Leafs Acquired Jonathan Bernier

[Kin]

The broader/ philosophical concern is this: if all Bernier turns out to be is an improvement to our 3.13GAA/.902SV% back-up goalie at a higher cap hit (plus the $500,000 salary the Leafs are taking on -- so, nearly Scrivens's hit just there) for a competent depth winger and pick... well, it'll be reasonable to wonder why that wasn't just found on the UFA market. Though they wouldn't work in a trade for a top-line center or top-pairing Dman, they could've been used for something not so readily available for no assets.

Eh, there is no trade that is possible to make that can't leave someone saying "Well, what if player X doesn't perform the way they want him to?". Especially one that costs Frattin, Scrivens and a 3rd.

 

[ZBBM]

LeBrun's blog explained quite well how this makes sense from Lombardi's viewpoint, and how taking the $500k in salary clinched the deal.  That is significant to the Leafs with the cap going down but if Bernier pans out and the cap goes up as expected next year, it will prove to be a good investment.

Will Bernier pan out, is the question.  To hear Ranford tell it, the guy is Vezina material.  I'd take that with several grains of salt.

I also think Frattin could flourish in LA.  How he was used by RC was  bit of a puzzler (like so many of his lineup decisions).  Going 0 for 21 to end the season sure doesn't help me make my point, but then again (rather like Grabs) he wasn't put in a position to really play to his offensive strengths.  Lombardi, at any rate, apparently wanted him more than Matt Read.

 

[Kin]

My guess is those who aren't enthusiastic about this trade have doubt about whether Bernier really is that (great stats... but over 62 games... and on the Stanley Cup champions...) or, if he is, why a team would really need 2 goalies "pushing each other for playing time." Does that really improve goalies' performances? More than -- I don't know -- an actual top-four defenseman who can both clear the crease and make a decent first pass? Depth forwards who can cycle away in the opposition's end and each up time?

While I agree that the idea of two goalies making each other better by virtue of competition for the #1 job is something that should be grouped with things like leadership, chemistry and various other things that really belong to pop psychology in this case it's just the simple and basic reality that having two good goalies is better than having one, especially if neither one has proven himself capable of playing an entire season.

 

[KoHo]

Well, yeah. I mean, most people would agree that a team's goalie is the most important position and if you plan on using a guy for 30 games then you're talking about someone who's playing the most important position for, what, almost 40% of your season.

We're not debating whether a team's goalie is its most important position. We're debating whether the position of backup is important enough that Nonis should give up three assets for it, rather than acquiring a backup the conventional route. I don't believe it was worth it to give up three assets for an unproven player who may not play as well as Nonis thinks. We don't really know what Bernier is yet. If Reimer's going to be the deserved starter and Bernier will end up getting backup minutes, giving up Frattin, Scrivens, and a 2nd for a backup is not good asset management.

I don't think it divides that neatly. I like the trade and think Reimer's absolutely capable of being a #1 goalie. I just don't think the Leafs should put all of their eggs in that one basket. I'd actually kind of flip that where I think the only way to look at Bernier as a superfluous addition is if you're of the belief that Reimer isn't just capable of being a top-flight #1 goalie for 65 games next year but that it's a deadbolted certainty that he will be for years to come. And, with all due respect to anyone who might feel that way, that point of view would have just about nothing in the way of supporting evidence.

I agree that the Leafs shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. I just don't think we should have to give up valuable trade chips for a backup when there's more pressing needs like the defense. I'd rather have pooled our assets together for a good top-4 defenseman than overpay for Rob Scuderi. We could have gotten a cheaper backup and kept our assets.

If Nonis supplants the defense with much needed upgrades and bolsters this team up front without any glaringly bad contracts, and in doing this upgrades the position of backup as he did today, everyone will forget what he had to give up for Bernier.

 

[Kin]

We're not debating whether a team's goalie is its most important position. We're debating whether the position of backup is important enough that Nonis should give up three assets for it, rather than acquiring a backup the conventional route.

The problem with that line of thinking though is that "back-up" goalie isn't so much a position much in the same way #2 center isn't. How much should you trade for a #2 center? Well, it depends on who that player is. If your "back-up" goalie is going to be starting in 35-45% of your games there's a lot of importance there. I'm not addressing the issue of whether or not a "back-up" goalie is worth what was traded, I'm talking about what Jonathan Bernier is worth considering how the Leafs are likely to use him.

