Armchair GM 2016-2017

[CarltonTheBear]

He's become Boudreau's TOP pairing all situations D in every sense of the word, on a defensive juggernaut team, paired with Suter and trusted both on PP and PK.

The point is add an all situations true #2 D, which is what Spurgeon has developed into and solidify our top 4 for future contention.

I guess I would wonder why Minnesota would be looking to trade him. I get that they've got a decision to make in regards to their defence and the expansion draft, but I don't see them making Spurgeon available because of that.

 

[TBLeafer]

I guess I would wonder why Minnesota would be looking to trade him. I get that they've got a decision to make in regards to their defence and the expansion draft, but I don't see them making Spurgeon available because of that.

I imagine if they keep Spurgeon, I can see them exposing a guy like Dumba. Maybe the play for Spurgeon is too bold, but Parise is declining and JVR is more productive than any LW they currently possess and with the way Dubnyk is playing, I imagine them to be a defensive juggernaut even without Spurgeon and could really benefit from JVR's added offence.

 

[herman]

I'm a little bit more interested in parlaying some of our forward prospect depth into picks or a defenseman from Las Vegas, actually, a la Grabner-trade.

Vegas'll be picking a sizable handful of at minimum #4Ds, potential #1Gs, but the dregs of the NHL in the forward ranks, and 0 prospects until the draft. I think they'd value some relatively known quantity a bit more than most.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm not particularly enthused by Spurgeon, either. The Leafs need a guy who can be a real #1 type defenceman, and, while Spurgeon is good, he's more of a 2/3. Don't be fooled by the fact that he plays for a Minnesota team with very good GA numbers. They're not a good possession team - middle of the pack for score & venue adjusted CF%, SA/60, etc, (bottom 1/3 when not adjusted) though, like the Leafs, doing well in terms of chance against % - with exceptional (and, likely, unsustainable - that 5-on-5 Sv% is going to drop 15-20 points by the end of the season) goaltending. Being one of the most relied upon defenceman on a team with those numbers is honestly not super impressive - never mind the fact that being on a good defensive team, even as one of the most heavily used defencemen on such a team, is not a good indicator of personal defensive ability, as defence is very much group effort rather than an individual one. I wouldn't give up anything close to what you're suggesting to for Spurgeon. Heck, I don't think I'd trade JvR straight up for him.

 

[TBLeafer]

I'm not particularly enthused by Spurgeon, either. The Leafs need a guy who can be a real #1 type defenceman, and, while Spurgeon is good, he's more of a 2/3. Don't be fooled by the fact that he plays for a Minnesota team with very good GA numbers. They're not a good possession team - middle of the pack for score & venue adjusted CF%, SA/60, etc, (bottom 1/3 when not adjusted) though, like the Leafs, doing well in terms of chance against % - with exceptional (and, likely, unsustainable - that 5-on-5 Sv% is going to drop 15-20 points by the end of the season) goaltending. Being one of the most relied upon defenceman on a team with those numbers is honestly not super impressive - never mind the fact that being on a good defensive team, even as one of the most heavily used defencemen on such a team, is not a good indicator of personal defensive ability, as defence is very much group effort rather than an individual one. I wouldn't give up anything close to what you're suggesting to for Spurgeon. Heck, I don't think I'd trade JvR straight up for him.

Why am I not surprised? You look to debunk every idea or opinion that isn't your own. I trust Boudreau's useage of him over your off the cuff, little knowledge of the player quick analysis.

 

[bustaheims]

Why am I not surprised? You look to debunk every idea or opinion that isn't your own. I trust Boudreau's useage of him over your off the cuff, little knowledge of the player quick analysis.

Why am I not surprised that you dismiss any opinion that opposes your own as coming from someone who isn't knowledgeable about the player, is combined with rhetorical fallacy - in this case, an appeal to authority - and, in no way attempts to address or refute the counterpoints being put forward?

 

[TBLeafer]

Why am I not surprised? You look to debunk every idea or opinion that isn't your own. I trust Boudreau's useage of him over your off the cuff, little knowledge of the player quick analysis.

Why am I not surprised that you dismiss any opinion that opposes your own as coming from someone who isn't knowledgeable about the player, is combined with rhetorical fallacy - in this case, an appeal to authority - and, in no way attempts to address or refute the counterpoints being put forward?

