Jake Gardiner

[bustaheims]

Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

While I was all aboard trading JvR, Bozak, etc., at this past deadline, I disagree about Gardiner. For the guys we let walk this summer, it didn't appear as though the intention was to ever really attempt to retain them. I don't think that will be true with Gardiner. Unless he makes it crystal clear he has zero intention of even considering extending his time as a Leaf (which seems unlikely), you hold on to him as long as you can to get as much time to negotiate a new contract. If you can't come to an agreement, so be it - but, you're not holding on to a player you don't see is part of the future, like the team did with JvR, Bozak, etc. You're giving yourself the best opportunity to retain a player you want as part of your team long-term.

 

[Average Joes]

If they are well within the playoffs at the trade deadline I cannot imagine why they would trade him.  I thought the goal was to make as many good runs as possible in as many years as possible.  Between now and the next few years your forward group is probably in its best condition before some gradual decline (Tavares) or you loose players like Kadri due to salary cap issues.  Weakening the defence by trading Gardiner weakens one of your better years to compete. 

In hindsight trading JVR and Bozak would probably have been wise. I somewhat hesitate to say that in the slight risk that without them they would have performed poorly against Boston and Tavares would have been less confident in Toronto's future success. 

 

[Coco-puffs]

Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

While I was all aboard trading JvR, Bozak, etc., at this past deadline, I disagree about Gardiner. For the guys we let walk this summer, it didn't appear as though the intention was to ever really attempt to retain them. I don't think that will be true with Gardiner. Unless he makes it crystal clear he has zero intention of even considering extending his time as a Leaf (which seems unlikely), you hold on to him as long as you can to get as much time to negotiate a new contract. If you can't come to an agreement, so be it - but, you're not holding on to a player you don't see is part of the future, like the team did with JvR, Bozak, etc. You're giving yourself the best opportunity to retain a player you want as part of your team long-term.

There were two schools of thought last season when it came to pleading that the three guys who were on expiring deals get dealt (well, two anyways... Komarov was a different case because some wanted him gone no matter what because he wasn't performing well):

1.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them NO MATTER what it does to our current opportunity.  Can't lose guys for nothing, ever.
2.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them BECAUSE I don't think they are a contender yet.

I think the difference now is, most of us think we are contenders now after adding Tavares.  To that point, almost anyone who in the latter group would say "we keep Gardiner at the deadline" assuming the season goes as expected.  They may argue they'd prefer to trade him NOW (in the offseason) and try and address the defense with the return which I'm on board with- but don't think there is much reality in it happening so I expect things to stay status quo.

Then there is the group who believed in the former position.  To that group: if we are contenders and our window is NOW you don't subtract *a good player* from your team at the deadline worrying about losing him for nothing.  For example:
If we still had JvR this season (in addition to our current team) and we had no intention of re-signing him I still don't think you trade him at the upcoming deadline.  Again, you can argue we should move him NOW for assets and I wouldn't be against that- but not at the deadline. 

 

[Bullfrog]

Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

While I was all aboard trading JvR, Bozak, etc., at this past deadline, I disagree about Gardiner. For the guys we let walk this summer, it didn't appear as though the intention was to ever really attempt to retain them. I don't think that will be true with Gardiner. Unless he makes it crystal clear he has zero intention of even considering extending his time as a Leaf (which seems unlikely), you hold on to him as long as you can to get as much time to negotiate a new contract. If you can't come to an agreement, so be it - but, you're not holding on to a player you don't see is part of the future, like the team did with JvR, Bozak, etc. You're giving yourself the best opportunity to retain a player you want as part of your team long-term.

Agreed. It was pretty clear that it was unlikely JvR and Bozak were staying. Gardiner is someone they should be actively looking to sign.

 

[mr grieves]

There were two schools of thought last season when it came to pleading that the three guys who were on expiring deals get dealt (well, two anyways... Komarov was a different case because some wanted him gone no matter what because he wasn't performing well):

1.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them NO MATTER what it does to our current opportunity.  Can't lose guys for nothing, ever.
2.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them BECAUSE I don't think they are a contender yet.

