Armchair GM 2018-2019

[Kin]

What we're trading Kadri?

See, the Leafs didn't trade JVR. So now, when people try to come up with credible trades to include their defense they have to do things like include Kadri( a 30 goal scorer locked into a reasonable contract) in the absence of the sort of assets they could have had at no appreciable downside to the team.

This is the sort of thing a mismanaged team does/has to do if they want to address their issues.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Not trading JVR by all accounts is a mistake, who knows what was offered, but this team is far from mismanaged.
As for Kadri leaving, not happening unless they sign another centre.

 

[Kin]

As for Kadri leaving, not happening unless they sign another centre.

Which is fine enough to say but then if they don't add another C then we're back to the reality of them not having much in the way of assets to move for a significant upgrade on D that wouldn't ultimately be zero-sum. And even if they do add another C Kadri is still a valuable piece they wouldn't have to move.

So, again, being as mismanaged as they were this year will put them in a lousy situation this offseason that was largely avoidable.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Mismanaged is a strong word. Yes, it would have been better to trade JVR. I was on board with that. But they decided to take a risk instead. See if they could do something in the playoffs. One positive may be the loss of some blue and white glasses in management when evaluating this team.

There would have been backlash had they traded JVR and then lost to Boston in seven. Public, and player, perception has to be a factor. Maybe they wanted to trade him and felt handcuffed as a 105 point team that would be questioned about trading its top goal scorer as they neared the playoffs.

 

[Andy007]

Mismanaged is a strong word. Yes, it would have been better to trade JVR. I was on board with that. But they decided to take a risk instead. See if they could do something in the playoffs. One positive may be the loss of some blue and white glasses in management when evaluating this team.

There would have been backlash had they traded JVR and then lost to Boston in seven. Public, and player, perception has to be a factor. Maybe they wanted to trade him and felt handcuffed as a 105 point team that would be questioned about trading its top goal scorer as they neared the playoffs.

I mean, if JVR torched the Bruins and/or was an integral piece of a long playoff run would it still be considered a mismanagement? I don't know, I can certainly understand wanting to use JVR as a deadline asset to ultimately improve the defense but that assumes a lot of things about a) what the return specifically is for JVR, and b) what defender is available and at what cost? Is it not possible that a deal for a significant d upgrade just wasn't available/feasible?

And then you add in the fact that you'd be shipping out JVR to strengthen a potential opponent/rival. So keeping a 36-goal scorer for a playoff run and letting them walk in the offseason isn't exactly a crazy decision. Sure, it didn't work out, but I don't see how that's blatant mismanagement.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Mismanaged is a strong word. Yes, it would have been better to trade JVR. I was on board with that. But they decided to take a risk instead. See if they could do something in the playoffs. One positive may be the loss of some blue and white glasses in management when evaluating this team.

There would have been backlash had they traded JVR and then lost to Boston in seven. Public, and player, perception has to be a factor. Maybe they wanted to trade him and felt handcuffed as a 105 point team that would be questioned about trading its top goal scorer as they neared the playoffs.

I mean, if JVR torched the Bruins and/or was an integral piece of a long playoff run would it still be considered a mismanagement? I don't know, I can certainly understand wanting to use JVR as a deadline asset to ultimately improve the defense but that assumes a lot of things about a) what the return specifically is for JVR, and b) what defender is available and at what cost? Is it not possible that a deal for a significant d upgrade just wasn't available/feasible?

And then you add in the fact that you'd be shipping out JVR to strengthen a potential opponent/rival. So keeping a 36-goal scorer for a playoff run and letting them walk in the offseason isn't exactly a crazy decision. Sure, it didn't work out, but I don't see how that's blatant mismanagement.

No matter what he did in the playoffs, there would be a school of thought that says trading him was the best option. Not in a direct 'we can use JVR to improve our defense' but in a total asset management capacity. He could have been traded for something, instead, he walks for nothing. If that something was a third-round pick then, ya, better to keep him and let him walk for free.

