good quality goalies out of town because of their inability to realize how bad their defense is. Last game their top-4 defenders by ice time: Rielly, Zaitsev, Carrick, Hunwick. That is undoubtedly the worst in the NHL by far.

You want to talk about Anaheim's bargaining power reduced by "needing to trade a D". Well Toronto's bargaining power is about the same as Edmonton's was, in that, "they have to acquire a D". Because their defense is absolutely terrible and their forwards and goaltending are good. Toronto has no bargaining power over Anaheim. If you want Fowler, pay up a lot. Because Fowler does not need to be traded, he's a key part of a cup contending team on an excellent contract.

The key point being missed is while teams may have leverage when negotiating for Stoner, Despres, that same power does not exist for Fowler. Because, again, the team has no, zero, ziltch, none, 0, intention or need to be trading him.
 

SprDaVE

Moderator
Sep 20, 2008
54,569
38,471
This doesn't work for Toronto. We're essentially giving up 2 good to solid assets for a very bad one and a good one.

I like Fowler myself and I think, at least on paper, a base of JVR for Fowler makes some sense. Similar contracts and value to their current team. If you need to get rid of Stoner though, Toronto can definitely take him over but it will require some additional value attached to him.
 

SprDaVE

Moderator
Sep 20, 2008
54,569
38,471
Another "everyone wants Anaheim's top young D but doesn't want to pay anywhere near enough" thread.

An absolute fact in this situation is JVR by himself won't net Fowler right now. It just won't.

What's the fact about this? Do you know what a fact is? I'm pretty sure what you wrote is an opinion.

JVR for Fowler is pretty fair to me. The OP has us taking on Stoner who's got very bad value too. The only fact we have here is that Anaheim needs to find cap/budget space to sign their top player and the proposal made by the OP does aim to do that.

So you can think Fowler is worth so much more than JVR but if you're talking about OPs proposal, it has us taking a very bad contract in the deal which should bring that deal to fair value in your eyes.
 

SprDaVE

Moderator
Sep 20, 2008
54,569
38,471
Stoner has 2 years left. Pretty sure that's manageable for the Leafs lol

We can manage a lot of bad contracts. Our cap situation is very flexible. We're not in the business of taking on bad contracts for fun though.
 

NarcoPolo

Registered User
Jul 16, 2012
7,196
257
I think a base of Fowler for JVR is selling Fowler short here.. He's a similar player to Rielly (in some ways) right now and I don't think we would give up Morgan for, admittedly, an injury prone, yet 30-30 winger when healthy. Also JVR is our best veteran upfront and trading him would open a huge hole on the first line with no one really up to the task of filling it (not yet at least).
 

RomanianLeafs

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
4,557
1,580
Arad
Another "everyone wants Anaheim's top young D but doesn't want to pay anywhere near enough" thread.

An absolute fact in this situation is JVR by himself won't net Fowler right now. It just won't. So offer more or stop asking for Fowler and be content with having the worst blueline in the league while your media makes headlines like "Frederik Andersen with another brutal effort throwing the game away...".

Always the goalies fault. The city has ran 4-5 good quality goalies out of town because of their inability to realize how bad their defense is. Last game their top-4 defenders by ice time: Rielly, Zaitsev, Carrick, Hunwick. That is undoubtedly the worst in the NHL by far.

You want to talk about Anaheim's bargaining power reduced by "needing to trade a D". Well Toronto's bargaining power is about the same as Edmonton's was, in that, "they have to acquire a D". Because their defense is absolutely terrible and their forwards and goaltending are good. Toronto has no bargaining power over Anaheim. If you want Fowler, pay up a lot. Because Fowler does not need to be traded, he's a key part of a cup contending team on an excellent contract.

The key point being missed is while teams may have leverage when negotiating for Stoner, Despres, that same power does not exist for Fowler. Because, again, the team has no, zero, ziltch, none, 0, intention or need to be trading him.
u're dreaming if u think we have to add to JVR for fowler..reality is that Fowler alone does not get u JVR..we need a right handed d not left handed..Anaheim are contending? for what ? with Carlyle?? hahaha
 

4thline

Registered User
Jul 18, 2014
14,608
9,997
Waterloo
We are not trading Fowler and a 1st for 2 years of JVR

We are not trading JVR for 2 years of Cam Fowler... Contract status is the same, two years to UFA. Dumb point. Value is damn near equal, 1st line LW for 2/3D both on great contracts. at most a mid round pick out.

The two foundations that make sense are JVR at 50% for Fowler and Hunwick for Stoner. In both situations the swap of on ice value is pretty equal and the Leafs eat ~4 million over two seasons to free up duck cap space. The cost of that will be significant. Ideally we'd want one of 1st/Larsson/Montour, but none of those are likely to happen, so then we're looking at our 2nd back +. Not sure on that + though. Petterson or similar prospect, next year 2nd/3rd etc.
 

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,716
9,864
Vancouver, WA
We are not trading JVR for 2 years of Cam Fowler... Contract status is the same, two years to UFA. Dumb point. Value is damn near equal, 1st line LW for 2/3D both on great contracts. at most a mid round pick out.

The two foundations that make sense are JVR at 50% for Fowler and Hunwick for Stoner. In both situations the swap of on ice value is pretty equal and the Leafs eat ~4 million over two seasons to free up duck cap space. The cost of that will be significant. Ideally we'd want one of 1st/Larsson/Montour, but none of those are likely to happen, so then we're looking at our 2nd back +. Not sure on that + though. Petterson or similar prospect, next year 2nd/3rd etc.

The only difference is the Leafs could afford to re-sign Fowler, no way Ducks will be able to afford to re-sign JVR.
 

4thline

Registered User
Jul 18, 2014
14,608
9,997
Waterloo
The only difference is the Leafs could afford to re-sign Fowler, no way Ducks will be able to afford to re-sign JVR.

Not the other teams problem, doesn't effect the value of the asset changing hands. Unless of course Fowler is currently worth less because the Ducks won't be able to re-sign him either?
 

LEAFANFORLIFE23

Registered User
Jun 17, 2010
47,407
16,039
This doesn't work for Toronto. We're essentially giving up 2 good to solid assets for a very bad one and a good one.

I like Fowler myself and I think, at least on paper, a base of JVR for Fowler makes some sense. Similar contracts and value to their current team. If you need to get rid of Stoner though, Toronto can definitely take him over but it will require some additional value attached to him.

Hunwick is awful
 

Ducks Nation*

Registered User
Mar 19, 2013
16,329
4
Hunwick is worse than Stoner, luckily for him he doesn't have Stoners **** contract. Stoner really isn't that bad as a #5/6 with a puck mover.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad