Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Deebo said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Truly no offense meant busta, but I can't tell you how many times over the years we trade or otherwise get rid of a decent or even good player, who was valued by us fans when he was a Leaf, for little or nothing in return. Then, after the fact, we hear all kinds of reasons why he wasn't any good or was on the decline or overpriced or whatever so we ought to just accept, or even praise, the transaction. Or, "GM ______ couldn't have done any better" ? which is just an empty answer IMO.
Like I said, I'm not buying it.
I look at this trade this way: he was a top 6 forward for us, and we got nothing in return, in essence. Maybe GT is right and he'll get called up. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. But I doubt it.
It's not an empty answer if reasons are given as to why we feel that way. I would compare the deal to other deals to open up cap space that were being made around the league. Other teams were trading better players than Johnsson for poor returns.
I look at the marketplace at the time and evalulate the deal based on that. Bona fide top 4 dman Nate Schmidt got a 2nd, Ryan Murray coming off a an injury plagued year got a 5th, Stastny got and depth D and a 4th. I don't think that suggests a marketplace where Johnsson was worth any more than he was traded for. I would say all of those players have a better track record and were more proven than Johnsson and got very little in return as well.
Keeping him just wasn't an option (and in hindsight would have been a disaster), and he was was moved in a deal comparable to deals for cap space around the league. I'd say you inflated his value in your head and are upset that the return didn't match that value. I don't think Johnsson was ever a top 6 forward here, in his only full-ish season he was 10th in average time on ice for forwards.
If anything, "I'm not buying it" is an empty answer when there are valid points about his value being brought up.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:So, in your estimation, it plays out like this: Dubas signs him to a bad contract and then dumps his mistake for a worse player and it's all OK?
I look at it and say, there was a good player in whose development we spent a lot of resources, and who was contributing on the big club's roster, and now there's a guy who were are investing resources in and who just cleared waivers. I call that subtraction by subtraction.
Deebo said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:So, in your estimation, it plays out like this: Dubas signs him to a bad contract and then dumps his mistake for a worse player and it's all OK?
I look at it and say, there was a good player in whose development we spent a lot of resources, and who was contributing on the big club's roster, and now there's a guy who were are investing resources in and who just cleared waivers. I call that subtraction by subtraction.
You said you didn't buy that he couldn't get a better deal for him, I was addressing that point. This has nothing to do with that.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Deebo said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:So, in your estimation, it plays out like this: Dubas signs him to a bad contract and then dumps his mistake for a worse player and it's all OK?
I look at it and say, there was a good player in whose development we spent a lot of resources, and who was contributing on the big club's roster, and now there's a guy who were are investing resources in and who just cleared waivers. I call that subtraction by subtraction.
You said you didn't buy that he couldn't get a better deal for him, I was addressing that point. This has nothing to do with that.
I appreciate the examples you gave. I still am not convinced, but it boils down to a matter of opinion.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Deebo said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:So, in your estimation, it plays out like this: Dubas signs him to a bad contract and then dumps his mistake for a worse player and it's all OK?
I look at it and say, there was a good player in whose development we spent a lot of resources, and who was contributing on the big club's roster, and now there's a guy who were are investing resources in and who just cleared waivers. I call that subtraction by subtraction.
You said you didn't buy that he couldn't get a better deal for him, I was addressing that point. This has nothing to do with that.
I appreciate the examples you gave. I still am not convinced, but it boils down to a matter of opinion.
Frank E said:I think maybe a fair criticism right now of the administration is that the talent assessment and acquisitions (trade or draft or overseas signings) of assets hasn't really produced much of value, even with the super duper scouting and development team.
Like, they're having to sign FA's to fill out the bottom six, as well as top six wingers around the core-4. It seems to me that the Marlies should be developing those assets and delivering them while they're still low cost RFA. Anderson is an example, to me, of a guy that hasn't taken any steps toward being a regular NHL contributor since his acquisition in that trade. Was he a middling prospect at the time of the trade? Sure...but he hasn't really improved his value since.
L K said:Mennel, Seney and Anderson all clear waivers. That's a good sign for a strong Marlies team this year.
L K said:Frank E said:I think maybe a fair criticism right now of the administration is that the talent assessment and acquisitions (trade or draft or overseas signings) of assets hasn't really produced much of value, even with the super duper scouting and development team.
Like, they're having to sign FA's to fill out the bottom six, as well as top six wingers around the core-4. It seems to me that the Marlies should be developing those assets and delivering them while they're still low cost RFA. Anderson is an example, to me, of a guy that hasn't taken any steps toward being a regular NHL contributor since his acquisition in that trade. Was he a middling prospect at the time of the trade? Sure...but he hasn't really improved his value since.
In fairness there last year was a shit show they really didn?t allow for a great environment for prospect development
Frank E said:I think maybe a fair criticism right now of the administration is that the talent assessment and acquisitions (trade or draft or overseas signings) of assets hasn't really produced much of value, even with the super duper scouting and development team.
herman said:L K said:In fairness there last year was a shit show they really didn?t allow for a great environment for prospect development
You can directly trace the dearth of prospect depth from the Hunter-led drafts.
Frank E said:I think maybe a fair criticism right now of the administration is that the talent assessment and acquisitions (trade or draft or overseas signings) of assets hasn't really produced much of value, even with the super duper scouting and development team.
Like, they're having to sign FA's to fill out the bottom six, as well as top six wingers around the core-4. It seems to me that the Marlies should be developing those assets and delivering them while they're still low cost RFA. Anderson is an example, to me, of a guy that hasn't taken any steps toward being a regular NHL contributor since his acquisition in that trade. Was he a middling prospect at the time of the trade? Sure...but he hasn't really improved his value since.
Only good thing is Liljegren is waiver exempt so we can only lose 1 good player max. I don't consider Biega or Gabriel to be huge losses if taken.CarltonTheBear said:Even before camp started it was always going to come down to Engvall/Brooks/Liljegren. Wish we had the cap space to fit 2 of them instead of just 1.