Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks

[TBLeafer]

Sight unseen, I'm feeling the same way about Andersen as I do about Kadri's role on the team going forward.

I don't think the Leafs should pencil in their goalie as the third line centre.  I get trying to get the first overall pick and all, but they need to be a little less blatant about it.

Excuse me, but I believe he will start the season as the first line centre. With a full cage, he looks a bit like Matthews, so it shouldn't be too obvious.

I see Andersen's fit as a placeholder with the potential to 'play up in the lineup' so to speak. He's not the top-5 in the league championship goaltender that we're going to fully rely on to bail us out of every jam, just as Kadri is not the number 1 centre of the future  that we will rely on to score 50 goals; but they both do a lot of things right and can be relied upon to shepherd the new core into position as they grow into veteran/mentor roles. Despite their age, I see a longevity to the way they play the game.

I agree and thanks for posting the article. 

That is, unless we add Stamkos where Kadri is concerned...

 

[L K]

I agree with the sentiment that a late-bad goal is pretty awful, but playing from behind most games puts a lot more pressure on a team than a late game goal within the individual game itself.  Makes things more taxing even though it might be less demoralizing in the long-run.  I would rather the team be given a chance to potentially build a two goal lead to insulate a bad goal than need to score two goals to win after an almost guaranteed goal in the first 5 minutes of play.

But again, the exaggeration comes into play there. If we went digging through Bernier's tenure with the Leafs realistically what % of games do you think we would find where he gave up a goal in the first 5? Think it would be 50%? 30? 70? My guess is that it's on the low end of that scale. My guess is that if you compare him to most goalies around the league in where he ranks in "bad" goals and quick goals compares roughly to where he ranks just in general.

It's certainly not a case of one guy letting them in all the time and another one never doing it. The truth is going to be in the margins.

Even still, neither of us are sports psychologists and it's not an exact science even if we were. There's a logic to what you're saying but there's just as much logic to saying it's worse for a team to be constantly worried about when a bad goal might occur.

Admittedly, I'm not going to go digging into league scoring to figure out when the first goal of a game is scored.  I was also somewhat surprised to see that it was only in 13 of Bernier's starts that he gave up a goal in the first 5 minutes (well I expanded it a little to include goals scored at 5:40 or less as Pittsburgh did it twice).  Mind you that also occurred over his first 24 games of the season so 13 of 24 really kind of created a biased picture for me the rest of the season.

 

[Misty]

When "wanting to trade one" is due to not wanting to lose him with no return at all, maybe not so much.

The primary thing that's will determine a player's return really has nothing to do with how motivated a seller the team is. It's going to be the level of demand out there. Even in a case like Toronto with Kessel the issue wasn't that Toronto needed to deal him, it's that they only had one bidder.

Somewhat more a balance of supply and demand, adjusted for other factors. Had the Leafs felt it less urgent to address their goaltending, they could have walked away from the deal at any time during the negotiations, or had the Flames wanted him even more, perhaps they could have sweetened the pot. Presumably even there had only been one suitor at this point in time, there would have been a bottom line minimum return that the Ducks would have simply refused to go under and then taken their chances.

With Kessel, it's impossible to know what other teams may or may not have been willing to take him or what they offered. There was probably also a bottom line there, where the Leafs would simply have kept him if they couldn't get enough of a return (I can't imagine they would ever have contemplated buying him out). The only thing we know with any certainty is that the Leafs were prepared to part with him at a specific price, and that the Pens were the team that offered it.

Was the asking price from the Leafs lower than might otherwise have been the case if they'd had no desire at all to move Kessel? Of course. They probably started higher and negotiated down, just like the Pens started lower and negotiated up. The ability to do the deal at all was the balance of factors and the willingness of both sides to agree upon it.

I'd imagine that in the NHL, the number of "kicking the tires" proposals made by motivated sellers or needy buyers vastly outnumbers the actual number of deals that are consummated simply due to a mismatch of perceived values.

 

[gunnar36]

My gut is telling me that this wasn't the right move to make at this time, and historically with past major Leafs moves, my gut has been right.

For those of you that are downplaying the significance and odds of a late first rounder and second rounder panning out, well last time we traded our 30th overall and 39th to Anaheim of all places (2011 in order to move up to 22nd overall and select Biggs) those picks turned out to be Rickard Rakell and John Gibson! If you are good at drafting, picks like that can really count.  For a team that is rebuilding and needs as many young assets as possible, I don't believe there is such a thing as too many draft picks in any given draft.

