Dave Bolland

[Corn Flake]

I think we need to look around at other teams to get a bit more perspective before saying the Leafs are in terrible shape if they do this.

I think you need to look at more than just the numbers and assess the quality of the players signed. It's not impossible to have a successful team with a bunch of players making $4-5+mil each. Take San Jose for instance. Yes, that's an expensive forward group but in my opinion they got those players signed at a great price. Even Carolina, the guys that they have signed are all top-6 forwards. Although in general Carolina isn't really a team whose template I'd really look at.

The real question would be how many teams have 5-7 forwards all signed to at $4mil+ where two of those forwards are 3rd liners on long-term contracts. I don't think you'll find many successful teams that match that description.

I don't think that's the "real" question.. that's the question you are most concerned with.  Why does having say $24 mil on your #1 line (like SJ has, roughly) which restricts you to spend $6 mil on your 3rd line become better than having more balanced spending throughout like the Leafs can have?

The Leafs have their top line signed to very good deals as whole, saving a lot of money where other teams are spending a lot more for their #1 unit.  So the Leafs can then afford to spend more on other positions.

If I'm getting the performance out of my top end guys I need, then I can afford to spend on more balance... I'll take balance over top heavy any day.

 

[Champ Kind]

I think we need to look around at other teams to get a bit more perspective before saying the Leafs are in terrible shape if they do this.

I think you need to look at more than just the numbers and assess the quality of the players signed. It's not impossible to have a successful team with a bunch of players making $4-5+mil each. Take San Jose for instance. Yes, that's an expensive forward group but in my opinion they got those players signed at a great price. Even Carolina, the guys that they have signed are all top-6 forwards. Although in general Carolina isn't really a team whose template I'd really look at.

The real question would be how many teams have 5-7 forwards all signed to at $4mil+ where two of those forwards are 3rd liners on long-term contracts. I don't think you'll find many successful teams that match that description.

I don't think that's the "real" question.. that's the question you are most concerned with.  Why does having say $24 mil on your #1 line (like SJ has, roughly) which restricts you to spend $6 mil on your 3rd line become better than having more balanced spending throughout like the Leafs can have?

The Leafs have their top line signed to very good deals as whole, saving a lot of money where other teams are spending a lot more for their #1 unit.  So the Leafs can then afford to spend more on other positions.

If I'm getting the performance out of my top end guys I need, then I can afford to spend on more balance... I'll take balance over top heavy any day.

I'd add that 2013-14 performance aside, Clarkson was not signed to be a third line player.  So, in my opinion, including him there negatively skews the cap impact of the third line.

 

[Highlander]

I actually had lunch with Fred Fletcher, 3rd cousin removed from Cliffy!  We spoke about Holland, D'Amigo, Leivo, Percy, Grandberg etc.

 

[moon111]

If I were Nonis...
-Bolland, Raymond, Armstrong, Tucker = $6,375,000
-Paul Stastny's current salary = $6,600,000 + salary of inexpensive player.

Not even sure Bolland would be my 1st choice depending upon who's available.

 

[Kin]

Why does having say $24 mil on your #1 line (like SJ has, roughly) which restricts you to spend $6 mil on your 3rd line become better than having more balanced spending throughout like the Leafs can have?

Well, because that's not really close to being true. San Jose has been using a top line of Thornton, Burns and either Hertl or Pavelski. In 2013-2014 money that amounts to a cap hit of anywhere between 13.75 million with Hertl(and bonuses) to just under 16.76 million with Pavelski. Going forward, Pavelski's and Thornton's extensions only kick that up to 18.51 million. The Leafs top line comes in at 16.45 million. So there's, at most, a 2 million dollar savings.

Even if you mean their three highest paid forwards, in which that would be Marleau, Thornton and one of Pavelski or Couture, they clock in at 19.4 million and change after this year. The Leafs top three forwards in that regard, Kessel, Clarkson and Lupul, clock in at 18.5 million. So the difference between the Leafs and the Sharks at the top is pretty slim.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't think that's the "real" question.. that's the question you are most concerned with.  Why does having say $24 mil on your #1 line (like SJ has, roughly) which restricts you to spend $6 mil on your 3rd line become better than having more balanced spending throughout like the Leafs can have?

<I was in the middle of typing a response and saw Nik beat me to it in questioning and analyzing that top line cap figure, so I took that part out>

The Leafs top-6 cap hits next season (assuming Bolland goes for $4.5mil) add up to $31.45mil. The Sharks total is $36.17mil, and they're expected to buyout Havlat's $5mil contract. Even still, a $5mil gap is a pretty good deal to go from Kessel/JVR/Bozak/Lupul/Clarkson/Bolland to Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski/Couture/Burns/Havlat.

If I'm getting the performance out of my top end guys I need, then I can afford to spend on more balance... I'll take balance over top heavy any day.