Trading him wouldn't have been with the mindset of improving the team now, it would have been asset management. Knowing what we know now and assuming he walks in free agency, would you go back and trade him for a 1st round pick and a prospect? Maybe that deal, or a similar deal, wasn't available, that's another potential reason to not trade him for sure.

I also don't like the term mismanage in this case, but I do think they got a bit greedy with this year's playoff run. But again, that assumes there was a trade to be made. I still think the 'we give up' message that would misconstrued by fans and possibly players was a factor too.

 

[mr grieves]

Mismanaged is a strong word. Yes, it would have been better to trade JVR. I was on board with that. But they decided to take a risk instead. See if they could do something in the playoffs. One positive may be the loss of some blue and white glasses in management when evaluating this team.

There would have been backlash had they traded JVR and then lost to Boston in seven. Public, and player, perception has to be a factor. Maybe they wanted to trade him and felt handcuffed as a 105 point team that would be questioned about trading its top goal scorer as they neared the playoffs.

If you're handcuffed into a bad decision by a good season, maybe you're mismanaging public, or player, perception? We don't hear as much about building for a future of perpetual contender status anymore, which I find odd.

Maybe they're not 'mismanaged' -- save that for signing Clarkson or trading for Bolland -- but managed in a cowardly, over-cautious, unimaginative, and short-sighted fashion.

Trading JVR, even without anything that immediately improves the defense coming back, was the right move. The Leafs will need to have lots of talented depth on ELCs to be contenders, and they don't get that through poor asset management.

 

[ZBBM]

The failure to trade JVR is a sign that Shanahan isn't as fully committed to the long-term plan as he says he is publicly.  Three years ago it was, "there will be pain."  And there was.  But what they should have kept emphasizing is, "there must be patience."  That mantra got reduced to lip service after we hit the AM34 jackpot.

The idea that a team that had never won a playoff round was somehow this year going to bull its way past some combo of BOS or TBL was fairly magical thinking.  No doubt other factors, all of them already discussed here, went into the decision to retain JVR.  But at the root, failing to trade him was a failure to follow the supposed Plan.  And that's the same mistake we've been making since forever.

By all objective accounts, this Leafs team was not considered likely to go deep.

 

[Bullfrog]

No matter what he did in the playoffs, there would be a school of thought that says trading him was the best option. Not in a direct 'we can use JVR to improve our defense' but in a total asset management capacity. He could have been traded for something, instead, he walks for nothing. If that something was a third-round pick then, ya, better to keep him and let him walk for free.

Trading him wouldn't have been with the mindset of improving the team now, it would have been asset management. Knowing what we know now and assuming he walks in free agency, would you go back and trade him for a 1st round pick and a prospect? Maybe that deal, or a similar deal, wasn't available, that's another potential reason to not trade him for sure.

I also don't like the term mismanage in this case, but I do think they got a bit greedy with this year's playoff run. But again, that assumes there was a trade to be made. I still think the 'we give up' message that would misconstrued by fans and possibly players was a factor too.

Put me in that school. I'm disappointed they didn't trade him for the highest offer, regardless of how low it was. And I don't believe for a second there weren't interested teams.

 

[herman]

The failure to trade JVR is a sign that Shanahan isn't as fully committed to the long-term plan as he says he is publicly.  Three years ago it was, "there will be pain."  And there was.  But what they should have kept emphasizing is, "there must be patience."  That mantra got reduced to lip service after we hit the AM34 jackpot.

It depends on what the front office considers long term value, and I think it's pretty clear they highly value playoff experience (even when, and maybe especially when, you get burned). Through their lens, it can be argued they were looking short-term on this season, but long-term for the development of their core.

They should have traded JvR two seasons ago but the injury during the tank drive derailed that opportunity and then nothing really landed in offseasons thereafter. After a certain cut-off, there was more value in keeping JvR/Bozak to 'insulate' (haha) the kids.

 

[Frank E]

As for Kadri leaving, not happening unless they sign another centre.

Which is fine enough to say but then if they don't add another C then we're back to the reality of them not having much in the way of assets to move for a significant upgrade on D that wouldn't ultimately be zero-sum. And even if they do add another C Kadri is still a valuable piece they wouldn't have to move.

