Tavares

[CarltonTheBear]

If Matthews is genuinely going to throw a hissy fit because the Leafs want to improve the state of their team, then yeah I'm pretty sure I don't want him as the teams leader.

 

[ZBBM]

JT centering the first line instead of Matthews, and adding Karlsson on the back end ... wouldn't make us a better team?  Seriously?  Unless you are arguing that Tavares is a major downgrade on Matthews it certainly would.

No, it's arguing that the values of players are reflected in their actual play as opposed to their position on a depth chart. There is no significant difference in Matthews' value to the Leafs if he's getting 20 minutes of ice time a night as the #2 C instead of as the #1.

And, as pointed out, many many great teams in history have had two HOF level C's.

That's not the point I'm reacting to in this particular post.  It's the suggestion that getting JT makes it easier to trade Marner or Nylander for the backend help we need (more than JT I would argue).  If so, why not include Matthews in the calculus?  He's got the highest value and is the only one of the 3 likely to fetch a Karlsson.

 

[ZBBM]

If Matthews is genuinely going to throw a hissy fit because the Leafs want to improve the state of their team, then yeah I'm pretty sure I don't want him as the teams leader.

He won't.  Publicly.  And he may be OK with it privately.  But he might not.  There is a risk here, that's all.

 

[Kin]

If Matthews is genuinely going to throw a hissy fit because the Leafs want to improve the state of their team, then yeah I'm pretty sure I don't want him as the teams leader.

Seriously. I have absolutely no reason to think he is this kind of person but if he would be genuinely upset by the frankly arbitrary designation of which guy is #1 and would put that over the team improving itself significantly then I'd really question keeping him around regardless.

This isn't basketball. It's not fighting over touches. You can play what are effectively two #1 lines.

 

[Frank E]

JT centering the first line instead of Matthews, and adding Karlsson on the back end ... wouldn't make us a better team?  Seriously?  Unless you are arguing that Tavares is a major downgrade on Matthews it certainly would.

No, it's arguing that the values of players are reflected in their actual play as opposed to their position on a depth chart. There is no significant difference in Matthews' value to the Leafs if he's getting 20 minutes of ice time a night as the #2 C instead of as the #1.

And, as pointed out, many many great teams in history have had two HOF level C's.

That's not the point I'm reacting to in this particular post.  It's the suggestion that getting JT makes it easier to trade Marner or Nylander for the backend help we need (more than JT I would argue).  If so, why not include Matthews in the calculus?  He's got the highest value and is the only one of the 3 likely to fetch a Karlsson.

I don't have a problem with discussing it, but I'm told that having 2 top-shelf centres is a pretty big boon.  The Leafs are definitely short on C at the moment, so adding Tavares and removing Matthews doesn't solve that problem.

I think that might be why IF they were to land Tavares, that the guys talked about that could be moved would be wingers.

 

[Kin]

That's not the point I'm reacting to in this particular post.  It's the suggestion that getting JT makes it easier to trade Marner or Nylander for the backend help we need (more than JT I would argue).  If so, why not include Matthews in the calculus?  He's got the highest value and is the only one of the 3 likely to fetch a Karlsson.

I am including him in the calculus. I'm saying that adding Tavares doesn't change the equation. Matthews is still more valuable to the team than Karlsson would be. Team's don't improve by trading their most valuable pieces as opposed to their less valuable ones. Matthews has the highest value, therefore he's the most valuable guy to the team. Adding Tavares does not create a redundancy.

 

[Kin]

I think that might be why IF they were to land Tavares, that the guys talked about that could be moved would be wingers.

Or, in Nylander's case, a winger who probably sees the most value eventually being used down the middle. In that respect, having Tavares and Matthews would create something of a redundancy and Nylander might be more valuable to another team that would use him as a C than he would be here on the wing.

 

[ZBBM]

JT centering the first line instead of Matthews, and adding Karlsson on the back end ... wouldn't make us a better team?  Seriously?  Unless you are arguing that Tavares is a major downgrade on Matthews it certainly would.

No, it's arguing that the values of players are reflected in their actual play as opposed to their position on a depth chart. There is no significant difference in Matthews' value to the Leafs if he's getting 20 minutes of ice time a night as the #2 C instead of as the #1.

And, as pointed out, many many great teams in history have had two HOF level C's.

That's not the point I'm reacting to in this particular post.  It's the suggestion that getting JT makes it easier to trade Marner or Nylander for the backend help we need (more than JT I would argue).  If so, why not include Matthews in the calculus?  He's got the highest value and is the only one of the 3 likely to fetch a Karlsson.

I don't have a problem with discussing it, but I'm told that having 2 top-shelf centres is a pretty big boon.  The Leafs are definitely short on C at the moment, so adding Tavares and removing Matthews doesn't solve that problem.

I think that might be why IF they were to land Tavares, that the guys talked about that could be moved would be wingers.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that the Leafs trade Matthews if they get Tavares.  And Nik has a point about seizing the opportunity to get better at this moment in time.  I don't agree that signing Tavares is the best move, but it's not an incomprehensible or indefensible one.

 

[ZBBM]

That's not the point I'm reacting to in this particular post.  It's the suggestion that getting JT makes it easier to trade Marner or Nylander for the backend help we need (more than JT I would argue).  If so, why not include Matthews in the calculus?  He's got the highest value and is the only one of the 3 likely to fetch a Karlsson.