I agree that the Leafs shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. I just don't think we should have to give up valuable trade chips for a backup when there's more pressing needs like the defense. I'd rather have pooled our assets together for a good top-4 defenseman than overpay for Rob Scuderi. We could have gotten a cheaper backup and kept our assets.

Well, for one, there's nothing that the Leafs traded today that, if they could be used in components in a bigger deal, they don't have other pieces that could be used in place of. If a team was going to take a 2014 or 2015 2nd, Frattin and Scrivens in exchange for a good top 4 defenseman then there's no reason they wouldn't take a 2013 2nd, Joe Colborne and the equivalent to whatever we think Scrivens is worth. This doesn't preclude any other trades being made.

But more to the point you can't compare the deal that was made to some hypothetical better deal that might come along because then every deal sucks.

 

[Mot the Barber]

We're not debating whether a team's goalie is its most important position. We're debating whether the position of backup is important enough that Nonis should give up three assets for it, rather than acquiring a backup the conventional route.

The problem with that line of thinking though is that "back-up" goalie isn't so much a position much in the same way #2 center isn't. How much should you trade for a #2 center? Well, it depends on who that player is. If your "back-up" goalie is going to be starting in 35-45% of your games there's a lot of importance there. I'm not addressing the issue of whether or not a "back-up" goalie is worth what was traded, I'm talking about what Jonathan Bernier is worth considering how the Leafs are likely to use him.

I agree that the Leafs shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. I just don't think we should have to give up valuable trade chips for a backup when there's more pressing needs like the defense. I'd rather have pooled our assets together for a good top-4 defenseman than overpay for Rob Scuderi. We could have gotten a cheaper backup and kept our assets.

Well, for one, there's nothing that the Leafs traded today that, if they could be used in components in a bigger deal, they don't have other pieces that could be used in place of. If a team was going to take a 2014 or 2015 2nd, Frattin and Scrivens in exchange for a good top 4 defenseman then there's no reason they wouldn't take a 2013 2nd, Joe Colborne and the equivalent to whatever we think Scrivens is worth. This doesn't preclude any other trades being made.

But more to the point you can't compare the deal that was made to some hypothetical better deal that might come along because then every deal sucks.

You just love to argue don't you.  And you hate losing any argument even if you're wrong.

To me it boils down like this. 
1. This is a big FU to Reimer...basically telling him thanks for losing game 7. 

2. They're definitely high on Bernier and will give him the #1 for sure.  You don't make a trade like this for a back-up. 

3. The risk is as follows: what if Bernier flops and Reimer lost all his confidence due to this move?

Then you've lost both goalies and 3 assets.  We're back to square one and then we'll have another coach/GM firing/reshuffle and the circus starts all over again.

I think the risks outweigh the benefits on this one.  The potential benefit is that Bernier performs marginally better as a #1 than Reimer would have in his place...but not enough to offset the risks which are noted above.

But they must be really high on Bernier to make a move like this.  I have a feeling he'll wilt in front of the intense media and fan attention in Toronto.  And with his movie-star good looks, it could all go real bad real fast.

 

[Kin]

You just love to argue don't you.

Eh, I prefer for people to just acknowledge that I'm right. Saves them time, me effort. Everybody wins.

I think the risks outweigh the benefits on this one.  The potential benefit is that Bernier performs marginally better as a #1 than Reimer would have in his place...but not enough to offset the risks which are noted above.

There are lots of benefits. Every game that Bernier plays instead of Scrivens is a benefit. Being better off in the event that Reimer gets hurt or has an off-year is a benefit. Bernier developing into a solid starter that the Leafs can choose to go with long-term is a benefit.

And as for the risk, singular, that you mention again it's the realm of armchair pop psychology. I'm pretty confident that anybody who makes it to the NHL is a relatively together enough person to deal with competition and even if I weren't I'm pretty certain that the people who run the Leafs know enough about Reimer that if his confidence were as fragile as you think it might be that they'd factor it into their decision making here. Although, truth be told, if they really thought that having Bernier on the team would shatter Reimer then that would probably be motivation to go out and get a new goalie, not to leave him be.

