Leafs Acquired Jonathan Bernier

[OldTimeHockey]

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.

So Frattin goes from being a borderline 3rd liner on the Leafs to a 2nd liner on a Stanley Cup winning team. Neato!

 

[Peter D.]

How much (if any) influence/endorsement, do you think Leiweke had in this transaction? 

This quote has been making the rounds:

"I'm very happy," Bernier told the Los Angeles Times. "And [Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment President and CEO] Tim [Leiweke] just called. He's very excited to have me on board."

 

[Kin]

How much (if any) influence/endorsement, do you think Leiweke had in this transaction? 

This quote has been making the rounds:

"I'm very happy," Bernier told the Los Angeles Times. "And [Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment President and CEO] Tim [Leiweke] just called. He's very excited to have me on board."

Considering how much Bernier to the Leafs was discussed before Leiweke was hired I can't really imagine it played a huge role.

 

[Omallley]

Saw that after I posted it. They are also showing that Bernier's qualifying offer will have to be around 1.525mil. 900k more than Scrivens. That and no draft picks coming back mean I'm not liking this deal.

I've expressed concern over the cap ramifications of the deal, but it's not enough to make me not like the deal. Just looking at the cap hits coming our way directly, we're getting a young, potential starting goaltender for about $2mil ($500k retained, $1.5mil-ish for Bernier, maybe a little more). It's tough to complain about that.

It is, yet I'm sure I'll find a way

An overpayment (well, the 2nd and the 500k retained salary push it in that realm for me), but Frattin and Scrivens aren't going to be players I am going to lose sleep over losing - especially when getting an upgrade in goal in return...

 

[PG]

Frattin has played 82 ho-hum games in the NHL.....his spot in the lineup of one of the best teams in the league is no guarantee. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if he doesn't make the team out of camp.

Every fanbase does it (and I am guilty of it sometimes too) but there is irrational overrating of Leafs' prospects going on here. The chances that Frattin plays 500 games in this league are probably less than 10%.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Yay for French Canadian goalies! 

Hopefully Bernier is more cat than bunny.

 

[hap_leaf]

Frattin and Scrivens both had memorable parts to play in getting this team back into the playoffs. 

Frattin: 10 points in the first 10 games and most importantly, doing so while Kessel was having some major goal scoring issues.

Scrivens: back-to-back shutouts Feb 16 & 18. 

Both proved they have what it takes and LA is getting some very good talent.  I wish them all the best.

 

[KoHo]

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.

Of course the Leafs have other pieces to trade. The point is our asset pool is now slightly depleted thanks to a trade that I believe is unnecessary. Or in other words, it's poor asset management (especially if Bernier ends up being the backup). It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

 

[KoHo]

Safe to say Reimer wasn't all that pleased about the deal.

"It makes you feel a bit doubted as a goalie. Is it by the coaches? Is it by the GM? Is it by the media? You could drive yourself crazy asking yourself things like that. You just have to focus on what you can control and believe in yourself."

"I was a little surprised when I heard about the deal. There had been talk about bringing in a veteran. But to bring in someone of a similar age, well, obviously they have their reasons."

Now imagine what he REALLY thinks when he's not hiding behind that nice-guy persona.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/23/maple-leafs-reimer-undoubtedly-fired-up

 

[Kin]

It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

How many teams do you see agreeing to pay their #2 center 9.5 million dollars a year? One, the Penguins, because their #2 center is Evgeni Malkin. How many "back-up" goalies are 24 years old with the potential to be solid #1's?

I mean repeatedly referring to them as "three assets" without qualifying for how valuable they actually are isn't going to sway many people. Three seventh round picks are three assets. The only thing I care about is whether or not Bernier can improve the team, he can, and if they paid a fair price for him which the nature of how they acquired him seems to say that they had to.

 

[Frank E]

It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

How many teams do you see agreeing to pay their #2 center 9.5 million dollars a year? One, the Penguins, because their #2 center is Evgeni Malkin. How many "back-up" goalies are 24 years old with the potential to be solid #1's?

I mean repeatedly referring to them as "three assets" without qualifying for how valuable they actually are isn't going to sway many people. Three seventh round picks are three assets. The only thing I care about is whether or not Bernier can improve the team, he can, and if they paid a fair price for him which the nature of how they acquired him seems to say that they had to.

I'll qualify it then: 

A backup goalie on the roster with decent numbers on a low $ contract for another year = asset.

A 25 year old roster player with some injury issues this past year that put up points at a decent clip on a $500K deal before another RFA deal = asset

A second round pick = asset.

In the practical sense of the word, these are at least average value assets.

 

[Bender]

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.

Of course the Leafs have other pieces to trade. The point is our asset pool is now slightly depleted thanks to a trade that I believe is unnecessary. Or in other words, it's poor asset management (especially if Bernier ends up being the backup). It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

How is making a trade that addresses organizational need deplete our assets? At some point we're going to have to trade some players to address needs. You can't just build assets forever. If you see a worthwhile opportunity you take it.

 

[Kin]

I'll qualify it then: 

A backup goalie on the roster with decent numbers on a low $ contract for another year = asset.

A 25 year old roster player with some injury issues this past year that put up points at a decent clip on a $500K deal before another RFA deal = asset

A second round pick = asset.

