Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks

[CarltonTheBear]

It means that the value attached to those individual picks should be realistic.

There's a bit of a disconnect here though because as much as we like those draft pick value charts they don't really generally reflect the value they carry in actual trades. That's why everyone went crazy at that Travis Yost article that looked at the value of the Leafs 1st overall pick.

The 30th overall pick (or even the 31st for you other people) still carries a lot more weight than you would think for something that has little chance of producing a top-level talent.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It means that the value attached to those individual picks should be realistic.

There's a bit of a disconnect here though because as much as we like those draft pick value charts they don't really generally reflect the value they carry in actual trades. That's why everyone went crazy at that Travis Yost article that looked at the value of the Leafs 1st overall pick.

The 30th overall pick (or even the 31st for you other people) still carries a lot more weight than you would think for something that has little chance of producing a top-level talent.

What sort of value do you think a late 1st carries in a trade?  I don't think from memory it is that valuable.

Btw, TheLeafsNation in a post went over some similar recent trades: 

If you want to talk about recent comparable trades, last offseason saw Robin Lehner and David Legwand head to Ottawa for a 1st round pick on June 26th, Eddie Lack head to Carolina for a 3rd and 7th round pick on the 27th, Cam Talbot head to Edmonton for a 2nd, 3rd, and swap of 7th round picks on the 27th, and Martin Jones head to San Jose for a 2016 1st round pick and Sean Kuraly on the 30th. These are all reasonably hefty returns, and Andersen's quantities were a little bit better known than anyone else's were in the group.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/6/21/10-things-to-consider-regarding-frederik-andersen

 

[skrackle]

I'm not crazy about this trade. I think it's premature from where the Leafs are.

It could work out. Maybe there's something to the idea of stabilizing the goaltending as a young team develops. It doesn't feel right, but I guess we'll see.

edit: 1st post got cut off.

 

[Kin]

I don't disagree.  But if this move was made for Vasilevskiy as opposed to Andersen, does this same thought process apply? 

Now, if the debate is whether Andersen was the right target to use those picks on, then I can get on board with that.  But I still don't think the ideology behind the trade was a bad one.

I think Vasilevskiy's youth, draft position and relative inexperience make it fair to say that at the very least he's more akin to using a pick to essentially add a prospect so yes, the thought process is different.

I think my problem with the ideology isn't so much the fundamental question of using valuable-ish picks in trades, it's the idea put forth by some that this was a trade made out of necessity. That the Leafs needed to add a starter or that this filled a need. If you go through the "Goaltending Options" thread I think it's fair to say most people seemed pretty comfortable going with a Bernier/Some Back-up tandem.

It's not absolute but generally I think trades made out of necessity are bad ones. I think teams do much better when they make trades to supplement and add.

 

[cabber24]

After hearing the supporting arguments for the trade I still hate the deal. OMG, I hope I don't end up developing a dislike for Lou and Shannahan like I did for Burke. Burke was on top of my wish list and we got him and we all know how that played out.

I repeat, I cannot believe a last place team traded a 1st and 2nd round pick! Feels like the same old bs!

Did these guys not eat their breakfast yesterday morning maybe they need a couple of waffles today?

 

[Omallley]

I'm not crazy about this trade. I think it's premature from where the Leafs are.

It could work out. Maybe there's something to the idea of stabilizing the goaltending as a young team develops. It doesn't feel right, but I guess we'll see.

edit: 1st post got cut off.

This is exactly where I am. Seems a little early to make this commitment and address the goal through a trade. Seems a shame to give up picks where a stop gap could have been had for just money. I'm not foaming at the mouth with the move, I don't think it is the worst trade that could be made, and it very well could end up being a good move when viewed with the entire off-season (and I really do hope that's the case and Andersen sets the world on fire next season).

Evaluating it as a stand along move in the here-and-now? It feels premature, rushed, and not in step with a rebuild, especially when the team is committing dollars and significant term.