I have a feeling he'll wilt in front of the intense media and fan attention in Toronto.  And with his movie-star good looks, it could all go real bad real fast.

Oh good. I was really worried that this topic wasn't going to get creepy.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I'd rather they had traded away their 1st this year. Frattin alone is too much. He's gonna be a star. Book it.....

My thoughts exactly.  Matt Frattin has Dustin Brown written all over him.  Now he's going learn from the original Dustin Brown...

I guess thats really it.  If you think highly for frattin it was a bad deal.  Personally, I see Frattin for what he is; a 25 year old player who has yet to play a full nhl season, score 20 goals or 40 pts.  He is a 3rd line grinder.  Granted Bernier has not proven himself, and Reimer is still a question mark for next year.  I guess I see it as an average trade. 

 

[maplesyrup]

Slept on it. Do i love the deal? No, but I think it's a good one that makes sense. Basically I feel that if both goalies are comfortable with the situation (not that either had a choice), I'm good with it. - Platoon, semi-platoon, somebody wins outright, I don't care.

Are we in better shape at the position next year and beyond? Absolutely.

 

[Kin]

typical Nik, having debates about what we are debating about.  Can't you just say whether you like the deal or not?  Being concise is a good thing.

Well to quote David Letterman in response to Bill O'Reilly badgering him to answer an "easy" question, it's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.

See, the way I'm sort of inclined to look at this thread is as someone who makes a lot of posts on this board. Because the Leafs potentially trading for Bernier has been a subject that has been discussed so much over such a long period of time that it actually happening is really just a continuation of an active and on-going discussion that really isn't so much about Bernier as it is the fundamental wisdom of trading for a goalie when the team is relatively confident in Reimer. The reason I'm not inclined to post in this thread with the sort of "Yay! Good" or "Boo! Bad" that would suit you more is because over those various months we've basically discussed every possible permutation of a trade for Bernier and I've largely made my feelings about it known. For instance, here's what I said about a trade for Bernier in early February:

To the concern about giving something up, let's just say for argument that the deal would be Percy, Scrivens and a second round pick(In retrospect, not a bad little guess). Does that trade solve anything? No. But Percy, Scrivens and a second round pick aren't solving any problems right now either. Bernier's value would be in his potential to emerge as a legitimate #1 or #1a goalie just like Percy's value is his potential to be a good NHL defenseman(a point that still holds, just fill in Frattin and "good winger").

Now, if you want to click on that link and read through that 15 page thread that deals entirely with trading for Bernier I think I make my position regarding just such a trade as was announced yesterday pretty clear. So for me, simply showing up and saying "I see the value in trading multiple semi-valuable pieces" would ring a little bit like repeating myself. Is there value in a poster simply saying the same thing over and over with little room for critical thought or correct spelling? Maybe, but we can't all be nutman.

Honestly, I've discussed a Bernier trade to such an extent that I've almost made my feelings known on it regardless of what the Leafs ended up trading for him turned out to be. I've discussed it as a straight Reimer-Bernier swap, a trade for just a first round pick and, as you can see above, a trade of multiple mid-low level assets. The sort of straight reaction you're talking about would really only have been new or novel if the Leafs had made some sort of ridiculously outlandish deal where they either gave up way, way too much or way, way too little. Because this doesn't hit either one of those, again, I feel like any contribution I have to give can't be spent on a surface level because I've already skimmed that surface ad nauseum. So to me, at this point, the Bernier trade is really most interesting not from the already chewed over and by now room temperature concept of what his cost ended up being but rather how the reaction to it reflects how people are feeling about the team as a whole. That's why finding some sort middle ground context wise for how we talk about the trade is valuable.

To your general point though, I mean, sure I'd agree that there's a value in being concise where possible in any form of writing but in the interest of having the most lively, engaging and interesting debate possible, at least from my perspective, it's important that we don't confuse simplicity for conciseness. It's like I said to KW Sluggo a while back in this thread, if there's a point to discussing something I really feel that you should leave no meat on the bone. For me, what's sort of naturally evolved out of every possible Bernier discussion has nothing to do with the trade particulars but instead is focused on the changing nature of the goaltending position and the way we've seen it evolve from the play 65+ games tradional #1 that Patrick Roy brought into the league to a far more fluid reality where guys are going from Vezina candidates to middle of the pack on an almost yearly basis.

