Lecavalier Bought Out

[mr grieves]

quick buyout grabbo sign lecavalier and let bozak walk.  Top two centers would be lecavalier and kadri, plus we would have cap space for clarkson.

I'm all for that, but I'd rather get an asset for Grabo leaving town.

I think his trade value is in 'salary dump' territory right now, especially after his playoff (non)-performance.

I don't. I'm sure his value has taken a hit, but I think there is a very good chance he bounces back. Part of it is how RC handles him also, it's not just Grabo's fault either IMO.

Grabovski is way overpaid for what he brings, but his contract is nowhere near the ridiculous levels of the guys that are being bought out right now.  After this upcoming season he only has 3 years left, you can still buy him out next summer if he doesn't bounce back.  Given that I think he still has trade value.

I looked at these numbers when trying to see if Bozak's reported salary demands ($~5.5.m) were that crazy. Here's a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArCjL9v5mNIZdHhpWUlycVNjVWM3ejZJUzE4X0twTmc&usp=sharing

Grabovski's "way overpaid" for what he brought last season -- or, as we defenders believe, what he was put in a position to bring -- but, for his numbers for the 4 years preceding that, he's maybe $.5m overpaid. So, not really overpaid at all.


..... To make that relevant to the present discussion: looks like Vinny (.8+ppg) would only barely be fairly paid at $6-7m. Unless the massive retirement package he just got makes GMs across the league equally disinclined to pay him. Which seems unlikely.

 

[Zee]

quick buyout grabbo sign lecavalier and let bozak walk.  Top two centers would be lecavalier and kadri, plus we would have cap space for clarkson.

I'm all for that, but I'd rather get an asset for Grabo leaving town.

I think his trade value is in 'salary dump' territory right now, especially after his playoff (non)-performance.

I don't. I'm sure his value has taken a hit, but I think there is a very good chance he bounces back. Part of it is how RC handles him also, it's not just Grabo's fault either IMO.

Grabovski is way overpaid for what he brings, but his contract is nowhere near the ridiculous levels of the guys that are being bought out right now.  After this upcoming season he only has 3 years left, you can still buy him out next summer if he doesn't bounce back.  Given that I think he still has trade value.

I looked at these numbers when trying to see if Bozak's reported salary demands ($~5.5.m) were that crazy. Here's a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArCjL9v5mNIZdHhpWUlycVNjVWM3ejZJUzE4X0twTmc&usp=sharing

Grabovski's "way overpaid" for what he brought last season -- or, as we defenders believe, what he was put in a position to bring -- but, for his numbers for the 4 years preceding that, he's maybe $.5m overpaid. So, not really overpaid at all.

You can't look at his numbers from the previous 4 years, say he was underpaid then and call it even.  If he's not going to produce like a 2nd line center he's overpaid at $5.5 million.  His playoffs were miserable, if he doesn't pick it up this year I would be 100% for buying him out.

 

[mr grieves]

quick buyout grabbo sign lecavalier and let bozak walk.  Top two centers would be lecavalier and kadri, plus we would have cap space for clarkson.

I'm all for that, but I'd rather get an asset for Grabo leaving town.

I think his trade value is in 'salary dump' territory right now, especially after his playoff (non)-performance.

I don't. I'm sure his value has taken a hit, but I think there is a very good chance he bounces back. Part of it is how RC handles him also, it's not just Grabo's fault either IMO.

Grabovski is way overpaid for what he brings, but his contract is nowhere near the ridiculous levels of the guys that are being bought out right now.  After this upcoming season he only has 3 years left, you can still buy him out next summer if he doesn't bounce back.  Given that I think he still has trade value.

I looked at these numbers when trying to see if Bozak's reported salary demands ($~5.5.m) were that crazy. Here's a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArCjL9v5mNIZdHhpWUlycVNjVWM3ejZJUzE4X0twTmc&usp=sharing

Grabovski's "way overpaid" for what he brought last season -- or, as we defenders believe, what he was put in a position to bring -- but, for his numbers for the 4 years preceding that, he's maybe $.5m overpaid. So, not really overpaid at all.

You can't look at his numbers from the previous 4 years, say he was underpaid then and call it even.  If he's not going to produce like a 2nd line center he's overpaid at $5.5 million.  His playoffs were miserable, if he doesn't pick it up this year I would be 100% for buying him out.

This is something Nonis should've mentioned to his coach. You can't expect a player to produce like a second line center when you're playing him on the 3rd line.

Edit: And I'm not "calling it even" because he was underpaid the last two years. What I said and linked to the spreadsheet to show is that a 50-60 pt center is not 'overpaid' at $5.5m/season.

 

[Corn Flake]

quick buyout grabbo sign lecavalier and let bozak walk.  Top two centers would be lecavalier and kadri, plus we would have cap space for clarkson.

I'm all for that, but I'd rather get an asset for Grabo leaving town.