So, again, being as mismanaged as they were this year will put them in a lousy situation this offseason that was largely avoidable.

If I could just jump in here, the Leafs are also short a 2nd round pick for Plec.

And I think it was pretty universal around here that doing that made no sense if they didn't address the D-man problem...and they didn't end up addressing the d-man problem.

Even at the trade deadline, most pundits had them as underdogs against either TB or Boston.  Understanding where the weaknesses were, they should have addressed those if they really wanted to take a run.  Keeping JVR and the other expiring contracts was only a smart option if they addressed those weaknesses. Instead, they decided to burn a high pick on a depth centreman, keep all the UFA contracts, and not address their biggest need.

I said it at the time, the deadline activity of the Leafs was mismanaged, and now they've got to act from a position of less-strength than they would have had if they'd done what most of us wanted done.  You either go for it, or you don't, but the Leafs tried to go down the middle, and the result is pretty much what I thought it would be.

Now the Leafs are left with UFA's walking for nothing, and down a 2nd round pick, and have the same weaknesses to address, plus the holes to fill of the departing UFAs.

I can't imagine this result is what was "planned" for, but it's the result that first came to mind to me when the deadline buzzer went at 3pm on Feb 26th.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Lou Gone per @LeafsPR

 

[ZBBM]

The failure to trade JVR is a sign that Shanahan isn't as fully committed to the long-term plan as he says he is publicly.  Three years ago it was, "there will be pain."  And there was.  But what they should have kept emphasizing is, "there must be patience."  That mantra got reduced to lip service after we hit the AM34 jackpot.

It depends on what the front office considers long term value, and I think it's pretty clear they highly value playoff experience (even when, and maybe especially when, you get burned). Through their lens, it can be argued they were looking short-term on this season, but long-term for the development of their core.

They should have traded JvR two seasons ago but the injury during the tank drive derailed that opportunity and then nothing really landed in offseasons thereafter. After a certain cut-off, there was more value in keeping JvR/Bozak to 'insulate' (haha) the kids.

If this is the reality then all I can say is that I hope the Dubas Era? means the end of this kind of Fancy Dan psychologizing.

 

[Kin]

I mean, if JVR torched the Bruins and/or was an integral piece of a long playoff run would it still be considered a mismanagement? I don't know, I can certainly understand wanting to use JVR as a deadline asset

For the record, they had a long time to trade JVR. I don't think the criticism here is just "they didn't trade him at the deadline" but rather that they never traded him despite having two whole years where it would have made sense to.

to ultimately improve the defense but that assumes a lot of things about a) what the return specifically is for JVR

Not really. Unless you're going to make the argument that for some reason the return on JVR would have been, effectively, the lowest return in history for a 30 goal scorer as opposed a reasonable median return then it's still better than nothing.

, and b) what defender is available and at what cost? Is it not possible that a deal for a significant d upgrade just wasn't available/feasible?

At the deadline? Sure. But, again, A) I'm not saying the only time they should have dealt him was at the deadline and B) I'm not saying they needed to make a direct "JVR for a defenseman" trade. They could trade JVR for picks/prospects and then hang onto those valuable picks/prospects until a suitable defenseman became available. There wasn't a limited window of time here.

And then you add in the fact that you'd be shipping out JVR to strengthen a potential opponent/rival.

And what? If, say, JVR had been dealt to a Western conference team then the downside is...that somehow people would regret it if the team that was already a longshot to make it out of the first round somehow made it to the Stanley Cup finals and just happened to play the team they traded him to? Or to a Metro team they made it to the ECF against?

I'm pretty critical of the Leafs management here but I think presenting that as a serious issue that they considered and let influence their "Should we get anything for JVR" decision makes them look worse than anything i'm accusing them of.

 

[Champ Kind]

Wondering if OEL might be a reasonable option for the Leafs to pursue this summer.  Seems to tick a lot of boxes, can likely fill 1'st pairing, eats minutes, relatively young (27 in July), and acquisition cost might not be the over-the-moon variety.  I would think a deal would revolve around a non-16/29/34 piece sprinkled liberally with draft picks and non-Liljegren Marlies.

