SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

timetosaygoodbye

Member Since
Jun. 1, 2016
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
Forum Posts
84
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 7, 2022 at 3:00 p.m.
Thread: BELEAF - New Starter New 2C Just Win Baby
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ritzy</b></div><div>Could probably get away with offer sheeting Roy and not having to give up the 1st round pick. The compensation at the price you have here would just be a 2nd round pick. But OS'ing is rare these days.

That doesn't get the deal done for Gibson. Niemela is (probably) an attractive piece, but Mrazek and Kerfoot don't move the needle.</div></div>

I'd rather make the trade to secure Roy in a sign-and-trade. He's so undervalued and locking him up would be important for the Leafs since they don't have anyone else in their system who projects as a 2C.

Goalies don't get huge returns, ever. Only reason you're including an A-level prospect is because Mrazek is being included. You also have to factor that Gibson's numbers haven't been stellar over the last three seasons, so the Leafs would be taking a risk, which would also lower the offer. And Kerf is worth a 2nd so the Ducks can flip him for that, IMO.

I feel like I've been VERY reasonable. No hyperbole here.

Thanks for the taking the time to comment!
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 7, 2022 at 2:24 p.m.
Thread: BELEAF - New Starter New 2C Just Win Baby
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Salzy</b></div><div>BeLeaf all you want, that isnt close to what it takes to get ANA on the phone for a Gibson trade

Take out Gibson and Kerfoot and the Ducks will gladly take Niemela as compensation for taking the Mrazek deal</div></div>

Anyone who knows anything about goalies knows that they don't net a huge return historically. Getting back an A-level prospect only makes sense for the Leafs because you'll be including Mrazek in the deal, and since the Ducks are rebuilding and won't be good for at least another two seasons, it doesn't hurt them to take him.

And you can trade Kerfoot for a 2nd round pick, IMO. So I look at Kerf as equivalent to a 2nd in this trade as well.

Thanks for the taking the time to comment!
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17, 2022 at 11:32 p.m.
Thread: A BLOCKBUSTER TRADE WHILE KEEPING THE CORE INTACT
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>tkecanuck341</b></div><div>The Kings have 5 NHL ready defensemen for next season, not including Stecher. Even if they trade Walker, then Doughty, Roy, Durzi, and Spence will all be competing for ice time. Grans and Clarke are also probably going to make the jump the following season, and Faber won't be far behind that. There's no more room for RHD on the Kings.</div></div>

Spence is definitely AHL bound, IMO. Still very young and could use big minutes in the 'A.

I kind of forgot about Roy to be honest.

They have the cap space to add Holl as a luxury, regardless. And he's only under contract for one more season. It's not a big commitment at all.

We'll see. Thanks for replying. Take care.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17, 2022 at 11:16 p.m.
Thread: A BLOCKBUSTER TRADE WHILE KEEPING THE CORE INTACT
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AntreDiAnaheim</b></div><div>Blah blah blah, Gibson is overrated, blah blah blah. We’ll just keep him then.</div></div>

Your GM has been trading every decent player for futures since he was hired.

And, like I mentioned in the Team Explanation section above, Gibson's name was definitely out there during the Trade Deadline.

2 1sts and a top prospect is a big return, IMO.

Although, I have kind of changed my tune that the Leafs will target Gibson now.

NHL Insider Chris Johnston did mention on the radio today that he thought the Leafs might try to find the "next" Jack Campbell and target a goalie who they believe has that potential but hasn't broken out yet. I think that's a pretty big (and dumb) risk but whatever.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17, 2022 at 11:10 p.m.
Thread: A BLOCKBUSTER TRADE WHILE KEEPING THE CORE INTACT
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JaredOfLondon</b></div><div>John gibson is 29 years old
last three seasons 904, 903, 904.
last season putting up above average starter numbers 2017-2018
5 yeas left at 6.4 million
that would be an awful awful trade for the leafs</div></div>

Hey Jared. I follow you on Twitter! lol

I saw your tweet and had no idea you were subtweeting this post. That's funny.

I think you have to take into account how bad Anaheim really is. They play a rookie (Drysdale) top pairing minutes when he should be sheltered and a Keith Yandle-lite Kevin Shattenkirk a ton of minutes. That's not a recipe for success for poor Gibby.

The only reason they were in a playoff spot this season and over the last few seasons was because Gibson was playing out of his mind.

This has the potential to be a perfect storm for the Leafs.

How often does a rebuilding team have a star #1 goalie available?

IMO it's the only way you can cleanly move off Mrazek like you did Ritchie and get something SIGNIFICANT back.

It would excite the players and fan base. It's the only move you can do that does that while keeping your core intact.

You can't really predict which goalie will be good from one year to the next.

But I really think Gibson is one of the best bets you can make.

Campbell can't stay healthy (even admitted during today's garbage day that he got hurt when Nick Paul ran him in game 7.). And, IMO, he sucked in game 6. He gets beat by clean shots too much and that Point OT goal was garbage. I don't want him back at all.

You also have to take into account the fact that Anaheim are basically a lottery team when it comes to Gibson's numbers, absolutely. He drops off because they run him into the ground and are really terrible in front of him!

