• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Dave Bolland

Potvin29 said:
Since he became a full-time NHLer he's been healthy for 69% of regular season games, and now he's coming off a serious injury to his ankle when he was never a great skater to begin with.

I think whatever he comes in at will probably be an overpayment and I'm not particularly interested in him.  Maybe if they didn't already have Clarkson it might be easier to look past, but such is reality.

I have to agree, it's risky. I like Bolland as a player, but I'd probably pass, if it was my decision to make.
 
BlueWhiteBlood said:
Potvin29 said:
Since he became a full-time NHLer he's been healthy for 69% of regular season games, and now he's coming off a serious injury to his ankle when he was never a great skater to begin with.

I think whatever he comes in at will probably be an overpayment and I'm not particularly interested in him.  Maybe if they didn't already have Clarkson it might be easier to look past, but such is reality.

I have to agree, it's risky. I like Bolland as a player, but I'd probably pass, if it was my decision to make.

I'm guessing he gets signed by the Leafs and he has a better than expected season. Just a hunch.

BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.
 
RedLeaf said:
BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.

Neither of them proved they belonged on this club. Clarkson for obvious reasons, and Bolland because he simply did not play enough games before getting hurt and was not good after he came back.
 
RedLeaf said:
BlueWhiteBlood said:
Potvin29 said:
Since he became a full-time NHLer he's been healthy for 69% of regular season games, and now he's coming off a serious injury to his ankle when he was never a great skater to begin with.

I think whatever he comes in at will probably be an overpayment and I'm not particularly interested in him.  Maybe if they didn't already have Clarkson it might be easier to look past, but such is reality.

I have to agree, it's risky. I like Bolland as a player, but I'd probably pass, if it was my decision to make.

I'm guessing he gets signed by the Leafs and he has a better than expected season. Just a hunch.

BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.

I think a one year deal is the best option for Bolland to prove he's still the player he was pre injury.  I know he wants long term, but if takes a one year deal and proves he's fit and ready they can work on a long term extension during the season.  If he has a great season he cashes in on UFA in 2015, sure it's a risk he might not be willing to take.  Could either cash in large or get nothing if the season falls apart for him.  Teams are wary of him this summer because of the injury.
 
RedLeaf said:
BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.

Bolland had 15 good games. He didn't prove anything.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
RedLeaf said:
BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.

Bolland had 15 good games. He didn't prove anything.

My guess is Bolland will go to UFA and see what other teams are offering.  If nobody is willing to go 7 years for him, maybe he takes the short deal with the Leafs.  They'll probably be some team willing to go term, although maybe not in a traditional hockey market.  If that's what he wants so be it.
 
bustaheims said:
RedLeaf said:
BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.

Neither of them proved they belonged on this club. Clarkson for obvious reasons, and Bolland because he simply did not play enough games before getting hurt and was not good after he came back.

The 'not good after he came back' is understandable. He's even said he came back too early to try and help this club make the playoffs.

As for the 'not playing enough games' to prove he belonged, I'm not buying that. The games he did play were pretty darn good, and I think Nonis and Shanny saw enough, and know enough about him to try and keep him a Leaf. In fact I know they want him to stay, at least that's what they are saying publicly. To me, that says all there is to say about whether or not he belongs.
 
RedLeaf said:
bustaheims said:
RedLeaf said:
BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.

Neither of them proved they belonged on this club. Clarkson for obvious reasons, and Bolland because he simply did not play enough games before getting hurt and was not good after he came back.

The 'not good after he came back' is understandable. He's even said he came back too early to try and help this club make the playoffs.

As for the 'not playing enough games' to prove he belonged, I'm not buying that. The games he did play were pretty darn good, and I think Nonis and Shanny saw enough, and know enough about him to try and keep him a Leaf. In fact I know they want him to stay, at least that's what they are saying publicly. To me, that says all there is to say about whether or not he belongs.

