Carter to LA

[bustaheims]

Hey busta, what do you think it would take for the Leafs to land Ryan? I'm only asking cause I know you've probably considered it... and I'm in greedy sob fantasy mode trying to figure out if the Leafs could afford, or should even bother trying to acquire, him and Brown.

As cliche as it's becoming, my guess is the framework of the deal would be someone along the lines of Schenn, Kadri and a 1st. And, if the rumours of what LA are/were looking for in return for Brown are even close to true, there's no reasonable way the team can really afford to get both.

 

[Tigger]

Hey busta, what do you think it would take for the Leafs to land Ryan? I'm only asking cause I know you've probably considered it... and I'm in greedy sob fantasy mode trying to figure out if the Leafs could afford, or should even bother trying to acquire, him and Brown.

As cliche as it's becoming, my guess is the framework of the deal would be someone along the lines of Schenn, Kadri and a 1st. And, if the rumours of what LA are/were looking for in return for Brown are even close to true, there's no reasonable way the team can really afford to get both.

That was Schenn and Frattin? What if it was Franson, Frattin and a pick?

 

[bustaheims]

That was Schenn and Frattin? What if it was Franson, Frattin and a pick?

I think that takes away too much of the Leafs' blueline depth. The depth isn't really there to move both Schenn and Franson without it quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Tigger]

That was Schenn and Frattin? What if it was Franson, Frattin and a pick?

I think that takes away too much of the Leafs' blueline depth. The depth isn't really there to move both Schenn and Franson without it quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns.

Well maybe but there's a few guys available on the market in the offseason and the Leafs have, in theory, 4 guys with the Marlies in the knocking on the door dep't...

CAPGEEK.COM CAP CALCULATOR

FORWARDS
Joffrey Lupul ($4.250m) / Tyler Bozak ($1.500m) / Phil Kessel ($5.400m)
Bobby Ryan ($5.100m) / Mik Grabovski ($5.500m) / Dustin Brown ($3.175m)
Clarke MacArthur ($3.250m) / Joe Colborne ($1.100m) / Nik Kulemin ($2.500m)
Matthew Lombardi ($3.500m) / David Steckel ($1.100m) / Mike Brown ($0.736m)
Pluggy Joe ($0.800m)

DEFENSEMEN
Jake Gardiner ($1.116m) / Dion Phaneuf ($6.500m)
John-Michael Liles ($3.875m) / Jay Garrison ($4.000m)
Carl Gunnarsson ($1.325m) / Jesse Blacker ($0.870m)
Keith Aulie ($0.800m)

GOALTENDERS
James Reimer ($1.800m) / Nikolai Khabibulin ($3.750m)

BUYOUTS: Darcy Tucker ($1.000m)

CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $64,300,000; CAP PAYROLL: $62,948,334; BONUSES: $885,000
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $1,351,666

Now that is with a few assumptions, for sure, but for illustration... like I said, being greedy

 

[bustaheims]

$4M for Garrison is a lot for a guy with one year of success . . . at the end of the day, I think there are too many gambles there than I'm comfortable with, especially in net. I'd rather save some of the money/assets and go after a real long-term #1 option in the summer.

 

[ontariojames]

There, you finally said it, you admitted you don't think Johnsons's +- trend is meaningful, this is what you refused to admit which is what made the argument go in circles.

No. Your inability to take "Johnson's +/- numbers are meaningless" from "everyone's +/- numbers are meaningless" is what dragged this out. Don't try to pretend anything else.

But I'll be sure to participate in our next enthralling discussion when I carefully explain to you that everything in a bag of oranges is, itself, an orange.

So let it be on the record that you don't think a player being dead last in +- on his team four years in a row is meaningful and that it's just a big coincidence and/or he is the most unlucky player in the history of professional sports.

If you want to phrase what I'm saying as such rather than "+/- is a flawed statistic that is meaningless when not combined with evaluation" then I'm entirely powerless to stop you. If you want to add in nonsense about coincidence or luck, be my guest. Even the minimal amount of work you think I was doing to make you look unreasonable is work I'll gladly pass on if you're willing to do it yourself.

I gave you three chances to outright say that you thought Johnson's trend was meaningless, and for whatever reason you wouldn't say it, it seemed as though you were trying your hardest to avoid actually saying it directly, that's your own fault.

You just finally flat out said that Johnson's +- is meaningless. If you think that being last on your team in +- 4 years in a row is meaningless then what you are saying is that it's just a coincidence, there's no way around that.

 

[Tigger]

$4M for Garrison is a lot for a guy with one year of success . . . at the end of the day, I think there are too many gambles there than I'm comfortable with, especially in net. I'd rather save some of the money/assets and go after a real long-term #1 option in the summer.

Sure, and trading off 4 young players isn't really a good idea either.

but

That cap hit is nowhere near the projected floating budget, it's supposed to be closer to 68-69 mil so, I purposely put in Garrison ( I agree with your comment btw ), left Lombardi as a super expensive third liner... in theory there's a lot of room to maybe go after a Carle or a Suter too and still try to make that trade for a starter.

