Leafs acquire Michael Grabner

[bustaheims]

It is tough, and I don't expect people to buy that. But the fact of the matter is the Leafs no longer wanted a top 5 NHL superstar who had more points than anyone at the last winter olympics playing against the worlds best players, and who is in the 'prime of his career'. If that does scream 'problem player', I honestly don't know what does.

Kessel's a very good player, but he's not that good. And, the fact that he outscored a bunch of player in a short tournament doesn't change that. The fact that he's in the prime of his career when the team is undergoing a significant rebuild is, in fact, evidence as to why they wanted to trade him. When the team is ready, he won't be in his prime anymore. It doesn't do the team any good to have him around in his prime when the supporting cast is still years away.

 

[Bullfrog]

It is tough, and I don't expect people to buy that. But the fact of the matter is the Leafs no longer wanted a top 5 NHL superstar who had more points than anyone at the last winter olympics playing against the worlds best players, and who is in the 'prime of his career'. If that does scream 'problem player', I honestly don't know what does.

That doesn't imply that he was a problem player at all. It implies that they recognized they had a valuable and expensive asset that didn't fit into their rebuilding plans and that by trading him, they could bolster their prospect pool.

 

[Deebo]

That doesn't imply that he was a problem player at all. It implies that they recognized they had a valuable and expensive asset that didn't fit into their rebuilding plans and that by trading him, they could bolster their prospect pool.

Similar situation in baseball, the Oakland A's traded Donaldson to the Blue Jays. He wasn't going to be too expensive in 2015. He finished top 5 in MVP voting 2 years running. The A's no longer wanted him and he is in the 'prime of his career' too, I wouldn't call him a 'problem player'.

 

[Redleaf]

Have you considered that losing Kessel and his generally poor attitude, may actually be... wait for it... beneficial to the team?

I would agree that other goal scorers at Kessel's level could provide more benefit to a team than Kessel does, but it's tough to show that Kessel's net worth is actually a minus.

It is tough, and I don't expect people to buy that. But the fact of the matter is the Leafs no longer wanted a top 5 NHL superstar who had more points than anyone at the last winter olympics playing against the worlds best players, and who is in the 'prime of his career'. If that does scream 'problem player', I honestly don't know what does.

Because that top 5 NHL superstar was good enough to get them to 17th or 15th in the league, but not good enough to get them to 10th or 8th.  The top 5 NHL superstar didn't have the supporting cast that he needed in order to reach the playoffs, so they traded him for picks and prospects in an effort to build a team that has the necessary pieces to compete for the cup.  The plan is to be bad so at some point in the future they are really good.  The top 5 NHL superstar can be good enough to hamper that plan.

And why do you think it all worked out that way. I mean, isn't the idea to build around top young superstars? Sundin didn't have the proper supporting cast his whole career as a Leaf. I don't know. I have a hard time buying your argument here.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Thank-you CarltonTheBear. Those are my thoughts exactly.

Like I said, you're absolutely free to think that the Leafs won't be a bottom-5 team. Go ahead and post your opinion. But when that opinion creates a conversation/debate like this it's not very constructive to shrug off everyone's reasonable evidence for why they will be a bottom-5 team.

The Leafs were a bottom-5 team last season. Since February they lost 1) their best player, 2) their highest scoring defenceman, and 3) their 4th highest scoring forward. There's a reasonable chance that nobody on this team even cracks the 50-point mark next season, so scoring is going to be a huge issue. Babcock is going to be able to put in more structure but individually the forwards for the most part are below-average defensively so it's not like we're going to be playing like the Nashville Predators here. Even the new guys that they added, Matthias and Pareanteau aren't good defensive players. Brad Boyes isn't a defensive player if he gets signed. Babcock's a great coach, but he isn't going to be able to will these guys into scoring 200+ goals this season and he isn't going to be able to turn Tyler Bozak into Patrice Bergeron.

We basically have a collection of rag-tag forwards that other teams didn't want. How that inspires confidence in anybody is beyond me.

 

[rdowdall]

Have you considered that losing Kessel and his generally poor attitude, may actually be... wait for it... beneficial to the team?

I would agree that other goal scorers at Kessel's level could provide more benefit to a team than Kessel does, but it's tough to show that Kessel's net worth is actually a minus.

It is tough, and I don't expect people to buy that. But the fact of the matter is the Leafs no longer wanted a top 5 NHL superstar who had more points than anyone at the last winter olympics playing against the worlds best players, and who is in the 'prime of his career'. If that does scream 'problem player', I honestly don't know what does.