I don't think we would/could if we tried to trade him right now.

I bet he bounces back but do you sit on him and take the risk?  I kind of like the Lecavs/Kadri top two theory, then go real hard after David Bolland as the shutdown guy.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

quick buyout grabbo sign lecavalier and let bozak walk.  Top two centers would be lecavalier and kadri, plus we would have cap space for clarkson.

I'm all for that, but I'd rather get an asset for Grabo leaving town.

I don't think we would/could if we tried to trade him right now.

I bet he bounces back but do you sit on him and take the risk?  I kind of like the Lecavs/Kadri top two theory, then go real hard after David Bolland as the shutdown guy.

You'd need to know for certain that LeCavalier is going to sign with your team, doesn't the buyout period end before free agency?

 

[Champ Kind]

quick buyout grabbo sign lecavalier and let bozak walk.  Top two centers would be lecavalier and kadri, plus we would have cap space for clarkson.

I'm all for that, but I'd rather get an asset for Grabo leaving town.

I don't think we would/could if we tried to trade him right now.

I bet he bounces back but do you sit on him and take the risk?  I kind of like the Lecavs/Kadri top two theory, then go real hard after David Bolland as the shutdown guy.

You'd need to know for certain that LeCavalier is going to sign with your team, doesn't the buyout period end before free agency?

*Picking up the phone to call the league office...*

 

[mr grieves]

Quoted from his media availability: "I don't think I want a one year contract, I'd prefer a contract that can bring me to retirement."

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Lecavs dishing to JVR and Kessel on a nightly basis... how does that not strike everyone as an amazing thought??!!  A very legit 1st line now with plenty of size and finally a natural playmaker - something that other than Kadri this team really really needs to improve on.  This also takes HUGE pressure off Kadri to step into that role - one I don't think he should be expected to take on.. not yet anyway.

1st line centre problem solved for the next 3-4 years, at only the cost of a contract.  Leafs can use other means to fix other problem areas vs. spending a boat load of assets on a top centre.

How is this not a good thing??!!

Completely agreed...

Same here. I'd give him whatever he wants.

 

[Bullfrog]

+1. Give him a long term contract and hopefully get a discount on the cap hit. .82 ppg over the last four year? Yes, thank you very much.

 

[Tigger]

Uh, yes please!

 

[Redleaf]

+1. Give him a long term contract and hopefully get a discount on the cap hit. .82 ppg over the last four year? Yes, thank you very much.

I just hope there isn't a big bidding war for him, as I suspect will be the case.

 

[Sudafederov]

On his conference call he mentioned his interest in Detroit, also growing up a Habs fan

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

+1. Give him a long term contract and hopefully get a discount on the cap hit. .82 ppg over the last four year? Yes, thank you very much.

I'd give him 11 years, $85M.

 

[KoHo]

Lecavalier's not scoring 100, or 90, or even 70 points anymore like he once was. There's considerable evidence for decline, he's not who he was in his prime, and stating otherwise is incorrect. Lecavalier's PPG in his age 25-28 seasons was 1.07. His PPG is in three most recent seasons (age 30-33) was .81, quite a large difference. There's your decline that I've repeatedly mentioned, which apparently there's no evidence of.

Except Lecavalier was never a regular 100 or 90 point scorer. He's only ever been above a PPG twice in his entire career and if Lecavalier is on the decline because he's not producing at the exact same rate that he did in two kind of flukey seasons then Stastny is absolutely on the decline and I'd be much more worried about a guy who starts declining at 25 than one who does so at 30.

Again, Lecavalier's points per game the last three years is almost exactly his career average. Mats Sundin only scored 90+ points once with the Leafs when he was 27 and then was "on the decline" for another 10 years of consistently excellent production. Lecavalier has not shown any sort of consistent downward trend the last few years that would indicate a gradually declining ability. Honestly, once you factor in that his ice time and PP ice time has gone down significantly since the days when he was scoring 90+ and 100+ and, yeah, there just isn't the evidence you're talking about.

I mean, I don't know how to break this to you but Lecavalier hasn't been Tampa's #1 center the last few years.

Dude, there's a huge difference between his production in his prime years and the rate he's producing at now. His career PPG is a poor measure to use for this because he had several seasons before his prime where he was still developing his game. I believe it's called a career "arc" for a reason. It's no secret Lecavalier's not the player he once was. Parading around trying to throw cold water on that completely accurate assessment is silly.

Stastny's different because he's six years younger, and therefore is much more likely to turn it around. More importantly, Stastny would only be here on a 1 year contract. If he doesn't pan out this season we can wave him goodbye. If Lecavalier shows he can't play at a high level...we're stuck with him and his declining production for 3 or 4 more years. A #1 centre should be just that, a #1 centre. I don't think "just get someone better than Bozak" is the proper line of thinking to be following.

