What Are Your Thoughts of What A Rebuild Is?

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

This is fine to say, as if everything will work out perfectly, but what are your actual, realistic expectations or vision? This management isn't exactly known for doing what is expected with UFAs or trades, period.

 

Who do you see being flipped and for what? A good number of UFA's will be flipped? How many UFAs is a good number out of the 4 we signed worth any kind of value?

 

Signing several decent and offensive UFS's isn't helping this team draft where top talent will be.

How can you state there will be "zero hindrance" on the rebuild from signing these guys when there results are already in and clearly indicating that the team will be choosing further down the line than is preferred for a rebuilding team set to take the BPA?

 

-They've largely done what I expected...

 

-This year? Vanek for sure. Possibly Burmistrov and Wiercioch (though yes only moderate value). Gudbranson if it's not looking like he'll re-sign (which I both hope and think he does). Long shot of Baer possibly (either TDL or summer). Next year: Dorsett, Edler (if he'll waive), MDZ, Nilsson. Year following: Gagner and possibly Tanev.

 

-The results are already in? We've played 11 of 82 games. It's a LONG season. I'm pleased with how the team is playing but I doubt we stay where we are in the standings. Time will tell. I'm not particularly worried about where we draft. We draft where we draft and it's up to the team to find a good player and develop that player. I think you also over estimate how much effect a couple middle 6 UFA's have on where we finish in the standings. They're not (directly anyway) the reason the Canucks are playing far better so far this year. It's not like Vanek or Burmistrov are single handedly winning us games. They are actual NHL level depth though. That's certainly helping the overall team but it's far from the main/only difference between being the 10th best team (thus far) or the 29th best team (which BTW, guarantees very little in the draft).

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

28 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

My fav thing JB has done has been to add some character and toughness into the roster and purge some of the opposite.

This leads to the question of.............."do we resign GUD at a premium price?"........premimum price being 4.5 to 5.5

 

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

This leads to the question of.............."do we resign GUD at a premium price?"........premimum price being 4.5 to 5.5

 

$4.5m wouldn't be 'premium' FWIW. Probably right about on the dot actually.

 

I'll give you that $5.5 would certainly be at the high end of his salary range. But we have nothing to indicate he's asking for that either.

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

$4.5m wouldn't be 'premium' FWIW. Probably right about on the dot actually.

 

I'll give you that $5.5 would certainly be at the high end of his salary range. But we have nothing to indicate he's asking for that either.

Well,,,,,,Tanev sign a 4.450 contract in 2016-2017 season at 24 years old.........granted Tanev is a better defensive defenseman, but a healthy Gud seems to be performing pretty good and brings a completely different skill set besides being a #4 RHD...........

 

My call is we are going to pay more for him than the 4.5 at the low end.........5.25 is what we pay.........I think that's pretty high but what he brings is toughness, together with some skill......................I hope less, but the trend is upward  

[J.I.A.H.N]

38 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

-They've largely done what I expected...

 

-This year? Vanek for sure. Possibly Burmistrov and Wiercioch (though yes only moderate value). Gudbranson if it's not looking like he'll re-sign (which I both hope and think he does). Long shot of Baer possibly (either TDL or summer). Next year: Dorsett, Edler (if he'll waive), MDZ. Year following: Gagner and possibly Tanev.

 

-The results are already in? We've played 11 of 82 games. It's a LONG season. I'm pleased with how the team is playing but I doubt we stay where we are in the standings. Time will tell. I'm not particularly worried about where we draft. We draft where we draft and it's up to the team to find a good player and develop that player. I think you also over estimate how much effect a couple middle 6 UFA's have on where we finish in the standings. They're not (directly anyway) the reason the Canucks are playing far better so far this year. It's not like Vanek or Burmistrov are single handedly winning us games. They are actual NHL level depth though. That's certainly helping the overall team but it's far from the main/only difference between being the 10th best team (thus far) or the 29th best team (which BTW, guarantees very little in the draft).

 

 

I don't think that there is any schedule for when a veteran gets traded............