 

[Kin]

Admittedly, I'm not going to go digging into league scoring to figure out when the first goal of a game is scored.  I was also somewhat surprised to see that it was only in 13 of Bernier's starts that he gave up a goal in the first 5 minutes (well I expanded it a little to include goals scored at 5:40 or less as Pittsburgh did it twice).  Mind you that also occurred over his first 24 games of the season so 13 of 24 really kind of created a biased picture for me the rest of the season.

Beyond just you I think there's an awful lot of recency bias going on here with regards to Bernier. He was not good last year. That said, he got a lot of crap that wasn't his fault. The specific game escapes me(I want to say it was against the Rangers) but one of those early goals I remember distinctly as being on a breakaway where the narrative afterwards was "Bernier letting the team down again".

Bernier wasn't good last year but there's more to him than last year.

 

[Tigger]

Bernier wasn't good last year but there's more to him than last year.

He took the Mandela to heart Nik, I blame you.

 

[Kin]

Somewhat more a balance of supply and demand, adjusted for other factors. Had the Leafs felt it less urgent to address their goaltending, they could have walked away from the deal at any time during the negotiations, or had the Flames wanted him even more, perhaps they could have sweetened the pot. Presumably even there had only been one suitor at this point in time, there would have been a bottom line minimum return that the Ducks would have simply refused to go under and then taken their chances.

Well, sure. Because they didn't have to move him, they could have decided not to.

The problem with the supply half of the equation, at least in this context, so long as there's a real demand for a particular player supply can never outstrip demand. There's only one of each player after all.

With Kessel, it's impossible to know what other teams may or may not have been willing to take him or what they offered.

I don't know if I agree with that. Reporting on the Kessel stuff was good. Yes, we don't know with certainty but if there was another team that made a real serious offer on Kessel it seems hard to believe we could know so much about the Pittsburgh process and not have heard about a competing offer.

 

[Kin]

For those of you that are downplaying the significance and odds of a late first rounder and second rounder panning out, well last time we traded our 30th overall and 39th to Anaheim of all places (2011 in order to move up to 22nd overall and select Biggs) those picks turned out to be Rickard Rakell and John Gibson! If you are good at drafting, picks like that can really count.  For a team that is rebuilding and needs as many young assets as possible, I don't believe there is such a thing as too many draft picks in any given draft.

I agree. There is a little bit of cognitive dissonance going on with the "We have to have faith in Shanahan and his team of geniuses! He chose Andersen, therefore he's going to be great!" teamed up with the "To evaluate the cost of these picks, we have to compare their value to the 30th picks made throughout history."

It's just as reasonable to assume that this group would be better than average at drafting/development as it is to assume they're better than average at pro scouting. Either they're running the team from Mount Olympus or they're not.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Bernier wasn't good last year but there's more to him than last year.

Bernier wasn't even that bad last year. First 11 games his save percentage was .882, which is admittedly awful. But from Dec. 19th and on he played 27 games with a save percentage of .917.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Bernier wasn't good last year but there's more to him than last year.

Bernier wasn't even that bad last year. First 11 games his save percentage was .882, which is admittedly awful. But from Dec. 19th and on he played 27 games with a save percentage of .917.

Recency bias!

Tiny edit: Take away Andersen's poor 11 games Nov/Dec and his SV% was .928 in 32 games.

 

[Kin]

He took the Mandela to heart Nik, I blame you.

Bernier doesn't care if he's sometimes wrong about who historical figures are. He's still going to weigh in on how good they were at hockey. Frankly, he'd rather think Winston Churchill was a great defenseman for Chicago in the 70's than be one of those negative types who nit pick and point out the existence of World War 2.

 

[Misty]

The problem with the supply half of the equation, at least in this context, so long as there's a real demand for a particular player supply can never outstrip demand. There's only one of each player after all.

The supply I was referring to in this context is "signed NHL potential starting goaltenders" of which they had two and only had the ability to reasonably expect to keep one at the end of this season. They could have just as easily kept Andersen and moved Gibson instead, perhaps getting a slightly higher return for the younger but less-proven goalie but then also putting themselves in the position of having to reach some arrangement with Andersen themselves, at a price that would have been higher than Gibson's cost. I would expect they did their due diligence and looked at or even actively explored both alternatives and took the one that best met their internal needs/forecasts/budget and the offers they received. All unknowable at this point, other than the eventual outcome.