Because that top 5 NHL superstar was good enough to get them to 17th or 15th in the league, but not good enough to get them to 10th or 8th.  The top 5 NHL superstar didn't have the supporting cast that he needed in order to reach the playoffs, so they traded him for picks and prospects in an effort to build a team that has the necessary pieces to compete for the cup.  The plan is to be bad so at some point in the future they are really good.  The top 5 NHL superstar can be good enough to hamper that plan.

And why do you think it all worked out that way. I mean, isn't the idea to build around top young superstars? Sundin didn't have the proper supporting cast his whole career as a Leaf. I don't know. I have a hard time buying your argument here.

Mogilny, Roberts, McCabe, Kaberle, Neiwendyk, Antropov, Nolan, Svehla, Tucker, Reichel, Leetch, Belfour. 

Those are some of the names from the 2003-2004 season.  That's the last season that Sundin made the playoffs.  He had some names around him. 

Plus, I think Sundin was a more complete player.  Also he played centre and could control the game more from his position.  He was also 6'5", 230 lbs and could play 25 minutes a night if he had to.  Much different player than Kessel.

 

[bustaheims]

And why do you think it all worked out that way. I mean, isn't the idea to build around top young superstars? Sundin didn't have the proper supporting cast his whole career as a Leaf. I don't know. I have a hard time buying your argument here.

The Leafs never went into a full rebuild while Sundin was here. Different situations lead to different actions.

 

[rdowdall]

Have you considered that losing Kessel and his generally poor attitude, may actually be... wait for it... beneficial to the team?

I would agree that other goal scorers at Kessel's level could provide more benefit to a team than Kessel does, but it's tough to show that Kessel's net worth is actually a minus.

It is tough, and I don't expect people to buy that. But the fact of the matter is the Leafs no longer wanted a top 5 NHL superstar who had more points than anyone at the last winter olympics playing against the worlds best players, and who is in the 'prime of his career'. If that does scream 'problem player', I honestly don't know what does.

Because that top 5 NHL superstar was good enough to get them to 17th or 15th in the league, but not good enough to get them to 10th or 8th.  The top 5 NHL superstar didn't have the supporting cast that he needed in order to reach the playoffs, so they traded him for picks and prospects in an effort to build a team that has the necessary pieces to compete for the cup.  The plan is to be bad so at some point in the future they are really good.  The top 5 NHL superstar can be good enough to hamper that plan.

And why do you think it all worked out that way. I mean, isn't the idea to build around top young superstars? Sundin didn't have the proper supporting cast his whole career as a Leaf. I don't know. I have a hard time buying your argument here.

Mogilny, Roberts, McCabe, Kaberle, Neiwendyk, Antropov, Nolan, Svehla, Tucker, Reichel, Leetch, Belfour. 

Those are some of the names from the 2003-2004 season.  That's the last season that Sundin made the playoffs.  He had some names around him. 

Plus, I think Sundin was a more complete player.  Also he played centre and could control the game more from his position.  He was also 6'5", 230 lbs and could play 25 minutes a night if he had to.  Much different player than Kessel.

Sorry, Svehla was not on that team.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Thank-you CarltonTheBear. Those are my thoughts exactly.

Like I said, you're absolutely free to think that the Leafs won't be a bottom-5 team. Go ahead and post your opinion. But when that opinion creates a conversation/debate like this it's not very constructive to shrug off everyone's reasonable evidence for why they will be a bottom-5 team.

The Leafs were a bottom-5 team last season. Since February they lost 1) their best player, 2) their highest scoring defenceman, and 3) their 4th highest scoring forward. There's a reasonable chance that nobody on this team even cracks the 50-point mark next season, so scoring is going to be a huge issue. Babcock is going to be able to put in more structure but individually the forwards for the most part are below-average defensively so it's not like we're going to be playing like the Nashville Predators here. Even the new guys that they added, Matthias and Pareanteau aren't good defensive players. Brad Boyes isn't a defensive player if he gets signed. Babcock's a great coach, but he isn't going to be able to will these guys into scoring 200+ goals this season and he isn't going to be able to turn Tyler Bozak into Patrice Bergeron.

We basically have a collection of rag-tag forwards that other teams didn't want. How that inspires confidence in anybody is beyond me.