 

I think it totally depends on the offer and the budget and what is coming out on the open market in July.......................

 

For example........Edler/MDZ/Hutton.........we have a lot of youth coming up on the Right side.........I am not trading any of them for a 3rd rounder, but they are all worth the same as Burrows/Hansen, given the need for defensemen............

 

As for the rest of the lot.................Nilsson has played great/Vanek is on a 1 yr deal/Gagner would fill in for an injury..............any of these guys could get traded this year, if the price is right!

 

I am not calling anything right now.......................I am just saying they are possibilities.............this includes Granlund and Baertschi, if Benning has his sights set of Kane? I am not saying he does..........but it would be an improvement................and depending on the asset returns............one never knows!

 

Even the top teams in the league will consider trading a second line player, if the return is better in their opinion! ..................aka Drouin for Sergachev

 

Everything is always on the table, so to speak...............generational players excluded

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I don't think that there is any schedule for when a veteran gets traded............

 

I think it totally depends on the offer and the budget and what is coming out on the open market in July.......................

 

For example........Edler/MDZ/Hutton.........we have a lot of youth coming up on the Right side.........I am not trading any of them for a 3rd rounder, but they are all worth the same as Burrows/Hansen, given the need for defensemen............

 

As for the rest of the lot.................Nilsson has played great/Vanek is on a 1 yr deal/Gagner would fill in for an injury..............any of these guys could get traded this year, if the price is right!

 

I am not calling anything right now.......................I am just saying they are possibilities.............this includes Granlund and Baertschi, if Benning has his sights set of Kane? I am not saying he does..........but it would be an improvement................and depending on the asset returns............one never knows!

 

Even the top teams in the league will consider trading a second line player, if the return is better in their opinion! ..................aka Drouin for Sergachev

 

Everything is always on the table, so to speak...............generational players excluded

If JB can make us younger and (in the near future) better by trading older vets, then I hope he does the deals.

 

Edler

Sutter

Baer

Vanek

Gagner

Errikson

?

?

 

[aGENT]

13 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I don't think that there is any schedule for when a veteran gets traded............

 

I think it totally depends on the offer and the budget and what is coming out on the open market in July.......................

 

For example........Edler/MDZ/Hutton.........we have a lot of youth coming up on the Right side.........I am not trading any of them for a 3rd rounder, but they are all worth the same as Burrows/Hansen, given the need for defensemen............

 

As for the rest of the lot.................Nilsson has played great/Vanek is on a 1 yr deal/Gagner would fill in for an injury..............any of these guys could get traded this year, if the price is right!

 

I am not calling anything right now.......................I am just saying they are possibilities.............this includes Granlund and Baertschi, if Benning has his sights set of Kane? I am not saying he does..........but it would be an improvement................and depending on the asset returns............one never knows!

 

Even the top teams in the league will consider trading a second line player, if the return is better in their opinion! ..................aka Drouin for Sergachev

 

Everything is always on the table, so to speak...............generational players excluded

Sure there's a schedule. Largely the last year of a players contract unless you plan on re-signing them (or letting them play out).

 

That doesn't mean you can't/won't/don't move a guy earlier should circumstance dictate it. Edler could certainly be moved this year should we get a solid offer, he's willing to waive etc.

[aGENT]

40 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well,,,,,,Tanev sign a 4.450 contract in 2016-2017 season at 24 years old.........granted Tanev is a better defensive defenseman, but a healthy Gud seems to be performing pretty good and brings a completely different skill set besides being a #4 RHD...........

 

My call is we are going to pay more for him than the 4.5 at the low end.........5.25 is what we pay.........I think that's pretty high but what he brings is toughness, together with some skill......................I hope less, but the trend is upward  

Tanev's a #2D, Gudbranson is (IMO) a #3D. A 'lesser' D vs inflation + Erik's 'intangibles' likely brings the number right around the same ball park, AKA $4.5m IMO.

