Leafs acquire Michael Grabner

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

So, are you still forecasting a bottom 5 team this season?

Was I not clear enough? Yes. Bottom 5. Quite likely bottom 3.

Are you convinced enough to place a friendly wager?

Nah. I don't need to embarrass you. You do a perfectly good job of that on your own.

No need to be an asshole.

 

[herman]

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/09/17/lou-lamoriello-speaks-to-media-about-michael-grabner-trade/

General question on the trade:
First of all, we acquired an experienced player who has one-year remaining on his contract who brings a tremendous amount of speed to the lineup. Certainly you?ve seen him enough at the Island. It also allows us, with the number of contracts that went back, to do other things at the right time.

What kind of things?
You never know. We were pretty tight on contracts. We don?t know what might come available. It gives you the opportunity to do just the reverse, should that come about, of what we did today, depending on the availability. You always want to have the availability to do anything and everything. We?ve spent a lot of time internally ? I certainly didn?t know a lot of the players here. I?ve said that earlier, as far as where our prospects were and what we felt and who we?ve got in different situations. This is the result of it.


What is Grabner going to bring to the team?
Exceptional speed. There is no question that he is one of the top penalty killers in the League. He pushes other people and he pushes the defence back. We?re looking forward to getting him here.

Is Grabner a guy you would?ve seen a lot in New York with New Jersey in the division?
Too much. His speed pushed the defencemen back. He?s the type of player where what he has, you can?t teach.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Grabner's a good player, but his name really amounts to more than he actually produces.

He's 27 and only has 317 games to his name and he hasn't come close to replicating the 30 goal season he did in his rookie year.  He should be a reasonable draft pick flip player at the deadline and the Leafs really only traded a bunch of lower level prospects and freed up logjams.

Sparks really didn't deserve to be in the ECHL and Bibeau deserves to be the starter over Gibson.  Therefore Gibson was expendable.  Matt Finn and Tom Nilsson are both guys who look to be bottom pairing guys. Finn really looked disappointing for a 2nd round draft pick.

I did somewhat like Carter Verhaeghe though.

I agree for the most part, but as recently as August Dubas told at least one reporter Gibson was expected to begin the season as Marlies starter.

I think Sparks off-season work and performance in the rookie tournament probably changed things a little, coupled with the opportunity to grab Grabner.

 

[Tigger]

That's one way to open up the contract squeeze. Out of the players going the other way, Verhaeghe was a player I watched for, more so Nilsson but I won't lose any sleep there.

45 contracts now, could sign a few PTO's and recoup some picks at the deadline, could also see a few camp invites signed, guys like Brouillard and maybe Joly. ( though I'm not sure how bad Nikolas injury is ) or maybe even a waiver wire pickup. So yeah, flexibility.

Kind of a big flushing sound between minor league players and scouts.

 

[bustaheims]

Kind of a big flushing sound between minor league players and scouts.

Gotta clear out the clutter and get rid of as much filler as possible. That's a significant part of the rebuilding process that often gets overlooked by those of us on the outside.

 

[Redleaf]

So, are you still forecasting a bottom 5 team this season?

Was I not clear enough? Yes. Bottom 5. Quite likely bottom 3.

Are you convinced enough to place a friendly wager?

Nah. I don't need to embarrass you. You do a perfectly good job of that on your own.

I'm sure that's the reason. Nothing to do about embarrassing yourself. Got it.

This contrarian opinion of yours is based on what exactly?

Good coaching and team structure. Good enough to lift the team to playoff potential...probably not. How about just better than the worst 5 teams in the league? Absolutely. I'm willing to back up my conviction with a friendly wager, but Busta is afraid to be publicly humiliated.

 

[Joe S.]

Why do you need a wager to prove what you believe? If you truly believe that the leafs will be better than most are predicting then state the opinion... You don't need to back that up with a bet.

 

[Kin]

Why do you need a wager to prove what you believe? If you truly believe that the leafs will be better than most are predicting then state the opinion... You don't need to back that up with a bet.

You see, it's not what you believe and it's not whether or not you can make a compelling case for what you believe based on, you know, evidence and argument. What really matters is who believes it harder.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

He doesn't need a wager.

Busta stated his opinion, RedLeaf his and then asked for a friendly wager.

We've had plenty of those on this site, avatar change bets and the likes with the Sens fans.

Busta then felt the need to tell RedLeaf that he embarrasses himself.

I know Busta is sharp as a tack and adds a tonne of value to the site with what are almost always sharp observations, but he was the one being rude here and going against the friendly community vibe of this site.

There are ways of saying no without being nasty.

As a moderator, you shouldn't need to be told this.

 

[bustaheims]

He doesn't need a wager.

