Leafs Get Andersen from Ducks

[Kin]

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.

Except that's demonstrably untrue. Again, read the "Goaltending Options" thread.

 

[bustaheims]

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 they were hoping for stability in net behind a young roster. I don't think they wanted to rotate new goalies in every couple years until they found the guy that's good enough to take them to the next level. Unfortunately, stability comes with a price - one some people are obviously more comfortable with than others, and that's understandable. I don't think this moves the needle all that much in the short-term, and, without other upgrades to the roster, I can still easily see this team finishing in the bottom 5.

Would I have preferred that they waited? Maybe. I see the wisdom in not rotating through a new goalie every couple seasons, but I also see the value that could have come from retaining the picks. I don't think there's a huge difference in value either way. At some point in the near future, they were going to be paying a goalie close to the same salary, so, I'm not particularly concerned by that, either.

 

[mr grieves]

This seems to be just for last season, when Bernie had a poor season. Is there such a chart for the last three? WoI seems to have been shuttered and I don't know where they come from now

 

[TBLeafer]

Another thing I'm liking is that so far not one of Rielly, Kadri or Andersen has a contract made out suggesting that they are more important to the team going forward, than Babcock.  8)

 

[Kin]

Would I have preferred that they waited? Maybe. I see the wisdom in not rotating through a new goalie every couple seasons, but I also see the value that could have come from retaining the picks. I don't think there's a huge difference in value either way. At some point in the near future, they were going to be paying a goalie close to the same salary, so, I'm not particularly concerned by that, either.

I agree that the salary is not a major concern. My issue is just that it's a very high price to pay for the fairly nebulous concept of stability.

 

[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.

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

Sure, although I would be more comfortable in having a better opportunity to draft one than hoping it happens in later rounds.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

Expansion draft or not, having two potential starting goalies and wanting to trade one is dealing from a position of strength, not weakness.

 

[Kin]

Sure, although I would be more comfortable in having a better opportunity to draft one than hoping it happens in later rounds.

Also, the 2 of them not picked in the 1st round took longer to hit that level than Doughty/Hedman. Much like I pointed out with regards to drafting goalies, if you're really hoping on a 2nd round or later D-Man becoming a legit first pairing guy you've probably got 4-5 years of waiting on your hands.

 

[nutman]

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. 

Some on here want us to stay bad so they can whine. I agree with you, and stick with your guns. This team will be better than most are willing to admit, or maybe they are all talk, and can't see what is going on is a good thing.
Add Stamkos to the mix and we become way better. I am liking this rebuild so far.

 

[Kin]

This team will be better than most are willing to admit, or maybe they are all talk, and can't see what is going on is a good thing.

Or even maybe they've got a consistent record of being right about how good the team is and you're almost always wrong about everything?

 

[nutman]

This team will be better than most are willing to admit, or maybe they are all talk, and can't see what is going on is a good thing.

Or even maybe they've got a consistent record of being right about how good the team is and you're almost always wrong about everything?


Still being the best child you can be, I see. At least I am a very happy person, and not a bitter whiner who picks at everyone.

As for being wrong... So what if I have been wrong in the past, or If I am wrong this time, I will still give my opinion, and if you don't like it, why don't you just pass it by instead of picking it apart. Sorry I am not a neg Nancy like you.

 

[bustaheims]

My issue is just that it's a very high price to pay for the fairly nebulous concept of stability.

And, obviously, I don't think it was that high a price to pay.

I am intrigued to see what it will mean in the context of the entire off-season, though. I trust that Shanahan and Co. are going to stick with their plan, and take measured steps rather than large leaps forward. I can see how this move can be seen through both lenses, so, how the rest of the summer plays out will be the most telling.

 

[mr grieves]

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 they were hoping for stability in net behind a young roster. I don't think they wanted to rotate new goalies in every couple years until they found the guy that's good enough to take them to the next level. Unfortunately, stability comes with a price - one some people are obviously more comfortable with than others, and that's understandable. I don't think this moves the needle all that much in the short-term, and, without other upgrades to the roster, I can still easily see this team finishing in the bottom 5.

Would I have preferred that they waited? Maybe. I see the wisdom in not rotating through a new goalie every couple seasons, but I also see the value that could have come from retaining the picks. I don't think there's a huge difference in value either way. At some point in the near future, they were going to be paying a goalie close to the same salary, so, I'm not particularly concerned by that, either.

I think I would've preferred the deal if it were followed by a bridge deal rather than a long-term, starter contract -- that is, if the plan was to bring on Andersen as part of the cycling through process. That at least suggests moving carefully and modestly into the building up. I'm awfully wary of signing someone to a starter's contract for 5 years and then declaring that you, in fact, have a starter for 5 years.

 

[TML fan]

If Edmonton has taught us nothing else, it's that no matter how well/high you draft, if you have a crappy goalie it doesn't make any difference.

Obviously the Leafs think Andersen is worth it. They have done a lot of things right recently. Let's hope this is one of them.

 

[Kin]

And, obviously, I don't think it was that high a price to pay.

Ok, but again, I don't think the price was high in terms of Andersen's relative value to other 1B types or highly sought after back-ups. It's the concept of insulation or stability or...whatever the third word for it is going to be I think is overvalued.

 

[herman]

And, obviously, I don't think it was that high a price to pay.

Ok, but again, I don't think the price was high in terms of Andersen's relative value to other 1B types or highly sought after back-ups. It's the concept of insulation or stability or...whatever the third word for it is going to be I think is overvalued.

Peace of mind?

 

[Frank E]

And, obviously, I don't think it was that high a price to pay.

Ok, but again, I don't think the price was high in terms of Andersen's relative value to other 1B types or highly sought after back-ups. It's the concept of insulation or stability or...whatever the third word for it is going to be I think is overvalued.

Steadiness.

 

[Kin]

And in the latest round of "Edmonton is not an example of everything" it's worth mentioning that two teams made the playoffs with lower SV%'s than Edmonton had this season.

 

[Kin]

Peace of mind?

Or just go with clutchness or compete level. I'm a big believer in recycling.

 

[herman]

Sight unseen, I'm feeling the same way about Andersen as I do about Kadri's role on the team going forward.

Peace of mind?

Or just go with clutchness or compete level. I'm a big believer in recycling.

I too watched Captain Planet growing up, and it has coloured my beliefs.