Dave Bolland

[Corn Flake]

Why not shoot for it? He's got this chance to see what comes rolling in and take it back to the Leafs (or Chicago, more likely, IMO) and see what their response is.

You've brought this up on a few occasions. There's no way Chicago brings him back. If they do I'll change my name to CFwasRight for a week.

Deal!

 

[bustaheims]

I don't think Sharp's contract is a bad one at all.

It's not, but there's also no way they trade him to sign Bolland for ~$5M per. If he gets moved, it will be because they're looking to spread that cap hit across two or three roster spots.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I don't think Sharp's contract is a bad one at all.

It's not, but there's also no way they trade him to sign Bolland for ~$5M per. If he gets moved, it will be because they're looking to spread that cap hit across two or three roster spots.

Or trade for Kesler...

 

[Corn Flake]

I'm getting to the point where I really don't know why we obsess over the nickles and dimes of a contract, 4 years vs. 5 years, etc etc etc..  it's money.  Is it cap room? Yeah, but look at how many other huge market teams do far worse things with cap space and contract money and manage to be able to do away with it when they need to.  NYR and PHI are two perfect examples.  Those teams go after the best names in UFA and they get them. If it doesn't work out they get rid of them.  This isn't just about a compliance buyout window they are lucky to have... both teams have been doing it since forever and certainly since 2005.  Nothing has changed.

It's one reason I liked the boldness of the Clarkson signing.  The Leafs went out and got what they wanted and what they thought they needed vs. sitting back and being cheap.  Sure it hasn't worked out and it may result in them unloading him just like NYR or PHI would do, but even if that's the case, why do we get so bent out of shape over it? The Leafs have PLENTY of cash to use in many different ways in order to get rid of a player if they need to.

So what if the Leafs sign Bolland for $5 mil instead of $4 mil?  All I care is they get the right player (Bolland or not) and the rest will sort itself out.  We continually look at moves that NYR and PHI make and snicker, laughing about how they will ever deal with the cap ramifications of moves they make.. yet they manage every single time.

I'm glad this team isn't being cheap and I think we should stop thinking like frugal penny pinching fans. This isn't Phoenix.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Or trade for Kesler...

This is what I see. Kesler, Spezza, or dump Sharp and sign Stastny. Everybody, especially teams in the West, seem to want to load up on centres after seeing what LA did with Kopitar-Carter-Stoll-Richards down the middle.

 

[Deebo]

I don't think Sharp's contract is a bad one at all.

It's not, but there's also no way they trade him to sign Bolland for ~$5M per. If he gets moved, it will be because they're looking to spread that cap hit across two or three roster spots.

Or for Toews and Kane's raises.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm getting to the point where I really don't know why we obsess over the nickles and dimes of a contract, 4 years vs. 5 years, etc etc etc..  it's money.  Is it cap room? Yeah, but look at how many other huge market teams do far worse things with cap space and contract money and manage to be able to do away with it when they need to.  NYR and PHI are two perfect examples.  Those teams go after the best names in UFA and they get them. If it doesn't work out they get rid of them.  This isn't just about a compliance buyout window they are lucky to have... both teams have been doing it since forever and certainly since 2005.  Nothing has changed.

It's one reason I liked the boldness of the Clarkson signing.  The Leafs went out and got what they wanted and what they thought they needed vs. sitting back and being cheap.  Sure it hasn't worked out and it may result in them unloading him just like NYR or PHI would do, but even if that's the case, why do we get so bent out of shape over it? The Leafs have PLENTY of cash to use in many different ways in order to get rid of a player if they need to.

So what if the Leafs sign Bolland for $5 mil instead of $4 mil?  All I care is they get the right player (Bolland or not) and the rest will sort itself out.  We continually look at moves that NYR and PHI make and snicker, laughing about how they will ever deal with the cap ramifications of moves they make.. yet they manage every single time.

I'm glad this team isn't being cheap and I think we should stop thinking like frugal penny pinching fans. This isn't Phoenix.

Agreed.

 

[bustaheims]

Or for Toews and Kane's raises.

Well, that's part of it, too, but they have another season until those will actually kick in.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Or trade for Kesler...

This is what I see. Kesler, Spezza, or dump Sharp and sign Stastny. Everybody, especially teams in the West, seem to want to load up on centres after seeing what LA did with Kopitar-Carter-Stoll-Richards down the middle.

Yup, I would think it's a crazy place behind the scenes right now, with all the non-negotiating going on with every available player right now.

Nonis better be incredibly busy figuring out whether or not he can upgrade, or do a better job of either replacing Bolland, or paying as little as possible for him.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So what if the Leafs sign Bolland for $5 mil instead of $4 mil?  All I care is they get the right player (Bolland or not) and the rest will sort itself out.