I am including him in the calculus. I'm saying that adding Tavares doesn't change the equation. Matthews is still more valuable to the team than Karlsson would be. Team's don't improve by trading their most valuable pieces as opposed to their less valuable ones. Matthews has the highest value, therefore he's the most valuable guy to the team. Adding Tavares does not create a redundancy.

Well, this is where we disagree.  Moving Matthews to get Karlsson is just a hypothetical, and not something I'd necessarily actually do.  But it is a possible route to getting a Karlsson (which trading 29 or 16 won't accomplish).  And that brings me back to my fundamental argument: we need a Karlsson more than a Tavares. 

So long as we're playing thought experiment, here's another one: if Tavares and Karlsson (or some other premier d-man) were both UFAs this year, which one would you rather get?  I go Karlsson every time simply because we do have a 1C in Matthews.

 

[Kin]

Well, this is where we disagree.

Again, you're "disagreeing" with the overwhelming evidence that teams benefit from having two players who are both capable of being top-tier centres. That's the only argument here. If you're claiming there is a redundancy you have to argue why having Gretzky lessened Messier's value or why having Sakic diminished Forsberg's role. Or how Malkin and Crosby, who frequently play together on the PP, somehow get in each others way.

Simply put, #1C does not exist as a position the way you think it does.

 

[mr grieves]

So long as we're playing thought experiment, here's another one: if Tavares and Karlsson (or some other premier d-man) were both UFAs this year, which one would you rather get?  I go Karlsson every time simply because we do have a 1C in Matthews.

Assuming we're talking about players with comparable talent levelers (potential -- likely? -- HOFers), I think I'd still rather pay a 28 year old center rather than an older, more injured defenseman.

Anyhow, even if we signed Tavares, no way would I trade a similarly talented center on his entry level deal for someone like Karlsson. Leafs would be better off trading a forward made redundant by Tavares for a Parayko or Slavin or Lindholm. Get someone whose Norrises are in the future and who's signed to a good contract with some term.

 

[Kin]

Also, as a sort of side note, I don't necessarily buy that Marner or Nylander couldn't land you an elite #1 defenseman. Maybe not on their own but if a Doughty or Subban were legitimately on the block and their teams wanted a good young forward for them as part of a larger package then I don't know that they'd get any better offers. Especially in Marner's case.

Honestly, the list of really good young forwards in the league that are much better than Marner is pretty short and I'm guessing most of the guys on it would be just about untouchable.

 

[Bullfrog]

With JT and Matthews on the team, I'm not convinced you'd need an elite #1D. Marner or Nylander could get you a very, very good player. Perhaps not a future HOFer, but definitely someone with serious potential.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Also, as a sort of side note, I don't necessarily buy that Marner or Nylander couldn't land you an elite #1 defenseman. Maybe not on their own but if a Doughty or Subban were legitimately on the block and their teams wanted a good young forward for them as part of a larger package then I don't know that they'd get any better offers. Especially in Marner's case.

Honestly, the list of really good young forwards in the league that are much better than Marner is pretty short and I'm guessing most of the guys on it would be just about untouchable.

Agreed.  And furthermore, team control over an asset and age go a long long way to determining value.  Marner, who isn't a UFA for a long time, and has all of his peak years ahead of him, should be at least as valuable than Doughty, who's almost 30 and is one year away from UFA.  But position comes into play (RHD is the hardest position to find quality players) so almost nobody would agree that Marner is enough for Doughty.

Its why you're more likely to trade Marner (or Nylander) for a young d-man with pedigree.  Hence, seeing swaps like Johansen for Jones.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Or you trade Nylander for other assets and sign Doughty on the FA market. Only trading Nylander then for the cap space.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Or you trade Nylander for other assets and sign Doughty on the FA market. Only trading Nylander then for the cap space.

Well, yeah, theoretically speaking.  The chances that we could sign BOTH Tavares and Doughty in back to back years is about as close to zero as me getting a date with Arianna Grande

 

[Bates]

Here's a bunch of ifs.  If the Coyotes had an OK 1st line center and if the Leafs could sign sign Tavares I would be Ok with sending Matthews home for OEL and that 1st line center of their's.

 

[Bullfrog]

Or you trade Nylander for other assets and sign Doughty on the FA market. Only trading Nylander then for the cap space.

That's way too risky for me.

 

[ZBBM]

Well, this is where we disagree.

Again, you're "disagreeing" with the overwhelming evidence that teams benefit from having two players who are both capable of being top-tier centres. That's the only argument here. If you're claiming there is a redundancy you have to argue why having Gretzky lessened Messier's value or why having Sakic diminished Forsberg's role. Or how Malkin and Crosby, who frequently play together on the PP, somehow get in each others way.

Simply put, #1C does not exist as a position the way you think it does.

Well, actually I was disagreeing with what I said I was disagreeing with, not with your non sequitur.

As for your side note, ehhhh I dunno.  Marner is probably the more attractive of the 2 compared with Nylander but unless you really sweetened the deal beyond him by adding, oh, say, Nylander haha hoho I don't think you are going to return a Norris type, which is what we are talking about when you plug in the name "Karlsson" into this thinkpiece.

 

[herman]

Marner is probably the more attractive of the 2 compared with Nylander

I will fight you.