Armchair GM 2018-2019

[Redleaf]

This may not be a popular opinion, but I don't really see what all the fuss is about Nylander.  I don't think he will cut it as a centre in the NHL.  As a winger he's pretty good, but he's not elite in my books.  I think Karlsson would give the Leafs a better chance of winning a cup in the next 2-5 years than Nylander will, and on that basis alone would do the trade in a second.

Long term, Karlsson will be expensive, and he his play will decline over the term of the contract to the point where the later years we'll be shaking our heads, but have a cup or two to show for it. 

If Karlsson was willing to sign an extension for around $11M, I would even throw in a first rounder.

I'm 100% on board with this post. The overall goal is winning the Stanley Cup. Having Karlsson on the team (minus Nylander) gets you much closer to that goal. I think its really a moot point, but nevertheless.

Watching some of the game in 6's from last year, it becomes more and more apparent that, even with the addition of Tavares, the Leafs are still on the outside looking in without some major upgrades on the blue line. The best card the club holds to obtain that upgrade is Nylander IMHO.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Ya, I'm going go ahead and say that half of you are nuts. This is Erik Karlsson we're talking about. He's not a 40-year cripple.

When I was responding to the initial thought, I was assuming that an extended contract comes with that, which is why I think it's nuts that anyone would hesitate. I understand there's concern about dealing a potential superstar, but in return, you're getting a bonafide superstar.

I'm going to single out herman here for a second (mostly because I know he can take it): while I understand the concept and preference regarding "feeding the goal-getters", there isn't anyone better in the league than Karlsson and doing just that. His offensive game is so scary it opens up huge opportunities for the goal-getters. Honestly, I think people are overanalyzing this. There are two players on the team I wouldn't trade for Karlsson (with an agreed contract): John Tavares and Auston Matthews..........that's it.

Karlsson's going to be 29 this season, you sign him to a huge 8 year deal and he's 37 at the end and probably playing way less effectively than he can now.  At the same time you're willing to trade a 20 or 21 year old player who in 8 years could be one of the best forwards in the game.  Hard no for me.

You think Nylander will be one of the best forwards in the game?

 

[Kin]

Ya, I'm going go ahead and say that half of you are nuts. This is Erik Karlsson we're talking about. He's not a 40-year cripple.

When I was responding to the initial thought, I was assuming that an extended contract comes with that, which is why I think it's nuts that anyone would hesitate. I understand there's concern about dealing a potential superstar, but in return, you're getting a bonafide superstar.

I'm going to single out herman here for a second (mostly because I know he can take it): while I understand the concept and preference regarding "feeding the goal-getters", there isn't anyone better in the league than Karlsson and doing just that. His offensive game is so scary it opens up huge opportunities for the goal-getters. Honestly, I think people are overanalyzing this. There are two players on the team I wouldn't trade for Karlsson (with an agreed contract): John Tavares and Auston Matthews..........that's it.

Karlsson's going to be 29 this season, you sign him to a huge 8 year deal and he's 37 at the end and probably playing way less effectively than he can now.  At the same time you're willing to trade a 20 or 21 year old player who in 8 years could be one of the best forwards in the game.  Hard no for me.

You think Nylander will be one of the best forwards in the game?

I feel like "could" and "will" are different enough to merit specificity.

 

[herman]

This was a fun read on many levels, especially as you note the author:
https://canucksarmy.com/2014/06/24/canucks-army-draft-prospect-profile-3-william-nylander/

 

[hockeyfan1]

Maple Leafs Trade Value Power Rankings:  "the untoichables"...

4. Nylander

Yes, Nylander is untouchable. No, I don?t care if you want him packaged for a top-4 D. Why would Dubas ever do that? Do you want to become Edmonton?

In roughly the same sample size, Nylander?s produced offence at a pace nearly identical to that of Marner. Were his name something local-friendly like William Canada, he?d be idolized in the same fashion as this lists 1-3.

Regardless, Nylander is a 22-year-old possession god with centre ice potential who?s managed 135 points in 185 games. He?s very good.

Everyone shut up.

For the rest of the trade value power rankings:
https://editorinleaf.com/2018/07/14/toronto-maple-leafs-trade-value-power-rankings/

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Ya, I'm going go ahead and say that half of you are nuts. This is Erik Karlsson we're talking about. He's not a 40-year cripple.

When I was responding to the initial thought, I was assuming that an extended contract comes with that, which is why I think it's nuts that anyone would hesitate. I understand there's concern about dealing a potential superstar, but in return, you're getting a bonafide superstar.