I don't know if I agree with that. Reporting on the Kessel stuff was good. Yes, we don't know with certainty but if there was another team that made a real serious offer on Kessel it seems hard to believe we could know so much about the Pittsburgh process and not have heard about a competing offer.

Most clubs aren't going to breathe a word about failed negotiations, least of all the Leafs under Shannahan and even less so once Lou was added. Even getting Lou to talk about the specifics of a successful deal (as Tim & Sid tried to yesterday on this one) is like pulling teeth. I can't imagine there was a complete lack of interest in a multi-time 30+ goal scorer, although I also wouldn't think they were lined up down the street for him.

 

[Tigger]

He took the Mandela to heart Nik, I blame you.

Bernier doesn't care if he's sometimes wrong about who historical figures are. He's still going to weigh in on how good they were at hockey. Frankly, he'd rather think Winston Churchill was a great defenseman for Chicago in the 70's than be one of those negative types who nit pick and point out the existence of World War 2.

If anything, adding colour to Mandela is kinda funny.

 

[Kin]

The supply I was referring to in this context is "signed NHL potential starting goaltenders" of which they had two and only had the ability to reasonably expect to keep one at the end of this season. They could have just as easily kept Andersen and moved Gibson instead, perhaps getting a slightly higher return for the younger but less-proven goalie but then also putting themselves in the position of having to reach some arrangement with Andersen themselves, at a price that would have been higher than Gibson's cost. I would expect they did their due diligence and looked at or even actively explored both alternatives and took the one that best met their internal needs/forecasts/budget and the offers they received. All unknowable at this point, other than the eventual outcome.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I disagree with is the idea that those internal calculations affected the offers they received. If I want to buy an apple off you the issue is how much I want to spend for the apple you're offering me, not how many apples you've got at home.

Most clubs aren't going to breathe a word about failed negotiations, least of all the Leafs under Shannahan and even less so once Lou was added. Even getting Lou to talk about the specifics of a successful deal (as Tim & Sid tried to yesterday on this one) is like pulling teeth. I can't imagine there was a complete lack of interest in a multi-time 30+ goal scorer, although I also wouldn't think they were lined up down the street for him.

The problem there in this case is LL wasn't with the club during the Kessel negotiations and the team was a lot more forthright before he came around. Remember Dubas and how he used to talk to the media? Good times.

But beyond that there's only so much a team can do to stem the flow of information. Why did we know that Pittsburgh was making a hard charge at Kessel a week before the trade got made? Because the guys from Pittsburgh were sitting with the guys from the Leafs at the draft. Reporters might not be the brightest bulbs but they can put 2 and 2 together. If another team had been interested in Kessel and saw all the time the Leafs were spending with Pittsburgh they wouldn't have also stopped by? Think of all the people involved in negotiations like that. Everyone in both front offices. The agents of any players with NTC's who have to be asked to waive(which is probably where we heard about the first Kessel deal falling through). The players themselves. None of those people leak something during a protracted negotiation?

Honestly, the return on Kessel should be all the evidence you need that nobody else made that serious an offer. If they had, the Leafs probably would have taken it. I don't think you can square not believing that anyone else was seriously interested in Kessel with also believing that "being serious in Kessel" wouldn't have resulted in a better offer than Pittsburgh made.

 

[pnjunction]

I cannot believe a last place team traded a 1st and 2nd round pick! Feels like the same old bs!

To be fair the 1st is known 30th it's not potentially top 10 (2nd overall...) so it's not really on the same level as trading our own pick without even knowing where it is like Burke arrogantly did.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I cannot believe a last place team traded a 1st and 2nd round pick! Feels like the same old bs!

To be fair the 1st is known 30th it's not potentially top 10 (2nd overall...) so it's not really on the same level as trading our own pick without even knowing where it is like Burke arrogantly did.

Exactly, it takes a special kind of mental midget not to be able to make this distinction. I mean it's fine if you dislike the trade, but all of the hyperbole about trading these picks is really hilarious.

 

[Misty]

I don't disagree with any of that. What I disagree with is the idea that those internal calculations affected the offers they received. If I want to buy an apple off you the issue is how much I want to spend for the apple you're offering me, not how many apples you've got at home.

