dappleganger
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
If Carlyle doesn't want to play Gardiner on the second pairing I'll gladly accept his resignation.
Unofficial 2013-2014 Armchair GM Thread
- Thread starter Champ Kind
- Start date
If Carlyle doesn't want to play Gardiner on the second pairing I'll gladly accept his resignation.
J
Jalili
Guest
BlueWhiteBlood said:
Yeah, if we traded Franson we'd need a replacement who plays right side and is worthy of top 4 minutes, and guys like that aren't really floating around right now. I think we're already pressed for finding another right-handed D-men as it is unless they plan on filling that spot internally (Granberg, Holzer, etc).
ZBBM
Active member
I sure as hell hope Franson isn't the odd man out. After he got his head screwed on straight he finally began to show some of skill that got touted by Poile. If Franson could be given Phaneuf-like PP minutes, I think he'd be a real offensive force. He's got one of those shots that seems to find its way through traffic.
Kin
New member
BlueWhiteBlood said:
I don't think that's going to be as big of a consideration going forward. Watching the draft David Poile, who knows a thing or two about putting together a defense, was asked about his intentions of putting Jones and Weber together considering they both play the same side and he seemed pretty alright with it. I mean, Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger were both left-handed shots and they played pretty well together.
Additionally, and this is really what I was getting at, it's not just a matter of "preferring to keep" Franson but rather placing him on the depth chart. If we agree that those three offensive defensemen are likely to be above Franson on the depth chart then you're left with the reality that Franson is probably a bottom pairing PP specialist going forward. That's not worth 4+ million a year.
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
Nik the Trik said:
Well, I'm not saying that it hasn't happened or that it can't, I'm one who believes that guys should play their natural side. I find that once you start doing that, more mistakes come. Not the top end guys so much, but we're agreeing that Franson isn't one, yet. I believe he is strong top 4 though.
This is probably where we disagree with regards to Franson's ability. I think he has top pairing potential going forward. I see a bit more potential on the defensive side, he was pretty good with improving his physical game last season IMO. I found that his increased aggressiveness helped in playing better defense, not to mention his "active stick", which also helped in the area. 4 million? Maybe close, but not yet? But I think he will be in 1-3 years.
Highlander
Active member
I don't see what people see in Frazer, vs. the Bruins he constantly coughed up the puck and lead to one gaffe of a goal that changed that particular game. Franson has a huge upside.
Kin
New member
BlueWhiteBlood said:
Fair enough but I think that when we look at the team going forward it's probably better to acknowledge that LD and RD aren't positions that people feel the need to religiously stick to. Certainly not to the point of having a lower quality group.
BlueWhiteBlood said:
But again, it's not just a disagreement about Franson, it's about his place on the team. To justify keeping him around at that price you have to not only be high on him but be higher on him than one of the other three guys I mentioned and so far you haven't really talked about him in that specific context.
Corn Flake
New member
caveman said:
Agreed, assuming he picks up where he left off. But he may not.
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
Nik the Trik said:
He's #2 on my "depth chart". I mean, Rielly and Gardiner are developing and not at Franson's level yet IMO. So, Phaneuf, Franson, Gardiner, Gunnarsson and Rielly. That's how I see them rated right now, which may change in September based on camp, but right now that's where they sit. Franson has a place on this team IMO at the #3 spot, but not because he's 3rd best, but because Gunnarsson plays with the #1 guy. I don't think 4 million on a longer term deal is too crazy for a 3-4 defenseman.
In regards to this conversation, I think it becomes about Rielly vs Gardiner, in that they are similar players I think, with Rielly's top end a bit more conservative defensively.
bustaheims
Active member
BlueWhiteBlood said:
As Nik has pointed out, it's not just about this season, but, about 2 or 3 years from now, when given the players currently in the organization who will likely still be around, Franson would be looking at 3rd pairing type minutes with some PP time. The contract he's going to get now is not good value for that. He may be a 2nd pairing guy this season, but 2 years from now? Well, I sure hope he's been passed by at least a couple guys by then.
