Deadline day thread

[Kin]

The constructive news is that in order to obtain the funds to sign these crazy deals, Dave Nonis, like nearly all GMs, has had to justify to the owners (MLSE board) why they should do these contracts. Over the coming weeks those same owners will be trying to reconcile what Nonis told them to get authorization to do these contracts with these results. It's not going to go well for Dave.

I think it depends on the deal. He'll look bad on Bozak, sure, but I think it would take an awful lot of gumption for anyone on the MLSE board to really look too hard at the Phaneuf or Kessel deals considering what they almost certainly expected of the team being competitive year-to-year.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

The constructive news is that in order to obtain the funds to sign these crazy deals, Dave Nonis, like nearly all GMs, has had to justify to the owners (MLSE board) why they should do these contracts. Over the coming weeks those same owners will be trying to reconcile what Nonis told them to get authorization to do these contracts with these results. It's not going to go well for Dave.

I think it depends on the deal. He'll look bad on Bozak, sure, but I think it would take an awful lot of gumption for anyone on the MLSE board to really look too hard at the Phaneuf or Kessel deals considering what they almost certainly expected of the team being competitive year-to-year.

I think Bozak will be movable in the offseason. Retaining $1M per year (once the Winnik money comes off the books) for the next 3 years should make him very attractive and I wouldn't be surprised to see them get a pretty good return.

Lupul may actually be one of the worst contracts on the team. They'd better hope he remains healthy and performs really well over the next 3 months - 1 year.

It seems, to me anyways, that they'll need to retain salary on Phaneuf, Bozak and Lupul if any deals are to be made (Gunnarson comes off the cap at the end of next season), so I only expect 2 of those to get dealt in the Summer and my money is on Phaneuf and Bozak.

If this re-build is to be of the 3-5 year variety it's important that they try to get more picks for the coming draft.

 

[cw]

The constructive news is that in order to obtain the funds to sign these crazy deals, Dave Nonis, like nearly all GMs, has had to justify to the owners (MLSE board) why they should do these contracts. Over the coming weeks those same owners will be trying to reconcile what Nonis told them to get authorization to do these contracts with these results. It's not going to go well for Dave.

I think it depends on the deal. He'll look bad on Bozak, sure, but I think it would take an awful lot of gumption for anyone on the MLSE board to really look too hard at the Phaneuf or Kessel deals considering what they almost certainly expected of the team being competitive year-to-year.

2012/03/06 Grabovski signs five year $27.5 mil deal

16 months later:
2013/07/04 Grabovski waived for the purposes of buyout
"This was not an easy decision to make as Mikhail made numerous contributions to our hockey club," Leafs general manager Dave Nonis said in a statement. "This is a roster move that will give us salary cap flexibility moving forward."

And Nonis uses that new found "cap flexibility" to sign Clarkson for $35 mil a few days later. The Globe points out the flaws with Nonis' reasoning:
The problem with David Clarkson?s new contract
?I?m not worried about six or seven right now,? Nonis said of the term of the deal. ?I?m worried about one. And Year 1, I know we?re going to have a very good player. I believe that he?s got a lot of good years left in him.?

He well may. It?s even possible Clarkson can turn from something other than a power forward and chip in in other areas later in the contract. The problem with that scenario is that he makes $5.25-million a year, and if he?s not producing 15-plus goals with some physical play thrown in, he?s probably not providing much value at that number.

Clarkson turns 30 next March. Where his falloff comes on this chart will go a long way toward determining if this is a good deal beyond Year 1 or if it becomes another free agent boat anchor (and eventual buyout) for the organization.

18 months after that, like the article suggested might happen,  Nonis goes back to the MLSE board asking the Leafs to eat Horton's remaining $26-30 mil so that Nonis can get rid of Clarkson's "cap flexibility" deal.

A little over a year ago, Nonis signs Phaneuf to a 7 year $49 mil deal. 14 months later, Nonis is trying to dump him and can't find takers unless the Leafs eat $2 mil/yr of that contract.

