Leafs @ Bruins - Feb. 4th, 7:00pm - CBC, TSN 1050

[Kin]

Definitely true but it's very proactive to turn an asset of strength into increasing a weak position.

Nope. It's the opposite of being proactive because they're reacting to the current needs of the roster. Being proactive would have been developing the roster/prospect base to not have gaping holes in the D that trading Nylander would solve.

Like LK says the concern is just how reactive they'd be being. Rather than being patient and developing D options internally they'd be impatiently looking to address their immediate problems by going into a market that right now doesn't look very friendly for D for F trades.

 

[Frank E]

I think the "Trade Nylander" camp takes it on the chin somewhat, and especially after the game he had last night, but the Leafs will likely have to trade some players we all like to get a couple of quality young defensemen to work on.

Just for the record this is basically the note-exact example of the long warned against problem with getting good too soon.

I don't understand?

 

[herman]

I think the "Trade Nylander" camp takes it on the chin somewhat, and especially after the game he had last night, but the Leafs will likely have to trade some players we all like to get a couple of quality young defensemen to work on.

Just for the record this is basically the note-exact example of the long warned against problem with getting good too soon.

I don't understand?

Nik has said (repeatedly) that the Leafs ought to take their time with getting good so that we can continue to stock up on higher-end draft picks to fill positional gaps in the prospect pipeline (i.e. blue chip defense prospects and goalies in this case), rather than getting too good too soon and having to trade out (cheap but limited) premium prospects for suitable NHL players to plug top line/pairing holes (e.g. Nylander for Defense).

I hope I got the gist of it correct. Nik is far more precise than I am about wording.

 

[Frank E]

I think the "Trade Nylander" camp takes it on the chin somewhat, and especially after the game he had last night, but the Leafs will likely have to trade some players we all like to get a couple of quality young defensemen to work on.

Just for the record this is basically the note-exact example of the long warned against problem with getting good too soon.

I don't understand?

Nik has said (repeatedly) that the Leafs ought to take their time with getting good so that we can continue to stock up on higher-end draft picks to fill positional gaps in the prospect pipeline (i.e. blue chip defense prospects and goalies in this case), rather than getting too good too soon and having to trade out (cheap but limited) premium prospects for suitable NHL players to plug top line/pairing holes (e.g. Nylander for Defense).

I hope I got the gist of it correct. Nik is far more precise than I am about wording.

Thanks herman.  If that's the reasoning, I'm kind of advocating a more lateral move...like a 20 year old for a 19-21 year old. 

I'm not suggesting they sell Nylander for a 25+ year old entering his prime.

I'm all for patience, and I'm certainly not trying to ring the alarm, but the window of opportunity isn't that huge, and they've got a pretty big hole there on defense up-and-comers.  I'm not as concerned about goaltending at this point.

 

[bustaheims]

Thanks herman.  If that's the reasoning, I'm kind of advocating a more lateral move...like a 20 year old for a 19-21 year old. 

I think the issue you'll find there is identifying a team willing to trade a defensive prospect in that age range with a ceiling similar to Nylander.

 

[Frank E]

Thanks herman.  If that's the reasoning, I'm kind of advocating a more lateral move...like a 20 year old for a 19-21 year old. 

I think the issue you'll find there is identifying a team willing to trade a defensive prospect in that age range with a ceiling similar to Nylander.

Sure, but what we're talking about here is whether or not such a trade should be explored.

I think it should be, and not necessarily Nylander, but realistically we're not going to land a Chabot if we're dangling Soshnikov here.

 

[Kin]

Thanks herman.  If that's the reasoning, I'm kind of advocating a more lateral move...like a 20 year old for a 19-21 year old. 

I'm not suggesting they sell Nylander for a 25+ year old entering his prime.

I'm all for patience, and I'm certainly not trying to ring the alarm, but the window of opportunity isn't that huge, and they've got a pretty big hole there on defense up-and-comers.  I'm not as concerned about goaltending at this point.

Leaving aside the likelihood of the sort of "lateral move" you're talking about being possible that really doesn't address what I'm saying which is the "our window is small, we have to make moves now to address the problems our rebuild didn't solve" is a bad position to be in and, really, a sign you didn't really handle the rebuild all that well.

That is, I realize, a separate criticism than whether or not they should explore making trades for defensive prospects.

That said, I don't think there's really any point. Getting back to what busta said, "exploring" that sort of deal is great but it's still not likely to materialize and even if it did it's still likely to be a relatively zero-sum gain where the Leafs aren't better, they're just more balanced.

 

[Frank E]

Thanks herman.  If that's the reasoning, I'm kind of advocating a more lateral move...like a 20 year old for a 19-21 year old. 

I'm not suggesting they sell Nylander for a 25+ year old entering his prime.

I'm all for patience, and I'm certainly not trying to ring the alarm, but the window of opportunity isn't that huge, and they've got a pretty big hole there on defense up-and-comers.  I'm not as concerned about goaltending at this point.

