Jared McCann is a Leaf [edit: nevermind]

[Peter D.]

Would rather have had McCann, or just lost Kerfoot to the expansion draft and freed up the cap space.

Just because "all it took" to keep the team together prior expansion draft was Hallander and a 7th rounder isn't the way I'm looking at it or approaching it.  I think of all the options they went with, the trade for McCann and ultimately losing him was the least desirable.  Sure, it's the same roster and same amount on the cap, albeit with two smaller assets removed (however you want to look at Hallander) -- I just with the Leafs had left themselves a bit more wiggle room and flexibility money wise through the loss of Kerfoot (or Dermott or Holl). 

 

[Bullfrog]

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would prefer losing someone like Kerfoot for nothing. That's just piss poor asset management.

 

[Kin]

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would prefer losing someone like Kerfoot for nothing. That's just piss poor asset management.

The expansion draft, by its nature, involves losing something for nothing. There was really no way around that. What some people are saying is that losing Kerfoot for nothing was the better outcome than what happened.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would prefer losing someone like Kerfoot for nothing. That's just piss poor asset management.

The expansion draft, by its nature, involves losing something for nothing. There was really no way around that. What some people are saying is that losing Kerfoot for nothing was the better outcome than what happened.

And that's just stupid. Let's give up a guy that actually did well in the playoffs for nothing.

 

[Kin]

And that's just stupid. Let's give up a guy that actually did well in the playoffs for nothing.

No, you're right. Let's be brain surgeons and on a team with no centre depth whatsoever let's lose our #1 C prospect for nothing instead.

See, that's an easy game to play.

 

[Guilt Trip]

And that's just stupid. Let's give up a guy that actually did well in the playoffs for nothing.

No, you're right. Let's be brain surgeons and on a team with no centre depth whatsoever let's lose our #1 C prospect for nothing instead.

See, that's an easy game to play.

Kerfoot is an NHL player...Hallander isn't. Yup easy game to play. 

 

[Kin]

Kerfoot is an NHL player...Hallander isn't.

That's sort of implied by the word "prospect". Draft picks aren't NHL players either but some smart GMs seem to think they're pretty valuable too.

 

[Bullfrog]

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would prefer losing someone like Kerfoot for nothing. That's just piss poor asset management.

The expansion draft, by its nature, involves losing something for nothing. There was really no way around that. What some people are saying is that losing Kerfoot for nothing was the better outcome than what happened.

I get that. I just think that's a poor move because I think Kerfoot is more valuable than Hallander and a 7th.

 

[Kin]

I get that. I just think that's a poor move because I think Kerfoot is more valuable than Hallander and a 7th.

I think it's sort of undeniable that the easiest things to acquire via free agency are middle 6 wingers and, maybe, second pairing defensemen. There is no easy way to acquire good C prospects. So just on that alone I'd lean the other way.

Obviously we're largely dealing in unknowns but the undeniable fact is that Hallander was just effectively dealt straight up for someone who Ron Francis clearly thought was more valuable than Kerfoot so...

 

[Peter D.]

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would prefer losing someone like Kerfoot for nothing. That's just piss poor asset management.

For a team in a cap crunch, I?d rather the cap space than a 3rd liner who should be generally replaceable for cheaper.

You don?t want to lose an asset for nothing, but that?s the nature of the beast with an expansion draft.

 

[L K]

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would prefer losing someone like Kerfoot for nothing. That's just piss poor asset management.

For a team in a cap crunch, I?d rather the cap space than a 3rd liner who should be generally replaceable for cheaper.

You don?t want to lose an asset for nothing, but that?s the nature of the beast with an expansion draft.

As it stands today our roster has 9 million to sign a top 6 forward, a 3C, and 13th forward, a 7th defenseman and a 1AB goalie.

I really just don?t see how we make that work without having a team we aren?t in love with depth wise. 

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/cmhockey66/status/1417613130126004227

 

[wnc096]

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would prefer losing someone like Kerfoot for nothing. That's just piss poor asset management.

For a team in a cap crunch, I?d rather the cap space than a 3rd liner who should be generally replaceable for cheaper.

You don?t want to lose an asset for nothing, but that?s the nature of the beast with an expansion draft.

As it stands today our roster has 9 million to sign a top 6 forward, a 3C, and 13th forward, a 7th defenseman and a 1AB goalie.

I really just don?t see how we make that work without having a team we aren?t in love with depth wise.

Dubas must have some tricks up his sleeve

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/cmhockey66/status/1417613130126004227

I appreciate these stats as much as the next person but if the Leafs replaced Holl with Jon Merrill this fanbase would (rightfully) riot, because regardless of what their GAR is that's a massive downgrade that hurts the team.

 

[herman]

I appreciate these stats as much as the next person but if the Leafs replaced Holl with Jon Merrill this fanbase would (rightfully) riot, because regardless of what their GAR is that's a massive downgrade that hurts the team.

I really don't see any natural UFA options, regardless of optics or GARoptics, that wouldn't be a sizable risk of not working; Muzzin is really good but he's not a magician. I think the discourse around Holl would be a lot more in favour of this move if the fanbase remembered that Holl played through a wrist injury in the back stretch of the season.

https://twitter.com/LeafsAllDayy/status/1382118959525281793

 

[rdowdall]

One of the criticisms that I have heard of the Leafs approach is that with the four big contracts, you can't build a cohesive team because you are constantly having to move parts around them.

However when you look at the actual turnover between last year and this year, the Leafs are really only losing Thornton Hyman and Andersen, and potentially Bogosian.

The main failure of last year's team was in the playoffs and building up some team cohesion where the pain of that failure is felt through a large portion of that team, may actually provide a chance for improvement next year without a radically different team.

I will say though that I do still think they need a Norris calibre player on defence to win the cup and I am not sure how they get that.

 

[bustaheims]

One of the criticisms that I have heard of the Leafs approach is that with the four big contracts, you can't build a cohesive team because you are constantly having to move parts around them.

However when you look at the actual turnover between last year and this year, the Leafs are really only losing Thornton Hyman and Andersen, and potentially Bogosian.

The main failure of last year's team was in the playoffs and building up some team cohesion where the pain of that failure is felt through a large portion of that team, may actually provide a chance for improvement next year without a radically different team.

I will say though that I do still think they need a Norris calibre player on defence to win the cup and I am not sure how they get that.

Upgrades this off-season was always going to be around the supporting cast and along the margins. Without moving one of the big contracts, that's really all that was going to be possible. And, as you say, some cohesion/chemistry throughout the roster can be a good thing, if they learn from their experiences and grow as a team. Past failures can be a great motivator, if they're framed right.