In the practical sense of the word, these are at least average value assets.

I don't know entirely what you mean by average but I mean, again, considering that there were multiple teams bidding on Bernier I'm pretty comfortable with saying that if those three are average value assets then Bernier is at least an above average value asset.

 

[KoHo]

It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

How many teams do you see agreeing to pay their #2 center 9.5 million dollars a year? One, the Penguins, because their #2 center is Evgeni Malkin. How many "back-up" goalies are 24 years old with the potential to be solid #1's?

I mean repeatedly referring to them as "three assets" without qualifying for how valuable they actually are isn't going to sway many people. Three seventh round picks are three assets. The only thing I care about is whether or not Bernier can improve the team, he can, and if they paid a fair price for him which the nature of how they acquired him seems to say that they had to.

That's my issue. Reimer has proven himself. This season would have been a great chance to let Reimer runs with the starting job over a full 82 games. We don't need a backup goalie that's 24 with the potential to be a solid #1. We have a #1 already. I'd rather the Leafs have kept their assets and brought in their own Vokoun to be Reimer's backup, not Bernier. Why trade three assets to strengthen a position that IMO doesn't need strengthening?

Anyways, I think this is what we call an impasse. I believe this trade to be unnecessary and poor asset management. You don't, there's no working around that. Perhaps if this trade was made AFTER July when we'd have already acquired the needed upgrades I'd be okay with it. If we still had Scrivens and Frattin kicking around after going out and getting our guys I'd be more okay with it. Instead, we're in a position now where we lost three assets while still having to upgrade the defense in a big way, recoup our lost forward depth, and bring in a good centre. I hope Nonis can do it.

 

[KoHo]

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.

Of course the Leafs have other pieces to trade. The point is our asset pool is now slightly depleted thanks to a trade that I believe is unnecessary. Or in other words, it's poor asset management (especially if Bernier ends up being the backup). It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

How is making a trade that addresses organizational need deplete our assets? At some point we're going to have to trade some players to address needs. You can't just build assets forever. If you see a worthwhile opportunity you take it.

Agree with that. Except, I don't think a 24 year old goalie with a chance to be #1 is an organizational need.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Reimer needs to get used to having legitimate competition. I'm not particularly liking his comments in the media, not that it's all that bad, but he could have said it's good to have competition or some such thing that wouldn't leave it open for media manipulation and speculation.

I think it's healthy for any team, more so the Leafs to have this kind of competition, certainly for injuries, but also to keep Reimer on his game. He needs to not only earn, but keep his position as the teams #1.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

For months this year people were saying that Reimer was good but not a game changer. He stole 2 games in the playoffs and suddenly the goaltending position is as solid as it's ever been. Reimer for PM!

 

[Bender]

It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

How many teams do you see agreeing to pay their #2 center 9.5 million dollars a year? One, the Penguins, because their #2 center is Evgeni Malkin. How many "back-up" goalies are 24 years old with the potential to be solid #1's?

I mean repeatedly referring to them as "three assets" without qualifying for how valuable they actually are isn't going to sway many people. Three seventh round picks are three assets. The only thing I care about is whether or not Bernier can improve the team, he can, and if they paid a fair price for him which the nature of how they acquired him seems to say that they had to.

I'll qualify it then: 

A backup goalie on the roster with decent numbers on a low $ contract for another year = asset.

A 25 year old roster player with some injury issues this past year that put up points at a decent clip on a $500K deal before another RFA deal = asset

A second round pick = asset.

In the practical sense of the word, these are at least average value assets.

Right, but you'd have to be crazy to think evaluations weren't made in that regard. If they thought Scrivens and Frattin outweighed the potential of Bernier then why would they make the trade? This isn't JFJ we're talking about here.

 

[Frank E]

I'll qualify it then: 

A backup goalie on the roster with decent numbers on a low $ contract for another year = asset.

A 25 year old roster player with some injury issues this past year that put up points at a decent clip on a $500K deal before another RFA deal = asset

A second round pick = asset.

In the practical sense of the word, these are at least average value assets.

I don't know entirely what you mean by average but I mean, again, considering that there were multiple teams bidding on Bernier I'm pretty comfortable with saying that if those three are average value assets then Bernier is at least an above average value asset.

I agree with that Nik, I was just suggesting that these assets had some substantial value...not like 7th round picks.

I'm not crazy about this trade, and I know you suggested the five nickels for a quarter deal that doesn't exist, but I would have preferred they expend those assets toward addressing other areas in need.

I hope Bernier fits in well, and I'm sure that they improved their goaltending talent base with this trade. 

 

[Bender]

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.

Of course the Leafs have other pieces to trade. The point is our asset pool is now slightly depleted thanks to a trade that I believe is unnecessary. Or in other words, it's poor asset management (especially if Bernier ends up being the backup). It wasn't a horrible trade, but how many other teams do you see trading three assets for a backup goalie?

How is making a trade that addresses organizational need deplete our assets? At some point we're going to have to trade some players to address needs. You can't just build assets forever. If you see a worthwhile opportunity you take it.

Agree with that. Except, I don't think a 24 year old goalie with a chance to be #1 is an organizational need.

Hedging your bets isn't exactly a bad idea. Why not have a 1A and 1B tandem for the next 5-7 years?