bustaheims
Active member
simmonssteve: Once again Cody Franson avoids arbitration with Leafs. Signs one year deal at 3.3 million.
RFA Contract Talks Thread
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
Yeah. That was more about Simmons really mangling the spelling the first time he posted, apparently. I went to call him out on it (I don't actually follow him - Jonas Siegel retweeted that one) and saw what happened.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
He'll be a UFA when this deal ends, so there's a fairly good chance this season (or part of it) is his last as a Leaf.
bustaheims
Active member
mirtle: Was told early in weekend that Leafs would settle in $3.25-million range. Same source said Franson would then be dealt, so we'll see.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Would not be a fan of going that route.
Kin
New member
It might be a little bit more than people expected for Franson but there are some unavoidable facts about the numbers he's put up the last two years that will earn him some coin.
At this point I don't know if trading him is really the right move. Unless there's a firm plan to give his spot to someone else I'd give him another year, hopefully use him in a better way and see if he can't regain some of his 2013 form before looking to move him at the deadline.
At this point I don't know if trading him is really the right move. Unless there's a firm plan to give his spot to someone else I'd give him another year, hopefully use him in a better way and see if he can't regain some of his 2013 form before looking to move him at the deadline.
L K
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
That would be my stance too. As much as we have some guys on the Marlies who might be deserving of a chance to play in the NHL, guys like Granberg, MacWilliam, etc. haven't exactly performed to the level of forcing themselves onto the team. There is a difference between promoting from within because guys have established themselves to be projecting as "too good for the AHL" and promoting guys just because they played pretty well and you want kids on the roster. A half-season of Franson to see if his comes back a little more effective could be worth it. The Leafs aren't going to get a lot for him in a trade right now but at the deadline if he's been average they would probably get the same 2nd round pick type of deal even if he wasn't playing great because the deadline can get you a premium on players. And there would be a chance that he could be more effective with a better defensive scheme. So he either becomes valuable to the team again or maybe he bumps his trade value to a 1st rounder if the Leafs feel a guy like Granberg is ready for regular minutes.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
TJ Brennan was too good for the AHL...
L K
Active member
Patrick said:
Offensively, I agree. Defensively, not so much. Personally I would have given him an opportunity to try and help the team when things were falling apart, but it never happened. He isn't what the Leafs defense needed though with the increased roles for Gardiner and Rielly.
Rebel_1812
New member
Potvin29 said:
Hopefully he gets dealt. Else losing a -20 player could be seen as a positive.
I'm glad Franson is signed. I'd like to see how he plays when healthy, with training camp under his belt and in hopefully a system that improves the teams overall defense, not just Cody's. As has been mentioned, at the very least he is an asset that could possibly be traded instead of letting him walk away for free.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Significantly Insignificant said:
But you'd like to maximize the assets that you have paid for (potentially) years, and helped develop, into more than simply cap space.
bustaheims
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
Yes and no. That cap room already exists as an asset for the 15/16 season. By not retaining Franson, they gain the ability to use it on someone else, but, they don't gain or free any additional space. And, if the plan was never to retain Franson, they're not gaining anything they didn't already have. It may still be a positive, but it's not a gain. It's losing an asset without acquiring another.
bustaheims said:
True, it's not as simplistic as I made it sound. If the player is a core asset, they will need to be replaced which will cost money against the cap anyway in some capacity. The Bolland situation is different than the Franson situation because of the positions they play and the role they play on the team, and where the team currently is. Still, I don't think having a player leave through free agency is all that harsh.
bustaheims
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
It depends on the player and the situation. Losing someone like McClement when the team was still in a playoff position at the deadline isn't a big deal because he wouldn't have returned much in a trade any way, and you can understand why management wouldn't have made a move there - especially with the lack of depth in the system down the middle. With someone like Franson, however, there are potential replacements in the system and he could return a reasonably valuable asset. So, unless he's shown himself to be a key part of the team, and the team is actually playing well and getting good results, he's a guy that should be moved by the deadline, regardless. In this case, not trading him if your intention is to allow him to walk as a UFA is a missed opportunity.