• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

The Official 2011/2012 Armchair GM thread

Sarge said:
I haven't done the number crunching for next saeson but if we're looking at ~ 5 for Grabo plus whatever RFAs need to be signed, etc.  then I could easily see the Leafs being in favour of dumping Connolly. - and I'm not sure I understand your question there. I mean, why would you think I would feel Anaheim was happy about making that deal? The premise of these deals (as I stated) is the same but it's not based upon Connolly exploding in the same way Lupul did.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that anyone should fear what Connolly would do after being traded. I'm talking about the wisdom of the core concept of giving away one of the team's best prospects just to dump a bad contract when that contract could be buried in the minors or simply bought out. The question you didn't understand spoke to that, that Anaheim probably regrets that trade because of Gardiner alone, regardless of how they feel about Lupul.
 
Corn Flake said:
I don't think Connolly is that big of an issue. Yes he isn't producing numbers that match his contract but he contributes in a lot of other ways (so we hear) in the room and on the bench that are valuable. Plus, if Grabbo or Bozak got injured he would suddenly be very important again. 

If the guy was totally done I think you go the buyout route but not if he can still be useful. I think he's a capable 3rd line centre for sure and with Lombardi and Armstrong could be a solid veteran checking line with some scoring touch.  Certainly not trading away a top prospect to get rid of him.  If his cap hit becomes a problem, you just waive the guy.

Sure, but I would do this under the assumption that "player X" (whatever position he played) would be more serviceable than Connolly. - Which wouldn't be a stretch.
 
BlueWhiteBlood said:
I think Komisarek is more moveable than Connolly, because I think teams need defensemen more than forwards.

The market for defensemen last year was as soft as butter though. Scott Hannan, who's a pretty good comp for Komisarek only a little better in my opinion, got one year and one million. Colin White got roughly the same.
 
Saint Nik said:
Sarge said:
I haven't done the number crunching for next saeson but if we're looking at ~ 5 for Grabo plus whatever RFAs need to be signed, etc.  then I could easily see the Leafs being in favour of dumping Connolly. - and I'm not sure I understand your question there. I mean, why would you think I would feel Anaheim was happy about making that deal? The premise of these deals (as I stated) is the same but it's not based upon Connolly exploding in the same way Lupul did.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that anyone should fear what Connolly would do after being traded. I'm talking about the wisdom of the core concept of giving away one of the team's best prospects just to dump a bad contract when that contract could be buried in the minors or simply bought out. The question you didn't understand spoke to that, that Anaheim probably regrets that trade because of Gardiner alone, regardless of how they feel about Lupul.

But why does the prospect we give up have to be the next JG? Moreover, perhaps "player X" actually winds up helping us.
 
Sarge said:
But why does the prospect we give up have to be the next JG?

Because top prospects tend to develop into useful hockey players? Much like we're seeing with Gardiner? I'm not really sure how to answer that question because it seems to be about the nature of what makes a prospect valuable.

Sarge said:
Moreover, perhaps "player X" actually winds up helping us.

But for it to be a good move for the Leafs then player X would have to help the Leafs more than both the top prospect and Connolly/whatever you could do with Connolly's salary if you buried him/bought him out. That sounds like the kind of player who probably isn't available for Connolly and a prospect.
 
Saint Nik said:
Sarge said:
But why does the prospect we give up have to be the next JG?

Because top prospects tend to develop into useful hockey players? Much like we're seeing with Gardiner? I'm not really sure how to answer that question because it seems to be about the nature of what makes a prospect valuable.

Sarge said:
Moreover, perhaps "player X" actually winds up helping us.

But for it to be a good move for the Leafs then player X would have to help the Leafs more than both the top prospect and Connolly/whatever you could do with Connolly's salary if you buried him/bought him out. That sounds like the kind of player who probably isn't available for Connolly and a prospect.

I know what makes prospect valuable. The level of prospect going the other way would be entirely based on "player X" is.  What I guess you're missed is that indeed, I'd hope that the kind of player I'm looking for would be available somewhere.
 
Sarge said:
bustaheims said:
Sarge said:
But why does the prospect we give up have to be the next JG?

Because, you're not likely to entice teams to take on a salary dump with the likes of Sam Carrick.

Who mentioned Carrick? Honestly.

He's merely an example. If you're giving up a prospect to get someone to take on an almost $5M salary dump, it's going to have to be a pretty good prospect - like, someone of similar value and potential to Jake Gardiner.
 
Saint Nik said:
The market for defensemen last year was as soft as butter though. Scott Hannan, who's a pretty good comp for Komisarek only a little better in my opinion, got one year and one million. Colin White got roughly the same.

I see your point. Both of those guys you mention were coming off big deals though, much like Komisarek, so anything is possible. I'm sure we would have to give something up to trade the guy, but I don't think it would take a top prospect.