Why does Nonis wanting him to stay prove he belongs?  It's the same GM who signed Clarkson.  Just because he might want a player doesn't mean they should be on the team. 
 
RedLeaf said:
As for the 'not playing enough games' to prove he belonged, I'm not buying that. The games he did play were pretty darn good, and I think Nonis and Shanny saw enough, and know enough about him to try and keep him a Leaf.

He played 14 and a half games at the beginning of the season. Maybe if those games were down the stretch, I'd buy it, but, at the beginning of the season, teams are still getting up to speed. A lot of players have very good Octobers and do little to nothing the rest of the way. I'm sorry, but a good October does not prove anything.

RedLeaf said:
In fact I know they want him to stay, at least that's what they are saying publicly. To me, that says all there is to say about whether or not he belongs.

Yeah, as Potvin points out, that doesn't mean anything. Just because he's wanted back doesn't mean he belongs. Management groups frequently bring in/retain players that don't really belong.
 
Potvin29 said:
RedLeaf said:
bustaheims said:
RedLeaf said:
BTW Cap hit aside, Clarkson shouldn't be a reason not to sign Bolland. One of them proved they belonged on this club and one didn't. You don't keep the one that didn't (I know they have little choice here) and get rid of the one that did.

Neither of them proved they belonged on this club. Clarkson for obvious reasons, and Bolland because he simply did not play enough games before getting hurt and was not good after he came back.

The 'not good after he came back' is understandable. He's even said he came back too early to try and help this club make the playoffs.

As for the 'not playing enough games' to prove he belonged, I'm not buying that. The games he did play were pretty darn good, and I think Nonis and Shanny saw enough, and know enough about him to try and keep him a Leaf. In fact I know they want him to stay, at least that's what they are saying publicly. To me, that says all there is to say about whether or not he belongs.

Why does Nonis wanting him to stay prove he belongs?  It's the same GM who signed Clarkson.  Just because he might want a player doesn't mean they should be on the team.

Whaaaa? I seriously don't know how to answer that.

Nonis is the GM of the Leafs. It is his job to know who belongs on this team and who doesn't. With Bolland, he's had 15 games to watch him as a Leaf in order to base a decision on whether or not he belongs, and with Clarkson he had none.

But your argument is to discredit Nonis and his ability to make these types of basic GM decisions based on the Clarkson signing? Ok then.
 
We are stuck with Clarkson because he's a huge cap hit AND terrible.  You can't trade him. You can't buy him out (without having a pretty awful buyout penalty for more than a decade).

With Bolland you know he is going to get injured because it happens every year.  He missed about 30% of a season even if you take out last year.  So if Bolland signs a 4 million dollar contract, you are really paying him the equivalent of something over 5 million based on the pro-rated amount of season he actually contributes to.  You need to account for his games missed as part of his contract.

And as for whether you can bank on his 15 games at the start of the year. If he didn't have a crippling injury that made turning pretty much impossible I would agree that there is some value in it.  But the reality is that tendon injuries are not a guarantee for recovery.  We have no idea what kind of game shape Bolland will be in come September.  If he can't skate anymore he's done as a player.  It doesn't matter how smart he is or how good he is in the dressing room if he is useless on the ice/is injured.

And getting back to why Clarkson matters.  Because we have a salary cap.  Every overpriced contract cuts in to what the Leafs are able to afford.  The defense needs upgrades which never come cheap.  The Leafs have a lot of overpriced players as it is (not bad players just more expensive than good cap value) and adding more of them doesn't solve the Leafs problems.  Clarkson himself has nothing to do with Bolland but it's the GMs bad judgement that makes taking risks on guys in the future hard to do.
 
L K said:
We are stuck with Clarkson because he's a huge cap hit AND terrible.  You can't trade him. You can't buy him out (without having a pretty awful buyout penalty for more than a decade).