Kessel ... Bozak .. Lupul ... Gardiner ... contracts

The results of Nonis' core that's contracted for $200+ million to be here 3+ more years ...: can't make the playoffs and can't dump the talent he's signed for picks/prospects.

Ugly. Very hard to defend that record to the MLSE board. He's done.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

cw, I'm with you for the most part, but I don't see any problem with the Gardiner contract. I understand that he's struggled this season but since the coaching change he's one of the few players who seems to be making more of an impact. $4mil for a top-4 defencemen in his prime isn't a bad deal. There also hasn't really been any indication that the Leafs have been trying to move him, but if they decided to I would imagine more than a few teams would pay a fair price for him.

 

[Kin]

A little over a year ago, Nonis signs Phaneuf to a 7 year $49 mil deal. 14 months later, Nonis is trying to dump him and can't find takers unless the Leafs eat $2 mil/yr of that contract.

Kessel ... Bozak .. Lupul ... Gardiner ... contracts

The results of Nonis' core that's contracted to be here 3+ more years ...: can't make the playoffs and can't dump the talent he's signed for picks/prospects.

Ugly. Very hard to defend that record to the MLSE board. He's done.

Well, I disagree with you on a number of fronts relating to the specifics of these things(Nonis wasn't looking to "dump" Phaneuf, he was asking for a very significant return for him) but that's being discussed in a different thread. My point here was more that I think most of those signings are a result of the strategy that the MLSE board insisted upon which relied on building the team through Free-agency and not rebuilding a deeply flawed roster. I don't necessarily think Nonis will be back but I think there would be some major league hypocrisy on display if the MLSE board demanded a GM "re-tool" the club Nonis inherited and then ended up disappointed that they were left with an overpriced, mediocre club.

 

[cw]

cw, I'm with you for the most part, but I don't see any problem with the Gardiner contract. I understand that he's struggled this season but since the coaching change he's one of the few players who seems to be making more of an impact. $4mil for a top-4 defencemen in his prime isn't a bad deal. There also hasn't really been any indication that the Leafs have been trying to move him, but if they decided to I would imagine more than a few teams would pay a fair price for him.

I'm hopeful. I see the obvious talent. But he could still kind of bust ... at $4mil per year. A player getting $4 mil ought to be in a pretty solid place where he's beyond the concern for being a bust/liability - where he's more reliable. He's not there yet. I hope he will get there soon.

 

[cw]

A little over a year ago, Nonis signs Phaneuf to a 7 year $49 mil deal. 14 months later, Nonis is trying to dump him and can't find takers unless the Leafs eat $2 mil/yr of that contract.

Kessel ... Bozak .. Lupul ... Gardiner ... contracts

The results of Nonis' core that's contracted to be here 3+ more years ...: can't make the playoffs and can't dump the talent he's signed for picks/prospects.

Ugly. Very hard to defend that record to the MLSE board. He's done.

Well, I disagree with you on a number of fronts relating to the specifics of these things(Nonis wasn't looking to "dump" Phaneuf, he was asking for a very significant return for him) but that's being discussed in a different thread. My point here was more that I think most of those signings are a result of the strategy that the MLSE board insisted upon which relied on building the team through Free-agency and not rebuilding a deeply flawed roster. I don't necessarily think Nonis will be back but I think there would be some major league hypocrisy on display if the MLSE board demanded a GM "re-tool" the club Nonis inherited and then ended up disappointed that they were left with an overpriced, mediocre club.

Any general manager (even outside sports) always has the option to accept or reject what his ownership is pitching. Burke had that option. So did Nonis. They were both in a position to say "Hey guys, you're moving in the wrong direction" and sell them on that. Managing is getting others to do things for you - including the owners.

If a GM accepts that direction and the paycheque to do it, then he has to accept significant responsibility for the outcome - because he is the guy calling the shots. He's bought into that direction when he cashes his cheque.

So no, I'm not buying this is all the MLSE board's fault. Not a chance. They bear some responsibility but not nearly all of it. They didn't sign Clarkson - Nonis did. They approved the contracts Nonis recommended to them. Nonis bears significant responsibility for where this team finds itself.