I think the difference now is, most of us think we are contenders now after adding Tavares.  To that point, almost anyone who in the latter group would say "we keep Gardiner at the deadline" assuming the season goes as expected.  They may argue they'd prefer to trade him NOW (in the offseason) and try and address the defense with the return which I'm on board with- but don't think there is much reality in it happening so I expect things to stay status quo.

Then there is the group who believed in the former position.  To that group: if we are contenders and our window is NOW you don't subtract *a good player* from your team at the deadline worrying about losing him for nothing.  For example:
If we still had JvR this season (in addition to our current team) and we had no intention of re-signing him I still don't think you trade him at the upcoming deadline.  Again, you can argue we should move him NOW for assets and I wouldn't be against that- but not at the deadline. 

I think, if it's clear by training camp that Gardiner doesn't want to extend at a number that works for the Leafs, then they should trade him, ASAP, so they have time to sort out defense during the season.

Their chances to contend are better, over the long term, if they trade one year of Gardiner for assets that will have value over the next several years. Picks and prospects can be developed into useful players that would elevate the team in years 4, 5, 6, etc. They can also be packaged and turned into something that could improve the team in years 2-6+. But if Gardiner is an expiring contract, he won't offer the team any value beyond this season, and they should move him now.

Of course, their chances to contend, over the long term, are best with Gardiner under a manageable contract, so re-signing him at a number that works with the upcoming commitments is my preference.

 

[Joe S.]

Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

Only if there's a reason to think that it's an inherent issue rather than a one-game sample which can swing wildly. But that notion is completely undercut by what we actually saw. Gardiner has played in elimination games before and played well in elimination games before. The idea that he can't, that playing badly in that game is indicative of some sort of deficiency to be concerned with going forward, simply has no legitimate case.

And absent that case to be made, this is "We should be open to trading him because he played badly in that one game" regardless of when that game was.

Has he in fact played well in elimination games before?  Can't recall G6 against Washington.  In any event, since we haven't won the Cup he by definition hasn't played spectacularly well enough in elimination games to offset the recency bias of his spectacularly bad game against Boston.

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

Game 7 wasn?t the only elimination game in the series.

 

[ZBBM]

Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

Only if there's a reason to think that it's an inherent issue rather than a one-game sample which can swing wildly. But that notion is completely undercut by what we actually saw. Gardiner has played in elimination games before and played well in elimination games before. The idea that he can't, that playing badly in that game is indicative of some sort of deficiency to be concerned with going forward, simply has no legitimate case.

And absent that case to be made, this is "We should be open to trading him because he played badly in that one game" regardless of when that game was.

Has he in fact played well in elimination games before?  Can't recall G6 against Washington.  In any event, since we haven't won the Cup he by definition hasn't played spectacularly well enough in elimination games to offset the recency bias of his spectacularly bad game against Boston.

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

Game 7 wasn?t the only elimination game in the series.

Good point.  The "last game of series"?

 

[freer]

Which it is -- except in an artificial world where particular one-game samples, in this case elimination games, are the keys to the whole reason you compete in the first place.  In that artificial world, those particular one-games do have an importance that no amount of  statistical counterargument can completely nullify.

Only if there's a reason to think that it's an inherent issue rather than a one-game sample which can swing wildly. But that notion is completely undercut by what we actually saw. Gardiner has played in elimination games before and played well in elimination games before. The idea that he can't, that playing badly in that game is indicative of some sort of deficiency to be concerned with going forward, simply has no legitimate case.

And absent that case to be made, this is "We should be open to trading him because he played badly in that one game" regardless of when that game was.

Has he in fact played well in elimination games before?  Can't recall G6 against Washington.  In any event, since we haven't won the Cup he by definition hasn't played spectacularly well enough in elimination games to offset the recency bias of his spectacularly bad game against Boston.

I'm not defending people who say he should be traded solely because of that one game.  I am defending the idea that people are not being irrational when they use that game as part of a larger argument to trade him, which is what PPP wants to squelch.  Whether such arguments are persuasive overall, or not, is a whole other debate that's separate from the what I'm talking about here.

Game 7 wasn?t the only elimination game in the series.

Good point.  The "last game of series"?

I have never been a big fan of him, anyways. They got rid Cody Fransen after he was found to be the fall guy the last time we lost to BOS. I would not be disappointed either way.

