Ranking Prospects

[Bender]

Kadri is #4

Reminding us why a 'shot' at another shiny new toy like Nylander or Marner doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

That Kadri's really good -- elite in some ways -- and chucking a really good player that you've drafted and developed, who'll still be very good when you want your team to be good, for the chance to draft another really good player to develop seems... hasty? Pointless? I mean, until he's really tried out in the 1C role, seems trading him away would be Steen Redux.

We can still have another shot at the draft even with him in the lineup. But the time will come when you have to evaluate whether he will be valuable when we are competitive or if we should turn over the roster.

 

[Frank E]

Kadri is #4

Reminding us why a 'shot' at another shiny new toy like Nylander or Marner doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

That Kadri's really good -- elite in some ways -- and chucking a really good player that you've drafted and developed, who'll still be very good when you want your team to be good, for the chance to draft another really good player to draft and develop seems... hasty? Pointless? I mean, until he's really tried out in the 1C role, seems trading him away would be Steen Redux.

I've argued this for a while here, but I think it's a timing/cap issue with Kadri and Gardiner.

Like they'll be earning max-dollars in their prime within the next few years, and that production and cap $ wouldn't be very well spent given the core of the talent won't be properly productive until 2019-2020.

It's not a comment on Kadri's development or future production, it's more about what you could fetch for him right now that could develop into Kadri 2.0 timed with the rest of the talented core.  At that point, you maintain enough cap room so that you can look at adding FA's to supplement your core.

 

[Kin]

I've argued this for a while here, but I think it's a timing/cap issue with Kadri and Gardiner.

Like they'll be earning max-dollars in their prime within the next few years, and that production and cap $ wouldn't be very well spent given the core of the talent won't be properly productive until 2019-2020.

It's not a comment on Kadri's development or future production, it's more about what you could fetch for him right now that could develop into Kadri 2.0 timed with the rest of the talented core.  At that point, you maintain enough cap room so that you can look at adding FA's to supplement your core.

I think it's some pretty simple math. Will having Kadri on the team over the next few years mean anything? Not really. When the Leafs get good again will an older Kadri provide anything vital? Honestly, you hope they have at least a few centers on his level or better.

So the actual benefits to signing him to the sort of long-term deal that would be needed to keep him around that long seem pretty small.

 

[herman]

Kadri is #4

Reminding us why a 'shot' at another shiny new toy like Nylander or Marner doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

That Kadri's really good -- elite in some ways -- and chucking a really good player that you've drafted and developed, who'll still be very good when you want your team to be good, for the chance to draft another really good player to draft and develop seems... hasty? Pointless? I mean, until he's really tried out in the 1C role, seems trading him away would be Steen Redux.

I've argued this for a while here, but I think it's a timing/cap issue with Kadri and Gardiner.

Like they'll be earning max-dollars in their prime within the next few years, and that production and cap $ wouldn't be very well spent given the core of the talent won't be properly productive until 2019-2020.

It's not a comment on Kadri's development or future production, it's more about what you could fetch for him right now that could develop into Kadri 2.0 timed with the rest of the talented core.  At that point, you maintain enough cap room so that you can look at adding FA's to supplement your core.

I hear what you're saying, mr grieves, and for such an elite player, I'd wholeheartedly agree.

I see Kadri as being just short of his peak, on a really good contract with a very good opportunity coming up this year to shine as the go-to guy. Gardiner and JvR as well. Are they the untouchable core of a championship-calibre team though? Ehhh...

By my (admittedly inexpert) assessment of their play and projections, they're more valuable to me as top dollar trade chips than as roster players at this time. All three of them are going to hit pay dirt on their next contracts and I'd rather have the cap flexibility.

 

[ZBBM]

Just a housekeeping observation: judging from the activity in this thread, and the deadness of the threads on the main board, I wonder if the prospects talk shouldn't be moved to the main board?  The prospects are going to be vastly more interesting than the actual team for at least a couple of years.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I see Kadri as potential trade deadline bait. 

(His one year extension will soon thereafter expire and giving him his desired long-term contract will no doubt be put in question).