 

Now every negotiation is different and his agent could certainly press for more. So while I'm guessing around $4.5m +/-, he could very well get himself closer to $5m +/- and it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Either way, the former isn't particularly a 'premium' but would be fair market value and anything closer to $5 +/- would be only a slight 'premium'. Neither of which particularly frighten me.

 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Tanev's a #2D, Gudbranson is (IMO) a #3D. A 'lesser' D vs inflation + Erik's 'intangibles' likely brings the number right around the same ball park, AKA $4.5m IMO.

 

Now every negotiation is different and his agent could certainly press for more. So while I'm guessing around $4.5m +/-, he could very well get himself closer to $5m +/- and it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Either way, the former isn't particularly a 'premium' but would be fair market value and anything closer to $5 +/- would be only a slight 'premium'. Neither of which particularly frighten me.

 

 

Could the "Tallon interested in bringing Guddy back" rumors be floated by Guddy's agent to drive up his client's price?

[189lb enforcers?]

Toronto should be going after Guddy. He is exactly the affordable D they are missing.

Like I've said since the day he was traded here, I'd put the C on him and call it a day.

[CeeBee51]

49 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Tanev's a #2D, Gudbranson is (IMO) a #3D. A 'lesser' D vs inflation + Erik's 'intangibles' likely brings the number right around the same ball park, AKA $4.5m IMO.

 

Now every negotiation is different and his agent could certainly press for more. So while I'm guessing around $4.5m +/-, he could very well get himself closer to $5m +/- and it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Either way, the former isn't particularly a 'premium' but would be fair market value and anything closer to $5 +/- would be only a slight 'premium'. Neither of which particularly frighten me.

 

 

Probably have to figure some inflation on salaries happened since Tanev signed as well.

[Alflives]

33 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Toronto should be going after Guddy. He is exactly the affordable D they are missing.

Like I've said since the day he was traded here, I'd put the C on him and call it a day.

Stop giving the Loser Leafs good ideas!!!  That's certainly a piece they need, and they CAN'T HAVE HIM!!!!!!!!  Now email an apology to your dad for such a thought. 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, CeeBee51 said:

Probably have to figure some inflation on salaries happened since Tanev signed as well.

 

54 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Tanev's a #2D, Gudbranson is (IMO) a #3D. A 'lesser' D vs inflation + Erik's 'intangibles' likely brings the number right around the same ball park, AKA $4.5m IMO.

 

[CeeBee51]

14 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

nobody ever said I wasn't half blind  I'll try to do a better job next time 

[spook007]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

If JB can make us younger and (in the near future) better by trading older vets, then I hope he does the deals.

 

Edler

Sutter

Baer

Vanek

Gagner

Errikson

?

?

 

Baer an older vet?

[Alflives]

22 minutes ago, spook007 said:

Baer an older vet?

True, he's only 26.  I just don't see much in him as a player, and don't see him here if our team is going to become a Cup contender.  That's me though.

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, Riviera82 said:

 

Burrows had virtually zero value due to his contract and we were already miles out of the running for the playoffs when he was traded.

 

Not necessarily a full tank job. Maybe just reaping some of the benefits of being a terrible team by trading more players for futures and not retaining almost everybody,

 

I don't know how much you bother to pay attention to prospects - but suggesting Dahlen was virtually zero value return is dubious.

Reaping the benefits of trading more players?   The team dealt Luongo, Schneider, and then Benning dealt Bieksa, Kesler, Garrison, Hansen, Burrows, tried to move a broken faced Hamhuis, couldn't move a pouting Vrbata - really all there is left to dump are Edler and the Sedins, and the latter are no easy task, nor were they Benning contracts in the first place.

So if you're not happy with the returns on Burrows ironically, or Hansen - what exactly were you expecting?  Elite, top 5 picks?

If Burrows had been dumped previously, he would have returned nowhere near the value he did.  Complaining that Dahlen or Goldobin aren't here is pointless - are you suggesting that the returns must play a vital short term role?  Who cares about right now?   I was under the impression you guys were looking to the future.  If that's the case, you really have no point criticizing the returns on guys like Hansen or Burrows - any form those 'rebuild' returns would have taken - picks or prospects - you would have had to wait for regardless, with no certainty that they turn into key roster assets.