 

[Coco-puffs]

There were two schools of thought last season when it came to pleading that the three guys who were on expiring deals get dealt (well, two anyways... Komarov was a different case because some wanted him gone no matter what because he wasn't performing well):

1.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them NO MATTER what it does to our current opportunity.  Can't lose guys for nothing, ever.
2.  We can't let guys walk at the end of the season and not get anything for them BECAUSE I don't think they are a contender yet.

I think the difference now is, most of us think we are contenders now after adding Tavares.  To that point, almost anyone who in the latter group would say "we keep Gardiner at the deadline" assuming the season goes as expected.  They may argue they'd prefer to trade him NOW (in the offseason) and try and address the defense with the return which I'm on board with- but don't think there is much reality in it happening so I expect things to stay status quo.

Then there is the group who believed in the former position.  To that group: if we are contenders and our window is NOW you don't subtract *a good player* from your team at the deadline worrying about losing him for nothing.  For example:
If we still had JvR this season (in addition to our current team) and we had no intention of re-signing him I still don't think you trade him at the upcoming deadline.  Again, you can argue we should move him NOW for assets and I wouldn't be against that- but not at the deadline. 

I think, if it's clear by training camp that Gardiner doesn't want to extend at a number that works for the Leafs, then they should trade him, ASAP, so they have time to sort out defense during the season.

Their chances to contend are better, over the long term, if they trade one year of Gardiner for assets that will have value over the next several years. Picks and prospects can be developed into useful players that would elevate the team in years 4, 5, 6, etc. They can also be packaged and turned into something that could improve the team in years 2-6+. But if Gardiner is an expiring contract, he won't offer the team any value beyond this season, and they should move him now.

Of course, their chances to contend, over the long term, are best with Gardiner under a manageable contract, so re-signing him at a number that works with the upcoming commitments is my preference.

Re-signing him, at a discount, would kinda be a no-brainer as long as you are willing to play one of Dermott or Rielly on the right side long term. 

However, I don't think the math jives at all with your proposition that prospects and picks give us a better chance long term.  They aren't getting as much as you think for Jake Gardiner with 1 year until he hits UFA.  Maybe a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick, or a late first round pick.  Late first round picks only have like a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player.  That decent prospect is probably not going to have much higher odds of becoming an impact player either.

 

[Average Joes]

I agree that a late 1st is probably a reasonable example of what you might get for Gardiner. I would not want to give up our 2nd best defenceman for a 30% or so chance of an NHL player in 3-4 years.  I think the time to accumulate prospects by trading away good roster players passed when the ink dried on Tavares' contract.

 

[mr grieves]

However, I don't think the math jives at all with your proposition that prospects and picks give us a better chance long term.  They aren't getting as much as you think for Jake Gardiner with 1 year until he hits UFA.  Maybe a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick, or a late first round pick.  Late first round picks only have like a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player.  That decent prospect is probably not going to have much higher odds of becoming an impact player either.

The comparison here is to Jake Gardiner walking on July 1st to sign a $6.5m contract in Minnesota or whatever.

 

[Coco-puffs]

However, I don't think the math jives at all with your proposition that prospects and picks give us a better chance long term.  They aren't getting as much as you think for Jake Gardiner with 1 year until he hits UFA.  Maybe a decent prospect and a 2nd round pick, or a late first round pick.  Late first round picks only have like a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player.  That decent prospect is probably not going to have much higher odds of becoming an impact player either.

The comparison here is to Jake Gardiner walking on July 1st to sign a $6.5m contract in Minnesota or whatever.

Let me clarify... when I say a better chance long term I'm essentially averaging our stanley cup championship chances over the next, say, 5 seasons.    Losing Jake Gardiner this year would probably hurt us to the tune of something like ~2%.  I would venture to bet the long term impact of the assets you'd acquire for him will be much less than +0.5% over the other 4 years.

 

[Frank E]

Well, I guess I disagree.  Trading JVR, Bozak, and Komarov, at last year's deadline would have helped solve some of the problems we have today.

I don't think you can let high value assets walk with no return anymore.  If he's intent on going to market, and won't sign a deal, I deal him at the deadline.

