The Official 2011/2012 Armchair GM thread

[maplesyrup]

The Leafs just made a large, long-term commitment to Grabovski who is of the same age (well, older in fact.) If Nash is "wrong" for the Leafs then it can be argued that Grabovski is too. It just can't be both ways.

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs just made a large, long-term commitment to Grabovski who is of the same age (well, older in fact.) If Nash is "wrong" for the Leafs then it can be argued that Grabovski is too. It just can't be both ways.

A purely financial commitment is different than a financial commitment plus the blue chip assets given up. Not to mention the term and salary are longer and higher with Nash.

It certainly can be both ways, since the situations are different.

 

[maplesyrup]

The Leafs just made a large, long-term commitment to Grabovski who is of the same age (well, older in fact.) If Nash is "wrong" for the Leafs then it can be argued that Grabovski is too. It just can't be both ways.

A purely financial commitment is different than a financial commitment plus the blue chip assets given up. Not to mention the term and salary are longer and higher with Nash.

It certainly can be both ways, since the situations are different.

but we likely could have gotten an asset for Grabovski. - Either a pick or a prospect. If #5 + Grabo is better for the Leafs going forward than Nash + then isn't the pick or prospect better for the Leafs going forward than Grabo? I just don't see how it can be both ways.

 

[maplesyrup]

Really, I guess it boils down to this - what direction are we headed in? Are we stripping or are we adding here? I just don't think you make that kind of commitment to Grabovski if we're stripping so if we're adding, the jebus, get on with it and add!

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs just made a large, long-term commitment to Grabovski who is of the same age (well, older in fact.) If Nash is "wrong" for the Leafs then it can be argued that Grabovski is too. It just can't be both ways.

A purely financial commitment is different than a financial commitment plus the blue chip assets given up. Not to mention the term and salary are longer and higher with Nash.

It certainly can be both ways, since the situations are different.

but we likely could have gotten an asset for Grabovski. - Either a pick or a prospect. If #5 + Grabo is better for the Leafs going forward than Nash + then isn't the pick or prospect better for the Leafs going forward than Grabo? I just don't see how it can be both ways.

This is what I think:

Grabovski + 5th > 17th-25th + 5th
Grabovski + 5th > Rick Nash

 

[Deebo]

Really, I guess it boils down to this - what direction are we headed in? Are we stripping or are we adding here? I just don't think you make that kind of commitment to Grabovski if we're stripping so if we're adding, the jebus, get on with it and add!

No I think it boils down to how good you think Rick Nash is.

I'm all for adding, but I just don't think that Grabovski + 5th for Nash is adding.

 

[maplesyrup]

No I think it boils down to how good you think Rick Nash is.

I think he's that good. I guess I'm alone.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't want to discredit some of the better points you make in your post by omitting them busta but in my estimation, #5 + Grabo (in principle) isn't exactly "all in" as far as I'm concerned. I mean, if we're not going to make moves like this, why bother? Build a base? For how long? Are we there yet? If not, when will we be? Wouldn't Nash given his youth be part of said base? I don't know, I'm just so sick of the same old crap from this team. I'm hoping for more than one miracle this off-season.

As I covered before, Grabovski and the 5th is unlikely to be enough to get it done. We're more likely talking about Grabovski, Gardiner/Kadri, Colborne/Blacker/Frattin/Ashton and the 5th. That's pretty close to all in for me.

Well, the problem you're having is that you're looking for a defined timeframe where one can not really exist. The team is not there yet - of that, I have no doubt - but, when will they get there? No one can say, and that's part of the problem with Nash and his supposed youth. While he's only suffered one major injury, last season was the first in his career where he played all 82 games. He's had a bunch of minor injuries along the way, and, with the style he plays, as he ages, they add up. His youth is similar to Ryan Malone's youth when he was available a few years back - it's somewhat of a mirage - and, by the time a solid base has really been built, that supposed youth of his could very easily be long gone.

As for why to bother if the team isn't going to make moves like this, the answer is pretty simple - it's not about big moves, it's about the right moves. Trading for Nash is clearly the former, but it's not likely to be the latter.

 

[maplesyrup]

As I covered before, Grabovski and the 5th is unlikely to be enough to get it done. We're more likely talking about Grabovski, Gardiner/Kadri, Colborne/Blacker/Frattin/Ashton and the 5th. That's pretty close to all in for me.

Well, if that's the case than no... I wouldn't strip the cupboards for him.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, if that's the case than no... I wouldn't strip the cupboards for him.

Considering this:

According to Larry Brooks, this is the offer the Rangers made:

Brandon Dubinsky
Tim Erixon
J.T. Miller
Christian Thomas
2012 first-round selection

... and this is what Columbus wanted:

Brandon Dubinsky
Ryan McDonagh or Michael Del Zotto
Derek Stepan or Carl Hagelin
Chris Kreider
2012 first-round selection

I'd say my theoretical proposal is probably pretty close to what they'd be looking for.

 

[maplesyrup]

Yeah but that strikes me as a demand from a GM who really didn't want to move him at that time. I mean, make it so high that you couldn't refuse if they said "yes", right? I'm not sure Nash goes for as much as what the Rangers initial proposal was this summer. - We'll see.   