Komisarek will most likely end up on a 1-2 million dollar a year deal with his next contract also.
 
bustaheims said:
Sarge said:
bustaheims said:
Sarge said:
But why does the prospect we give up have to be the next JG?

Because, you're not likely to entice teams to take on a salary dump with the likes of Sam Carrick.

Who mentioned Carrick? Honestly.

He's merely an example. If you're giving up a prospect to get someone to take on an almost $5M salary dump, it's going to have to be a pretty good prospect - like, someone of similar value and potential to Jake Gardiner.

Ryan, D'Amigo, Gysbers... There's a long way between Carrick and Colborne/Kadri.
 
Sarge said:
I know what makes prospect valuable. The level of prospect going the other way would be entirely based on "player X" is.  What I guess you're missed is that indeed, I'd hope that the kind of player I'm looking for would be available somewhere.

But this is all operating under the premise that Connolly has, essentially, a negative trade value(because if he didn't then you could trade him somewhere for a 7th rounder, keep the prospect and have the cap space). If that's true, I don't understand the point of including Connolly at all. Why not trade the mystery prospect for whoever and bury Connolly? Either Connolly has a trade value or not.
 
Sarge said:
Ryan, D'Amigo, Gysbers... There's a long way between Carrick and Colborne/Kadri.

I think you can forgive other people's confusion when you make frequent reference to a "top prospect" and then start talking about Simon Gysbers.
 
Anyhoo... I'm inclined to use some prospect depth to get out of what I think was a mistake. If the player we're getting back is worth the prospect too (whoever it is) I do it. 
 
BlueWhiteBlood said:
Both of those guys you mention were coming off big deals though, much like Komisarek, so anything is possible.

I do not understand what this means.
 
Sarge said:
Ryan, D'Amigo, Gysbers... There's a long way between Carrick and Colborne/Kadri.

None of those guys get it done either, unless is an almost equally bad contract coming back, in which case, what's the point? Every team has equivalent prospects.
 
[Edit:  I probably should have read further in the thread before posting this comment .... sorry if it is redundant ...]

It would not even cross my mind to trade Connolly in a Lupul-type deal right now. 

First, Connolly has a lot of value to the leafs for the remainder of this season.  If Bozak or Grabbo get injured, he can fill in.  He can play on the PK and the point on the PP.  He is the leafs 6th highest scoring forward despite the fact that he has been playing on the 3rd line with Crabbe and Lombardi.  (Remember how productive Kessel was last year with Crabbe on his wing?)  He's on a 50 point pace over 82 games.  He plays decently on defense and makes a good 3rd-line center, though of course, he is overpaid for that.

Second, if you are worried about the Leaf's salary structure for 2012-2013, remember that there are a huge number of variables to work out between then and now.  We should let some of those variables work themselves out before committing ourselves to a trade where we give up assets to get rid of a guy.  We don't know what the cap or the cap rules are going to be.  We don't know if there will be a buyout period between CBAs like there was last time -- we might be able to get out of Komisarek's or Connolly's contract for free without giving up any assets.  We don't know if we will resign grabbo or what he will cost.  We don't know what other players might be available for trade or who might occupy Connolly cap space.  We might guess at some of these things but it makes sense deferring making highly costly decisions (such as trading a good young player to get rid of Connolly) until we know.

Finally, I don't think Connolly's contract is really all that onerous.  Burke gave him precisely the deal I would have -- he paid a big price for a very short-term commitment.  2-way centers who can score at a decent clip like Connolly are hard to come by.  Every off-season there are typically a number of teams looking for better centers than what they have and there are typically not enough high-quality centers to satisfy everyone.  (This is really the only way to explain Montreal's deal for Gomez.)  This coming off-season (ignoring the possible disruptions and turmoil the CBA negotiations will cause), I do not think it will be difficult to unload Connolly if that is what the leafs need to do.  There will be a team who will want to try out the guy for 1 year, hoping he'll get 50-60 points on the second line on their team -- it is very low risk and decent reward.  As an example (from capgeek), if you project a 64-million cap then LA has 14-million in cap space and 19 players signed.  LA currently sitting last in the league in goals for. Now, naturally LA will try for Parise first (IF Parise makes it to the open market) but they may not get him.  Even if they do, perhaps they can afford both a $7 million Parise and a $4.5 million Connolly.  Anyway, that's just one example.  Connolly's potential for 50-60 points, 1-year contract and the normal lack of quality centers around the league should make it possible for Toronto to ditch Connolly without too much trouble if they choose to (IMHO).  Though, lots could change depending on the details of the new CBA.
 
bustaheims said:
Sarge said:
Ryan, D'Amigo, Gysbers... There's a long way between Carrick and Colborne/Kadri.

None of those guys get it done either, unless is an almost equally bad contract coming back, in which case, what's the point? Every team has equivalent prospects.

It makes sense if the contract coming back is expiring.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top