 

[Redleaf]

I repeat, I cannot believe a last place team traded a 1st and 2nd round pick! Feels like the same old bs!

Only a team with a plan in place to turn this around quickly does this. Enter Matthews and enter STAMKOS.

 

[Misty]

I think Vasilevskiy's youth, draft position and relative inexperience make it fair to say that at the very least he's more akin to using a pick to essentially add a prospect so yes, the thought process is different.

I think my problem with the ideology isn't so much the fundamental question of using valuable-ish picks in trades, it's the idea put forth by some that this was a trade made out of necessity. That the Leafs needed to add a starter or that this filled a need. If you go through the "Goaltending Options" thread I think it's fair to say most people seemed pretty comfortable going with a Bernier/Some Back-up tandem.

It's not absolute but generally I think trades made out of necessity are bad ones. I think teams do much better when they make trades to supplement and add.

I got the impression from watching several of Lou's post-trade interviews that the Leafs management's assessment of needs was that, yes, they needed more reliablity in net, both going into this season (to help insulate a potentially large influx of rookies on the team) and for the longer term.

Sure, they could have deferred the decision for another year and found themselves in Calgary's position of going into July 1sts with zero NHL goalies on their roster, or could have tried to swing a deal for one in the season. I agree with your point of trades made out of necessity often being bad ones, but doesn't that also follow that for the trading partner it's a good one? If you look at this trade, it's actually Anaheim that was the more needy of the two trading partners. The Ducks had to trade either Andersen or Gibson or they'd almost assuredly lose one of them at the expansion draft. The Leafs had the option to spend some assets to secure a goalie, or could have let it slide for a while. It would seam Leafs management felt Andersen was a good building block with a solid value and took advantage of Anheim's relative position of weakness. They didn't get him for free, of course, but they didn't sell the farm for him either.

 

[herman]

Ultimately, the management group weighed the cost of their draft picks (not high, but also not nothing picks, especially in Hunter's hands) against their need for stable goaltending and felt that Andersen's projected contributions were more in line (valuable) with what they were building than what projected contributions a 30th and a 40-50th 2017 pick would yield combined.

I think they hoped Bernier would bounce back out from under Carlyle, but he had such a confidence sapping showing early last season that no one felt they could even rely on him to be the stop gap.

I don't view this move as an impatient move, per se. Our goaltending situation was a giant hole and they felt it needed actual filling, rather than a collection of planks that would need further maintenance. Bad goaltending begets nervous skaters upfront which can be damaging in the longer term, and I think they were very keen to reduce the amount of soul-sapping stinkers this coming season. They apparently pursued Andersen for over 15 months and paid the price to ensure they got to him.

 

[bustaheims]

This is exactly where I am. Seems a little early to make this commitment and address the goal through a trade. Seems a shame to give up picks where a stop gap could have been had for just money. I'm not foaming at the mouth with the move, I don't think it is the worst trade that could be made, and it very well could end up being a good move when viewed with the entire off-season (and I really do hope that's the case and Andersen sets the world on fire next season).

Evaluating it as a stand along move in the here-and-now? It feels premature, rushed, and not in step with a rebuild, especially when the team is committing dollars and significant term.

This is a big thing for me. I feel like people are making a lot of assumptions about the overall plan based on this one move, but, without the context of the off-season as a whole, it's largely grasping at straws. In isolation, all it really tells us is that they felt addressing their goaltending for the next 5 years was more valuable to them than the 30th overall pick in this year's draft and a mid to late 2nd rounder next season. That doesn't necessarily indicate a change in direction, an intent to turn things around quickly, or any sort of departure from the larger plan.

 

[Tigger]

Yeah, this feels premature. The trade cost isn't exorbitant but kind of unnecessary now and 5 years is some term too. I don't think they're going to be miles better than a Reimer/Bernier tandem, probably better than a Bernier/backup duo but if last year showed us anything another bottom 5 finish remains very possible, so I have to shake my head a little at the whole thing.