Here's how the season will unfold. The team will lose a bunch of games to start. People will be feeling down and out, but then they'll find out the owner wants to move the team, Wild Thing will get glasses, Babcock will unveil a full size picture of Harold Ballard with rip off pieces of clothes (one for each win they need) revealing him wearing something frilly, the team will rally, start winning games, and on the last day of the season, they'll beat the Devils and claim 6th last.

 

[rdowdall]

And why do you think it all worked out that way. I mean, isn't the idea to build around top young superstars? Sundin didn't have the proper supporting cast his whole career as a Leaf. I don't know. I have a hard time buying your argument here.

The Leafs never went into a full rebuild while Sundin was here. Different situations lead to different actions.

And when they wanted to go in to full rebuild mode when Sundin was here, he said "Hell no, I won't go".

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm not going to get into this debate again, but I can't let this pass, busta, without pointing out a simple fact: if Babcock and Shanahan had wanted to keep Kessel, they would have "soundly dismissed" this supposed bad rap and kept him.  To pretend that his "poor attitude" was simply made up by "outsiders" is simply wrong. 

Work ethic and poor attitude aside, I just have a hard time thinking that a coach as proud and confident as Babcock didn't look at Kessel and say "If anybody can turn this guy around it's me".

 

[Redleaf]

It is tough, and I don't expect people to buy that. But the fact of the matter is the Leafs no longer wanted a top 5 NHL superstar who had more points than anyone at the last winter olympics playing against the worlds best players, and who is in the 'prime of his career'. If that does scream 'problem player', I honestly don't know what does.

Kessel's a very good player, but he's not that good. And, the fact that he outscored a bunch of player in a short tournament doesn't change that. The fact that he's in the prime of his career when the team is undergoing a significant rebuild is, in fact, evidence as to why they wanted to trade him. When the team is ready, he won't be in his prime anymore. It doesn't do the team any good to have him around in his prime when the supporting cast is still years away.

Something bothers me about that reasoning though.

Why did Kessel go first? And before the new coaching staff came aboard? If Kessel wasn't the problem with this team moving forward and they only traded him because of the rebuild, why the need to trade him away this off season before others like JVR or Phaneuf?

The return has been widely accepted as being a pretty poor one. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they get more for JVR, if they are indeed in full blown rebuild like you apparently believe is happening.

It just adds to the reason being more about his attitude than being about the good of the rebuild.

 

[bustaheims]

Something bothers me about that reasoning though.

Why did Kessel go first? And before the new coaching staff came aboard? If Kessel wasn't the problem with this team moving forward and they only traded him because of the rebuild, why the need to trade him away this off season before others like JVR or Phaneuf?

The return has been widely accepted as being a pretty poor one. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they get more for JVR, if they are indeed in full blown rebuild like you apparently believe is happening.

It just adds to the reason being more about his attitude than being about the good of the rebuild.

That's your bias colouring your interpretation, though. They didn't trade Phaneuf because he's a much harder sell right now. His value is low and his recent play makes his contract prohibitive. They're keeping him on the premise that Babcock wants to work with him, but, honestly, I believe they just didn't find a trade that was palatable - I don't think it's a coincidence that this storyline didn't really start gaining traction until after the draft and after Kessel was moved. The return being poor is sort of typical for the situation. Very rarely when a team trades their star player do they get the type of return people hope for. What the Leafs got for Kessel was very comparable to similar deals for similar players in similar circumstances.

As for JvR, that's a little more of a mystery. The most likely answer there is that they simply didn't receive an offer they felt was worth pursuing and that they're confident that deal will materialize later.

You're reading a lot into things that are pretty self-explanatory. Rebuilding teams trade their best players, often before other players. The returns on those players are often disappointing, and there's often more of a rush to move those players to remove the potential distraction and to weaken the team.

 

[Redleaf]

Something bothers me about that reasoning though.

Why did Kessel go first? And before the new coaching staff came aboard? If Kessel wasn't the problem with this team moving forward and they only traded him because of the rebuild, why the need to trade him away this off season before others like JVR or Phaneuf?

The return has been widely accepted as being a pretty poor one. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they get more for JVR, if they are indeed in full blown rebuild like you apparently believe is happening.

It just adds to the reason being more about his attitude than being about the good of the rebuild.