Probably because of your instant dismissal and passive aggressive insult that just JVR straight up for him, you'd consider an overpayment.

You probably never even stopped to consider the term remaining on Spurgeon's contract in comparison to JVR.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

In Busta's defense, I had much the same reaction, I just chose to label it an overpayment because arguing a point with you is the forum equivalent of banging your head against the wall.

I'm sure you're a good guy though, nothing personal.

 

[TBLeafer]

In Busta's defense, I had much the same reaction, I just chose to label it an overpayment because arguing a point with you is the forum equivalent of banging your head against the wall.

I'm sure you're a good guy though, nothing personal.

Right now true #1, 2 NHL D men are valued higher than top six highly productive wingers.  The is a fact of the league.  You may personally see more value in JVR than Spurgeon and that's fine.

I would much prefer to solidify a true top 4 NHL D for the foreseeable future because that's what we'll need if we want to contend over JVR's goal scoring.

Spurgeon excels at making sure the puck doesn't go in the Wild goal, while he is out on the ice. He is relied on for both PP and PK. The Wild is a poor Corsi team, because they lack offensive depth. Not one of their players has registered 10 goals yet this season. We have 3 scoring 10 or more already.

 

[Tigger]

Yup, 3, but I believe Zaitsev is exempt.

Yeah, so adding another non-exempt defenseman would mean exposing Carrick.

It would, but then I suppose part of the equation would be looking to move him in that case.

 

[Tigger]

I guess I would wonder why Minnesota would be looking to trade him. I get that they've got a decision to make in regards to their defence and the expansion draft, but I don't see them making Spurgeon available because of that.

I imagine if they keep Spurgeon, I can see them exposing a guy like Dumba. Maybe the play for Spurgeon is too bold, but Parise is declining and JVR is more productive than any LW they currently possess and with the way Dubnyk is playing, I imagine them to be a defensive juggernaut even without Spurgeon and could really benefit from JVR's added offence.

Expose Dumba in the expansion draft? They'll trade him before that happens, in fact, I'd take him for JVR before I'd take Spurgeon.

I can't pretend to be an expert on Spurgeon. At a very quick glance I'd say these are my quick hits:

1. I'm not wowed by his numbers, conventional or otherwise

2. He's got a good contract but he's a little old for my tastes in terms of fitting in with this current core

3. Eitherway, exposing Carrick should be reflected as an element of the trade and if it could cost us JVR, Kapanen and Carrick I'd probably want a slightly bigger prize.

Thinking a little more heavily on it, I'd probably take Kapanen out and replace him with a 2nd.

The point is add an all situations true #2 D, which is what Spurgeon has developed into and solidify our top 4 for future contention.

We're good on offence moving forward.

The Leafs are not 'good' on offence moving forward, less so if they trade JVR ( which I'm ok with, generally, if they're moving him for a good young dman ).

 

[Kin]

Right now true #1, 2 NHL D men are valued higher than top six highly productive wingers.  The is a fact of the league.  You may personally see more value in JVR than Spurgeon and that's fine.

I would much prefer to solidify a true top 4 NHL D for the foreseeable future because that's what we'll need if we want to contend over JVR's goal scoring.

Spurgeon excels at making sure the puck doesn't go in the Wild goal, while he is out on the ice. He is relied on for both PP and PK. The Wild is a poor Corsi team, because they lack offensive depth. Not one of their players has registered 10 goals yet this season. We have 3 scoring 10 or more already.

That seems like a bizarre definition of depth. Like you say, the Leafs have three players with 10+ goals, the Wild have none but the Leafs as a group aren't outscoring the Wild by a particularly significant amount. The Leafs are at 2.89 gpg and the Wild at 2.82. I don't think you can attribute CORSI differences to the tune of a .07 Goals per Game difference.

I think you're right that with the current market for defensemen JVR might only be worth someone like Spurgeon but to me that seems like a much better argument to not try and trade for D when the market seems a little out of whack. Seems like the perfect example of selling low and buying high. 

More to the point though, I think you're glossing over the question of Spurgeon vs. Carrick. Without getting into your claim that Spurgeon is a huge upgrade in spite of the numbers, the reality is that Carrick is 4 and a half years younger which puts him in line for some potentially serious development the way defensemen tend to get better as they hit their 24-25 year old seasons. Combine that with the age of the forwards we want to build around and Carrick might be the way I lean even before you start throwing some of the Leafs' best trade chips into the mix.