Don't see much that's realistic in your points to be honest.

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Are suggesting that the lack of Shanny draft picks

You've got it bass-ackwards - Rugby posted a list of rookies, none of whom actually fit his narrative of the Leafs having built through the draft / the genius of the Shanaplan and stockpiled picks.

What you're essentially arguing is that we can't expect the Shanaplan to have taken effect yet - while at the same time, pumping the tires of the alleged 'Shanaplan' success - of which there is literally nothing on their roster.   That is you guy's contradiction to resolve - not mine.  Good luck with that.

More than enough time wasted on this already -  evidence is so obvious, simply look at their actual roster.   Using the 'rookie success' of not one single pick outside the top 10 as evidence of the success of the 'Shanaplan' is absurd.  Ironically, the Leafs roster is teeming with free agent signings, players acquired in trades, pre-existing vets - and yet their signature is allegedly 'build through the draft'.   Nonsense.  Three top 10 picks.  Cool story though. 

Quote that post where I flushed this out and have a go at showing how incorrect it was.

[TheGuardian_]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

You've got it bass-ackwards - Rugby posted a list of rookies, none of whom actually fit his narrative of the Leafs having built through the draft / the genius of the Shanaplan and stockpiled picks.

What you're essentially arguing is that we can't expect the Shanaplan to have taken effect yet - while at the same time, pumping the tires of the alleged 'Shanaplan' success - of which there is literally nothing on their roster.   That is you guy's contradiction to resolve - not mine.  Good luck with that.

More than enough time wasted on this already -  evidence is so obvious, simply look at their actual roster.   Using the 'rookie success' of not one single pick outside the top 10 as evidence of the success of the 'Shanaplan' is absurd.  Ironically, the Leafs roster is teeming with free agent signings, players acquired in trades, pre-existing vets - and yet their signature is allegedly 'build through the draft'.   Nonsense.  Three top 10 picks.  Cool story though. 

Quote that post where I flushed this out and have a go at showing how incorrect it was.

The Shanaplan goes way beyond just the players, it goes to the very top of the organization at every level. How could any player not now believe the team is a winner? They instilled a winning attitude from the top down.

 

The Shanaplan has the perceived best coach that was available, they have undoubtably the best ...whatever he is in Lamorello, their scouting appears to be working fairly well, their "planned tank" won them Mathews but would have garnered an impact player anyway, his jettisoning of veterans and their contracts allowed for the team to trade money for draft picks.

 

The Shanaplan created enough cap space that they can be available to do trades, can that be stated about anytime of Linden/Benning's time here?

 

They actually have players (picks) playing in the NHL and making a dent for more than just 10 NHL games and those players are getting better, the one's here, for the most part, are still questionable.

 

They communicated to the fans their "plan" and executed it, they didn't try to outright lie. In this I refer to the "playoff team" stuff followed up 2 years later with, we knew what we needed to do but it wouldn't be fair to the Sedins , not the perfect quote but close enough, so they just lied to get bums in the seats and sucker the more gullible fans that held Linden in high regard.

 

BTW, the Oilers also did the similar type things and they would also have had an impact player even if they didn't get McDavid.

 

These are some reasons I criticize Benning/Linden's "plan" and non-moves. They have the team capped out every year so they can't make trades, they have now retained money for two mediocrity trades, trades not worth wasting he opportunity of possible bigger deals for better picks in return or better impact NHL players.

 

I am not a fan of TO but after 25 years of Canadian teams' having management that was too stupid to figure out how to win regardless of being the richest teams in the league overall and that I posted 6 years ago that TO would be the next Canadian team to win the cup, ANY Canadian team that is a winner I will back, not that it makes me a fan of that team.

 

 

[oldnews]

19 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

 

that's interesting, but not a word of it has anything to do with the discussion/post you quoted.