herman
Well-known member
Mac Hollowell is the reason Sean Durzi was more available than usual.
Leafs Acquire Jake Muzzin
- Thread starter Deebo
- Start date
Nik the Trik said:
That's fair. A part of my problem with the statement that the Kings "chose" Durzi over Liljegren is that it also makes it seem like the Leafs view the two players the exact same, which I'm pretty confident in thinking that they don't. I doubt it would have been as simple as the 1st and Grundstrom being decided on and the Leafs just letting LA pick the defenceman. If for whatever reason the Kings DID want Liljegren over Durzi they would have had to make concessions elsewhere I think. But yeah I mean this is all just hypothetical spit-balling.
Nik the Trik said:
I don't know if it would have been completely unreasonable. I mean we bring up the McDonagh trade all the time and that included Tampa's upcoming 1st round pick and prospect selected in the 1st round whose stock seemed to only be rising.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Well, I'd argue that what it implies is that whatever the difference between Liljegren and Durzi, in the Leafs' eyes it's not significant enough to risk not getting Muzzin.
But, and forgive me for continuing to beat a drum here, but this is why Friedman's reporting(and really all of this unnamed source "scoop" based sports reporting) is actually terrible. After reading that, do you really consider yourself better informed on how this trade was negotiated? Based on what? To know that we'd have to know who Friedman was talking to and what they actually said.
Nik the Trik said:
Yeah and I guess I didn't make it clear enough but this is largely why I brought it up. Friedman just shouldn't have said "the Kings chose Durzi over Liljegren". He doesn't know that, and based off his previous sentence that's not even what the scouts he spoke to said.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Well, but even there you're assuming he's talking to scouts. For all we know he might know exactly how things went down because he's talking to Dubas or someone. Or it might just be some hanger on in LA's front office. I don't want to completely crap on Friedman because I'm sure he'd say that his professional reputation is built on the idea that he's well sourced enough not to repeat things he doesn't know are true but it's still not actual information.
Nik the Trik said:
And Tampa also had to give up Namestnikov, a 2nd rounder that can still become a 1st, and a prospect recently drafted in the 2nd round. It was obviously a big and complicated trade and something that's impossible to break down piece by piece but I'd hazard to guess that the 1st+Howden for McDonagh part was pretty central to it.
Anyway, moral of the story is I think the Leafs did great here.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Well, ok, but even then while I know this isn't the best way to evaluate players McDonagh is someone who at least had the perception to a degree of being a #1-ish defenseman. He's had five top 20 Norris finishes to Muzzin's Norris history being a single fifth place vote. I agree that the Leafs did well but I understand why a team would feel confident in asking for a bigger return for McDonagh than Muzzin.
Also, while I know we're getting pretty far afield here but I'm going to indulge because the board isn't exactly burning down at the moment, but I almost see Namestnikov's involvement in that trade as something New York did for Tampa rather than the other way around. Tampa had no room for Namestnikov who had one year of inflated point totals while playing on the Stamkos-Kucherov line but otherwise he's sort of a non-entity and is kind of proving that at the moment in New York. He may have had some vague value at the time of the trade but I don't think anyone smart would have wanted to pay him.
Highlander
Active member
Good point, I was going to mention him. Seems to be a very gifted player, perhaps more than Durzi but without the size.herman said:
Kin
New member
Andy said:
Isn't the issue there that clearly the Leafs have either A) actually liked Hainsey or B) Saw him as the best of a bad bunch of choices.
Personally I see defensemen playing the wrong side a bit like the issue Team Canada always has with having too many talented Centres and moving some to the wing. Is it ideal? No but it's not enough of an issue that you leave Stamkos or Tavares off the roster.
herman
Well-known member
Andy said:
Holl this fuss... Muzzin't get caught up in the LR D hype.
Teams have been icing defense corps with LL or RR for decades (Kaberle-McCabe was pretty good for us). Yes, playing off-hand is slightly more difficult and forces that player to simplify their game in pressure plays (Hainsey, Hyman, Komarov), but that doesn't mean a good player is no longer a good player.
In the case of Muzzin, he's going to be playing alongside someone who is a) nominal defensively whichever side he plays, and b) aces on offense regardless of the side he plays. LR defense is a luxury, not a prerequisite.
LifeTimeLeafer
New member
For that matter, who can think of a really successful RR pairing from the last decade? I'm stumped.
Further, can anyone think of the last time a right-handed defenseman played the left side with any regularity?
Further, can anyone think of the last time a right-handed defenseman played the left side with any regularity?
LifeTimeLeafer said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the number of right-handed defencemen who played the majority of a season on the left side in the past 10-15 years is zero.
Well if you're looking to impress your friends with some trivia (assuming you have very lame friends), Matt Niskanen answers this question. In his first season in the league he regularly played on the left side of Dallas' top pairing with fellow righty Sergei Zubov. Then when he was traded to Pittsburgh he played a decent amount with righties Letang and Lovejoy, presumably also on the left side because of his experience there with Dallas. He's been firmly on the right side though for the past 6 seasons.
