Of Nonis, Babcock & who the heck is going to be running this asylum on draft day

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I believe the Leafs have to be patient in unloading these big contracts.What's the use of taking bad contracts back,plus taking salary back.It all amounts to the same thing.

There will be suiters for these players in time.There's talent there that has to be smartly parted with.
They must concentrate on drafting and developing to work their way out.

And yes Nonis must go.

I'm not sure it does necessarily. In a true re-build the team should be bad/terrible for a minimum of 3 years. Buying picks and prospects by taking on "bad" deals is actually a good strategy in that window.

Take the rumours on the Phaneuf deal. Toronto was looking at retaining salary on Phaneuf (not sure how much) and taking on Weiss @ $4.9M for 3 years in order to get a 1st and Mantha.

The team won't be competitve for those 3 years so taking on Weiss isn't really bad for the Leafs, and serves to help facilitate the movement of a top pick and prospect.

Weiss also has the chance to turn his career around (though it's not necessary to make it a good deal, but rather a bonus outcome), which could in turn make him movable for assets at some point in that 3 year period.

Just sitting on Phaneuf (or similarly bad contracts) isn't really a strategy that will get this team anywhere. They need to get as many assets they can for the current group while being creative with how they go about doing that (they're obviously looking at being creative in maximizing the return on Phaneuf).

If the report is true, this team is headed in the right direction with a sound strategy for the near future.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think Babcock knows something like this is very probably true for this franchise:
Sportsnet Opinion: Maple Leafs in for long rebuild after slow deadline

Babcock is not coming.

That was a part of what I have found discouraging and kind of appalling about this current situation. And we saw it reinforced by this tear down: they've got some real albatrosses of contracts that are not going to be easy to shed (they had weeks before the deadline to do so - not just today).

Those longer deals are more difficult to trade in-season than in the off-season.  They don't really have any albatross contracts that would be too difficult to deal.

I don't agree. I think Phaneuf's is a bit of a boat anchor of a deal. To move him, they'll probably have to eat $2 mil/yr for the life of the deal (six years) or a substantially bad contract coming back.

I don't see why they would have to do that.  Someone like Brian Campbell was traded with a $7.1 M cap hit in 2011 when the cap was $64.3 M, and it's at $69 M now.  Dany Heatley was traded twice with a huge cap hit (with a lower cap) with diminishing returns in his play.  Neither one involved a terrible contract coming back or eating salary (if it was even allowed at the time, not sure).

Absolute worst case scenario the cap would be at least $69 M going forward next season.  It's really not that big of a boat anchor for a decent chunk of the league (capgeek would be nice right now) and if the Leafs just hold onto him it's not the worst either.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't see why they would have to do that.  Someone like Brian Campbell was traded with a $7.1 M cap hit in 2011 when the cap was $64.3 M, and it's at $69 M now.  Dany Heatley was traded twice with a huge cap hit (with a lower cap) with diminishing returns in his play.  Neither one involved a terrible contract coming back or eating salary (if it was even allowed at the time, not sure).

Campbell and Heatley were both traded for guys with bad contracts that ended up being bought out by the team that acquired them (Olesz and Havlat).

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Further to my last post:

Yesterday TSN (I think) did a piece on the average re-build. The Pens took 6 years and that was while drafting Malkin AND Crosby. We could only hope to be so lucky IMO.

PIT didn't quite start from the same point as the current Leafs so maybe it took a bit longer then it could take the Leafs. If they can manage it properly in 5 years I think they'd have done a very good job.

So that means, effectively, that the next 5 years are a kind of "wandering years". Within that though there needs to be a very well thought out plan.

I think that most, if not all, the major players should be moved. I'd consider keeping Kessel and JVR but ultimately I think it's best if they're gone. They'd provide a lot in return and their absence will really help our draft position in the coming years. They'll be into their 30's when this team should be ready to compete again and on very expensive deals (Kessel already is).

The team should use all 3 of the provisions to retain salary in order to maximize/facilitate trades. "Bad" contracts in return are a good idea IMO, as long as they're of an appropriate length and the player has a chance at turning things around (or the return is astronomical).

The off-season should be dedicated to finding Winnik/Santorelli/Raymond types of players. Guys who've fallen in the cracks/been underrated by other teams. Short term deals are the way to go as evidenced by the deadline this year (teams aren't trading for term). 3 years max (but not more than $3M for any of those players) but generally 1-2 years.

Only the "core" should be re-signed to new deals (whomever management decides that is, I'm guessing Rielly, Nylander, Brown). Assets are only assets at the right price nowadays.

