Which Dman would you add in a trade?

[Rebel_1812]

Gunnarson

I think you gotta keep Gunnarson simply because he is a solid player who can eat a lot of minutes but isn't going to command a high salary simply because he isn't flashy in any particular area.  On a team where they have a huge payroll tied up on their D, having Gunnarson helps keep that somewhat in check.

Not true.  Jeff Finger wasn't flashy and that didn't stop a GM from overpaying for him. I think your blueline has to be physical, else it will be manhandled in the playoffs.  Gunnarson should go because he isn't physical and he doesn't have an offensive game like Gardner or Liles has.

Gunnarson is the most important d-man the Leafs have.  He makes any partner he plays with better, and he's cheap.  They can't afford to lose him.

I have no idea why Gunnarsson's name is being thrown around in the first place. Especially when we have guys like Schenn and Komisarek who are redundant and have limited skillsets in the first place.

And I have no idea why people have such a man-crush on Gunnarsson.  This reminds me of the Pilar man-crushes of yesteryear.  Both were average dmen that people thought were all-stars.

 

[Corn Flake]

It all depends on what the return is, but my choices would be in this order:

1. Komisarek, if there really isn't another better deal out there and the goal is to make some room on defense and rid of the weakest link.  Doubt it happens but you never know.

2. Aulie, because of all the young d-men I think he's got the furthest to go to reach his potential and obviously because right now he isn't playing and wouldn't really hurt the team in the short term.

3. Schenn, because he is probably the chip needed to get the forward the Leafs want, but ONLY if that forward is under 28 (preferably under 26) and has relatively equal upside (or better, if more is going the other way).  Short-term, Komisarek can eat up some of his minutes and while he's a step down in many ways, the physical game is there and he looked better than Schenn before he got hurt. Long-term, the money gets put on Franson as the replacement for right side top 4 d-man of the future.  Aulie as option B to replace him, although they play different sides.

4. Franson, may actually have more value than Schenn due to his offensive upside, size and skating. I think he is less sentimental to Leafs fans than Schenn but is actually the better potential player. (IMO)  2 years older than Schenn but likely gets re-signed at a far cheaper rate this summer. 

5. Gunarsson. Only gets included in a deal if the return is a legit #1 centre and the add-ons in the package are substantially less (ie: no Kadri, Colborne).  He is quietly the best of the young d-men on the team for sure and IMO is the #3 behind Phaneuf and Liles as far as the depth chart goes. Too important to give up, really.

 

[Zee]

Gunnarson

I think you gotta keep Gunnarson simply because he is a solid player who can eat a lot of minutes but isn't going to command a high salary simply because he isn't flashy in any particular area.  On a team where they have a huge payroll tied up on their D, having Gunnarson helps keep that somewhat in check.

Not true.  Jeff Finger wasn't flashy and that didn't stop a GM from overpaying for him. I think your blueline has to be physical, else it will be manhandled in the playoffs.  Gunnarson should go because he isn't physical and he doesn't have an offensive game like Gardner or Liles has.

Gunnarson is the most important d-man the Leafs have.  He makes any partner he plays with better, and he's cheap.  They can't afford to lose him.

I have no idea why Gunnarsson's name is being thrown around in the first place. Especially when we have guys like Schenn and Komisarek who are redundant and have limited skillsets in the first place.

And I have no idea why people have such a man-crush on Gunnarsson.  This reminds me of the Pilar man-crushes of yesteryear.  Both were average dmen that people thought were all-stars.

Do you actually watch Gunnarson play or are you just looking at his stats?

 

[Strangelove]

Gunnarson

I think you gotta keep Gunnarson simply because he is a solid player who can eat a lot of minutes but isn't going to command a high salary simply because he isn't flashy in any particular area.  On a team where they have a huge payroll tied up on their D, having Gunnarson helps keep that somewhat in check.

Not true.  Jeff Finger wasn't flashy and that didn't stop a GM from overpaying for him. I think your blueline has to be physical, else it will be manhandled in the playoffs.  Gunnarson should go because he isn't physical and he doesn't have an offensive game like Gardner or Liles has.

Gunnarson is the most important d-man the Leafs have.  He makes any partner he plays with better, and he's cheap.  They can't afford to lose him.

I have no idea why Gunnarsson's name is being thrown around in the first place. Especially when we have guys like Schenn and Komisarek who are redundant and have limited skillsets in the first place.

And I have no idea why people have such a man-crush on Gunnarsson.  This reminds me of the Pilar man-crushes of yesteryear.  Both were average dmen that people thought were all-stars.