Now, is that sort of natural evolution of a discussion to everyone's tastes? No but I've always thought that here at TMLfans that there's room for all sorts of discussions that spin naturally from a topic. There's certainly no shortage of people who are willing to say "too much" or "just right" and please your fancy to no end so surely my inclination towards maybe a slightly less straightforward discussion can be tolerated.

But, like I say, that's just me.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Will Bernier pan out, is the question.  To hear Ranford tell it, the guy is Vezina material.  I'd take that with several grains of salt.

I also think Frattin could flourish in LA.  How he was used by RC was  bit of a puzzler (like so many of his lineup decisions).  Going 0 for 21 to end the season sure doesn't help me make my point, but then again (rather like Grabs) he wasn't put in a position to really play to his offensive strengths.  Lombardi, at any rate, apparently wanted him more than Matt Read.

So, for people to take the word of an actual goalie coach they should do so quite hesitantly but they should take your word,a fan, that Frattin is going to flourish? I see. Do you see anything else in that crystal ball?

I like Frattin. I do. I like his intensity. Intensity only gets you so far. A star goalie can get you to the cup final.

Let's say that the chances of reaching potential are equal between Bernier and Frattin. If they were both to reach that potential, Frattin may score 15-20 goals, Bernier will be a bonafide #1 goalie. I'd say there are only about 25 bonafide #1 goalies in the league. Of those 25, only 10-15 can carry a team. I'd say it's a lot easier to replace a 15-20 goal scorer than it is to find a top 10-15 goalie in this league.

 

[Jalili]

LeBrun's blog explained quite well how this makes sense from Lombardi's viewpoint, and how taking the $500k in salary clinched the deal.  That is significant to the Leafs with the cap going down but if Bernier pans out and the cap goes up as expected next year, it will prove to be a good investment.

Will Bernier pan out, is the question.  To hear Ranford tell it, the guy is Vezina material.  I'd take that with several grains of salt.

I also think Frattin could flourish in LA.  How he was used by RC was  bit of a puzzler (like so many of his lineup decisions).  Going 0 for 21 to end the season sure doesn't help me make my point, but then again (rather like Grabs) he wasn't put in a position to really play to his offensive strengths.  Lombardi, at any rate, apparently wanted him more than Matt Read.

I'm expecting Frattin to do pretty well in LA, especially if he gets a shot on LA's 2nd line with Richards/Carter.

Losing Frattin and Komarov actually stings quite a bit right now. I'm guessing this is when they'll start to address the 3rd and 4th lines.

 

[Bullfrog]

You just love to argue don't you.  And you hate losing any argument even if you're wrong.

To me it boils down like this. 
1. This is a big FU to Reimer...basically telling him thanks for losing game 7. 

2. They're definitely high on Bernier and will give him the #1 for sure.  You don't make a trade like this for a back-up. 

3. The risk is as follows: what if Bernier flops and Reimer lost all his confidence due to this move?

Then you've lost both goalies and 3 assets.  We're back to square one and then we'll have another coach/GM firing/reshuffle and the circus starts all over again.

I think the risks outweigh the benefits on this one.  The potential benefit is that Bernier performs marginally better as a #1 than Reimer would have in his place...but not enough to offset the risks which are noted above.

But they must be really high on Bernier to make a move like this.  I have a feeling he'll wilt in front of the intense media and fan attention in Toronto.  And with his movie-star good looks, it could all go real bad real fast.

1. I don't honestly think Reimer has all that much to do with this trade. They're strengthening a position in hockey by giving up an asset in Frattin that probably isn't going to amount to much more than what we've seen.

2. I completely disagree. Either Reimer or Bernier will have to earn the starters job. Having too good goalies is better than one. I don't think it's really more complicated than that.

3. That risk is ridiculous. I think it's kind of rude actually to believe Reimer is that weak mentally. He's a professional athlete that's had to deal with losing his spot to Bernier already, dealing through injuries, etc. He's also brought the team to the seventh game of a playoff series against one of the top contenders for the first team in years. He's proven he's mentally tough.

If Bernier marginally outperforms Reimer, I'll be thrilled given that Reimer was a top 10 goalie last year. If the "risk" is that we gain another top 10, well......I'll take that risk everytime.