I'm going to single out herman here for a second (mostly because I know he can take it): while I understand the concept and preference regarding "feeding the goal-getters", there isn't anyone better in the league than Karlsson and doing just that. His offensive game is so scary it opens up huge opportunities for the goal-getters. Honestly, I think people are overanalyzing this. There are two players on the team I wouldn't trade for Karlsson (with an agreed contract): John Tavares and Auston Matthews..........that's it.

Karlsson's going to be 29 this season, you sign him to a huge 8 year deal and he's 37 at the end and probably playing way less effectively than he can now.  At the same time you're willing to trade a 20 or 21 year old player who in 8 years could be one of the best forwards in the game.  Hard no for me.

You think Nylander will be one of the best forwards in the game?

I feel like "could" and "will" are different enough to merit specificity.

I figured you'd be the one to point that out.

Let me change that....

You think Nylander COULD be one of the best forwards in the game?

I suppose anyone COULD be one of the best forwards in the game. But he has shown no signs to even being one of the BEST young players in the game.

 

[Kin]

I figured you'd be the one to point that out.

I am known far and wide for thinking arguments should be made in good faith. 

You think Nylander COULD be one of the best forwards in the game?

I suppose anyone COULD be one of the best forwards in the game. But he has shown no signs to even being one of the BEST young players in the game.

I didn't make the case but I think that if you look at his numbers in proper context, especially as a function of ice time and 5v5, I wouldn't agree that he hasn't shown signs of being one of the better young players in the game, especially given that "one of" is a pretty loose term without a set limit.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see Nylander become a PPG type player who can play any forward position responsibly. The material difference between that and what Zee said seems pretty slight to me.

 

[Zee]

Karlsson's going to be 29 this season, you sign him to a huge 8 year deal and he's 37 at the end and probably playing way less effectively than he can now.  At the same time you're willing to trade a 20 or 21 year old player who in 8 years could be one of the best forwards in the game.  Hard no for me.

I love Nylander, but I suppose I just can't believe he'll be one of the best forwards in the game. Will he be a premier scoring winger? Ya, almost certainly. Will he ever be in conversations for a major award? No, very unlikely.

And lets at least be honest about the facts. Nylander's already 22 -- which is obviously still young -- and Karlsson doesn't turn 29 until the playoffs, when Nylander turns 23.

That's fine, but still Nylander at 23 is just entering his prime, Karlsson is leaving his.  Also, earlier in the thread someone mentioned the only 2 players on the Leafs they WOULDN'T include in a trade for Karlsson were Matthews and Tavares.  So that means even Mitch Marner is on the table.  Marner at 21/22, no way I'd deal him for Karlsson at this age. 

I don't think the Leafs NEED an $11M defenseman to try and go on a Cup run, Pittsburgh showed off the model of having a great forward core and being cheap on D and still being able to win.  Leafs could fit Karlsson in this year, but after that it becomes really tough to have him making that much money on the back end, and going into his 30s.

Long story short, we should have drafted Karlsson instead of Luke Schenn (lol)

 

[herman]

Note that the Penguins couldn't repeat their Cup winning ways with Crosby-Malkin until there was additional elite scoring threat from the wings (Kessel), i.e. 3-line depth.

 

[Frank E]

Note that the Penguins couldn't repeat their Cup winning ways with Crosby-Malkin until there was additional elite scoring threat from the wings (Kessel), i.e. 3-line depth.

Sure, but Kessel was kind of replacing Neal though.

And if we're using the Penguins big-3 as a template to copy, then Tavares - Matthews - Marner would be my preference over Tavares - Matthews - Nylander.

If it's Dubas' intent to keep all 4 of them, then indeed a $11m Karlsson is not in the cards.  If we look at the Capitals roster, other than 68 points out of Carlson, the defense doesn't really wow you...just like the 2016 and 2017 Penguins D corps.

I'm sort of thinking that the Leafs have sort of doubled down on a Letang or a Carlson, in Rielly and Gardiner combined.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

And if we're using the Penguins big-3 as a template to copy, then Tavares - Matthews - Marner would be my preference over Tavares - Matthews - Nylander.

Yeah, the Leafs already have 2 Kessel's and a 3C that far exceeds what Pittsburgh used in their last Cup winning year. So if anything the Pittsburgh model tells us we have talent to spare up front.

Again, I'm not saying that we should trade Nylander for Karlsson, but that idea that it would hurt our Cup chances in the next few years seems pretty iffy.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Again, I'm not saying that we should trade Nylander for Karlsson, but that idea that it would hurt our Cup chances in the next few years seems pretty iffy.

Is someone making the claim that having him on the team will hurt the Leafs' chances in the next few years?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Is someone making the claim that having him on the team will hurt the Leafs' chances in the next few years?