 

[bustaheims]

Yeah but that strikes me as a demand from a GM who really didn't want to move him at that time. I mean, make it so high that you couldn't refuse if they said "yes", right? I'm not sure Nash goes for as much as what the Rangers initial proposal was this summer. - We'll see. 

They still don't have to trade him and, my guess is they still don't want to trade him, so, what they're asking for is unlikely to change significantly. As long as Howson feels his job is on the line (and, at this point, it very much still is), his demands won't change significantly.

 

[Rebel_1812]

The Leafs just made a large, long-term commitment to Grabovski who is of the same age (well, older in fact.) If Nash is "wrong" for the Leafs then it can be argued that Grabovski is too. It just can't be both ways.

A purely financial commitment is different than a financial commitment plus the blue chip assets given up. Not to mention the term and salary are longer and higher with Nash.

It certainly can be both ways, since the situations are different.

but we likely could have gotten an asset for Grabovski. - Either a pick or a prospect. If #5 + Grabo is better for the Leafs going forward than Nash + then isn't the pick or prospect better for the Leafs going forward than Grabo? I just don't see how it can be both ways.

This is what I think:

Grabovski + 5th > 17th-25th + 5th
Grabovski + 5th > Rick Nash

someone seriously overestimates Grabovski.  How many times has Grabovski been an allstar?

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

The Leafs just made a large, long-term commitment to Grabovski who is of the same age (well, older in fact.) If Nash is "wrong" for the Leafs then it can be argued that Grabovski is too. It just can't be both ways.

A purely financial commitment is different than a financial commitment plus the blue chip assets given up. Not to mention the term and salary are longer and higher with Nash.

It certainly can be both ways, since the situations are different.

but we likely could have gotten an asset for Grabovski. - Either a pick or a prospect. If #5 + Grabo is better for the Leafs going forward than Nash + then isn't the pick or prospect better for the Leafs going forward than Grabo? I just don't see how it can be both ways.

This is what I think:

Grabovski + 5th > 17th-25th + 5th
Grabovski + 5th > Rick Nash

someone seriously overestimates Grabovski.  How many times has Grabovski been an allstar?

I'm not arguing with or against any proposed trade packages, but don't discount the supply vs. demand inflated value that centers have these days.

 

[bustaheims]

someone seriously overestimates Grabovski.  How many times has Grabovski been an allstar?

Someone seriously overestimates the value of appearing in an All Star game.

 

[Corn Flake]

someone seriously overestimates Grabovski.  How many times has Grabovski been an allstar?

Someone seriously overestimates the value of appearing in an All Star game.

what I would pay to see Grabbo at the All Star team draft, sitting there with a pineapple in his lap and a knife in his hand.

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs just made a large, long-term commitment to Grabovski who is of the same age (well, older in fact.) If Nash is "wrong" for the Leafs then it can be argued that Grabovski is too. It just can't be both ways.

A purely financial commitment is different than a financial commitment plus the blue chip assets given up. Not to mention the term and salary are longer and higher with Nash.

It certainly can be both ways, since the situations are different.

but we likely could have gotten an asset for Grabovski. - Either a pick or a prospect. If #5 + Grabo is better for the Leafs going forward than Nash + then isn't the pick or prospect better for the Leafs going forward than Grabo? I just don't see how it can be both ways.

This is what I think:

Grabovski + 5th > 17th-25th + 5th
Grabovski + 5th > Rick Nash

someone seriously overestimates Grabovski.  How many times has Grabovski been an allstar?

The 5th could be a top line centre.

A 1st and 2nd line centre is worth more to me than Rick Nash, especially when we have Kessel and Lupul and no centre depth.

 

[Corn Flake]

The 5th could be a top line centre.

A 1st and 2nd line centre is worth more to me than Rick Nash, especially when we have Kessel and Lupul and no centre depth.

Agreed. . I'm starting to lean away from ridiculous high priced trades to get a Nash level player.  I could see a Staal level move but not the Nash lunacy. 

I think this team with a big upgrade in net and probably on defense, plus some added size and leadership up front can probably make the post season and buy 2-3 years while the kid they draft matures, and maybe that becomes the piece to vault to contender status.

 

[maplesyrup]

Yeah, even with with my ramblings about Nash, I agree this team needs to do much better than Bozak and Grabovski as 1/2 down the middle and that needs to be the priority (with goaltending) this summer.

 

[Deebo]

The 5th could be a top line centre.

A 1st and 2nd line centre is worth more to me than Rick Nash, especially when we have Kessel and Lupul and no centre depth.

Agreed. . I'm starting to lean away from ridiculous high priced trades to get a Nash level player.  I could see a Staal level move but not the Nash lunacy. 

I think this team with a big upgrade in net and probably on defense, plus some added size and leadership up front can probably make the post season and buy 2-3 years while the kid they draft matures, and maybe that becomes the piece to vault to contender status.

I don't know what the price for Staal would be, but I wonder if something could be worked out around Kulemin++.

Making and Kulemin have played well together on a few occasions.