If the Leafs let Kadri go, they risk losing out.  If they keep him long-term, there may be questions marks (depending on in which direction the team decides to proceed with it's stock of talent).  If he's traded for future draft prospects (perhaps together with some other player), the return should be favourable.

So, where's Kadri gonna be -- continuuing as a Leaf, or, an eventual goner?

Personally-speaking, I like Kadri and what he brings to his game.  Long-term, he can be a 'mentor' to the younger players on the team, having been a draft pick himself and having gone through the rigors of what it takes to make the team and to playin the league.

 

[mr grieves]

Kadri is #4

Reminding us why a 'shot' at another shiny new toy like Nylander or Marner doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

That Kadri's really good -- elite in some ways -- and chucking a really good player that you've drafted and developed, who'll still be very good when you want your team to be good, for the chance to draft another really good player to develop seems... hasty? Pointless? I mean, until he's really tried out in the 1C role, seems trading him away would be Steen Redux.

We can still have another shot at the draft even with him in the lineup. But the time will come when you have to evaluate whether he will be valuable when we are competitive or if we should turn over the roster.

Sure, and my argument with the original post was the proposed timeframe of "in a heartbeat." The time you're talking about hasn't yet come -- need to see how he does in a greater role, how his next contract is looking, etc. I expect this year will be about seeing if Kadri's as good as those advanced stats suggest, if he can become a leader on the team over the next few years. It wouldn't be bad to have someone in that role who came up through the organization (beats trying to buy 'leadership' on the UFA market...). And even then, if the contract demands exceed the value wildly -- yeah, move him. But the fact that he won't be an RFA forever doesn't, on its face, bother me.

My underlying discomfort is with this idea of planning to be horrible to the extent that it becomes self-defeating. I think good teams hold on to the good players they develop, and don't go out of their way to sustain terribleness. After all, the Blackhawks had a mid-20s Patrick Sharp on their roster the season they drafted Toews, the one before they drafted Kane.

 

[Frank E]

Patrick Sharp was a 25 year old former 3rd round pick, making $500K, and a  fringe NHLer when the Hawks acquired him for peanuts from the Flyers 10 years ago.

Not a Kadri comparable situation at all.  Patrick Sharp wasn't worth then what Kadri will be worth this season.

Kadri could net you significant assets that could help this rebuild keep moving in the right direction, and really, the Leafs don't have too many of those kinds of guys right now.

EDIT:..and furthermore, the Hawks also drafted Skille at #7, and Kyle Beach at #11 in the past 10 years.  The Leafs are likely going to draft some duds as well.  They also got into a cap problem, and reluctantly traded away Byfuglien along with a couple of guys (Sopel and Eager) for picks just to dump some cap.  And to get to some of these cups, they had to sign some expensive guys to cap-circumvention deals to make it work. 

It's why I've argued that this tear-down and rebuild needs to be moving more quickly here.

 

[herman]

Sure, and my argument with the original post was the proposed timeframe of "in a heartbeat." The time you're talking about hasn't yet come -- need to see how he does in a greater role, how his next contract is looking, etc. I expect this year will be about seeing if Kadri's as good as those advanced stats suggest, if he can become a leader on the team over the next few years. It wouldn't be bad to have someone in that role who came up through the organization (beats trying to buy 'leadership' on the UFA market...). And even then, if the contract demands exceed the value wildly -- yeah, move him. But the fact that he won't be an RFA forever doesn't, on its face, bother me.

My underlying discomfort is with this idea of planning to be horrible to the extent that it becomes self-defeating. I think good teams hold on to the good players they develop, and don't go out of their way to sustain terribleness. After all, the Blackhawks had a mid-20s Patrick Sharp on their roster the season they drafted Toews, the one before they drafted Kane.

Looking at the rest of the roster, is hanging on to Kadri going to net us a championship? Or does he have more value to a team that is not looking to compete for a championship in the next two years as a tradechip to net a 1st Rd + prospect + cap space?

Kadri is not Toews/Stamkos/Taveres elite. I think he's really good, and I like him on the team, but he is not in the conversation of top 1Cs in the league, and he certainly will not be when we're truly driving for the Cup 3+ years from now.