 

[A finnish leaf fan]

I'd say this is a win-win trade for both organizations. Reimer - while being spectacular at times this season - hasn't yet proven he can endure a full season as a bonafide #1 goalie. Thus, it would've been pointless for the Leafs to pursue any of the UFA backup goalies who can play ~20 games maximum. The other options from that pool aside from Smith who will command an absurd overpayment from somewhere are too old to make sense for the Leafs as their window to win it all will not be in the next one or two seasons. Scrivens also falls to the category of backups who can be counted on for ~20 games maximum so it made complete sense for Nonis to get a goalie with whom Reimer can share the load. I don't think Reimer will think of this as a vote of no-confidence - to me he seems like a guy who thrives in a competitive situation. The plan is probably to give both goalies an equal number of starts early on and then ride the hot hand regardless of who it is. Having two #1B type goalies is also beneficial in case one goes down to injury (which has already happened to Reimer a couple of times). Thus, Bernier is a perfect fit and Nonis didn't even need to give up any high-value assets to get him. Frattin may become a good 2nd-3rd liner but that's about as likely as Bernier becoming a top starter so I don't see the fuss about losing him. Scrivens will not be missed and a 2nd round pick is crapshoot at best.

As for LA's point of view, to them Bernier was completely expendable because of Quick's emergence and Scrivens will work well there in a distinct backup role. They also got a young forward with decent upside and cheap salary in Frattin, and can use him to replace Penner in order to free up cap space to be used elsewhere (i.e. Scuderi). Thus this trade will work out with them too even if they probably lost the best player in the deal. They really needed some cheap players to fill a couple of roster spots and Frattin + Scrivens are exactly that - especially because the Leafs will absorb a portion of their contracts for the upcoming season during which the cap will be lower. For 2014-15 the ceiling will in all likelihood raise again and that gives Lombardi more room to play with his roster.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Yay! Good

 

[hockeyfan1]

On paper, it looks like a good and viable trade done by both clubs, the Leafs & Kings.

In Bernier, while his NHL stats may not reek of superlatives, here is a goaltender 'hungry' and eager not only for work but to prove himself as a capable go-to goalkeeper, who no doubt will be challenging James Reimer for the starter's position.

Having not one but two capable goalies at any given time can only be seen from a position of strength in terms of it's benefit to the Leafs, and an upgrade to their past circumstances, (meaning Ben Scrivens), as Leaf fans have come to know it.

Giving up Frattin may seem like a bitter move, considering what we saw of Frattin -- good shot, good aim, has potential for more development, etc.-- but the fact that he trailed off somewhat especially at a time when Carlyle needed him to step up (after having come back from his injury) was the sour note on Frattin's record.

Nonis wouldn't have traded someone who he feels could elevate himself on a higher level if that would have been the case with Frattin remaining a Leaf.  Obviously, that isn't quite so, as Leaf observers were probably wondering if Frattin could reach that level and when.

Either way, it seems as though Nonis was determined to acquire Bernier, no matter what it took, up to a certain point.  A gamble nevertheless, but hopefully a.gamble that will serve it's purpose and pay dividends for the Leafs in the long run.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Yay! Good

Ditto.

 

[Boston Leaf]

I think this will turn out ot be a heck of a deal for the Leafs. If Bernier can lie up to the hype it could be a steal. frattin was a nice 3rd line role player but will he ever be a 2nd liner? Who knows. Scrivens? A great AHL goalie..butt.. And the pick is a gamble. I know most love Reimer.. But I thikn it won't be long before Bernier is the true #1 here.. He has a real good glove hand..  work Nonis.. Goaltending..Check

 

[proteus2000]

This happens all the time at my work: someone does a good job, but others are still brought into the organization that push and compete with them for promotions. It's normal business practice, and we don't make millions.

I hope that it turns out to be a fantastic trade, but that is impossible to guarantee. Goalies are far more likely to go boom or bust than skaters. I'm pretty sold on Bernier so I think it's worth the risk.

 

[Corn Flake]

So we now have 2 goalies who could and maybe are both legit #1's who can carry a team albeit slightly unproven for a full 82 game season?  Seems like it's better to have 2 than just 1.

I didn't think they were going this direction, but here we are.  The price seems reasonable and thank GOD we didn't give up yet another 1st rounder for a goalie.