Your summer 2012 strategy?

[Kin]

I disagree.  All the names being talked about, plus several others, could have been usefully traded straight up for a single 1st.  Huge error on Burke's part.

Well, for starters, I think your list is definitely wrong by one. Owing to Grabo's contract status he's the only guy that I think would clearly be aggressively pursued. I don't think the world exists where Kulemin having the season has someone offering a first but Grabo doesn't.

As to the rest of it, as I say above, I think you're wrong about Kulemin and Schenn's worth to the club. Regardless, I'm still not going to criticize a deal I don't know the specifics about.

 

[Deebo]

As I said in a post above my recollection is Mac, Schenn, Reimer, and the 4th was possibly Kulemin.  I'd have moved them all, Schenn and Reimer with deep regrets, Mac and Kuly with mild ones.

That's still all based on speculation from outside sources, and, without actually knowing the specifics of the potential deals, I certainly can't say with any degree of certainty that I would have moved any of them.

I see Dreger reported that the 4th one was Grabs, not Reimer.  Although somewhere later than that I could swear Burke said he was offered a first for Reimer.

Anyway, I would not have done Grabs for a 1st alone, knowing that he was about to re-sign.

For me, Mac is a no-brainer.  Any first for him.  Ditto Kulemin.  Schenn, I would have done too, but would have at least tried to get an additional pick,

Schenn is the one I'm most conflicted about.  But I still would have done it and pin my hopes on Holzer becoming that type of shutdown guy.

On Reimer, the quote I remember was that he got a "strong offer" for him.

 

[Kin]

no, we're giving up 2 of those players for nash (lets say kessel and gardiner) and 2 players (we'll say lupul and kadri) plus our crappy 1st for the first overall.

For future reference. COL is the abbreviation for the Avalanche. CBJ is the Blue Jackets.

 

[bustaheims]

For me, Mac is a no-brainer.  Any first for him.  Ditto Kulemin.  Schenn, I would have done too, but would have at least tried to get an additional pick,

Again, the issue here becomes one of not knowing the specifics on the offer that may have been presented. Was it MacArthur straight up for a 1st? A conditional 1st (what seems to be common belief)? Or was it something like MacArthur and Blacker? Was it Kulemin straight up or Kulemin and a 2nd? Who were the teams on the other end? Cup contenders like NYR and Detroit or bubble teams like Washington and San Jose? Without knowing any of that, without being able to make a truly informed decision, how can you say with absolute certainty you would have made those deals?

 

[Erndog]

no, we're giving up 2 of those players for nash (lets say kessel and gardiner) and 2 players (we'll say lupul and kadri) plus our crappy 1st for the first overall.

For future reference. COL is the abbreviation for the Avalanche. CBJ is the Blue Jackets.

And that's what sorta screwed me up.  I was thinking the Avs- then remembered they traded it to Washington.  Anyways...

 

[sneakyray]

no, we're giving up 2 of those players for nash (lets say kessel and gardiner) and 2 players (we'll say lupul and kadri) plus our crappy 1st for the first overall.

For future reference. COL is the abbreviation for the Avalanche. CBJ is the Blue Jackets.

noted...thanks

 

[ZBBM]

For me, Mac is a no-brainer.  Any first for him.  Ditto Kulemin.  Schenn, I would have done too, but would have at least tried to get an additional pick,

Again, the issue here becomes one of not knowing the specifics on the offer that may have been presented. Was it MacArthur straight up for a 1st? A conditional 1st (what seems to be common belief)? Or was it something like MacArthur and Blacker? Was it Kulemin straight up or Kulemin and a 2nd? Who were the teams on the other end? Cup contenders like NYR and Detroit or bubble teams like Washington and San Jose? Without knowing any of that, without being able to make a truly informed decision, how can you say with absolute certainty you would have made those deals?

Because I'm saying I would have dealt them straight up for firsts.  Burke said he was offered 1sts, not conditional 1sts or additional players etc.  That's the context for the whole criticism we're making here.

 

[bustaheims]

Because I'm saying I would have dealt them straight up for firsts.  Burke said he was offered 1sts, not conditional 1sts or additional players etc.  That's the context for the whole criticism we're making here.

Sure, but Burke saying he was offered 1st round picks does not mean he was offered them straight up or without conditions, just that they were (if Burke's being 100% honest) part of deals that were presented to him.

 

[Kin]

Because I'm saying I would have dealt them straight up for firsts.  Burke said he was offered 1sts, not conditional 1sts or additional players etc.  That's the context for the whole criticism we're making here.

But, as pointed out, anything specific about the actual players themselves did not come from Burke. All we have from Burke is that he got offers from teams involving 1sts for guys on the team. For all we know from that it could be Lupul.

 

[Erndog]

Because I'm saying I would have dealt them straight up for firsts.  Burke said he was offered 1sts, not conditional 1sts or additional players etc.  That's the context for the whole criticism we're making here.