I agree with the principle of what you're saying, just not as it relates to Kadri. Using PPP's ranking to demonstrate that Kadri is the type of elite player you pay all the moneys to is confusing to me.

 

[bustaheims]

It's why I've argued that this tear-down and rebuild needs to be moving more quickly here.

And, it will. It just didn't all have to get done this summer. There's really not a whole lot of difference between a trade getting done in July and one getting done at the trade deadline. In fact, the returns will likely be better at the deadline. Moving Kessel was really the only pressing move. That would have been an unnecessary distraction. If it takes a couple seasons to get it all done, that's fine. That's a pretty good timeline to make it happen.

 

[Kin]

My underlying discomfort is with this idea of planning to be horrible to the extent that it becomes self-defeating. I think good teams hold on to the good players they develop, and don't go out of their way to sustain terribleness. After all, the Blackhawks had a mid-20s Patrick Sharp on their roster the season they drafted Toews, the one before they drafted Kane.

But, again, that was when the Blackhawks were near the end of the process, not at the beginning. The 2003-2004 Blackhawks had 4 players who were under 25 and who scored 20+ goals. Not a single one of them would be on the team when they made it back to the playoffs in 08-09. The Blackhawks, when they were beginning to rebuild, traded a lot of promising young players off the team.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

But, again, that was when the Blackhawks were near the end of the process, not at the beginning. The 2003-2004 Blackhawks had 4 players who were under 25 and who scored 20+ goals. Not a single one of them would be on the team when they made it back to the playoffs in 08-09. The Blackhawks, when they were beginning to rebuild, traded a lot of promising young players off the team.

Most of those players that you mentioned were basically out of the NHL by the time Chicago made it back to the playoffs though. Tuomo Ruutu was the only one who stuck in the NHL and he was also the only one that was traded for anything noteworthy. So I'm really not sure you could compare those guys to Gardiner and Kadri. I wouldn't trade either of them for the combined returns of Arnason/Bell/Calder.

I don't think the 08/09 Blackhawks having basically nobody over the age of 25 was part of some master plan. Their drafting and development was just pretty putrid in the years prior to their Toews/Kane coming along and they didn't have any legit impact NHLers in those years. They weren't trading Kadri/Gardiner types away, they were trading guys like Stajan and Ponikarovsky.

 

[Kin]

Most of those players that you mentioned were basically out of the NHL by the time Chicago made it back to the playoffs though. Tuomo Ruutu was the only one who stuck in the NHL and he was also the only one that was traded for anything noteworthy. So I'm really not sure you could compare those guys to Gardiner and Kadri. I wouldn't trade either of them for the combined returns of Arnason/Bell/Calder.

I don't really see that as being a rebuttal to anything I said though. Bell was a pretty high draft pick(8th over all coincidentally) so I don't think that Chicago knew that he'd flame out the way he did. Unless, of course, the off-ice problems that did eventually derail Bell's career were ones that the Blackhawks were aware of and tried to deal with.

Although, you know, not that that has any relevance to the situation here. 

I don't think the 08/09 Blackhawks having basically nobody over the age of 25 was part of some master plan. Their drafting and development was just pretty putrid in the years prior to their Toews/Kane coming along and they didn't have any legit impact NHLers in those years. They weren't trading Kadri/Gardiner types away, they were trading guys like Stajan and Ponikarovsky.

I think that's chiefly said with the benefit of hindsight though. These were young players having pretty good years and the extent to which Kadri or Gardner are "impact" NHL players is pretty debatable.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

But you can look at their trade returns to get a good idea as to how they valued those players or what Chicago's thinking was then they dealt them. Arnason was moved for a 2nd rounder and a 24-year old AHL scoring stud. Bell and Calder were both actually moved for older players (Havlat, Smolinski, Handzus). Havlat was a big part of their first playoff appearance and Handzus probably would have been if it wasn't for a freak injury that limited him to just 8 games as a Hawk.

Based on those moves I just don't think that those guys were traded for the same reason that some want Kadri and Gardiner moved. Especially since two of them were traded for older, established NHL forwards and the idea behind moving Kadri and Gardiner is largely based around the idea that they're too old.