So basically this team needs to suck for a few years and act as an AHL team/feeder team for playoff teams, while stockpiling prospects/draft picks, while maintaining a "core" that it sees as "THE team" in 5 or so years

 

[Kin]

Further to my last post:

Yesterday TSN (I think) did a piece on the average re-build. The Pens took 6 years and that was while drafting Malkin AND Crosby. We could only hope to be so lucky IMO.

First off, that's not strictly true. The Pens missed the playoffs for four seasons in a row, not six. Also, they had to dump just about all of their talent due to financial reasons and did so in a league with a drastically different financial environment.

Secondly, I think we need to really define what we mean when we talk about how long a rebuild takes. Is it the time from the first season where a team is clearly not competitive to when they win the Cup? Because the Crosby/Malkin Penguins missed the playoffs the grand total of one time. They went to the seventh game of a cup finals the third year the two of them were on the team. That's the best case scenario.

I think when we talk about how long a rebuild takes what we should really be talking about is the number of seasons between a team being not competitive and being competitive. The same with the Blackhawks. Toews/Kane were in the line-up for one year before the team was competitive.

 

[Joe S.]

Out of curiosity, and not that this means anything, but how many times has a coach switched teams because his contract ran out, and not because he was fired?

Off the top of my head, it seems pretty rare that a coach makes it to the end of his contract, and then signs with another team... I could be wrong, I didn't research this.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't see why they would have to do that.  Someone like Brian Campbell was traded with a $7.1 M cap hit in 2011 when the cap was $64.3 M, and it's at $69 M now.  Dany Heatley was traded twice with a huge cap hit (with a lower cap) with diminishing returns in his play.  Neither one involved a terrible contract coming back or eating salary (if it was even allowed at the time, not sure).

Campbell and Heatley were both traded for guys with bad contracts that ended up being bought out by the team that acquired them (Olesz and Havlat).

Havlat did not have a bad contract, he had a $5 M hit and was a .86 PPG player the 5 seasons prior to the trade.  He was only bought out because after the trade to SJ he suffered injury after injury and his production went down.  At the time of the deal it wasn't a bad contract to take back.

Olesz had 3 years left at 3.125 M - maybe you'd consider that a bad contract, but it's arguable.  I guess he certainly wasn't worth it so I could see that argument.  But in that case I think the Blackhawks only did it for cap space (and because they had Keith/Seabrook).  I don't think Leafs will feel the same urge to dump the contract as Chicago probably did there.

 

[cw]

I don't see why they would have to do that.  Someone like Brian Campbell was traded with a $7.1 M cap hit in 2011 when the cap was $64.3 M, and it's at $69 M now.  Dany Heatley was traded twice with a huge cap hit (with a lower cap) with diminishing returns in his play.  Neither one involved a terrible contract coming back or eating salary (if it was even allowed at the time, not sure).

Campbell and Heatley were both traded for guys with bad contracts that ended up being bought out by the team that acquired them (Olesz and Havlat).

Several reports yesterday suggested Weiss' deal was being pitched in a similar fashion as was the alternative of taking a $2mil/yr haircut on Phaneuf's deal - in order to get anything back.

Phaneuf is not worth $7 mil / yr for six years period. Nobody in the league will give the Leafs anything for that straight up beyond a 7th rounder or "future considerations" (and I doubt any NHL team would). I suspect they could waive him (if his contract allowed it) and nobody would touch him.

I don't hate the guy. He's not awful or a slug. His contract is simply significantly too much for what he provides on the ice relative to the other dmen in the league. When that happens, GMs won't give you much or anything for any player in that situation with that much money involved. That's all.

Clarkson is just a more extreme case of a similar problem. I don't hate him either. Seems like a nice guy. I'm sorry things didn't work out.

 

[cw]

Out of curiosity, and not that this means anything, but how many times has a coach switched teams because his contract ran out, and not because he was fired?

Off the top of my head, it seems pretty rare that a coach makes it to the end of his contract, and then signs with another team... I could be wrong, I didn't research this.

It is rare. I think Scotty Bowman was only fired from the Sabres. He left the Blues, Habs and Pens via falling out with ownership and retired from the Wings on his own terms.

 

[herman]

I think we should be as patient with Nonis now that he is under new management and ownership mandate as we need to be with the rebuild of the core. He hasn't really made any boneheaded moves since Shanahan brought in Dubas, Hunter, and Pridham.