But, as pointed out, anything specific about the actual players themselves did not come from Burke. All we have from Burke is that he got offers from teams involving 1sts for guys on the team. For all we know from that it could be Lupul.

and probably was.

It makes the most sense from other teams viewpoints really.

 

[bustaheims]

But, as pointed out, anything specific about the actual players themselves did not come from Burke. All we have from Burke is that he got offers from teams involving 1sts for guys on the team. For all we know from that it could be Lupul.

It's also important to note that he said they were offered "four 1st round picks for players on the team" not 1st round picks for 4 players on the team. Theoretically, in spite of what some in the media speculated, those 4 picks could have been for the same player or could have been deals where 2 players were traded for 1 pick or a variety of other scenarios.

 

[Bullfrog]

I haven't read the thread, but my strategy is simple:

1. get Parise. Offer him whatever he wants; then find the cap room.

2. get a high draft pick (top 2 preferable). Trade whatever it takes. We've got good prospects, but we need blue-chippers. One of the Russians would be ideal.

 

[maplesyrup]

Would anyone consider including Gardiner in a deal to get one of the top two picks?

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Did anyone just listen to hockeycentral at noon with Mclean/Millard/John Shannon.

Man, did they just paint the worst picture imaginable.  Honestly, they obliterated the team.  Surprisingly, McLean was the most level headed but John Shannon was the biggest troll I've ever heard.

He basically said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit:

-  Phil Kessel is impossible to trade.  Not because we don't want too.  But because nobody would want him. 
-  He said 'did nobody see Kessel was a healthy scratch in Boston during the playoffs.'  Maybe he got Kessel and Seguin mixed up?


McLean said he likes the Carlyle hire and that if we got a goalie we would be 10 points higher.  He also said that most of the players we brought on recently were talented but for whatever reason haven't worked (he pointed out Beauchemin and Komisarek specifically... which I agree with).

Anyways, they (mostly Millard and Shannon) drilled the team top to bottom.

I used to listen to 590 and 1050 all the time when driving, but at this moment I can't stand it almost all of the time now when they're talking about the Leafs.  It blows my mind that many if not most of them depict the Leaf fan base as so alternately manic (plan the parade! ;D ) and depressive (fire everybody! ) when these guys are leading the pack.  I'm getting so sick of the hyperbole.

Was Shannon seriously making a point about when Kessel was a healthy playoff scratch in Boston as a 20-year-old rookie, and that it's somehow relevant now?

 

[Tigger]

Would anyone consider including Gardiner in a deal to get one of the top two picks?

No.

 

[ZBBM]

Guys, the whole point of debate is should he have taken straight 1sts for the plauers being discussed.  The "data" we have, FWIW, says that's what the deals were for.  If you don't believe the data, or think we should be arguing about something else, then by gum we can't have a rational disagreement.

 

[Tigger]

I haven't read the thread, but my strategy is simple:

1. get Parise. Offer him whatever he wants; then find the cap room.

2. get a high draft pick (top 2 preferable). Trade whatever it takes. We've got good prospects, but we need blue-chippers. One of the Russians would be ideal.

I'm of the same mind about Suter where you are with Parise. I'd love to get both actually but neither is likely.

I keep thinking about the rumours of Columbus and Edmonton maybe trading down, the Leafs would probably have to get to around the 5 or 6 spot to even have a chance.

 

[Tigger]

Guys, the whole point of debate is should he have taken straight 1sts for the plauers being discussed.  The "data" we have, FWIW, says that's what the deals were for.  If you don't believe the data, or think we should be arguing about something else, then by gum we can't have a rational disagreement.

Where does the 'So, what would you do?' part come in?

Fwiw, with the face value of a straight up late first for Mac, Schenn, Kulemin or Grabovski the only one I would have considered on that basis is Mac.

 

[ZBBM]

Guys, the whole point of debate is should he have taken straight 1sts for the plauers being discussed.  The "data" we have, FWIW, says that's what the deals were for.  If you don't believe the data, or think we should be arguing about something else, then by gum we can't have a rational disagreement.

Where does the 'So, what would you do?' part come in?

Fwiw, with the face value of a straight up late first for Mac, Schenn, Kulemin or Grabovski the only one I would have considered on that basis is Mac.

Thank you.  At least we're disagreeing about the same argument.

 

[Kin]

Guys, the whole point of debate is should he have taken straight 1sts for the plauers being discussed.  The "data" we have, FWIW, says that's what the deals were for.  If you don't believe the data, or think we should be arguing about something else, then by gum we can't have a rational disagreement.

Well, let's be real, we have nothing in the way of data. We have something from Burke that doesn't specify the deals or the players involved. If you're going to say "He made a mistake" you need to have slightly more than vague rumours for it to be a fair criticism.