Your initial asking price for those apples will be affected by how many of them you have in your warehouse, just as my offer for them will be lower if I know you're sitting on a bunch of them that are going to be rotting and have to be thrown away soon.

The problem there in this case is LL wasn't with the club during the Kessel negotiations and the team was a lot more forthright before he came around. Remember Dubas and how he used to talk to the media? Good times.

But beyond that there's only so much a team can do to stem the flow of information. Why did we know that Pittsburgh was making a hard charge at Kessel a week before the trade got made? Because the guys from Pittsburgh were sitting with the guys from the Leafs at the draft. Reporters might not be the brightest bulbs but they can put 2 and 2 together. If another team had been interested in Kessel and saw all the time the Leafs were spending with Pittsburgh they wouldn't have also stopped by? Think of all the people involved in negotiations like that. Everyone in both front offices. The agents of any players with NTC's who have to be asked to waive(which is probably where we heard about the first Kessel deal falling through). The players themselves. None of those people leak something during a protracted negotiation?

Honestly, the return on Kessel should be all the evidence you need that nobody else made that serious an offer. If they had, the Leafs probably would have taken it. I don't think you can square not believing that anyone else was seriously interested in Kessel with also believing that "being serious in Kessel" wouldn't have resulted in a better offer than Pittsburgh made.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there was a bidding war for him (and concede the point that if there had been, we'd probably have heard about it) but I'd be surprised if at least a few other teams didn't at least explore it a bit before deciding to give it a miss. Everyone knew the Leafs were selling from a weak position, which is why I think it actually supports my original point that being aware of a team's desire to move someone can help reduce the price you have to pay for that asset and also why the fan base wasn't terribly shocked at the return for him.

 

[Kin]

Your initial asking price for those apples will be affected by how many of them you have in your warehouse, just as my offer for them will be lower if I know you're sitting on a bunch of them that are going to be rotting and have to be thrown away soon.

But that's only relevant if you're only negotiating with me. Again, you're not selling multiple apples. You're selling one. And if there are two bidders how many you have at home that you're planning on keeping for yourself is immaterial. So long as you have two customers for one sale item then so long as you're not the world's worst negotiator or in a hurry(and it's clear that Anaheim was willing to wait until they got their asking) demand creates the market price.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there was a bidding war for him (and concede the point that if there had been, we'd probably have heard about it) but I'd be surprised if at least a few other teams didn't at least explore it a bit before deciding to give it a miss.

But that's my point. Exploring it a bit without making a serious offer, without getting into the stage where you're talking with people about it, can't really be seen as a serious interest.

Remember, Kessel had a very limited list of teams he could be dealt to. Most teams were eliminated by that, then more would because they wouldn't be interested and more still because it would never have been realistic cap wise. Once you whittle that list down, you're not really dealing with many options.

 

[maplesyrup]

Hi all... Been a while...

Anyhoo... Can't help but comment on this one.

On the surface, I don't care for the deal... It all feels too... familiar. That said, perhaps recent history should not cloud my judgment here. I suppose there's a decent chance that Andersen works out. And by "works out," I mean he doesn't need to be a star here, right? IMO, hejust needs to be reliable and give these guys a chance to win each night. - That is something that I feel is important to the rebuilding process here. I don't think it can be much fun coming to work every day with a limited chance for success.

To that point, I also suppose that while I question what we gave up in value, if it translates into improved results for the group, so be it. If the others excell as a result, would their own values not get a bump?

I might be trying to talk myself into liking this deal better here... I don't know.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Hi all... Been a while...

Anyhoo... Can't help but comment on this one.

On the surface, I don't care for the deal... It all feels to... familiar. That said, perhaps recent history should not cloud my judgment here. I suppose there's a decent chance that Andersen works out. And by "works out," I mean he doesn't need to be a star here, right? IMO, hejust needs to be reliable and give these guys a chance to win each night. - That is something that I feel is important to the rebuilding process here. I don't think it can be much fun coming to work every day with a limited chance for success.

To that point, I also suppose that while I question what we gave up in value, if it translates into improved results for the group, so be it. If the others excell as a result, would their own values not get a bump?

I might be trying to talk myself into liking this deal better here... I don't know.

I think I'm doing the same thing. Might be working, not sure yet. I'll let you know in January.