Probably has something to do with the fact that he's a strong skater, a good passer, and he's very sound positionally at both ends of the ice.  You rarely see him make bad decisions or lose track of opposing players in front of the Leafs' net, which is more than you can say for any other Leafs' Dman.

 

[Zee]

Gunnarson

I think you gotta keep Gunnarson simply because he is a solid player who can eat a lot of minutes but isn't going to command a high salary simply because he isn't flashy in any particular area.  On a team where they have a huge payroll tied up on their D, having Gunnarson helps keep that somewhat in check.

Not true.  Jeff Finger wasn't flashy and that didn't stop a GM from overpaying for him. I think your blueline has to be physical, else it will be manhandled in the playoffs.  Gunnarson should go because he isn't physical and he doesn't have an offensive game like Gardner or Liles has.

Gunnarson is the most important d-man the Leafs have.  He makes any partner he plays with better, and he's cheap.  They can't afford to lose him.

I have no idea why Gunnarsson's name is being thrown around in the first place. Especially when we have guys like Schenn and Komisarek who are redundant and have limited skillsets in the first place.

And I have no idea why people have such a man-crush on Gunnarsson.  This reminds me of the Pilar man-crushes of yesteryear.  Both were average dmen that people thought were all-stars.

Probably has something to do with the fact that he's a strong skater, a good passer, and he's very sound positionally at both ends of the ice.  You rarely see him make bad decisions or lose track of opposing players in front of the Leafs' net, which is more than you can say for any other Leafs' Dman.

All this while playing over 22 minutes / game.  It's not like he's playing for 5 minutes out there, he's consistently good on defense for the entire game in all situations.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

To keep Komi over Gunner would be ridiculous.   

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

To keep Komi over Gunner would be ridiculous. 

Gunner is a type of price/perfomance contract you need couple of in order to be a contender. Komisarek is exact opposite.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

To keep Komi over Gunner would be ridiculous.   

Yup, the decision is an easy one for me. I'm not a Komi hater, but he is the guy that has to go well before we start thinking about trading Schenn IMO. I agree with what Nik said yesterday, that Burke has proven before that he can move contracts like this, which has been made a bit easier, due to the fact that Komi's next two years on his deal are for less money, which will broaden the scope of teams that could make that contract work.

As always, it depends on what comes back, but I don't think we're going to see the types of offers that I would consider good value for guys like Schenn, Kadri and other parts of our future moving forward.

 

[Corn Flake]

To keep Komi over Gunner would be ridiculous. 

Gunner is a type of price/perfomance contract you need couple of in order to be a contender. Komisarek is exact opposite.

Easy to say keep Gunar over Komi but what is this trade trying to accomplish?  If you are just trying to make room and dump the weakest link then yes trade Komi if you can, but usually trades don't just involve players we don't like going away. 

 

[Kin]

I agree with what Nik said yesterday, that Burke has proven before that he can move contracts like this

What Nik said was that Burke has "proven" that he can move a bad contract for another bad contract or even a worse one. That's not really saying much.

 

[maplesyrup]

It all depends on what the return is, but my choices would be in this order:

1. Komisarek, if there really isn't another better deal out there and the goal is to make some room on defense and rid of the weakest link.  Doubt it happens but you never know.

2. Aulie, because of all the young d-men I think he's got the furthest to go to reach his potential and obviously because right now he isn't playing and wouldn't really hurt the team in the short term.

3. Schenn, because he is probably the chip needed to get the forward the Leafs want, but ONLY if that forward is under 28 (preferably under 26) and has relatively equal upside (or better, if more is going the other way).  Short-term, Komisarek can eat up some of his minutes and while he's a step down in many ways, the physical game is there and he looked better than Schenn before he got hurt. Long-term, the money gets put on Franson as the replacement for right side top 4 d-man of the future.  Aulie as option B to replace him, although they play different sides.

4. Franson, may actually have more value than Schenn due to his offensive upside, size and skating. I think he is less sentimental to Leafs fans than Schenn but is actually the better potential player. (IMO)  2 years older than Schenn but likely gets re-signed at a far cheaper rate this summer. 

5. Gunarsson. Only gets included in a deal if the return is a legit #1 centre and the add-ons in the package are substantially less (ie: no Kadri, Colborne).  He is quietly the best of the young d-men on the team for sure and IMO is the #3 behind Phaneuf and Liles as far as the depth chart goes. Too important to give up, really.