With Bolland you know he is going to get injured because it happens every year.  He missed about 30% of a season even if you take out last year.  So if Bolland signs a 4 million dollar contract, you are really paying him the equivalent of something over 5 million based on the pro-rated amount of season he actually contributes to.  You need to account for his games missed as part of his contract.

And as for whether you can bank on his 15 games at the start of the year. If he didn't have a crippling injury that made turning pretty much impossible I would agree that there is some value in it.  But the reality is that tendon injuries are not a guarantee for recovery.  We have no idea what kind of game shape Bolland will be in come September.  If he can't skate anymore he's done as a player.  It doesn't matter how smart he is or how good he is in the dressing room if he is useless on the ice/is injured.

And getting back to why Clarkson matters.  Because we have a salary cap.  Every overpriced contract cuts in to what the Leafs are able to afford.  The defense needs upgrades which never come cheap.  The Leafs have a lot of overpriced players as it is (not bad players just more expensive than good cap value) and adding more of them doesn't solve the Leafs problems.  Clarkson himself has nothing to do with Bolland but it's the GMs bad judgement that makes taking risks on guys in the future hard to do.

I get all of that. I get why some people don't want him back. We got burned with Clarkson, and his contract is with us for years. He also has a injury laden past, and is coming off one of the most serious injuries of his career.

And yet, something tells me that Nonis and Shanahan, who are two pretty smart hockey guys, will bring Bolland back next season, or at the very least try their best to do so.

Why take a chance on a guy with all of this baggage and all of these question marks? Are Nonis and Shanahan stupid? I don't think so.

The only answer I have is that the guy just belongs. He's a fit for what they want this team to be moving forward. (I can see their reasoning for this, but to know I'm in the minority) Otherwise they'd just part ways now and be done with him while the opportunity is here.

 
L K said:
And as for whether you can bank on his 15 games at the start of the year. If he didn't have a crippling injury that made turning pretty much impossible I would agree that there is some value in it.

I think regardless of what injury he had there isn't a ton of value in those 15 games, it's just too small of a sample size in comparison to the rest of his body of work.  Players can have hot stretches of 15 games, hell they can have hot stretches of 40 games, but in reality it is better to look at his average over the previous 332 games as a better indicator of the kind of player you're getting rather than a stretch of 15 games that we don't know what it represents.

Just like it would be foolish to look at the 8 games he played after the injury as indicative of the player he will be going forward, I think it is equally foolish to look at his first 15 as a Leaf and expect that going forward.  I mean, if you're willing (not you specifically) to say those first 15 games are enough to sign him on, why wouldn't you say that 8 games after the injury is enough to say you shouldn't sign him and it's a risk?  There's not a whole lot of difference in 7 games there, but because one is off an injury and one isn't the 8 games are discounted.
 
RedLeaf said:
Why take a chance on a guy with all of this baggage and all of these question marks? Are Nonis and Shanahan stupid? I don't think so.

Because, they're human, and one of the few consistent things about human beings is that they make mistakes.
 
bustaheims said:
RedLeaf said:
Why take a chance on a guy with all of this baggage and all of these question marks? Are Nonis and Shanahan stupid? I don't think so.

Because, they're human, and one of the few consistent things about human beings is that they make mistakes.

You're human too, right?......Right? I rest my case. 8)

Just now From Siegel...
Leafs, Dave Bolland have had contract discussions. Bolland would like to stay in T.O. but will test market July 1st if no agreement reached.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
I love the idea that GMs are infallible and can't possibly be bad at their jobs.

I dont think anybody's saying that. In fact, I think alot of people tend to think GMs are inherently incompetent.
 
RedLeaf said:
I dont think anybody's saying that. Some people here are actually presuming deducing that a GMs is inherently incompetent based on prior evidence.

There you go.
 
Nik the Trik said:
RedLeaf said:
I dont think anybody's saying that. Some people here are actually presuming deducing that a GMs is inherently incompetent based on prior evidence.

There you go.

Sure. If you're only counting the bad deals GMs make in their careers.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top