2014-15 Transactions (from Wikipedia and this forum)
April 11: Brendan Shanahan hired
...
June 28: Gunnarsson + 4th <--> Polak
July 1:

• D'Amigo + 7th <--> Frattin
• Stephane Robidas for $9M/3
• Leo Komarov for $11.8M/4
• Josh Gorges blocks Franson trade
• Dave Bolland signs with Florida for $27.5/5

July 3:

• Petri Kontiola for $1.1/1
• Mike Santorelli for $1.5/1

July 21: Cody Franson for $3.3/1
July 22: David Booth for $1.1/1

July 22: Kyle Dubas hired; Claude Loiselle and Dave Poulin fired
July 28: Daniel Winnik for $1.3/1
August 19: Brandon Pridham hired
October 21: Mark Hunter hired

January 6: Carlyle fired
February 6: Broll + Ashton <--> 2016 7th
February 15: Franson + Santorelli <--> Jokinen (UFA), Leipsic, 1st
February 25: Winnik <--> Sill (UFA), 4th, 2016 2nd
February 26: Abbott <--> Brennan (RFA)
February 26: Clarkson <--> <3 <3 Horton <3 <3
March 2:

• Jokinen <--> Lindstrom (UFA), Conditional 6th (4th)
• Holzer <--> Brewer, 2016 5th
• Picked Erixon off waivers

Unless there is a GM available who fits in with the group and has a better plan than what is developing now, dumping Nonis just limits their network reach (especially to the old guard GMs). He was given a chance when Shanahan came on board; his receptivity to new ideas and direction is the reason he remains hired. Nonis is the perfect middle management man.

 

[Kin]

Out of curiosity, and not that this means anything, but how many times has a coach switched teams because his contract ran out, and not because he was fired?

Off the top of my head, it seems pretty rare that a coach makes it to the end of his contract, and then signs with another team... I could be wrong, I didn't research this.

I think that's probably true but I think that speaks to why there's so much speculation around Babcock leaving. Under almost any circumstance there'd be no reason for his contract to not have already been extended. He's widely regarded as one of the best coaches in the game if not the best, the Wings are playing well and it's a rich team. We know they've had extension discussions so....why hasn't he re-signed?

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Further to my last post:

Yesterday TSN (I think) did a piece on the average re-build. The Pens took 6 years and that was while drafting Malkin AND Crosby. We could only hope to be so lucky IMO.

First off, that's not strictly true. The Pens missed the playoffs for four seasons in a row, not six. Also, they had to dump just about all of their talent due to financial reasons and did so in a league with a drastically different financial environment.

Secondly, I think we need to really define what we mean when we talk about how long a rebuild takes. Is it the time from the first season where a team is clearly not competitive to when they win the Cup? Because the Crosby/Malkin Penguins missed the playoffs the grand total of one time. They went to the seventh game of a cup finals the third year the two of them were on the team. That's the best case scenario.

I think when we talk about how long a rebuild takes what we should really be talking about is the number of seasons between a team being not competitive and being competitive. The same with the Blackhawks. Toews/Kane were in the line-up for one year before the team was competitive.

I honestly don't know what they were basing it on.

I'd guess it's the fact that PIT drafted in the top 5 from 2002-2006.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Havlat did not have a bad contract, he had a $5 M hit and was a .86 PPG player the 5 seasons prior to the trade.  He was only bought out because after the trade to SJ he suffered injury after injury and his production went down.  At the time of the deal it wasn't a bad contract to take back.

Olesz had 3 years left at 3.125 M - maybe you'd consider that a bad contract, but it's arguable.  I guess he certainly wasn't worth it so I could see that argument.  But in that case I think the Blackhawks only did it for cap space (and because they had Keith/Seabrook).  I don't think Leafs will feel the same urge to dump the contract as Chicago probably did there.

And Heatley was a .98 PPG player the 5 seasons prior to the trade. That trade probably isn't the best example/comparable here. It was more about just swapping out two big contracts that maybe didn't fit as well as the original team hoped.

The Campbell trade is actually a pretty good comparable. Both big-contract defencemen that had to be dealt, for one reason or another. At the time of the trade Olesz was definitely considered a bad contract. He only played 8 games for Chicago over 2 seasons, they had no intention of actually using him. They basically couldn't give Campbell away for free. The Hawks also also had the advantage in that situation of being able to trade him to the GM who originally signed the contract. There might not have been another GM in the league who would have taken it. I remember that people were pretty surprised they were able to unload it like that. A Phaneuf trade would probably bring about a similar return.

 

[Highlander]

Why has Babcock not resigned in Detroit as yet?  Seems simple to work something out if he had the wish to remain. It starting to look like he wants a change, a new challenge. Why go to a team like Pittsburg, if he failed there or had a bad year (Crosby, Malkin injured), he would not look good. Better to start with a team on the full rebuild and get the committment from Shannaplan to work through the 5 to 6 years its going to take. Winning the cup in Toronto would put him in the Pantheon of Hockey coaches, right along Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman and Al Arbour.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Havlat did not have a bad contract, he had a $5 M hit and was a .86 PPG player the 5 seasons prior to the trade.  He was only bought out because after the trade to SJ he suffered injury after injury and his production went down.  At the time of the deal it wasn't a bad contract to take back.