This is where I have the problem. I don't really want Bolland on any contract. So the higher it goes the more upset that I'll be. I don't have an issue with overpaying for talent, but Bolland (and Clarkson) are 3rd liners and those aren't the players you overpay. I've said before that I'd give a guy like Stastny pretty much whatever he's asking for.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm getting to the point where I really don't know why we obsess over the nickles and dimes of a contract, 4 years vs. 5 years, etc etc etc..  it's money.  Is it cap room? Yeah, but look at how many other huge market teams do far worse things with cap space and contract money and manage to be able to do away with it when they need to.  NYR and PHI are two perfect examples.  Those teams go after the best names in UFA and they get them. If it doesn't work out they get rid of them.  This isn't just about a compliance buyout window they are lucky to have... both teams have been doing it since forever and certainly since 2005.  Nothing has changed.

It's one reason I liked the boldness of the Clarkson signing.  The Leafs went out and got what they wanted and what they thought they needed vs. sitting back and being cheap.  Sure it hasn't worked out and it may result in them unloading him just like NYR or PHI would do, but even if that's the case, why do we get so bent out of shape over it? The Leafs have PLENTY of cash to use in many different ways in order to get rid of a player if they need to.

So what if the Leafs sign Bolland for $5 mil instead of $4 mil?  All I care is they get the right player (Bolland or not) and the rest will sort itself out.  We continually look at moves that NYR and PHI make and snicker, laughing about how they will ever deal with the cap ramifications of moves they make.. yet they manage every single time.

I'm glad this team isn't being cheap and I think we should stop thinking like frugal penny pinching fans. This isn't Phoenix.

And how exactly has it worked out for teams like the Rangers or Flyers? They've maxed themselves out without being able to reach the ultimate prize and then have to sacrifice significant pieces to make things work under the cap. The Rangers have basically stopped shopping in the UFA market. They haven't signed a significant deal to bring in a UFA from another organization since Richards and even balked at giving Callahan the kind of money we all knew he'd get on the open market.

On there other hand, teams like LA and Chicago have been very prudent when it comes to the UFA market - focusing on bringing in the Bolland and Clarkson types on bargains, on shorter term deals or promoting from within, while only committing big years and big money to guys that they have rightfully (for the most part) identified as core pieces. That's how you build championship teams, and that's what they goal should be, should it not?

It's not about being a frugal, penny pinching team. It's about being a team that's smart about how they spend their money, and giving long-term, significant dollar deals to guys like Bolland is not smart.

 

[Corn Flake]

So what if the Leafs sign Bolland for $5 mil instead of $4 mil?  All I care is they get the right player (Bolland or not) and the rest will sort itself out.

This is where I have the problem. I don't really want Bolland on any contract. So the higher it goes the more upset that I'll be. I don't have an issue with overpaying for talent, but Bolland (and Clarkson) are 3rd liners and those aren't the players you overpay. I've said before that I'd give a guy like Stastny pretty much whatever he's asking for.

Ok and I'm not trying to nitpick that side of it... if you don't want the player, that is completely reasonable to me.  Just what I'm saying is it shouldn't be about the money, it should be about the player.. he either is the guy we need or he isn't.  Opinions obviously vary widely on Bolland and many others.

Philli signed Lecavs to crazy money and term. He ended up on the 4th line.  Overpaid? Yeah, but he was the player they wanted and thought would make a difference.  They were wrong. Oh well. They will find a way to unload him.

 

[Andy007]

I'm getting to the point where I really don't know why we obsess over the nickles and dimes of a contract, 4 years vs. 5 years, etc etc etc..  it's money.  Is it cap room? Yeah, but look at how many other huge market teams do far worse things with cap space and contract money and manage to be able to do away with it when they need to.  NYR and PHI are two perfect examples.  Those teams go after the best names in UFA and they get them. If it doesn't work out they get rid of them.  This isn't just about a compliance buyout window they are lucky to have... both teams have been doing it since forever and certainly since 2005.  Nothing has changed.

It's one reason I liked the boldness of the Clarkson signing.  The Leafs went out and got what they wanted and what they thought they needed vs. sitting back and being cheap.  Sure it hasn't worked out and it may result in them unloading him just like NYR or PHI would do, but even if that's the case, why do we get so bent out of shape over it? The Leafs have PLENTY of cash to use in many different ways in order to get rid of a player if they need to.

So what if the Leafs sign Bolland for $5 mil instead of $4 mil?  All I care is they get the right player (Bolland or not) and the rest will sort itself out.  We continually look at moves that NYR and PHI make and snicker, laughing about how they will ever deal with the cap ramifications of moves they make.. yet they manage every single time.

I'm glad this team isn't being cheap and I think we should stop thinking like frugal penny pinching fans. This isn't Phoenix.

It's not about being a frugal, penny pinching team. It's about being a team that's smart about how they spend their money, and giving long-term, significant dollar deals to guys like Bolland is not smart.