That's your bias colouring your interpretation, though. They didn't trade Phaneuf because he's a much harder sell right now. His value is low and his recent play makes his contract prohibitive. They're keeping him on the premise that Babcock wants to work with him, but, honestly, I believe they just didn't find a trade that was palatable - I don't think it's a coincidence that this storyline didn't really start gaining traction until after the draft and after Kessel was moved. The return being poor is sort of typical for the situation. Very rarely when a team trades their star player do they get the type of return people hope for. What the Leafs got for Kessel was very comparable to similar deals for similar players in similar circumstances.

As for JvR, that's a little more of a mystery. The most likely answer there is that they simply didn't receive an offer they felt was worth pursuing and that they're confident that deal will materialize later.

You're reading a lot into things that are pretty self-explanatory. Rebuilding teams trade their best players, often before other players. The returns on those players are often disappointing, and there's often more of a rush to move those players to remove the potential distraction and to weaken the team.

I thought of that at first as well. I don't know, it just feels like there was more to it than subtracting Kessel's goal output to try and finish lower in the standings? Why, then do they trade away  futures for Grabner? Why the PTO's? Thats going to hurt the rebuild more than help it IMO. Trade fodder at the deadline really depends on those players doing well for their team. Explain away, but I've got a pretty clear indication of whats going on in my mind. It just differs with yours. But thats what this board is all about, right?

 

[herman]

Something bothers me about that reasoning though.

Why did Kessel go first? And before the new coaching staff came aboard? If Kessel wasn't the problem with this team moving forward and they only traded him because of the rebuild, why the need to trade him away this off season before others like JVR or Phaneuf?

The return has been widely accepted as being a pretty poor one. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they get more for JVR, if they are indeed in full blown rebuild like you apparently believe is happening.

It just adds to the reason being more about his attitude than being about the good of the rebuild.

That's your bias colouring your interpretation, though. They didn't trade Phaneuf because he's a much harder sell right now. His value is low and his recent play makes his contract prohibitive. They're keeping him on the premise that Babcock wants to work with him, but, honestly, I believe they just didn't find a trade that was palatable - I don't think it's a coincidence that this storyline didn't really start gaining traction until after the draft and after Kessel was moved. The return being poor is sort of typical for the situation. Very rarely when a team trades their star player do they get the type of return people hope for. What the Leafs got for Kessel was very comparable to similar deals for similar players in similar circumstances.

As for JvR, that's a little more of a mystery. The most likely answer there is that they simply didn't receive an offer they felt was worth pursuing and that they're confident that deal will materialize later.

You're reading a lot into things that are pretty self-explanatory. Rebuilding teams trade their best players, often before other players. The returns on those players are often disappointing, and there's often more of a rush to move those players to remove the potential distraction and to weaken the team.

I thought of that at first as well. I don't know, it just feels like there was more to it than subtracting Kessel's goal output to try and finish lower in the standings? Why, then do they trade away  futures for Grabner? Why the PTO's? Thats going to hurt the rebuild more than help it IMO. Trade fodder at the deadline really depends on those players doing well for their team. Explain away, but I've got a pretty clear indication of whats going on in my mind. It just differs with yours. But thats what this board is all about, right?

The Grabner trade (which is what this thread is about) wasn't about trading futures, the way I saw it. It was about trading no-futures in bulk for someone who could potentially have value. Verhaeghe, or Beck, or Finn, or Gibson, or Nilsson were not going to yield anything more than a 5th rounder individually. Even at the trade deadline, teams will be looking for depth players of which these guys do not really qualify. We took advantage of an opportunity the Islanders presented in wanting to shed salary and an underperforming forward that they had someone cheaper exceeding. Opening up more contract space is a benefit to the rebuild (waiver pick ups, trade flexibility); Grabner exceeding his last year's performance will yield a trade partner. If he doesn't, he's gone and we have more contract space.

 

[Kin]

Considered and largely rejected? By whom?

The board. Kessel and his influence on the team has probably been the most discussed topic on these boards over the last six months and I'd say the response that you've gotten to your "addition by subtraction" argument here backs up that, largely, people don't think that Kessel was a sufficiently bad influence in the dressing room to make the loss of one of the most talented wingers in the league a good thing.

What you're asking people to consider isn't anything new. You're just rehashing Steve Simmons columns.

And you knew exactly what I meant by 'help this team win now'

I'm starting to think I don't. Because what I wrote addressed the idea that they'd actually be improvements on what was already on the roster and, short of that, I don't actually know what could be meant by that.

 

[Redleaf]

Something bothers me about that reasoning though.

Why did Kessel go first? And before the new coaching staff came aboard? If Kessel wasn't the problem with this team moving forward and they only traded him because of the rebuild, why the need to trade him away this off season before others like JVR or Phaneuf?