 

[bustaheims]

Overall, I was a little disappointed we didn't get more 2015 picks. Basically, the NSH 1st replaced/upgraded the 2nd we gave up to get Bernier and we got am extra 4th from the Pens for Winnick. As 2015 is supposed to be a decent draft, I was hoping to get more 2015 picks.

Honestly, the further you get from the 1st round, the less the quality of the draft varies from year to year. Really, once you get to the backend of the 2nd round, there's practically no difference between most drafts. 2016 is also supposed to be a very deep draft. It's just does have the same star power at the top that 2015 has. Even still, a 5th round pick in 2015 and a 5th round in 2016 are so close in value that, outside of the kid being drafted in 2015 having being a year ahead in development, there's really no difference.

 

[Kin]

Any general manager (even outside sports) always has the option to accept or reject what his ownership is pitching. Burke had that option. So did Nonis. They were both in a position to say "Hey guys, you're moving in the wrong direction" and sell them on that. Managing is getting others to do things for you - including the owners.

If a GM accepts that direction and the paycheque to do it, then he has to accept significant responsibility for the outcome - because he is the guy calling the shots. He's bought into that direction when he cashes his cheque.

I'm not saying otherwise necessarily, I'm saying that the outcome has to be graded on a curve of what could realistically be expected. If the MLSE board is reasonable they'll know that most GM's won't turn down the job they're offering and the high salary that goes with it because of the strategy the board will insist on and accordingly they can't legitimately measure their GM's performance against GM's who weren't operating with a hand tied behind their back. We saw Scotty Bowman himself told to get lost when he tried selling MLSE on a full rebuild so I reject the idea that a "good manager" can talk his bosses out of their ingrained stupidity.

So no, I'm not buying this is all the MLSE board's fault. Not a chance.

Great, nobody is selling that. But you can't pretend for one second that if Nonis had let Phaneuf walk that he wouldn't have been shown the door or immediately pressured to sign a defenseman to make up for the loss which relies on the efficiency of the UFA market which, as we've seen, is a fundamentally terrible way to build a club.

 

[cw]

We saw Scotty Bowman himself told to get lost when he tried selling MLSE on a full rebuild so I reject the idea that a "good manager" can talk his bosses out of their ingrained stupidity.

It certainly wasn't as simple as all that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SITrGgXen6Q

There were issues about his in absentia management plans, the fact that he was 75 years old in 2008 when he was considering the position, the Leafs were looking for a mentor for JFJ at the time - not a replacement and Scotty wanted to replace JFJ and operate like Colangelo, he ticked MLSE off by going on TV and talking about it, etc.

 

[Kin]

There were issues about his in absentia management plans, the fact that he was 75 years old in 2008 when he was considering the position, the Leafs were looking for a mentor for JFJ at the time - not a replacement and Scotty wanted to replace JFJ and operate like Colangelo, he ticked MLSE off by going on TV and talking about it, etc.

I think you may be swallowing their press leaks a little there but regardless, he was selling them on it and as we see from 8 years of nonsense later...it didn't stick.

 

[cw]

So no, I'm not buying this is all the MLSE board's fault. Not a chance.

Great, nobody is selling that.

I think you were spinning it that way.

But you can't pretend for one second that if Nonis had let Phaneuf walk that he wouldn't have been shown the door or immediately pressured to sign a defenseman to make up for the loss which relies on the efficiency of the UFA market which, as we've seen, is a fundamentally terrible way to build a club.

I don't think Nonis would have been shown the door immediately if he didn't do the contract. He could have traded him at the deadline to avoid losing him for nothing. And then used those assets towards building the club like many clubs do when facing a deal they're not comfortable with.

It is up to the GM to analyze the situation and convince (sell) ownership to support what the GM wants to do. The relationship between a GM and a board is not a one way street where every little thing is dictated to him. The typical GM has some sort of a mandate, some autonomy and can determine his destiny to some significant extent.