 

[Kin]

Wondering if OEL might be a reasonable option for the Leafs to pursue this summer.  Seems to tick a lot of boxes, can likely fill 1'st pairing, eats minutes, relatively young (27 in July), and acquisition cost might not be the over-the-moon variety.  I would think a deal would revolve around a non-16/29/34 piece sprinkled liberally with draft picks and non-Liljegren Marlies.

He's a LHD so unless Babcock has a big change of heart about these things his being a 1st pairing guy would depend on him being better than Rielly and Gardiner which might be true but doesn't seem like a sure thing.

Also, I think if he could be had for that sort of return I don't think he'd still be in Arizona. Just about everything I'd read when sporadic rumours of his availability came up was that the Coyotes wanted a pretty heavy price for him.

 

[Champ Kind]

Wondering if OEL might be a reasonable option for the Leafs to pursue this summer.  Seems to tick a lot of boxes, can likely fill 1'st pairing, eats minutes, relatively young (27 in July), and acquisition cost might not be the over-the-moon variety.  I would think a deal would revolve around a non-16/29/34 piece sprinkled liberally with draft picks and non-Liljegren Marlies.

He's a LHD so unless Babcock has a big change of heart about these things his being a 1st pairing guy would depend on him being better than Rielly and Gardiner which might be true but doesn't seem like a sure thing.

Also, I think if he could be had for that sort of return I don't think he'd still be in Arizona. Just about everything I'd read when sporadic rumours of his availability came up was that the Coyotes wanted a pretty heavy price for him.

Thanks, Nik.  Your assessment of the Leafs mishandling of their pending UFAs, to me, is bang on and relevant here.  And while I suppose there is somewhat of an argument to be made in the Leafs' case - ie. playoff run and all - the same can't be said for the current incarnation of the Coyotes.  My limited experience of watching OEL notwithstanding, I do like the player and left-handed shot aside I think would fit in just about perfectly.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Wondering if OEL might be a reasonable option for the Leafs to pursue this summer.  Seems to tick a lot of boxes, can likely fill 1'st pairing, eats minutes, relatively young (27 in July), and acquisition cost might not be the over-the-moon variety.  I would think a deal would revolve around a non-16/29/34 piece sprinkled liberally with draft picks and non-Liljegren Marlies.

He's a LHD so unless Babcock has a big change of heart about these things his being a 1st pairing guy would depend on him being better than Rielly and Gardiner which might be true but doesn't seem like a sure thing.

Also, I think if he could be had for that sort of return I don't think he'd still be in Arizona. Just about everything I'd read when sporadic rumours of his availability came up was that the Coyotes wanted a pretty heavy price for him.

Hainsey is a left shot and was our top RD this season....And yeah it wasn't ideal being a lefty but it did force Babs to use him there. Gord Miller, on Leafs Lunch, said a similar thing today regarding his favourites like Komarov, Polak. The GM can somewhat dictate who he wants to play by taking away his options by removing the favs from the team.

 

[Kin]

Fair point re: Hainsey but the way I recall it was that he was fairly used to playing his offside. I'm sure you could acquire any LHD and ask them to do that but I'm not sure all of them would be equally proficient there.

Also, I think you'd agree, that whoever eventually is the GM making those decisions here it would be a pretty bold move to force that sort of thing on Babcock as one of their opening gambits.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Fair point re: Hainsey but the way I recall it was that he was fairly used to playing his offside. I'm sure you could acquire any LHD and ask them to do that but I'm not sure all of them would be equally proficient there.

Also, I think you'd agree, that whoever eventually is the GM making those decisions here it would be a pretty bold move to force that sort of thing on Babcock as one of their opening gambits.

Definitely agree it would be bold but ultimately it has to be his choice. Would make for some interesting board meetings tho! I do get what Miller was saying tho. I think it's easier now that some of Babs' favs are UFAs. If Dubas doesn't like Leo, he simply doesn't bring him back. I think the best thing is Dubas knows the Marlies inside and out and probably the ECHL guys to, as he's been watching them all year.