Kadri and Franson Contract Updates

[Corn Flake]

Ranger, Reilly and Percy are 3 others who could impress enough in camp to make Franson's hold out even less impactful.

Brennan, as well. And, potentially someone like Blacker or, if the team wants to go in a little different direction, Granberg.

Granberg did not have a good rookie tournament. I counted 3 blatant giveaways right in front of his goalie. Probably just adjusting to the smaller rink, but he doesn't look ready to step in quite yet.

Yeah I'm going through the games now on PVR and Granberg looks very very raw. You can see the skill is there and obviously the size, but he has a looooong way to go before he's NHL ready.

Probably the wrong thread for this, but which prospects stood out for you?

I haven't watched all of the games yet... only halfway through the first one but so far:

- Biggs' skating has improved significantly. His lateral and ability to pivot while adding speed on the turn is night and day from what it was last time I saw him (WJC's).

-Gauthier was a man among boys. Still some raw to him but boy oh boy is there a lot going on there. He could be the full package.. just a question of whether he has the finish to be a legit top six. haven't seen enough yet.

- Finn is underrated in just about every possible way. Kind if in the shadow of Rielly. Mobility and offensive acumen are crazy good. Reminds me of Ian White.

More later.

 

[moon111]

I think Randy Carlyle knows defensemen.  Looking at ice-time per game, Franson was given the 7th and 8th most among defensemen on even-strength and penalty-killing.  He's big, hits, has offense.  I don't think RC can fully trust him in all situations and therefore shouldn't be expecting huge bucks.

 

[mr grieves]

I think Randy Carlyle knows defensemen.  Looking at ice-time per game, Franson was given the 7th and 8th most among defensemen on even-strength and penalty-killing.  He's big, hits, has offense.  I don't think RC can fully trust him in all situations and therefore shouldn't be expecting huge bucks.

Same Randy Carlyle who played Holzer on the top pair? Then Kosta? And Kosta again in the first game of the playoffs? That guy?

 

[Kessel Run]

Hmm interesting Dreger is saying the Leafs want 2 years for Franson to avoid so many expiring contracts, but he wants 1 year. If he's willing to sign and fit under the cap right now for 1 year, why not do it? You still have another year to negotiate, and also a better body of work to draw from.

 

[moon111]

I think Randy Carlyle knows defensemen.  Looking at ice-time per game, Franson was given the 7th and 8th most among defensemen on even-strength and penalty-killing.  He's big, hits, has offense.  I don't think RC can fully trust him in all situations and therefore shouldn't be expecting huge bucks.

Same Randy Carlyle who played Holzer on the top pair? Then Kosta? And Kosta again in the first game of the playoffs? That guy?

The Leafs goal-against was terrible, Reimer's career looked like it could be over.  Randy Carlyle implemented a more defensive approach.  Paired one offensive defenseman with one defensive.  Who else fills that role?  Schenn gone, Komisarek no good, the pickings were slim.  Gardiner had 70+ giveaways and needed to polish up his game.  Carlyle's responsible for the reduction in goals-against.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think Randy Carlyle knows defensemen.  Looking at ice-time per game, Franson was given the 7th and 8th most among defensemen on even-strength and penalty-killing.  He's big, hits, has offense.  I don't think RC can fully trust him in all situations and therefore shouldn't be expecting huge bucks.

Same Randy Carlyle who played Holzer on the top pair? Then Kosta? And Kosta again in the first game of the playoffs? That guy?

The Leafs goal-against was terrible, Reimer's career looked like it could be over.  Randy Carlyle implemented a more defensive approach.  Paired one offensive defenseman with one defensive.  Who else fills that role?  Schenn gone, Komisarek no good, the pickings were slim.  Gardiner had 70+ giveaways and needed to polish up his game.  Carlyle's responsible for the reduction in goals-against.

I'm fairly certain that had more to do with Reimer having a concussion than anything else considering he put up similar stats two years ago under Ron Wilson.

 

[bustaheims]

DarrenDreger: Some offer sheet speculation on Cody Franson. Anything above $3.3 mil pretty sure Tor would take the 1rst rnd pick. Anything under...match.

 

[mr grieves]

I think Randy Carlyle knows defensemen.  Looking at ice-time per game, Franson was given the 7th and 8th most among defensemen on even-strength and penalty-killing.  He's big, hits, has offense.  I don't think RC can fully trust him in all situations and therefore shouldn't be expecting huge bucks.

Same Randy Carlyle who played Holzer on the top pair? Then Kosta? And Kosta again in the first game of the playoffs? That guy?

The Leafs goal-against was terrible, Reimer's career looked like it could be over.  Randy Carlyle implemented a more defensive approach.  Paired one offensive defenseman with one defensive.  Who else fills that role?  Schenn gone, Komisarek no good, the pickings were slim.  Gardiner had 70+ giveaways and needed to polish up his game.  Carlyle's responsible for the reduction in goals-against.