Olesz had 3 years left at 3.125 M - maybe you'd consider that a bad contract, but it's arguable.  I guess he certainly wasn't worth it so I could see that argument.  But in that case I think the Blackhawks only did it for cap space (and because they had Keith/Seabrook).  I don't think Leafs will feel the same urge to dump the contract as Chicago probably did there.

And Heatley was a .98 PPG player the 5 seasons prior to the trade. That trade probably isn't the best example/comparable here. It was more about just swapping out two big contracts that maybe didn't fit as well as the original team hoped.

The Campbell trade is actually a pretty good comparable. Both big-contract defencemen that had to be dealt, for one reason or another. At the time of the trade Olesz was definitely considered a bad contract. He only played 8 games for Chicago over 2 seasons, they had no intention of actually using him. They basically couldn't give Campbell away for free. The Hawks also also had the advantage in that situation of being able to trade him to the GM who originally signed the contract. There might not have been another GM in the league who would have taken it. I remember that people were pretty surprised they were able to unload it like that. A Phaneuf trade would probably bring about a similar return.

Still think Leafs have more in their favour than Chicago did at that time.  Contracts for D have gone up since then - at the time Campbell signed, that was one of the biggest contracts in the league for D.  Now there are at least 11 D in the league with cap hits of at least $7 million.  Phaneuf will also be two years younger if a deal is made before next season.  With a cap that will certainly rise (if not next season then beyond), with potential expansion on the horizon, with Phaneuf's actual dollars declining by $1 M to $1.5 M in the latter years, I just don't see it being the same tough environment as it was when Campbell was dealt.

But I could be 100% wrong of course.

 

[cw]

Havlat did not have a bad contract, he had a $5 M hit and was a .86 PPG player the 5 seasons prior to the trade.  He was only bought out because after the trade to SJ he suffered injury after injury and his production went down.  At the time of the deal it wasn't a bad contract to take back.

Olesz had 3 years left at 3.125 M - maybe you'd consider that a bad contract, but it's arguable.  I guess he certainly wasn't worth it so I could see that argument.  But in that case I think the Blackhawks only did it for cap space (and because they had Keith/Seabrook).  I don't think Leafs will feel the same urge to dump the contract as Chicago probably did there.

And Heatley was a .98 PPG player the 5 seasons prior to the trade. That trade probably isn't the best example/comparable here. It was more about just swapping out two big contracts that maybe didn't fit as well as the original team hoped.

The Campbell trade is actually a pretty good comparable. Both big-contract defencemen that had to be dealt, for one reason or another. At the time of the trade Olesz was definitely considered a bad contract. He only played 8 games for Chicago over 2 seasons, they had no intention of actually using him. They basically couldn't give Campbell away for free. The Hawks also also had the advantage in that situation of being able to trade him to the GM who originally signed the contract. There might not have been another GM in the league who would have taken it. I remember that people were pretty surprised they were able to unload it like that. A Phaneuf trade would probably bring about a similar return.

Still think Leafs have more in their favour than Chicago did at that time.  Contracts for D have gone up since then - at the time Campbell signed, that was one of the biggest contracts in the league for D.  Now there are at least 11 D in the league with cap hits of at least $7 million.  Phaneuf will also be two years younger if a deal is made before next season.  With a cap that will certainly rise (if not next season then beyond), with potential expansion on the horizon, with Phaneuf's actual dollars declining by $1 M to $1.5 M in the latter years, I just don't see it being the same tough environment as it was when Campbell was dealt.

But I could be 100% wrong of course.

I didn't think there was any way Campbell could be moved back then - though my thinking for the salary cap and what was possible back then was pretty green.

But now, we also have the benefit of keeping some of the salary. So it's easier to get something done.

The gist of what I got from many of the reports was they made some progress - they had something to talk about. But that something always seemed to involve eating some salary and bickering over what the 'prospect/pick' return should then be.

My rough guess right now is that "par" is around "eat $2 mil/yr" and they can get something of value in terms of a mid-to-decent prospect/pick back. They're not going to get anything for him straight up.

 

[Kaberle15]

If Nonis is fired, Cliff Fletcher will be the interin GM... so, keep Nonis for now...

If the Leafs had traded Kessel yesterday, it's almost 200% chance they would win the Lottery (Murphy's law).

 

[bustaheims]

If Nonis is fired, Cliff Fletcher will be the interin GM... so, keep Nonis for now...

Umm, no he won't. It would either be Dubas or Hunter.

 

[Highlander]

or Babcock?

 

[bustaheims]

or Babcock?

It's not going to be Babcock. Let it go.