If and when those things are not present for a GM, they should do what your example, Scotty Bowman did: leave.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

cw, I'm with you for the most part, but I don't see any problem with the Gardiner contract. I understand that he's struggled this season but since the coaching change he's one of the few players who seems to be making more of an impact. $4mil for a top-4 defencemen in his prime isn't a bad deal. There also hasn't really been any indication that the Leafs have been trying to move him, but if they decided to I would imagine more than a few teams would pay a fair price for him.

I'm hopeful. I see the obvious talent. But he could still kind of bust ... at $4mil per year. A player getting $4 mil ought to be in a pretty solid place where he's beyond the concern for being a bust/liability - where he's more reliable. He's not there yet. I hope he will get there soon.

It seems like the past 2 or 3 years, Gardiner has shown a pattern of playing really well in the final third of the season.  But I'm starting to wonder if this is part of his developing, or whether he just can't get it together for most of the year.  It's so hard to tell with this guy.

 

[cw]

There were issues about his in absentia management plans, the fact that he was 75 years old in 2008 when he was considering the position, the Leafs were looking for a mentor for JFJ at the time - not a replacement and Scotty wanted to replace JFJ and operate like Colangelo, he ticked MLSE off by going on TV and talking about it, etc.

I think you may be swallowing their press leaks a little there but regardless, he was selling them on it and as we see from 8 years of nonsense later...it didn't stick.

I have been critical of MLSE ownership for years and years for not doing it.

I was critical of Brian Burke for not fighting harder for it - for accepting a retool when I believe he could have written his own ticket and got a rebuild.

Nonis could have pressed harder for a rebuild when Burke got gassed. Didn't hear a peep.

But none of that excuses Nonis from bad contractual decisions he was responsible for.

 

[Kin]

I think you were spinning it that way.

Nope. He made bad decisions. Clarkson, Bozak...like I said.

I don't think Nonis would have been shown the door immediately if he didn't do the contract.

I didn't say he would. I said he'd either have to do the deal or present a reasonable argument that not signing Phaneuf would lead to a situation where the Leafs would be just as good in the short term. Because that's an impossible argument to make, he couldn't legitimately do it. There was no option to him regarding Phaneuf that would have satisfied his bosses and your expectations for him. None.

Whoever will run the Leafs in the immediate future has leeway to do something drastically different than what Nonis(and Burke and JFJ and Quinn before him) was asked to do. Accordingly, he shouldn't be judged on his ability to properly build a team based on his inability to perform the impossible magic trick that MLSE made the criteria for running their hockey club.

 

[rdowdall]

cw, I'm with you for the most part, but I don't see any problem with the Gardiner contract. I understand that he's struggled this season but since the coaching change he's one of the few players who seems to be making more of an impact. $4mil for a top-4 defencemen in his prime isn't a bad deal. There also hasn't really been any indication that the Leafs have been trying to move him, but if they decided to I would imagine more than a few teams would pay a fair price for him.

I'm hopeful. I see the obvious talent. But he could still kind of bust ... at $4mil per year. A player getting $4 mil ought to be in a pretty solid place where he's beyond the concern for being a bust/liability - where he's more reliable. He's not there yet. I hope he will get there soon.

It seems like the past 2 or 3 years, Gardiner has shown a pattern of playing really well in the final third of the season.  But I'm starting to wonder if this is part of his developing, or whether he just can't get it together for most of the year.  It's so hard to tell with this guy.

Bertuzzi was like that for the first little bit of his career as well.  He finally put it together and became a pretty good player.

 

[Kin]

Nonis could have pressed harder for a rebuild when Burke got gassed. Didn't hear a peep.

The reality is that you have no idea what Nonis did or didn't say in the wake of Burke's firing. I don't either. I'm only inferring what I am based on how the team's been run since MLSE owned the club and the many, many people who've said they wouldn't in any way listen to people who advocated a proper rebuild.

Look, if someone came up to me and said they'd pay me enormous amounts of money to run their company poorly, I'd take the job. I might try to talk them into doing things better but not to the point where I'd leave the job and before you say that it would be the smart thing for me personally because of future employment I'd have faith that another prospective employer would listen to what I told my boss, what my boss expected of me and recognize that my bosses' ridiculous demands didn't actually reflect on my ability to fulfill my new boss' reasonable ones. If they didn't see that then, quite frankly, they'd be as short-sighted as the first bunch of jokers.