At the end of the day the Leafs probably don't get either of those forwards anyways, still, it's interesting to lift the sanity clause once in a while.

 

[Jalili]

Kind of a crappy move by Columbus.

In the long run they paid a pretty heavy price for about half a season of Carter's services. Losing Voracek and Couturier to get Johnson and what will probably be a mid-late 1st, seems like a pretty big downgrade.

On the other hand, the Kings give up Schenn, Simmonds, Johnson and a 1st, to get their hands on the Richards+Carter combo. Not bad.

 

[princedpw]

Kind of a crappy move by Columbus.

In the long run they paid a pretty heavy price for about half a season of Carter's services. Losing Voracek and Couturier to get Johnson and what will probably be a mid-late 1st, seems like a pretty big downgrade.

On the other hand, the Kings give up Schenn, Simmonds, Johnson and a 1st, to get their hands on the Richards+Carter combo. Not bad.

I've got to agree that Columbus is a huge loser, especially given how well Couturier has played in Philly.

Philly also appears to be a loser given how much they paid for Bryz, who is giving them worse goaltending so far than they got from the riff-raff last year.

Finally, LA seems to be loser since despite getting the offensive stars, their offense is, bizarrely, ranked 30th in the league.  Still, I think LA will turn it around sooner or later (possibly next year).

 

[seahawk]

Keep in mind here that it's not a given that Columbus would have drafted the same player that Philly did with that pick. Columbus hasn't had the best record in the draft.

 

[Kin]

I've got to agree that Columbus is a huge loser, especially given how well Couturier has played in Philly.

Philly also appears to be a loser given how much they paid for Bryz, who is giving them worse goaltending so far than they got from the riff-raff last year.

Finally, LA seems to be loser since despite getting the offensive stars, their offense is, bizarrely, ranked 30th in the league.  Still, I think LA will turn it around sooner or later (possibly next year).

Heck of a post. It really does seem a bit like a lose-lose-lose here. LA probably comes out the best but they've got a ton of money invested in two guys who they hope will be able to find their old magic. 

 

[Kin]

I gave you three chances to outright say that you thought Johnson's trend was meaningless, and for whatever reason you wouldn't say it, it seemed as though you were trying your hardest to avoid actually saying it directly, that's your own fault.

Again, you should be able to take "+/- is meaningless" as an answer to "Is Johnson's +/- meaningless". It was an attempt to discuss the larger issue. Something I can plainly see you're either not interested in or capable of. Trust me, I certainly won't try to go deeper into a conversation with you again.

You just finally flat out said that Johnson's +- is meaningless. If you think that being last on your team in +- 4 years in a row is meaningless then what you are saying is that it's just a coincidence, there's no way around that.

Again, if that makes you feel better. Have at it. Most people were not as hopelessly confused by what I was saying as you seem to be.

 

[ontariojames]

I gave you three chances to outright say that you thought Johnson's trend was meaningless, and for whatever reason you wouldn't say it, it seemed as though you were trying your hardest to avoid actually saying it directly, that's your own fault.

Again, you should be able to take "+/- is meaningless" as an answer to "Is Johnson's +/- meaningless". It was an attempt to discuss the larger issue. Something I can plainly see you're either not interested in or capable of. Trust me, I certainly won't try to go deeper into a conversation with you again.

You just finally flat out said that Johnson's +- is meaningless. If you think that being last on your team in +- 4 years in a row is meaningless then what you are saying is that it's just a coincidence, there's no way around that.

Again, if that makes you feel better. Have at it. Most people were not as hopelessly confused by what I was saying as you seem to be.

Nope, you were clearly trying to avoid saying it directly.

That's your only answer, to keep claiming I just don't understand what you are talking about, and this is why you wanted to avoid directly saying that Johnsons's +- was meaningless, because you knew I'd point out how ridiculous that assertion was. You said Johnson's +- was meaningless, therefore, you are saying the trend is a coincidence, there's no way around that.

 

[Bender]

I gave you three chances to outright say that you thought Johnson's trend was meaningless, and for whatever reason you wouldn't say it, it seemed as though you were trying your hardest to avoid actually saying it directly, that's your own fault.

Again, you should be able to take "+/- is meaningless" as an answer to "Is Johnson's +/- meaningless". It was an attempt to discuss the larger issue. Something I can plainly see you're either not interested in or capable of. Trust me, I certainly won't try to go deeper into a conversation with you again.

You just finally flat out said that Johnson's +- is meaningless. If you think that being last on your team in +- 4 years in a row is meaningless then what you are saying is that it's just a coincidence, there's no way around that.

Again, if that makes you feel better. Have at it. Most people were not as hopelessly confused by what I was saying as you seem to be.

Nope, you were clearly trying to avoid saying it directly.

That's your only answer, to keep claiming I just don't understand what you are talking about, and this is why you wanted to avoid directly saying that Johnsons's +- was meaningless, because you knew I'd point out how ridiculous that assertion was. You said Johnson's +- was meaningless, therefore, you are saying the trend is a coincidence, there's no way around that.

You guys are still debating this?