On the bolded, you need to have the puck to give it away. There's plenty of evidence that the worst offenders at 'giveaways' are the players that make their team's transition and offense go. That should tell you plenty about how useful that stat is.

As for "Carlyle's responsible for the reduction in goals-against" -- more likely a combination of his collapse-and-push-em-to-outside coaching and, you know, having a pretty excellent goaltender.

The one offensive defenseman and one defensive, who couldn't move the puck up ice, was disastrous when attempted against Boston. Sometimes it's your best players that give you the best chance to win.

Whatever. The individual points I can take one at a time and disagree with. But we should go back to the bigger picture: the Randy Carlyle that "knows defensemen" spent most of last season horrifying observers with his commitment to Kosta, Fraser, and Holzer -- guys who follow direction and are coachable, but leave your team chasing the puck around its own zone for long stretches.

 

[TML fan]

I think Randy Carlyle knows defensemen.  Looking at ice-time per game, Franson was given the 7th and 8th most among defensemen on even-strength and penalty-killing.  He's big, hits, has offense.  I don't think RC can fully trust him in all situations and therefore shouldn't be expecting huge bucks.

Same Randy Carlyle who played Holzer on the top pair? Then Kosta? And Kosta again in the first game of the playoffs? That guy?

Gunnarsson played pretty much the entire season hurt. His options were extremely limited.

 

[Kin]

On the bolded, you need to have the puck to give it away. There's plenty of evidence that the worst offenders at 'giveaways' are the players that make their team's transition and offense go. That should tell you plenty about how useful that stat is.

It's not that black and white. If you look at lists of league leaders in giveaways you see examples of very good offensive players, yes, but you also see examples of guys who can't be remotely accused of that. Luke Schenn, for instance, was 20th in 08-09 and 3rd in the league in 2010-2011 and I think we can agree that it wasn't because of how much the Leafs relied on his contribution to the team's offense or transition game.

So it's a problematic stat but not an entirely invalid one. I think one of the problems with it is what plagues a lot of defensive analysis wherein while we all accept that a good offensive player's points can vary pretty healthily from one year to the next because of various outside influences we tend to think of defensive ability as an immutable constant. I think that what looking at that stat can tell us is how a player might vary year to year defensively because while you do see some familiar faces at the top of that list there is a lot of turnover.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Whatever. The individual points I can take one at a time and disagree with. But we should go back to the bigger picture: the Randy Carlyle that "knows defensemen" spent most of last season horrifying observers with his commitment to Kosta, Fraser, and Holzer -- guys who follow direction and are coachable, but leave your team chasing the puck around its own zone for long stretches.

Observers were horrified or you were horrified?

Fraser played the entire season as a number 6 dman. Kostka started out very, very well. Most here wanted Holzer on the team to start the season and did only get 22 games so it's not like he had him out there night after night. Like it's been said, his options were limited as Gunnarsson was injured for a good portion of the year and couldn't play the minutes he's generally counted on to play.

Besides, like you said, it's all about whether or not Carlyle knows defensemen. And I'm sorry, I'll take the decisions of a Stanley Cup winning coach and pretty damn good defensemen than I will of a guy on a message board. I'm still not 100% sure you're not Grabovski

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

If you're just going to appeal to authority then you might as well never question anything an NHL team does.

 

[Fanatic]

I think Franson and the Leafs are in a tough spot because of the cap. I am not sure where others stand on him, but I think he is worth more than a 1st rounder. I would really like to see Toronto lock him up and be able to keep him.

 

[Redleaf]

I think Franson and the Leafs are in a tough spot because of the cap. I am not sure where others stand on him, but I think he is worth more than a 1st rounder. I would really like to see Toronto lock him up and be able to keep him.

I think those goals from the point , among other things, will be greatly missed if he isn't signed by Toronto. I believe he is a bigger part of the success the Leafs had last season than many want to believe. I really hope he gets inked soon. A mid to late round 1st for him would be a disaster. A top 5 pick would be a gamble. Keeping him would be a sure thing.

 

[AvroArrow]

I think those goals from the point , among other things, will be greatly missed if he isn't signed by Toronto. I believe he is a bigger part of the success the Leafs had last season than many want to believe. I really hope he gets inked soon. A mid to late round 1st for him would be a disaster. A top 5 pick would be a gamble. Keeping him would be a sure thing.

I echo RedLeaf's sentiments.

 

[Bill_Berg]

It'd be interesting to get a better grasp on the numbers here because I do sort of feel that Franson's season earned him a pretty good raise but on the other hand I would completely understand MLSE only wanting to sign a one or two year deal.