 

[rdowdall]

This sort of thing has happened before to.  Look at the Rangers.  Sather started out by trying to build an allstar team and signing players to big contracts, and trading for big contracts, and it just never worked.  After the cap came in to place, he changed his tune somewhat and built a foundation by moving out overpriced players for younger ones, like Gomez. 

I think people should temper their expectations on what the Leafs are going to get for Phanuef.  It probably isn't going to be earth shattering as he is being paid for something he is not, namely a #1 defenceman.

Kessel on the other hand should get you more as he is being paid to score goals, and his track record of doing that is pretty consistent.  This year may be an aberration or it may be the beginning of the end, but I think they can sell the aberration angle as the effects of being on a bad team. 

 

[cw]

I think you were spinning it that way.

Nope. He made bad decisions. Clarkson, Bozak...like I said.

I don't think Nonis would have been shown the door immediately if he didn't do the contract.

I didn't say he would. I said he'd either have to do the deal or present a reasonable argument that not signing Phaneuf would lead to a situation where the Leafs would be just as good in the short term.

Here's your position:

But you can't pretend for one second that if Nonis had let Phaneuf walk that he wouldn't have been shown the door or immediately pressured to sign a defenseman to make up for the loss which relies on the efficiency of the UFA market which, as we've seen, is a fundamentally terrible way to build a club.

In "red", sign immediately
In "purple", or else be shown the door

That is your quoted position.

Because that's an impossible argument to make, he couldn't legitimately do it. There was no option to him regarding Phaneuf that would have satisfied his bosses and your expectations for him. None.

And you go on to suggest it was Nonis' only option. Which is merely your opinion not shared by me and it isn't a statement of fact.

Whoever will run the Leafs in the immediate future has leeway to do something drastically different than what Nonis(and Burke and JFJ and Quinn before him) was asked to do. Accordingly, he shouldn't be judged on his ability to properly build a team based on his inability to perform the impossible magic trick that MLSE made the criteria for running their hockey club.

I think the GM has an opportunity. The GM has ownership as an audience. He can present arguments for what he thinks the best thing for the company to do and why.

We see employees coming up with ideas for their managers all the time. When they make a compelling argument or come up with an idea presented in such a way that the manager perceives it as a good one, the idea gets implemented.

It's no different for the GM. It is part of his job as the expert manager running the business to help educate his ownership on the best way that business is to be run. That is a part of what a good general manager does. Always has been and always will be. He's not a mindless minion merely taking orders if he's any good at his job. And that is  particularly significant in hockey because the vast, vast majority of owners have little hands on expertise in running a hockey team and getting it to win a championship.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

cw, I'm with you for the most part, but I don't see any problem with the Gardiner contract. I understand that he's struggled this season but since the coaching change he's one of the few players who seems to be making more of an impact. $4mil for a top-4 defencemen in his prime isn't a bad deal. There also hasn't really been any indication that the Leafs have been trying to move him, but if they decided to I would imagine more than a few teams would pay a fair price for him.

I'm hopeful. I see the obvious talent. But he could still kind of bust ... at $4mil per year. A player getting $4 mil ought to be in a pretty solid place where he's beyond the concern for being a bust/liability - where he's more reliable. He's not there yet. I hope he will get there soon.

It seems like the past 2 or 3 years, Gardiner has shown a pattern of playing really well in the final third of the season.  But I'm starting to wonder if this is part of his developing, or whether he just can't get it together for most of the year.  It's so hard to tell with this guy.

Well I don't think it's a coincidence that both Rielly and Gardiner look much, much better since Carlyle has been gone.  Hopefully whoever is next Leafs coach recognizes that those 2 bring an extremely valuable skill to the table (namely, skating the puck out of the d-zone into the o-zone) and let them do what they do best.

Also apparently Steve Staios has had a big impact on those two as well.