In fact it's hard not to see parallels between Carrick and Spurgeon. Both undersized a bit on the back end, both with good mobile games that haven't translated into NHL offense much. When Spurgeon was Carrick's age he was used pretty similarly, getting 15 minutes a night with no SH time and a little bit of PP time. It's hard not to look at Spurgeon as the sort of player Carrick can become. So why jump the gun?

 

[Kin]

It would, but then I suppose part of the equation would be looking to move him in that case.

Maybe but the Leafs need to expose one defenseman who meets the GP criteria.

 

[Tigger]

It would, but then I suppose part of the equation would be looking to move him in that case.

Maybe but the Leafs need to expose one defenseman who meets the GP criteria.

Sure, barring Marincin being shattered, it'll be him over Carrick.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The Leafs are not 'good' on offence moving forward, less so if they trade JVR ( which I'm ok with, generally, if they're moving him for a good young dman ).

As much as I completely understand the temptation to want to trade JVR, especially for a defenceman, let's not pretend that he wouldn't leave a pretty big hole in our forward group. Without him our LW is Komarov-Hyman-Leivo-Marin.

 

[Kin]

As much as I completely understand the temptation to want to trade JVR, especially for a defenceman, let's not pretend that he wouldn't leave a pretty big hole in our forward group. Without him our LW is Komarov-Hyman-Leivo-Marin.

*coughLeipsiccough*

 

[CarltonTheBear]

*coughLeipsiccough*

Admittedly he did slip my mind. Boy it sure would be nice if we had a roster spot for him so we could see if he's the real deal before making a decision on JVR. Too bad that left side is crowded with such great playe... oh wait.

 

[TBLeafer]

That seems like a bizarre definition of depth. Like you say, the Leafs have three players with 10+ goals, the Wild have none but the Leafs as a group aren't outscoring the Wild by a particularly significant amount. The Leafs are at 2.89 gpg and the Wild at 2.82. I don't think you can attribute CORSI differences to the tune of a .07 Goals per Game difference.

I think you're right that with the current market for defensemen JVR might only be worth someone like Spurgeon but to me that seems like a much better argument to not try and trade for D when the market seems a little out of whack. Seems like the perfect example of selling low and buying high. 

More to the point though, I think you're glossing over the question of Spurgeon vs. Carrick. Without getting into your claim that Spurgeon is a huge upgrade in spite of the numbers, the reality is that Carrick is 4 and a half years younger which puts him in line for some potentially serious development the way defensemen tend to get better as they hit their 24-25 year old seasons. Combine that with the age of the forwards we want to build around and Carrick might be the way I lean even before you start throwing some of the Leafs' best trade chips into the mix.

In fact it's hard not to see parallels between Carrick and Spurgeon. Both undersized a bit on the back end, both with good mobile games that haven't translated into NHL offense much. When Spurgeon was Carrick's age he was used pretty similarly, getting 15 minutes a night with no SH time and a little bit of PP time. It's hard not to look at Spurgeon as the sort of player Carrick can become. So why jump the gun?

You bring up good points re Spurgeon/Carrick.  I've looked at Carrick in the vein of a young Tyson Barrie myself, but can also definitely see the similarities to a young Spurgeon as well.

Yeah actually offering this trade up would have to be mulled over a long while.  If the deal was done and Carrick exposed, at least we still have Corrado if Vegas jumps on Carrick?

Given the type of minutes JVR is now playing, I'd imagine a Leivo or Leipsic recouping a good portion of those points.

 

[Kin]

I assume they'd still have Corrado but Babcock doesn't seem that interested in giving him a shot so you'd have to question whether keeping him around makes sense unless he'd be getting a regular shift.

 

[Kin]

Admittedly he did slip my mind. Boy it sure would be nice if we had a roster spot for him so we could see if he's the real deal before making a decision on JVR. Too bad that left side is crowded with such great playe... oh wait.

Subconciously I kind of think that the readiness/willingness to trade JVR comes from the fact that we're coming off a free agency year where pretty good LW's were readily available. Of the Leafs' major pieces, JVR strikes me as the one who you can peel off with some sort of confidence you can replace what he brings(at least in part) with cash when the team needs it.