Franson has been signing these short, bridge-like contracts for a while now and is putting his foot down this time.

He had his entry level contract, then in 2010 a 2-year 1.6 mill contract, and in 2012 a 1-year 1.2 million contract. After three contracts, his entry level contract is the longest one.

Can't wait to see what happens.

Sure, but I think it's a little misleading to call his other contracts bridge deals when he's never really played like he deserved a long term extension until this year. He was a marginal player until last year and signed deals that reflect that.

I suppose the term 'bridge' is a bit misleading itself. Bridge to what? Maybe it's better to say that he's likely putting his foot down on the length of the contract. I can understand his frustration if the Leafs aren't looking to sign him to something longer than a year or two.  A 4-year 3-3.5 million dollar contract doesn't seem out of place here. Of course the Leafs have no cap room for that.

And yes, last year was a break-out year of sorts, but he has improved every year since he started in the league and it seemed to me that he didn't get a fair shake in 2011-2012, playing time wise.

 

[Champ Kind]

If you're just going to appeal to authority then you might as well never question anything an NHL team does.

You're exagerrating what was said.  The context is that pickings were slim and, within ahat constrained environment, Carlyle made what some believe were poor chopices and what others believe were good ones.  I tend to think that at least two defensemen blossomed under his coaching - Franson and Fraser - and another, Phaneuf, played better than he had in the past few years.  And, more importantly, the team had a successful year, for which RC has to be given at least some credit.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

If you're just going to appeal to authority then you might as well never question anything an NHL team does.

You're exagerrating what was said.  The context is that pickings were slim and, within ahat constrained environment, Carlyle made what some believe were poor chopices and what others believe were good ones.  I tend to think that at least two defensemen blossomed under his coaching - Franson and Fraser - and another, Phaneuf, played better than he had in the past few years.  And, more importantly, the team had a successful year, for which RC has to be given at least some credit.

How am I exaggerating what was said?

And I'm sorry, I'll take the decisions of a Stanley Cup winning coach and pretty damn good defensemen than I will of a guy on a message board.

That looks like an appeal to authority to me.

 

[Champ Kind]

If you're just going to appeal to authority then you might as well never question anything an NHL team does.

You're exagerrating what was said.  The context is that pickings were slim and, within ahat constrained environment, Carlyle made what some believe were poor chopices and what others believe were good ones.  I tend to think that at least two defensemen blossomed under his coaching - Franson and Fraser - and another, Phaneuf, played better than he had in the past few years.  And, more importantly, the team had a successful year, for which RC has to be given at least some credit.

How am I exaggerating what was said?

And I'm sorry, I'll take the decisions of a Stanley Cup winning coach and pretty damn good defensemen than I will of a guy on a message board.

That looks like an appeal to authority to me.

Well, when you put it THAT way....

Look, I can't speak for OTH, but my impresion is that some point to Carlyle's use of Kostka and Holzer - and Orr and McLaren - as a clear indication of incompetance, lack of smarts, or dimentia.  I don't see it that way.  And, yes, sure, we're free to criticise and debate - that's why we visit this forum, right? - but I do think the Monday Morning quarterbacking by some (not specifically referring to you) comes on pretty strong around here at times.  The coaching and management staff see the guys in practice, in the gym, in the dressing room, and are basing decisions on the total package and not the 60 minutes we watch them two or three times a week.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

If you're just going to appeal to authority then you might as well never question anything an NHL team does.

You're exagerrating what was said.  The context is that pickings were slim and, within ahat constrained environment, Carlyle made what some believe were poor chopices and what others believe were good ones.  I tend to think that at least two defensemen blossomed under his coaching - Franson and Fraser - and another, Phaneuf, played better than he had in the past few years.  And, more importantly, the team had a successful year, for which RC has to be given at least some credit.

How am I exaggerating what was said?

And I'm sorry, I'll take the decisions of a Stanley Cup winning coach and pretty damn good defensemen than I will of a guy on a message board.

That looks like an appeal to authority to me.

Well, when you put it THAT way....

Look, I can't speak for OTH, but my impresion is that some point to Carlyle's use of Kostka and Holzer - and Orr and McLaren - as a clear indication of incompetance, lack of smarts, or dimentia.  I don't see it that way.  And, yes, sure, we're free to criticise and debate - that's why we visit this forum, right? - but I do think the Monday Morning quarterbacking by some (not specifically referring to you) comes on pretty strong around here at times.  The coaching and management staff see the guys in practice, in the gym, in the dressing room, and are basing decisions on the total package and not the 60 minutes we watch them two or three times a week.

But whatever goes on in the dressing room or in practice doesn't really have relevance if the player is consistently underperforming during games. 

I think everyone here understands that when we're discussing players/management/etc there's an understanding of the limits of our insight and that the critiques are limited to the information we have available to us.