BlueWhiteBlood said:
It's really not. There's plenty of room for 2 high-end puck moving defencemen on this team going forward - 3 if you want to include Phaneuf. In fact, given the current state of the game, having a bunch of guys who skate with the puck well and are defensively responsible is ideal. It's how the team should be looking to build their back end. There is no Rielly vs Gardiner. Neither is redundant or expendable because of each other.
EDIT: It only become Gardiner vs Rielly when it gets to the point where the team can't afford to retain both of them under the cap without sacrificing too much in other areas. Until then, there's plenty of room on the team for both.
leafplasma
New member
I see Rielly playing Junior this year, AHL next year and eased into the lineup as 5/6 guy in year 3. We need Franson in a top 4 role to bridge that gap. It isn't a matter of looking at a depth chart now as Rielly isn't in the equation. So we sign Franson for 3 years, see how he plays this year in a full season and decide if he can be the guy to replace Phaneuf and then that bridge becomes longterm.
If this D gels going forward it becomes the D we bank on. If not, Phaneuf is allowed to walk/traded or one of Franson Gunnar is traded. However, saying we will be paying Franson 4 mill to play a bottom pairing will never happen going forward, Rielly simply isn't ready to replace him. I really don't think Franson will be signed for that cap hit. I think 3.25 million for 3 years is what we see and we may end up with him holding out if he doesn't take that.
If this D gels going forward it becomes the D we bank on. If not, Phaneuf is allowed to walk/traded or one of Franson Gunnar is traded. However, saying we will be paying Franson 4 mill to play a bottom pairing will never happen going forward, Rielly simply isn't ready to replace him. I really don't think Franson will be signed for that cap hit. I think 3.25 million for 3 years is what we see and we may end up with him holding out if he doesn't take that.
bustaheims
Active member
leafplasma said:
Until Rielly is officially assigned to his junior team, he is absolutely in the equation, whether we think he should be there or not.
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
bustaheims said:
I'll concede that point, I actually have no problem with either scenario at this point. My comment was built more around Gunnarsson and Phaneuf's futures with the team also. Rielly is fine on the 3rd pairing, I'd say Franson also, but we'd be looking at a trade scenario there with him anyway.
Rielly and or Gardiner could make any of the comments irrelevant in September, in fact I hope they do make Nonis' job hard.
leafplasma
New member
bustaheims said:
I would find it hard to believe that the Leafs who have said that they want to do things right would thrust Rielly into the lineup this year. I also would find it hard to believe that they don't have some kind of a timetable in their head as to when he will be ready. Negotiations with Gunnar, Franson and Fraser would be very ill advised if that would be the case, very poor management. They may start the season with Rielly for the 9 games allowed as simply a bargaining tactic during a Franson hold out. I just do not see Rielly being with the Leafs a full season.
bustaheims
Active member
leafplasma said:
Well, there are members of the Leafs talent evaluation team that went on record during the development camp a couple weeks saying they felt Rielly was already ready to play in the NHL, so, it wouldn't shock me to see him crack the lineup this season. Any timetable they might have for him is absolutely not set in stone. On top of that, there are a couple other issues with your original timetable for him. Firstly, I highly doubt Rielly sees much, if any, AHL time. If some of the team's talent evaluators think he's already ready now, you can be pretty sure they'll have the same opinion next summer. And, secondly, there's no way the Leafs bring him in as a 3rd pairing guy. There's no point in having him on the roster playing 10-15 minutes a night and likely not getting much, if any, PP time. When he land a spot on the team, it will be in the top 4. That's a virtual guarantee, and there's a very good chance that happens as soon as the 14/15 season.
leafplasma
New member
bustaheims said:
Well the need to rush him would be part and parcel to what we have on the big club now. If guys like Franson are resigned and Phaneuf after this year then there is no need to rush him. I did listen to the Jim Hughes interview about Rielly and all the talk about his readiness but all that serves to do is to keep Rielly positive and perhaps ensure a confident camp and a hope of making the big club. I just don't think that burning a year of Rielly's status when we have a guy like Franson to bridge the gap is smart right now. I also don't think, from watching Rielly a bit with the Marlies, that he will be able to give us more than Franson can now.