The return has been widely accepted as being a pretty poor one. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they get more for JVR, if they are indeed in full blown rebuild like you apparently believe is happening.

It just adds to the reason being more about his attitude than being about the good of the rebuild.

That's your bias colouring your interpretation, though. They didn't trade Phaneuf because he's a much harder sell right now. His value is low and his recent play makes his contract prohibitive. They're keeping him on the premise that Babcock wants to work with him, but, honestly, I believe they just didn't find a trade that was palatable - I don't think it's a coincidence that this storyline didn't really start gaining traction until after the draft and after Kessel was moved. The return being poor is sort of typical for the situation. Very rarely when a team trades their star player do they get the type of return people hope for. What the Leafs got for Kessel was very comparable to similar deals for similar players in similar circumstances.

As for JvR, that's a little more of a mystery. The most likely answer there is that they simply didn't receive an offer they felt was worth pursuing and that they're confident that deal will materialize later.

You're reading a lot into things that are pretty self-explanatory. Rebuilding teams trade their best players, often before other players. The returns on those players are often disappointing, and there's often more of a rush to move those players to remove the potential distraction and to weaken the team.

I thought of that at first as well. I don't know, it just feels like there was more to it than subtracting Kessel's goal output to try and finish lower in the standings? Why, then do they trade away  futures for Grabner? Why the PTO's? Thats going to hurt the rebuild more than help it IMO. Trade fodder at the deadline really depends on those players doing well for their team. Explain away, but I've got a pretty clear indication of whats going on in my mind. It just differs with yours. But thats what this board is all about, right?

The Grabner trade (which is what this thread is about) wasn't about trading futures, the way I saw it. It was about trading no-futures in bulk for someone who could potentially have value. Verhaeghe, or Beck, or Finn, or Gibson, or Nilsson were not going to yield anything more than a 5th rounder individually. Even at the trade deadline, teams will be looking for depth players of which these guys do not really qualify. We took advantage of an opportunity the Islanders presented in wanting to shed salary and an underperforming forward that they had someone cheaper exceeding. Opening up more contract space is a benefit to the rebuild (waiver pick ups, trade flexibility); Grabner exceeding his last year's performance will yield a trade partner. If he doesn't, he's gone and we have more contract space.

Thats only true if you put no value in any of those 5 players though. Finn alone, for example, could be a player. You just never know what you give up until years later in those types of deals.

 

[Kin]

The Grabner trade (which is what this thread is about) wasn't about trading futures, the way I saw it.

At some point does it become relevant that Grabner has only scored 20 goals and 39 points in his last 98 games?

He's not a very good player.

 

[bustaheims]

I thought of that at first as well. I don't know, it just feels like there was more to it than subtracting Kessel's goal output to try and finish lower in the standings? Why, then do they trade away  futures for Grabner? Why the PTO's? Thats going to hurt the rebuild more than help it IMO. Trade fodder at the deadline really depends on those players doing well for their team. Explain away, but I've got a pretty clear indication of whats going on in my mind. It just differs with yours. But thats what this board is all about, right?

I wouldn't call what the Leafs moved in the Grabner trade "futures." They were contracts and organizational filler. None of the pieces moved are likely to become full-time NHLers, and, even if they do, we're talking 4th liners and 5-7 defencemen. They're prospects that every team has and that the Leafs have replaced in recent drafts. They were basically at the bottom of the depth chart. That trade was about clearing space on the reserve list - the Leafs went from having only 1 free spot to having 5 - while picking up a potential trade chip for the deadline/a player with no contractual commitment past this season. The PTOs don't really mean anything unless those players earn contracts. Right now, they're just extra bodies for exhibition games. They don't really represent a significant upgrade on the players under contract, nor are they upgrades on the players who are no longer on the roster from last season. Trade value of these players is representative of them showing they can fill the kind of roles contending teams are looking to fill at the deadline. That generally means depth, 3rd and 4th line types. These guys showing that they can do that isn't going to improve the Leafs' fortunes - especially since some of them will be playing in more significant roles. A player on the 2nd line contributing like a good 3rd liner isn't going to lead to the Leafs winning.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

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!

I've always assumed I own everything I've written here. It all figures to be part of my upcoming collection Eventually, the Other Guy Gave Up: Hockey Arguments and More by Nik T. Triklaus

I hope your author's picture is an emoji.