Not to mention the trickle down effect on the rest of the team. If you start giving 3rd line centres 6 year - 5 million per contracts because they are the "right kind of player" then your 2nd line guys are going to want more and so on. In a salary cap system that just doesn't work.

 

[Peter D.]

I do think Corn Flake's rationale has a lot of merit to it.  It's just that the Leafs need to apply it to higher talented guys such as Stastny than having this perpetual conversation on guys like Blake, Clarkson, Bolland, Kulemin, Komisarek, etc.

 

[Corn Flake]

It's not about being a frugal, penny pinching team. It's about being a team that's smart about how they spend their money, and giving long-term, significant dollar deals to guys like Bolland is not smart.

Not to mention the trickle down effect on the rest of the team. If you start giving 3rd line centres 6 year - 5 million per contracts because they are the "right kind of player" then your 2nd line guys are going to want more and so on. In a salary cap system that just doesn't work.

*points again to Philli's roster of the last... ever*

 

[Corn Flake]

And how exactly has it worked out for teams like the Rangers or Flyers?

Well, one of those teams just went to the finals. So there's that.  The Flyers have missed the playoffs once in the last 7 years. 

They've maxed themselves out without being able to reach the ultimate prize and then have to sacrifice significant pieces to make things work under the cap. The Rangers have basically stopped shopping in the UFA market. They haven't signed a significant deal to bring in a UFA from another organization since Richards and even balked at giving Callahan the kind of money we all knew he'd get on the open market.

Landing and unloading Richards is a perfect example though. They got the big fish and when it's not working or they need the cap room they buy the guy out.  That's exactly my point.  Of course they can't go out and sign everybody but they get the guy they want. 

They balked at Callahan.. that's fine, they aren't going to sign everybody.  They deemed him expendable, got St. Louis in return, and given where they ended up they were kind of right, no?

On there other hand, teams like LA and Chicago have been very prudent when it comes to the UFA market - focusing on bringing in the Bolland and Clarkson types on bargains, on shorter term deals or promoting from within, while only committing big years and big money to guys that they have rightfully (for the most part) identified as core pieces. That's how you build championship teams, and that's what they goal should be, should it not?

That to me is a whole different discussion around how you build a team core.

....and giving long-term, significant dollar deals to guys like Bolland is not smart.

the point of my post exactly.

 

[bustaheims]

I do think Corn Flake's rationale has a lot of merit to it.  It's just that the Leafs need to apply it to higher talented guys such as Stastny than having this perpetual conversation on guys like Blake, Clarkson, Bolland, Kulemin, Komisarek, etc.

Even overpaying for core pieces becomes detrimental. You have to be smart about it, or you end up like San Jose or Pittsburgh - having a great core, but, not having enough flexibility to build up the depth behind them to the point of being a Championship calibre team - or like Carolina and Washington - with a good, but not great core, little to no depth and struggling to even make the playoffs.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, one of those teams just went to the finals. So there's that.  The Flyers have missed the playoffs once in the last 7 years.

Is the goal making the playoffs or winning the Cup? Last time I checked, it was the latter, and I don't see either the Flyers or the Rangers winning any time soon without a change in strategy (which the Rangers look like they may be adopting, though, it's too early to tell).

That to me is a whole different discussion around how you build a team core.

These teams have won 4 of the past 5 Cups, so, maybe they're the teams that should be used as examples to follow - not two teams that have spent their way to the honour of being the also-ran because someone has to represent the East every season.

 

[Corn Flake]

These teams have won 4 of the past 5 Cups, so, maybe they're the teams that should be used as examples to follow - not two teams that have spent their way to the honour of being the also-ran because someone has to represent the East every season.

They are absolutely the examples to follow, without a doubt, but it doesn't have to just be about spending on UFA. It's spending any which way.  But still, this is drifting away from my point, which was IF you are going to go after a UFA, don't make money the #1 part of the equation. If it's a player you truly want, then go get him.

Back to the Kings/Hawks method of building ...  would want to build the way they do for sure, but can't say the Kings don't put money ahead of opportunities to to land key pieces. They acquired Carter and Richards who were both on crazy long-term deals.  They paid hefty prices for both guys in trade and got no deal even though they were on super long-term deals.  They tried to sign Kovalchuk to a crazy deal. They are likely going to sign Gaborik and that will likely be a 7-8 year deal.

 

[bustaheims]

They tried to sign Kovalchuk to a crazy deal. They are likely going to sign Gaborik and that will likely be a 7-8 year deal.

Their ownership wanted to sign Kovlachuk, while their management group didn't really appear to be on board, and there's no way Gaborik gets more than 4 years from them. The reported offer on the table is a 3 year deal. You're absolutely out to lunch on that one. The rest of the moves you bring up were trades for guys with very reasonable cap hits for what they're capable of providing, and, really, they only gave up pieces they could afford to move.