Leaving aside the likelihood of the sort of "lateral move" you're talking about being possible that really doesn't address what I'm saying which is the "our window is small, we have to make moves now to address the problems our rebuild didn't solve" is a bad position to be in and, really, a sign you didn't really handle the rebuild all that well.

That is, I realize, a separate criticism than whether or not they should explore making trades for defensive prospects.

That said, I don't think there's really any point. Getting back to what busta said, "exploring" that sort of deal is great but it's still not likely to materialize and even if it did it's still likely to be a relatively zero-sum gain where the Leafs aren't better, they're just more balanced.

I would think that you need to explore these sorts of trades if you're going to continue to draft the best player available in the first round. 

 

[mr grieves]

Thanks herman.  If that's the reasoning, I'm kind of advocating a more lateral move...like a 20 year old for a 19-21 year old. 

I'm not suggesting they sell Nylander for a 25+ year old entering his prime.

I'm all for patience, and I'm certainly not trying to ring the alarm, but the window of opportunity isn't that huge, and they've got a pretty big hole there on defense up-and-comers.  I'm not as concerned about goaltending at this point.

Leaving aside the likelihood of the sort of "lateral move" you're talking about being possible that really doesn't address what I'm saying which is the "our window is small, we have to make moves now to address the problems our rebuild didn't solve" is a bad position to be in and, really, a sign you didn't really handle the rebuild all that well.

That is, I realize, a separate criticism than whether or not they should explore making trades for defensive prospects.

That said, I don't think there's really any point. Getting back to what busta said, "exploring" that sort of deal is great but it's still not likely to materialize and even if it did it's still likely to be a relatively zero-sum gain where the Leafs aren't better, they're just more balanced.

I would think that you need to explore these sorts of trades if you're going to continue to draft the best player available in the first round.

Isn't that sort of the reason why you do draft the BPA?

 

[bustaheims]

I would think that you need to explore these sorts of trades if you're going to continue to draft the best player available in the first round.

Sure, but, I think, once you've established a strong enough core of prospects, you can start trading down in order to draft for position while still taking the best player available where you're picking.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

A lot of really smart hockey people in the analytics community have started talking about the idea that the Leafs should be trying to win sooner rather than later because of the benefit of having your best players being on ELC's. It's a subject that's been tossed around on some excellent podcasts too and if you separate it from the white noise of traditional hockey people advocating "loading up for the playoffs", it's very intriguing.

I think there is no denying that optimally you'd have defense grown in-house too, but the argument for making a lateral move, I'm thinking a Jones for Johansen type of deal if you are entertaining moving Nylander, would be optimal, but that seems like wishful thinking given the premium on young D right now.

I think what's most likely is that the Leafs try and add one or two big FA's on shorter term deals to try and maximize the value of having their franchise players on ELC's.

 

[Frank E]

I would think that you need to explore these sorts of trades if you're going to continue to draft the best player available in the first round.

Sure, but, I think, once you've established a strong enough core of prospects, you can start trading down in order to draft for position while still taking the best player available where you're picking.

What I'm advocating here is all about addressing establishing a "strong enough" core.  They're the envy of the league in terms of rookie forwards, but they're sure nowhere near that on the backend, and they've got no one knocking on the door.

I know I'm certainly not the only one talking about this, but they're going to need to address it, and it's going to cost them some nice things.

I read about this "Chicago Core" top 3 forwards and all that stuff without mentioning Keith and Seabrook were there already by the time Toews and Kane starting playing, and we'll agree that that team doesn't get a sniff at a cup without those 2 horses on D.

 

[Kin]

I would think that you need to explore these sorts of trades if you're going to continue to draft the best player available in the first round.

I'm not sure what "these types of trades" you're talking about but i have no problem with the Leafs "exploring" anything. At some point you just have to be realistic about what the market is and how likely it is that trading Nylander won't just fill a hole by creating another.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Worst anthem singer of the season by a mile.

 

[McGarnagle]

Worst anthem singer of the season by a mile.

Wrong thread m'man!

And yeah, that wasn't exactly lady gaga rappelling down from the rafters.

 

[Kin]

I think there is no denying that optimally you'd have defense grown in-house too, but the argument for making a lateral move, I'm thinking a Jones for Johansen type of deal if you are entertaining moving Nylander, would be optimal, but that seems like wishful thinking given the premium on young D right now.

It's not but I think you're exaggerating the idea of what the Johansen for Jones trade was. Johansen was coming off back to back 63 and 71 point seasons. He was effectively already a #1 center.

Jones on the other hand had a ton of potential and had some very good years for a young defenseman but he wasn't an established top pairing guy.

They were both young guys but it wasn't a case of swapping a forward who'd established a certain level for a defenseman who'd roughly established an equivalent level. It's not as severe but it's still the Hall/Larsson equation in terms of forward/defenseman value being played out.