Busta stated his opinion, RedLeaf his and then asked for a friendly wager.

We've had plenty of those on this site, avatar change bets and the likes with the Sens fans.

Busta then felt the need to tell RedLeaf that he embarrasses himself.

I know Busta is sharp as a tack and adds a tonne of value to the site with what are almost always sharp observations, but he was the one being rude here and going against the friendly community vibe of this site.

There are ways of saying no without being nasty.

As a moderator, you shouldn't need to be told this.

There's also knowing when someone can take a joke.

 

[Redleaf]

Why do you need a wager to prove what you believe? If you truly believe that the leafs will be better than most are predicting then state the opinion... You don't need to back that up with a bet.

You see, it's not what you believe and it's not whether or not you can make a compelling case for what you believe based on, you know, evidence and argument. What really matters is who believes it harder.

If you can provide evidence this team will finish in the bottom five, you've got my attention.

 

[Kin]

If you can provide evidence this team will finish in the bottom five, you've got my attention.

Not to worry, I'll save us both time:

Me: Well, there's the fact that this was a bottom five team last year and they lost their leading scorer and top scoring defensemen while replacing them with virtually no NHL talent of note and...

You: That's argument, not evidence!

Me: This isn't court, I'm using the actual definition of the word evidence.

You: Evidence means definitive statements!

Me: No, that's a legal definition.

You: Circumstantial Evidence!

Me: Yes, I'm glad you've seen Law and Order, but again evidence does not mean-

You: Babcock hates to lose! Veterans! Structure!

Me: Hey, I wonder what's going on in the Blue Jays game.

 

[rdowdall]

If you can provide evidence this team will finish in the bottom five, you've got my attention.

Not to worry, I'll save us both time:

Me: Well, there's the fact that this was a bottom five team last year and they lost their leading scorer and top scoring defensemen while replacing them with virtually no NHL talent of note and...

You: That's argument, not evidence!

Me: This isn't court, I'm using the actual definition of the word evidence.

You: Evidence means definitive statements!

Me: No, that's a legal definition.

You: Circumstantial Evidence!

Me: Yes, I'm glad you've seen Law and Order, but again evidence does not mean-

You: Babcock hates to lose! Veterans! Structure!

Me: Hey, I wonder what's going on in the Blue Jays game.

Is that slander or defamation of character?

 

[bustaheims]

If you can provide evidence this team will finish in the bottom five, you've got my attention.

Not to worry, I'll save us both time:

Me: Well, there's the fact that this was a bottom five team last year and they lost their leading scorer and top scoring defensemen while replacing them with virtually no NHL talent of note and...

You: That's argument, not evidence!

Me: This isn't court, I'm using the actual definition of the word evidence.

You: Evidence means definitive statements!

Me: No, that's a legal definition.

You: Circumstantial Evidence!

Me: Yes, I'm glad you've seen Law and Order, but again evidence does not mean-

You: Babcock hates to lose! Veterans! Structure!

Me: Hey, I wonder what's going on in the Blue Jays game.

Is that slander or defamation of character?

Since it's written, it would be libel.

 

[rdowdall]

If you can provide evidence this team will finish in the bottom five, you've got my attention.

Not to worry, I'll save us both time:

Me: Well, there's the fact that this was a bottom five team last year and they lost their leading scorer and top scoring defensemen while replacing them with virtually no NHL talent of note and...

You: That's argument, not evidence!

Me: This isn't court, I'm using the actual definition of the word evidence.

You: Evidence means definitive statements!

Me: No, that's a legal definition.

You: Circumstantial Evidence!

Me: Yes, I'm glad you've seen Law and Order, but again evidence does not mean-

You: Babcock hates to lose! Veterans! Structure!

Me: Hey, I wonder what's going on in the Blue Jays game.

Is that slander or defamation of character?

Since it's written, it would be libel.

WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN?!?!?!?

 

[Kin]

Is that slander or defamation of character?

I'm pretty sure I'm covered by fair use.

 

[bustaheims]

Is that slander or defamation of character?

I'm pretty sure I'm covered by fair use.

Is someone's character covered by copyright law? Are online personas considered to be intellectual property? We could be setting precedents here!

 

[rdowdall]

Is that slander or defamation of character?

I'm pretty sure I'm covered by fair use.

Is someone's character covered by copyright law? Are online personas considered to be intellectual property? We could be setting precedents here!

The internet.  Welcome to the wild wild west.

 

[bustaheims]

WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN?!?!?!?

I simply hold everyone to a higher standard. I expect a reasonable level of quality and accuracy. ;D

 

[rdowdall]

WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN?!?!?!?

I simply hold everyone to a higher standard. I expect a reasonable level of quality and accuracy. ;D

Prepare to be disappointed.