EDIT: Or right now, if we know he likely won't re-sign.

While I was all aboard trading JvR, Bozak, etc., at this past deadline, I disagree about Gardiner. For the guys we let walk this summer, it didn't appear as though the intention was to ever really attempt to retain them. I don't think that will be true with Gardiner. Unless he makes it crystal clear he has zero intention of even considering extending his time as a Leaf (which seems unlikely), you hold on to him as long as you can to get as much time to negotiate a new contract. If you can't come to an agreement, so be it - but, you're not holding on to a player you don't see is part of the future, like the team did with JvR, Bozak, etc. You're giving yourself the best opportunity to retain a player you want as part of your team long-term.

Not the first time you've been wrong, won't be the last...

I think if you've got to spend the season convincing Gardiner to stay, after he's been here for like 8 years, you've probably done something wrong.  But regardless, in my mind, to be a long-term contender, you've got to turn these expiring assets that have substantial value. Given the parity of the league, and associated odds of ultimate success (Cup), you need to maximize your return on assets to make sure you stay in contending position for many seasons, even if it costs you a little in the SR.

 

[mr grieves]

Let me clarify... when I say a better chance long term I'm essentially averaging our stanley cup championship chances over the next, say, 5 seasons.    Losing Jake Gardiner this year would probably hurt us to the tune of something like ~2%.  I would venture to bet the long term impact of the assets you'd acquire for him will be much less than +0.5% over the other 4 years.

I get that, but I'm still with Frank on this. Losing Gardiner this year reduces your chances by ~2%, yes. And any pick or prospect would probably give you 0% improvement in the first couple years, but, if you scout prospects well (as we did when getting Gardiner, say), you get slightly better odds over years 3-6. In the end, you end up with more seasons when you're in it, even if you're not as in it as you'd be this season.

And there's also the possibility that assets acquired for Gardiner now could be used on a young, good defenseman who'd be on the team for another 3 or 4. 

 

[Coco-puffs]

Let me clarify... when I say a better chance long term I'm essentially averaging our stanley cup championship chances over the next, say, 5 seasons.    Losing Jake Gardiner this year would probably hurt us to the tune of something like ~2%.  I would venture to bet the long term impact of the assets you'd acquire for him will be much less than +0.5% over the other 4 years.

I get that, but I'm still with Frank on this. Losing Gardiner this year reduces your chances by ~2%, yes. And any pick or prospect would probably give you 0% improvement in the first couple years, but, if you scout prospects well (as we did when getting Gardiner, say), you get slightly better odds over years 3-6. In the end, you end up with more seasons when you're in it, even if you're not as in it as you'd be this season.

Man, in 3-6 years our window might be closing.  Rielly and Kadri's great deals end in 4.  Andersen's ends in 3.  Any of our Big 4 could have a career ending injury.  (I'm knocking on wood all over the place after saying that) 

There is no guarantee that the Leafs will be considered Cup Favourites that far out.  They SHOULD be, but there is no guarantee.  Right now, the Leafs are betting favourites- and while that is definitely based on the amount of action the Leafs are generating on the betting market- they are still in that upper echelon. 

And there's also the possibility that assets acquired for Gardiner now could be used on a young, good defenseman who'd be on the team for another 3 or 4.

I've already stated that I'm fine with this.  If you can trade Gardiner for assets that you parlay into Dumba or Trouba or someone like that, I'm all over it.  But you don't trade Gardiner until you know that other deal is done.  You don't trade him hoping you can parlay it.  It doesn't seem achievable at this moment.  Almost anytime someone says "lets go get that good young d-man over there" the answer is "it'll cost you Nylander or Marner"- Not Jake.

 

[Zee]

If we trade Gardiner what would be the Kawhi Leonard equivalent defenseman we could trade him for?

 

[Bill_Berg]

Urlacher in his prime.

 

[freer]

If we trade Gardiner what would be the Kawhi Leonard equivalent defenseman we could trade him for?

For one thing Gardiner is far from the best player in TO history like Derozan was. So this question doesn't make sense. After games 7 we should get what we can because he is not going to be worth the 6 + mil he is going to ask for at the end of this season.