Someone mentioned something about rebound scoring chances in Anaheim, I've read more than a few Ducks fans saying he's good but he has some rebound issues, so, yeah.

Those picks seem more precious as futures, potential pieces to move up in the draft, than shoring up the goal position like this. It may not completely fail the smell test but I feel like sharing it around like an uncertain carton of milk.

 

[Kin]

Sure, they could have deferred the decision for another year and found themselves in Calgary's position of going into July 1sts with zero NHL goalies on their roster, or could have tried to swing a deal for one in the season. I agree with your point of trades made out of necessity often being bad ones, but doesn't that also follow that for the trading partner it's a good one? If you look at this trade, it's actually Anaheim that was the more needy of the two trading partners. The Ducks had to trade either Andersen or Gibson or they'd almost assuredly lose one of them at the expansion draft. The Leafs had the option to spend some assets to secure a goalie, or could have let it slide for a while. It would seam Leafs management felt Andersen was a good building block with a solid value and took advantage of Anheim's relative position of weakness. They didn't get him for free, of course, but they didn't sell the farm for him either.

No, I don't really think that follows. For starters, while you might want to make the case that Anaheim would want to trade Andersen, I don't think you can make the case they needed to. Potentially losing a back-up goalie doesn't really rank as pressing.

And losing him in an expansion draft is very much a potential possibility rather than a certainty. I mean, for starters, they'd have to sign him first. And as pointed out in another thread, Anaheim is equally at danger of losing one of Fowler, Lindholm or Vatanen in the draft so they might have preferred losing Andersen.

Then there's problem that it's tough to look at the price the Leafs paid and say they "took advantage" of Anaheim. The price seems fair-high for him.

And then to tie to back together. Does every team with a pending UFA have to trade them? Because teams lose UFA's all the time with no compensation. If Andersen was a UFA this summer there'd be no tangible difference to Anaheim between losing him via free agency and losing him next year to the expansion draft. 

I mean, look at it this way. Do the Leafs need the two picks they gave up? No. Neither does Anaheim. That's all they would lose if they did lose Andersen in the expansion draft. You can't really argue that what the Leafs gave up was reasonable and in the same breath say that it rose to the level of being needed by Anaheim.

 

[jdh1]

I repeat, I cannot believe a last place team traded a 1st and 2nd round pick! Feels like the same old bs!

Only a team with a plan in place to turn this around quickly does this. Enter Matthews and enter STAMKOS.

I'm afraid your right,I am not for obtaining Stamkos but this goalie signing may mean there going for Stammer.Sure looks like it to me.

 

[L K]

I look at this move and the biggest thing that concerns me is that it makes it harder for the Leafs to acquire that true #1 defenseman.  I really like Morgan Rielly but I'm not convinced that he's the anchor that is going to be on par with a Letang/Hedman/Keith/Doughty.  I think that's the big thing missing from the Leafs prospect pool, and that's most likely a player that is going to come out of another top 5 draft pick.  Anderson doesn't guarantee that the Leafs finish better than the bottom 5 but it improves their chances of being more of a bubble team.  I was ready for one more year of mediocrity to try and land that big defenseman.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Sure, they could have deferred the decision for another year and found themselves in Calgary's position of going into July 1sts with zero NHL goalies on their roster, or could have tried to swing a deal for one in the season. I agree with your point of trades made out of necessity often being bad ones, but doesn't that also follow that for the trading partner it's a good one? If you look at this trade, it's actually Anaheim that was the more needy of the two trading partners. The Ducks had to trade either Andersen or Gibson or they'd almost assuredly lose one of them at the expansion draft. The Leafs had the option to spend some assets to secure a goalie, or could have let it slide for a while. It would seam Leafs management felt Andersen was a good building block with a solid value and took advantage of Anheim's relative position of weakness. They didn't get him for free, of course, but they didn't sell the farm for him either.