Unless I'm misreading an argument yeah I think there are claims that Nylander would help the team win a Cup more than Karlsson would, even in the near-future.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Is someone making the claim that having him on the team will hurt the Leafs' chances in the next few years?

Unless I'm misreading an argument yeah I think there are claims that Nylander would help the team win a Cup more than Karlsson would, even in the near-future.

Where are you reading that claim? All the counterpoint I'm reading is relative to the back end of the contract.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Where are you reading that claim? All the counterpoint I'm reading is relative to the back end of the contract.

Well I think the talk about the Pittsburgh model sure implied it.

But even if I read into that wrong, I still disagree about the other counterpoint you brought up. Maybe this is a bit of a hot take, but as a fan I'm really not too concerned about what the team will look like in 2024. We aren't a rebuilding team anymore, our roster management decisions should be done with the goal of winning as many Cups in the next 4 years as possible. Obviously there's limits to that. You can't trade all of the 2020 draft picks for something. And I wouldn't be looking to trade Nylander for Chara or something like that. But most HHOF-calibre defencemen (and let's make one thing clear, that's what Karlsson is) are still top pairing guys into their late 30s.

So even if Karlsson's play drops off a bit in the back end of the contract I think you can make the case a 36 or whatever year old Karlsson would be just as valuable as a 30 year old Nylander.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Really I'm fine with people not wanting to trade Nylander for Karlsson. Especially when you take potential cap considerations into play. My issue is with the arguments that don't seem to take into consideration how good Karlsson really is, and how good he'll continue to be.

 

[herman]

Is someone making the claim that having him on the team will hurt the Leafs' chances in the next few years?

Unless I'm misreading an argument yeah I think there are claims that Nylander would help the team win a Cup more than Karlsson would, even in the near-future.

Karlsson would help us win, no doubt; Karlsson is a player I want on our team, but not if it costs Nylander. I believe keeping Nylander would help us win more Cups.

For me it's not just a Nylander vs. Karlsson comparison, as it's more a Nylander + something with that cap space vs Karlsson - additional acquisition cost, as well as my personal build philosophy and playstyle preference. Elements of what Karlsson brings to the table I'd argue we already have in Rielly + Gardiner + Dermott, just not on the right side yet.

I see championships being won consistently on Scoring Talent + forward depth (overmatching offense) + team defense + good goalie. So I don't see the pressing need to spend super heavily on a defenseman. Open to being convinced otherwise though.

 

[Frank E]

Is someone making the claim that having him on the team will hurt the Leafs' chances in the next few years?

Unless I'm misreading an argument yeah I think there are claims that Nylander would help the team win a Cup more than Karlsson would, even in the near-future.

Karlsson would help us win, no doubt; Karlsson is a player I want on our team, but not if it costs Nylander. I believe keeping Nylander would help us win more Cups.

For me it's not just a Nylander vs. Karlsson comparison, as it's more a Nylander + something with that cap space vs Karlsson - additional acquisition cost, as well as my personal build philosophy and playstyle preference. Elements of what Karlsson brings to the table I'd argue we already have in Rielly + Gardiner + Dermott, just not on the right side yet.

I see championships being won consistently on Scoring Talent + forward depth (overmatching offense) + team defense + good goalie. So I don't see the pressing need to spend super heavily on a defenseman. Open to being convinced otherwise though.

I think the idea of having an elite Norris winner pushing your offense for 25-30 minutes a game in the playoffs is a pretty enticing idea...especially since Karlsson can skate with the Leafs' top forwards.

 

[Zee]

If we could somehow add Karlsson for this season WITHOUT giving up one of our core forward pieces I'd be all for it of course. 

I think people are selling Nylander short.  He's had back to back 60+ point seasons and I believe he still has more to give.  He could become a true elite level winger and put up a point a game type production, especially in the next few seasons given the center depth the Leafs have.  I know you build through center ice, but I think it's still extremely valuable to have high end wingers with those centers, and Nylander has a lethal shot which forces the opposition to respect him in addition to the center he plays with (Matthews) as both are threats to score.  I'm fully expecting a huge breakout year from Nylander upcoming, and I want the Leafs to reap the benefits of that.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I see championships being won consistently on Scoring Talent + forward depth (overmatching offense) + team defense + good goalie. So I don't see the pressing need to spend super heavily on a defenseman. Open to being convinced otherwise though.

But I mean it's not like we're talking about a stay at home defenceman here. I'd argue that Karlsson would have an even bigger impact on the teams "scoring talent" and their ability to "overmatch offence" as Nylander would.