 

[Kin]

But you can look at their trade returns to get a good idea as to how they valued those players or what Chicago's thinking was then they dealt them. Arnason was moved for a 2nd rounder and a 24-year old AHL scoring stud. Bell and Calder were both actually moved for older players (Havlat, Smolinski, Handzus). Havlat was a big part of their first playoff appearance and Handzus probably would have been if it wasn't for a freak injury that limited him to just 8 games as a Hawk.

Based on those moves I just don't think that those guys were traded for the same reason that some want Kadri and Gardiner moved. Especially since two of them were traded for older, established NHL forwards and the idea behind moving Kadri and Gardiner is largely based around the idea that they're too old.

Then are you referring to people who want to move those guys because they think the returns on them will be super high and contribute heavily to the rebuild? Because I'm referring to the people who want them moved primarily so the team can bottom out and add players who, hopefully, will be on a comparable level to Toews and Kane and the return the Blackhawks got on those guys seem like a pretty clear indication that despite whatever promise they may have had they wanted them gone so they could bottom out as efficiently as possible.

 

[herman]

But you can look at their trade returns to get a good idea as to how they valued those players or what Chicago's thinking was then they dealt them. Arnason was moved for a 2nd rounder and a 24-year old AHL scoring stud. Bell and Calder were both actually moved for older players (Havlat, Smolinski, Handzus). Havlat was a big part of their first playoff appearance and Handzus probably would have been if it wasn't for a freak injury that limited him to just 8 games as a Hawk.

Based on those moves I just don't think that those guys were traded for the same reason that some want Kadri and Gardiner moved. Especially since two of them were traded for older, established NHL forwards and the idea behind moving Kadri and Gardiner is largely based around the idea that they're too old.

Then are you referring to people who want to move those guys because they think the returns on them will be super high and contribute heavily to the rebuild? Because I'm referring to the people who want them moved primarily so the team can bottom out and add players who, hopefully, will be on a comparable level to Toews and Kane and the return the Blackhawks got on those guys seem like a pretty clear indication that despite whatever promise they may have had they wanted them gone so they could bottom out as efficiently as possible.

Whoa, there are "people who want to move those guys because they think the returns on them will be super high and contribute heavily to the rebuild"?!

 

[Frank E]

Then are you referring to people who want to move those guys because they think the returns on them will be super high and contribute heavily to the rebuild? Because I'm referring to the people who want them moved primarily so the team can bottom out and add players who, hopefully, will be on a comparable level to Toews and Kane and the return the Blackhawks got on those guys seem like a pretty clear indication that despite whatever promise they may have had they wanted them gone so they could bottom out as efficiently as possible.

I want both the picks and the bottoming out.

 

[herman]

Then are you referring to people who want to move those guys because they think the returns on them will be super high and contribute heavily to the rebuild? Because I'm referring to the people who want them moved primarily so the team can bottom out and add players who, hopefully, will be on a comparable level to Toews and Kane and the return the Blackhawks got on those guys seem like a pretty clear indication that despite whatever promise they may have had they wanted them gone so they could bottom out as efficiently as possible.

I want both the picks and the bottoming out.

I think the high returns Nik is referring to in group 1 are established NHL players (e.g. trading for Phil Kessel).

 

[Bender]

I don't know how they can have Gardiner at #3. Unreal. He's not bad but I think Marner will easily be better than him and one could argue Kadri is ahead of him on the depth chart as a centre I think.

 

[Kin]

Then are you referring to people who want to move those guys because they think the returns on them will be super high and contribute heavily to the rebuild? Because I'm referring to the people who want them moved primarily so the team can bottom out and add players who, hopefully, will be on a comparable level to Toews and Kane and the return the Blackhawks got on those guys seem like a pretty clear indication that despite whatever promise they may have had they wanted them gone so they could bottom out as efficiently as possible.

I want both the picks and the bottoming out.

They're not mutually exclusive but I think that if the Leafs tried to trade Kadri now there'd be some pretty disappointing offers on the table.

It's why keeping Kadri(and to a lesser extent Gardiner) makes sense for this season. With an increase in ice time, #1 PP duties and better linemates, Kadri could very well play himself into a position where he could be pretty valuable next summer.