However, if your line of thinking is in line with what the Leafs think, then Franson may be in trade talks as we speak, there are only so many cap dollars and spots to go around. If the Leafs think Rielly is ready for a third pairing slot now at his age when he should be getting big minutes in Junior, then I am equally disappointed. However, after a year in Junior (WJC), a year in the AHL, then I have no problem with him being sheltered with third pairing minutes and PP time after all that development. That puts him at what still just 21. Let not pull another Luke Schenn here. We are in a different position on the back end now than we were when Schenn was thrust into his role.
mr grieves
New member
bustaheims said:
I can't really think of any prospects the Leafs have had since Jim Hughes has taken over that were rushed into prominent roles. I think most look to Kadri and Gardiner when thinking of recent precedents, and believing Rielly's on that path better fits with the often heard pronouncements that the team isn't rushing any more of its prospects into the NHL (hi, Luke) and the general belief that Nonis is patiently and conservatively building the team. So, it seems to me highly unlikely Rielly's on the Leafs and being expected to be a key member of a competing team for the next two years.
There's nothing above -- some guys in the organization think he's good enough already and nothing in the next year will convince them otherwise, no AHL for him (though the other highly touted prospects developed a bit there), and no way he's bottom six -- are assertions made on not much evidence at all.
So, given that there's not much reason to think Rielly's going to be replacing Franson for another two years...
bustaheims said:
Nothing's just about this season, yeah, but blowing a hole in an already weak defense corps certainly doesn't help anything this season, or likely next (unless, of course, management breaks from the steady and patient plan -- that is, panics -- and brings in Rielly).
I do wonder how to square the options here with what we've already seen this off-season. If we don't sign Franson because we're thinking 3 years ahead to Rielly playing a significant role and, in that year, Franson falling down the depth chart to overpaid-PP-specialist, then what are we doing with Clarkson other than wasting the most 3 productive years of his contract? If you want to get as much as you can out of the Clarkson contract or the best goalie tandem in the league or the last year you've got a Stanley-Cup-winning shutdown center in the league, you want Franson on your team next year.
Kin
New member
mr grieves said:
I think that kind of shows a poor understanding of what it really means to rush a prospect. I mean, the two examples of the Leafs not rushing prospects you give(Kadri and Gardiner) seem sort of at cross purposes with one another. In Kadri they had a player who they seasoned for a year but gave an opportunity to make and stick in the NHL the year after but in Gardiner they have a player they didn't even acquire until he was almost 21(and in the middle of a collegiate season) and made the big club and played 75 games(while averaging over 20 minutes a night) after his first training camp with the club.
So Gardiner was basically thrust into a big role with the Leafs the second they could and Kadri wasn't "rushed" in the same way Schenn was but he was absolutely given a chance to be an NHL'er in his second pro season, the exact same way busta is saying Rielly will.
The narrative might exist for some that Luke Schenn was "rushed" and that the reason he's sort of stalled as a defenseman is because of that and that's why Rielly, if they want to develop him "patiently", will be given a ton of time in junior and probably the AHL but let's examine that. Let's compare the way the Leafs "developed" Schenn with other defensemen from his draft class. Here are the other defensemen taken in the first round that year:
Drew Doughty - Straight to the NHL, 0 career AHL games
Zach Bogosian - Straight to the NHL, 5 career AHL games
Alex Pietrangelo - Two half years back in Junior, 1 career AHL game
Tyler Myers - Straight to NHL, 0 career AHL games
Colton Teubert - 2 years back in junior, 160+ career AHL games
Erik Karlsson - 1 year back in Sweden, 12 career AHL games
Jake Gardiner - As discussed
Luca Sbisa - Kind of a jumble but played 39 NHL games after being drafted, 8 career AHL games
Michael Del Zotto - One year back in Junior, 11 career AHL games
Tyler Cuma - Two more years of junior, 140+ AHL games
John Carlson - One more year of Junior, 48 career AHL games
So looking over that I really question the idea that two more full years in junior or a lengthy apprenticeship in the AHL are at all required or even beneficial to the development of young, talented defensemen. The only players who got a full season of AHL time are Teubert and Cuma who are also the only two who are question marks right now in terms of having NHL careers and of the rest Carlson is the only one for whom the AHL wasn't the briefest of layovers before becoming full-time NHL'ers(and even Carlson was in the NHL for 20+ games in his second pro season).