Just because there's cap space saved from other parts of the roster doesn't mean we have to absolutely allocate it elsewhere right away. Especially if we're not using it to improve the teams biggest weakness (top line centre, top-4 defence).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'd add that 2013-14 performance aside, Clarkson was not signed to be a third line player.  So, in my opinion, including him there negatively skews the cap impact of the third line.

When I say 3rd liner I don't necessarily mean players playing on the 3rd line. Even if he's playing on the 2nd line Clarkson is still a 3rd line player.

 

[Kin]

The Leafs top-6 cap hits next season (assuming Bolland goes for $4.5mil) add up to $31.45mil. The Sharks total is $36.17mil, and they're expected to buyout Havlat's $5mil contract. Even still, a $5mil gap is a pretty good deal to go from Kessel/JVR/Bozak/Lupul/Clarkson/Bolland to Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski/Couture/Burns/Havlat.

The other significant problem with the comparison is that San Jose has that group, along with guys like Vlasic, pretty set in terms of who they're competing with going forward with only Dan Boyle and Antti Niemi still outstanding in terms of key pieces that need long term deals. Boyle may very well take a pay cut on his next contract and Niemi, while he figures to get a raise, may not be the team's long term answer at the position.

The Leafs, conversely, have those guys signed you mention and Phaneuf's big contract and they need to budget for Kadri and Bernier's next deals and Rielly and Gardiner are going to enter the equation pretty soon if the Leafs are lucky.

So there's a big difference in spending that money on what is largely a finished product and one that is still very much in progress.

 

[Corn Flake]

Just because there's cap space saved from other parts of the roster doesn't mean we have to absolutely allocate it elsewhere right away. Especially if we're not using it to improve the teams biggest weakness (top line centre, top-4 defence).

Totally agree you don't *have* to spend it, but if Bolland is the right guy to keep/add/whatever, then I'm saying you can do it without having to do crazy things to make him fit.

 

[Kin]

Fair that the roster is certainly unproven. I agree with that point for sure. That said, I'm not going to jettison Bolland because this overall young team hasn't proved to us it can win. I very much think he's part of the solution and IMO you let him go you will be out there the next day looking for someone who can do all the same things he does... maybe you can save $1-2 mil on that body if you are lucky.

The issue for me isn't that they're "unproven" but rather that I think that you have to, even if you're profoundly optimistic, think one of two things about the current Leafs team. Either you think A) that there's a very significant talent gap between the Leafs and the elite teams in the league and that, to close that gap, multiple pieces need to be brought in or, alternately, B) that the Leafs have the talent within the system to close the gap, in which case money needs to be budgeted for the players who are going to improve drastically to do that.

So when you compare the Leafs to the Sharks or the Blackhawks or the Penguins I think you need to do so keeping in mind that we're not talking about teams that are on an equal plane. If Bolland is a guy you want to give 4-5 million to, that's alright, but you need to acknowledge that in doing so you're basically looking at this team's defense and, more or less, saying it's a championship calibre defense.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Found this to be an interesting read: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/leafs-should-be-wary-of-bolland-contract/

 

[pnjunction]

Based on what I've seen I'd give him Clarkson's contract in a heartbeat.  Unfortunately we already gave that contract to Clarkson so we'll probably have to live with a cheaper #3C and pile of bitterness and regret.

I suppose if Bolland declines and Clarkson steps up his deal could look better than whatever Bolland gets in a few years but I really, really doubt it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Based on what I've seen I'd give him Clarkson's contract in a heartbeat.

The problem is you really can't judge him based on what we've seen. It's just too small of a sample size.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Based on what I've seen I'd give him Clarkson's contract in a heartbeat.

The problem is you really can't judge him based on what we've seen. It's just too small of a sample size.

If only sample size had applied to considerations of Clarkson's contract...

 

[caver]

Agreed HS.

 

[bustaheims]

If only sample size had applied to considerations of Clarkson's contract...

It was for everyone but the people who were involved in the negotiations.

 

[bustaheims]

koshtorontosun: Bolland won't play tomorrow, he says #Leafs

I'm starting to have my doubts that Bolland will return at all. I really hope the team doesn't commit long-term to him.

 

[Redleaf]

koshtorontosun: Bolland won't play tomorrow, he says #Leafs

I'm starting to have my doubts that Bolland will return at all. I really hope the team doesn't commit long-term to him.

The Leafs are a better team with him than without him. I'm hoping he's back after the deadline and finds the game he was playing before the injury. I think he can be a game changer when he's on top of his game.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Remember when the plan was for him to play before the Olympics?

 

[Andy007]

koshtorontosun: Bolland won't play tomorrow, he says #Leafs

I'm starting to have my doubts that Bolland will return at all. I really hope the team doesn't commit long-term to him.

The Leafs are a better team with him than without him. I'm hoping he's back after the deadline and finds the game he was playing before the injury. I think he can be a game changer when he's on top of his game.

See I just don't know what anyone can base this on. We're talking about a guy who has never scored 20 goals or reached 50 points in a season.  The idea that Bolland is a game changer, or even just someone that Toronto needs to sign long-term, just baffles me.