Yeah, that's what my order would be too but like I said, I don't really object to trading anyone (Dion included) if the return made sense.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

To keep Komi over Gunner would be ridiculous. 

Gunner is a type of price/perfomance contract you need couple of in order to be a contender. Komisarek is exact opposite.

Easy to say keep Gunar over Komi but what is this trade trying to accomplish?  If you are just trying to make room and dump the weakest link then yes trade Komi if you can, but usually trades don't just involve players we don't like going away.

Komi has been playing decent the past few games.  No bone headed penalties, a few turnovers, but all Leaf players have been doing that.  It is not a question of liking or disliking him.  I do like him for his physicality, but Schenn is more physical and younger.  Gunner is also younger than Komi and more talented.

If the Leafs traded Gunner or Schenn, they would get a lot more in return than if they gave up Komi, but the team would be a little weaker depending on the return.  On the other hand, if they gave up Komi, they would still get a decent return, and the team will not have been weakened since they were able to keep the youth, physicality and skill.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

What Nik said was that Burke has "proven" that he can move a bad contract for another bad contract or even a worse one. That's not really saying much.

Well, I like our chances, the "bad contracts" that we have taken back have worked out rather well for us. So we haven't really been on the losing end of any of those deals IMO.

 

[Kin]

On the other hand, if they gave up Komi, they would still get a decent return, and the team will not have been weakened since they were able to keep the youth, physicality and skill.

I'm not sure what you mean by decent return but I think that's the dispute here.

 

[Kin]

Well, I like our chances, the "bad contracts" that we have taken back have worked out rather well for us. So we haven't really been on the losing end of any of those deals IMO.

I'm not sure that it's really happened more than once, that being the Blake/Giguere deal which I think it's safe to say didn't really work out well for anyone.

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

Well, I like our chances, the "bad contracts" that we have taken back have worked out rather well for us. So we haven't really been on the losing end of any of those deals IMO.

I'm not sure that it's really happened more than once, that being the Blake/Giguere deal which I think it's safe to say didn't really work out well for anyone.

Yeah Blake was and still is a serviceable player. Giguere was just awful here.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

Well, I like our chances, the "bad contracts" that we have taken back have worked out rather well for us. So we haven't really been on the losing end of any of those deals IMO.

I'm not sure that it's really happened more than once, that being the Blake/Giguere deal which I think it's safe to say didn't really work out well for anyone.

We got rid of Toskala and Blake for Giguere.  Giguere was a huge improvement over "I missed the bouncing puck" Toskala, and Blake, that was addition by subtraction.  Reimer was an improvement over Giguere, and while I am not sure who replaced Blake on the roster, the roster improved and I don't think anyone is missing Blake either.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

Well, I like our chances, the "bad contracts" that we have taken back have worked out rather well for us. So we haven't really been on the losing end of any of those deals IMO.

I'm not sure that it's really happened more than once, that being the Blake/Giguere deal which I think it's safe to say didn't really work out well for anyone.

We got rid of Toskala and Blake for Giguere.  Giguere was a huge improvement over "I missed the bouncing puck" Toskala, and Blake, that was addition by subtraction.  Reimer was an improvement over Giguere, and while I am not sure who replaced Blake on the roster, the roster improved and I don't think anyone is missing Blake either.

giguere also seemed to be more of a team player when it came to the idea of getting gustavsson more ice time and so on...i think the net result was positive

 

[Kin]

Giguere was a huge improvement over "I missed the bouncing puck" Toskala

Giguere wasn't a huge improvement over Toskala. They were both substandard starting goalies. The Leafs paid Giguere 6.5 million to be not very good, while the Ducks paid Blake 8 million or so to be not very good. Like I said, it's not a deal that anyone should be putting front and centre on their resumes.

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

Well, I like our chances, the "bad contracts" that we have taken back have worked out rather well for us. So we haven't really been on the losing end of any of those deals IMO.

I'm not sure that it's really happened more than once, that being the Blake/Giguere deal which I think it's safe to say didn't really work out well for anyone.

We got rid of Toskala and Blake for Giguere.  Giguere was a huge improvement over "I missed the bouncing puck" Toskala, and Blake, that was addition by subtraction.  Reimer was an improvement over Giguere, and while I am not sure who replaced Blake on the roster, the roster improved and I don't think anyone is missing Blake either.

giguere also seemed to be more of a team player when it came to the idea of getting gustavsson more ice time and so on...i think the net result was positive

If you think that's a good use of 6.5 million dollars