No, I don't really think that follows. For starters, while you might want to make the case that Anaheim would want to trade Andersen, I don't think you can make the case they needed to. Potentially losing a back-up goalie doesn't really rank as pressing.

Their GM literally said they had to move him:

?If I can get Freddie signed one way or the other, I?ve got to move one (goaltender) because I?ll lose one for sure in expansion,? Murray told the Orange County Register?s Eric Stephens. ?It just will happen. It?s just something that?s in front of us. It?s there. We have a lot of defensemen. So we have to turn some of these things into assets.?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/ducks-gm-murray-says-one-of-his-goaltenders-has-got-to-move/

*cue the 'he didn't REALLY mean that, it's just for the press', etc etc*

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I look at this move and the biggest thing that concerns me is that it makes it harder for the Leafs to acquire that true #1 defenseman.  I really like Morgan Rielly but I'm not convinced that he's the anchor that is going to be on par with a Letang/Hedman/Keith/Doughty.  I think that's the big thing missing from the Leafs prospect pool, and that's most likely a player that is going to come out of another top 5 draft pick.  Anderson doesn't guarantee that the Leafs finish better than the bottom 5 but it improves their chances of being more of a bubble team.  I was ready for one more year of mediocrity to try and land that big defenseman.

Is it worth noting that 2 of the 4 defencemen you listed were not 1st round picks?

 

[TBLeafer]

You guys are funny.  Everyone here felt that addressing 1G was definitely a need and they went out and addressed it with what they feel confident with going forward.

Oh, you didn't mean address it now?

Too bad, so sad.  This is the Shanaplan in action, not your version of a slow and steady ideal rebuild though the draft in your world.

I tried to show you signs, post quotes all hinting at where this was heading. Try to discredit that now. 

 

[Kin]

This is a big thing for me. I feel like people are making a lot of assumptions about the overall plan based on this one move, but, without the context of the off-season as a whole, it's largely grasping at straws. In isolation, all it really tells us is that they felt addressing their goaltending for the next 5 years was more valuable to them than the 30th overall pick in this year's draft and a mid to late 2nd rounder next season. That doesn't necessarily indicate a change in direction, an intent to turn things around quickly, or any sort of departure from the larger plan.

But within the context of where you and I both are with regards to Stamkos...what's the best case scenario here? The Leafs' have a pretty good #1 over the course of a time period where they might not be very good regardless? One that makes it harder to finish where you want to in order to (hopefully) draft a franchise level defenseman?

I think this tells us more than you think, even in isolation. No matter what they do with JVR or Bozak the option of signing a placeholder this summer still existed so this deal at the very least shows that they thought that Andersen specifically presented so much value individually(at least in relation to other ways they could address their goaltending) that it was worth the price they paid. You might think that's valid in light of who's available as a UFA or via trade right now but there's no way to know if that's true in the future. So clearly they thought it was important to address their goaltending right away and I don't think you can easily square that with how you and I have sort of hoped they'd do things no matter what trades are made subsequently.

 

[Tigger]

You guys are funny.  Everyone here felt that addressing 1G was definitely a need and they went out and addressed it with what they feel confident with going forward.

Oh, you didn't mean address it now?

Too bad, so sad.  This is the Shanaplan in action, not your version of a slow and steady ideal rebuild though the draft in your world.

I tried to show you signs, post quotes all hinting at where this was heading. Try to discredit that now. 

:

 

[Kin]

Their GM literally said they had to move him:

?If I can get Freddie signed one way or the other, I?ve got to move one (goaltender) because I?ll lose one for sure in expansion,? Murray told the Orange County Register?s Eric Stephens. ?It just will happen. It?s just something that?s in front of us. It?s there. We have a lot of defensemen. So we have to turn some of these things into assets.?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/ducks-gm-murray-says-one-of-his-goaltenders-has-got-to-move/

*cue the 'he didn't REALLY mean that, it's just for the press', etc etc*

Well, no. I'm pretty happy with just relying on remembering what "have to" actually means.