BlueWhiteBlood
New member
Potvin29 said:
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.
Dave Bolland
- Thread starter Redleaf
- Start date
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.
Redleaf
Active member
BlueWhiteBlood said:
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.
bustaheims
Active member
RedLeaf said:
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.
Zee
Active member
RedLeaf said:
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:
Bolland had 15 good games. He didn't prove anything.
Zee
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
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.
Redleaf
Active member
bustaheims said:
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.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
RedLeaf said:
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.
bustaheims
Active member
RedLeaf said:
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:
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.
Redleaf
Active member
Potvin29 said:
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.
L K
Active member
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.
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.
Boston Leaf
New member
Id let Bolland walk unless he took like 3 mil which he wont. History shows IR....
Redleaf
Active member
L K said:
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.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
L K said:
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.
bustaheims
Active member
RedLeaf said:
Because, they're human, and one of the few consistent things about human beings is that they make mistakes.
I love the idea that GMs are infallible and can't possibly be bad at their jobs.
