Dave Bolland
- Thread starter Redleaf
- Start date
Corn Flake said:
I think that you're understating how much teams like the Rangers and Flyers have relied on compliance buyouts, AHL assignments, and LTIR exemptions to get around their cap problems though. Those first two options will no longer be available to them, and the 3rd one can't possibly be counted on.
mr grieves
New member
Deebo said:
Still following the Bozak script...
Bender said:
Because it might sprain his ankle?
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Other teams are taking to him thus under the David Clarkson Law of Logic that means it's okay for the Leafs to sign him.
I saw it mentioned on twitter that he's still not at 100%!?
I saw it mentioned on twitter that he's still not at 100%!?
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Not to mention just the general trend of the league becoming smarter about the cap. Looking at, say, the Gomez deal as evidence of what you can do with a terrible contract is like looking at the Thornton deal as a plan to acquire the front line players you need.
bustaheims
Active member
Joe S. said:
That's all well and good, but, neither of those teams have been good enough to get there consistently (the Rangers feel close, but, only since they've started moving away from overpaying for/over-comitting to players. I don't want a team that makes the playoffs and is maybe good enough to make it out of the East. I want the Leafs to be a legit Cup contender, and I don't consider either Philly or the Rangers to be that. Making the playoffs is not and should not be the goal. It's a step towards reaching the goal. Yes, the Leafs have clearly done things wrong, but the Rangers and Flyers are not models to follow because they've been good enough to make it out of the weaker conference once - especially the Flyers. The Rangers, at least, only have 5 guys under contract past 14/15 right now, so, for the most part, they've at least avoided getting involved in extended commitments to non-core players.
bustaheims
Active member
Well, it looks like I may have been wrong about Gaborik. There's a mistake by the Kings. Too many years.
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
Well, that really depends on which Gaborik they end up getting - the healthy sniper or the oft injured one that struggled to produce over the past two seasons. If they get the former, then, great. It's still too long, but, if they turn it into another Cup or two, then it's an acceptable mistake. If it's the latter, then it's just a huge debacle.
Either way, I think the last 3 years on that deal are going to be a mess.
Kin
New member
Corn Flake said:
Cap space is a limited resource. Not wanting the Leafs to spend too much on their players isn't a matter of frugality. If the league were uncapped I'd be thrilled if they were spending twice what anyone else is in the league.
And you're right, some good teams around the league have overpaid some of their players and, again, you're right that if a player is right for the team then there's a case to be made that giving them 1-1.5 million of 2 years more than you'd ideally like isn't the worst thing in the world in some circumstances.
The problem is that the Leafs aren't really in those circumstances. In order to really become contenders the Leafs need to not only maintain the parts of their roster that work, they need to add significant pieces and the reality is that every cap dollar that's poorly distributed hurts their ability to do that. It's one thing to give someone like Marian Hossa too much money or term when Kane and Toews are already on your roster and cost controlled, it's another when you're desperately hoping that an elite player makes it to free agency so you can throw the farm at him.
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
Nope.
bustaheims
Active member
Before Steve Simmons and his loudmouth stupidity took over in today's interview, Tyler Dellow made a pretty good point - there's a Bolland type on the market on a regular basis. Guys like Chris Kelly, Rich Peverley, etc., all play pretty much the same role at a similar level to Bolland. There's a couple similar players available every summer and every trade deadline. He's not an exceptionally hard to replace player, and, if you're not really on the verge of being a Cup contender or already are a Cup contender, there's absolutely no sense in committing significant dollars or term to him - and, without some significant moves, the Leafs aren't on the verge of becoming a Cup contender. Should the time come for the Leafs to really need a Bolland type, there will be Bolland types available for them.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
That was so embarrassing, I agree with Dellow almost 100%.
I think it speaks to the conformity that exists in hockey, one guys says something and 'he's a good hockey guy don't ya know' and it becomes gospel without people really thinking it through.
Perhaps Ho-Sang may be the real deal too...
I think it speaks to the conformity that exists in hockey, one guys says something and 'he's a good hockey guy don't ya know' and it becomes gospel without people really thinking it through.
Perhaps Ho-Sang may be the real deal too...
Kin
New member
bustaheims said:
In addition to that, I think that more and more we're seeing that if you wait until the second week of free agency there are probably really good deals to be had on some of those second tier free agents. I mean, for all the hand-wringing about MacArthur last year Raymond ended up being a much better way to go. I bet Philly and Detroit wish right now that they'd tried to get the deal Washington got on Grabo too.
Honestly, the more we're finding out about that first flurry of free agency, the more and more it's looking like that's a terrible time to do your shopping.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Yeah, that's true, too. Unless you're looking at guys that are really significant pieces - and they tend to be few and far between when it comes to free agency - the better buys come later with under the radar type signings.