 

[Kin]

Dude, there's a huge difference between his production in his prime years and the rate he's producing at now. His career PPG is a poor measure to use for this because he had several seasons before his prime where he was still developing his game. I believe it's called a career "arc" for a reason. It's no secret Lecavalier's not the player he once was. Parading around trying to throw cold water on that completely accurate assessment is silly.

But it's a useless point. If "not producing at his peak" is the only measurement for a player being on the decline without accounting for actual differences in the way players are used then, again, Mats Sundin's irrevocable decline started at 22. For the vast majority of his career, even for most of his quote-unquote athletic prime he was a 75 or so point player getting first line minutes. Now he's a 65+ point player getting second line minutes. Trying to pretend that who Vincent Lecavalier is or was is only centered in those two outlying years is sillier than anything I'm doing.

Stastny's different because he's six years younger, and therefore is much more likely to turn it around. More importantly, Stastny would only be here on a 1 year contract.

Stastny would also have an asset cost and a pretty high one. Lecavalier has none. Likewise the Leafs trading for Stastny would next year have to face the choice, even if Stastny does succeed, of deciding whether or not to give him another contract paying him at a #1 centre rate because of good play in a contract year. Trying to present Stastny as the less risky choice in light of those facts is just nonsensical.

If Lecavalier shows he can't play at a high level...we're stuck with him and his declining production for 3 or 4 more years.

Not technically true as the team still has a compliance buyout. If, you know, Lecavalier goes from being a 65+ point second liner to someone who can't play hockey overnight.

A #1 centre should be just that, a #1 centre. I don't think "just get someone better than Bozak" is the proper line of thinking to be following.

That's not all Lecavalier is but regardless, you seem to be confusing "#1 center" with "one of the best players in the league". Scoring 65 points would make someone a legitimate #1 center in the league if they were doing it with #1 minutes. Doing it with #2 minutes is a pretty clear indication that he's capable of scoring 70+ and if you're going to just sit around waiting for someone better than that to fall out of the sky magically to center a top line you're going to be waiting for a long time.

 

[cabber24]

Exciting summer for the Leafs with their cap room it looks like they will be able to make a huge splash via UFA... Vinny, Clarkson and possibly Richards available! I think this team is going to get a whole lot better sooner rather then later!

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I'd give him 11 years, $85M.

;D

 

[KoHo]

Dude, there's a huge difference between his production in his prime years and the rate he's producing at now. His career PPG is a poor measure to use for this because he had several seasons before his prime where he was still developing his game. I believe it's called a career "arc" for a reason. It's no secret Lecavalier's not the player he once was. Parading around trying to throw cold water on that completely accurate assessment is silly.

But it's a useless point. If "not producing at his peak" is the only measurement for a player being on the decline without accounting for actual differences in the way players are used then, again, Mats Sundin's irrevocable decline started at 22. For the vast majority of his career, even for most of his quote-unquote athletic prime he was a 75 or so point player getting first line minutes. Now he's a 65+ point player getting second line minutes. Trying to pretend that who Vincent Lecavalier is or was is only centered in those two outlying years is sillier than anything I'm doing.

Stastny's different because he's six years younger, and therefore is much more likely to turn it around. More importantly, Stastny would only be here on a 1 year contract.

Stastny would also have an asset cost and a pretty high one. Lecavalier has none. Likewise the Leafs trading for Stastny would next year have to face the choice, even if Stastny does succeed, of deciding whether or not to give him another contract paying him at a #1 centre rate because of good play in a contract year. Trying to present Stastny as the less risky choice in light of those facts is just nonsensical.

If Lecavalier shows he can't play at a high level...we're stuck with him and his declining production for 3 or 4 more years.

Not technically true as the team still has a compliance buyout. If, you know, Lecavalier goes from being a 65+ point second liner to someone who can't play hockey overnight.

A #1 centre should be just that, a #1 centre. I don't think "just get someone better than Bozak" is the proper line of thinking to be following.

That's not all Lecavalier is but regardless, you seem to be confusing "#1 center" with "one of the best players in the league". Scoring 65 points would make someone a legitimate #1 center in the league if they were doing it with #1 minutes. Doing it with #2 minutes is a pretty clear indication that he's capable of scoring 70+ and if you're going to just sit around waiting for someone better than that to fall out of the sky magically to center a top line you're going to be waiting for a long time.

I like how you conveniently describe is prime years (age 25-28) as "outlier" years. Give me a break. By saying there's no evidence for Vinny's decline you're simply ignoring the facts. He's not what he once was. Still undoubtedly a good player, but on the wrong side of his career arc. Haven't we already learned it's not a good idea to sign declining players until they're 37 or 28? The Leafs shouldn't be going after a 33 year old and shackling themselves to him with a long-term contract. What are we, the Flyers?

 

[Corn Flake]

I'd give him 11 years, $85M.

;D

Seems low, no?

 

[Zee]

Relax we're not getting Lecavalier.