So blaming whatever happened with Schenn(and for what it's worth I still think there's time for Schenn to be a very good NHL defenseman) on him being "rushed" seems to be the definition of a confirmation bias. Considering how good that class of defensemen have been the idea that giving a young defenseman 2 extra years in junior is necessary for proper development doesn't really have a basis in fact and the idea that anything other than a cup of coffee in the AHL is required just seems to be an outright fiction.
When you factor in that Rielly is a top 5 pick and therefore more comparable to your Doughty's and Bogosian's than to your Sbisa's and Carlson's I think the idea that he's a contributing member of the Leafs blueline in his second professional season is the opposite of reckless optimism. I think that if there's anything the above list tells us it's that if a young defenseman isn't a regular in the NHL by the time they're 21 or 22 then you're probably going to start wondering about their future in the league at all.
mr grieves said:
Well, we've already addressed the idea that Rielly making the team would in any way be a panic so instead, let's focus on two things here that I think should be mentioned. First the idea that not re-signing Franson would "blow a hole" in the defense seems kind of silly. Here are the Leafs top 4 regular defensemen from last year in terms of TOI(ignoring, for the moment, Mike Kostka):
Dion Phaneuf - 25:10
Carl Gunnarson - 21:16
Cody Franson - 18:47
JM Liles - 18:46
So Franson, who had a good season no doubt, was the #3 guy. Didn't log a ton of minutes, didn't kill penalties. Now, when the bench tightened in the playoffs his TOI jumped to 22:49 but that still left him #3. #1 was Phaneuf obviously but #2 was the guy who is the reason that, Rielly aside, Franson is somewhat expendable and that's Jake Gardiner. Franson was an effective player last year but I don't think anyone would really say that he did a ton Gardiner can't do. I can't speak for Busta but when I look at the defense next year the idea of a top 4 of Phaneuf, Gunnar, Gardiner, Rielly doesn't look like it has a hole blown in it compared to Phaneuf, Gunnar, Liles, Franson.
mr grieves said:
All of this might be a valid point(well, except for the "Rielly in 3 years" nonsense) if it weren't for the fact that what is being discussed is trading Franson. Not letting him walk as a UFA. A trade. Where the team gets something back in return. The idea being that coming off a season where he scored in the top 10 as a defenseman Franson's value is a little inflated which makes signing him risky but trading him lucrative. Maybe you can add forward depth or a more defensively minded defenseman or a ready or very nearly ready NHL prospect who can chip in this year or next while still being very controllable cost wise.
leafplasma
New member
Giving Gardiner a roster spot at the age of 21 after 3 years of University hockey playing with bigger older players than Junior hockey is hardly rushing him. That is how old Rielly will be after a year of Junior, year in the AHL then a spot with the Leafs. When Gardiner's play wasn't up to par and after his concussion he was back in the AHL for further seasoning to boot. Kadri was given glimpses of the show but management made no bones about demoting despite many fans wanting him to stay up.
Nobody is saying Rielly wont get a taste of the NHL in the next two seasons, I just don't see him being a regular until year three. Unless we are forced into that scenario due to a deal involving Franson or Phaneuf. If Franson is signed rather than dealt it just buys time for the proper development of Rielly. If he dominates the AHL next year, maybe the Leafs deal a Dman to make room, however I would prefer to bring him along slowly if he doesn't. Nik did you catch any of Rielly's games in the AHL last year? They were a little underwhelming if you ask me, I don't think he is quite ready yet, could be the loss of a Junior year due to injury, who knows.
Nobody is saying Rielly wont get a taste of the NHL in the next two seasons, I just don't see him being a regular until year three. Unless we are forced into that scenario due to a deal involving Franson or Phaneuf. If Franson is signed rather than dealt it just buys time for the proper development of Rielly. If he dominates the AHL next year, maybe the Leafs deal a Dman to make room, however I would prefer to bring him along slowly if he doesn't. Nik did you catch any of Rielly's games in the AHL last year? They were a little underwhelming if you ask me, I don't think he is quite ready yet, could be the loss of a Junior year due to injury, who knows.