The fact that he doesn't have any playoff games in the last number of years probably helps him to stay fresh from a body maintenance perspective when it comes to how long he can be a starter.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 12, 2019 at 9:39 a.m.
Thread: LEAFS CAP CRUNCH FIXES trades with CHI MIN CBJ
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mikearky</b></div><div>Chicago trade is horrible. You are trading a player who will not wave for Chicago, a player who starts the season on IR and a player who has turned down a reasonable contract from Toronot and wants more money for a budding very good defenseman and a decent forward.

Columbus is not trading Anderson with the players that might be leaving Columbus.</div></div>

This was mostly just an exercise to see what kind of moves need to be made in order to find a way under the cap.

The Minnesota deal may be the most unrealistic but Paul Fenton (Minny's new GM) hasn't really inspired confidence considering the moves he's already made. If he trades Spurgeon, I don't think he's winning that trade. And I hope he makes it with Toronto.

Columbus are going to lose their two franchise players, so yeah, I think the next two seasons are going to be hard for them. I doubt they even make the playoffs. Kapanen is two years younger than Anderson and is an RFA with no Arb rights. After next season Anderson is going to command a hefty raise that might be over $6m, which means the Leafs might only be able to keep him for this next season before being forced to move him again. It's a pretty big risk all things considered.

As for the Chicago deal, I think Dermott will be ready by training camp. Saying he'll be out for six months isn't an absolute. Chicago have cap space to burn, a 22-year-old left shot D with top four upside is what they're looking for, and Toronto could use a good cheap D who can play the right side. They're taking a hit on this considering Gustafsson is already 27! Johnsson will probably go to arbitration and make in the $3m range at most. The Leafs get a responsible defensive forward in Saad (whose been up and down for the last year, so again, this is a bit of a risk for them) for the next two years. And, yeah, I could see Marleau accepting a trade there. They've won a few Cups relatively recently and when players see that they think it's possible they'll do again. That's probably how a lot of hockey players think.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 29, 2019 at 10:21 a.m.
Thread: Brown to EDM blockbuster
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BootBoi</b></div><div>Says it all.
Larsson&amp;Pulijarvi 4 Kapanen&amp;Hyman..-~</div></div>

You guys need to lose Benning to add Bouchard. Leafs take the cap hit off your hands.

Zaitsev is a great skater and excellent penalty killer so he can replace what Larsson gives you. The Leafs just want some financial flexibility since Larsson has a bit less term and cap hit.

Connor Brown and McDavid have had BRILLIANT chemistry when they played together in Erie for the Otters. Over 100 points for BROWNIE!

IMAGINE HAVING THREE PLAYERS WITH OVER 100 POINTS NEXT YEAR! That might be enough for the playoffs, even! who knows?!


This was mostly a cap exercise to see if it would be financially feasible. It kind of is... regardless if it's actually realistic.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 15, 2018 at 1:08 a.m.
Thread: Loli
Grundström likely won't make the Leafs next year (people who watch the team closely still think he needs to work on his defensive game).

As much as I like that trade for Severson (I've been a fan of his for a while) that isn't nearly enough for him. New Jersey sold a RHD of his calibre (Larsson) straight up for Taylor Hall, so there's zero chance they'll sell that low on Severson.

That's a little too much for Tavares. I think the Leafs could make it work for 11 million but only if Matthews and his reps agree to the same amount. The cap might rise to as a high as 82 million next season and maybe even more when his and Marner's contract will kick in. I think 11 could make it feasible to squeeze everyone else under the cap.

I would do everything I could to avoid having to trade any of the Big Three. They're far too valuable and are still 2-3 years from their peak. If it means trading the players making 2-3 million per season then that's what you have to do. That's why drafting is so important. The Leafs will be forced to routinely trade their complementary players every 1-2 seasons once the Big Three are signed, especially if Tavares comes here as well.

The players you have on defence is what I think could happen, although I definitely see Dermott on the bottom pairing again, but with Hainsey this time. Gardiner and Zaitsev will stay on the second pairing, while Rielly will most likely be paired with a new defenceman brought in through trade most likely.

I do think this is a pretty solid Armchair-GM post, though. Definitely above average. I can't click on the stars (the site won't allow me to for whatever reason) but I would have given it a four.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 13, 2017 at 1:32 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 27, 2017 at 1:38 a.m.
Thread: Fixing the D
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HolyMackinaw</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>timetosaygoodbye</b></div><div>

Obviously the plan would be to give Vlasic a long-term deal. He's one of the best shutdown D in the NHL. San Jose is gonna have to pay Pavelski and Couture in a couple of years so they won't be able to afford Vlasic.

Nielsen is far from a sure thing. He's a good prospect and Brown is a solid middle-six forward. It's still worth it, IMO.</div></div>

I would not give up brown in the deal but i'm sure Babcock would love to get Vlasic, i'm just wary of trading prospects this early in the rebuild for short term help</div></div>


I would prefer to keep them too but you have to give to get.

I think the Leafs have a two-year window before Matthews and Marner's ELCs expire to add a few short-term two-year contracts and make a run for the Cup.

I wouldn't make the Brown and Nielsen trade if it meant only a year of Vlasic. I'm thinking a 6 year extention to lock him in.

It makes it easier to trade Nielsen when we have Dermott whose a lot closer to the NHL than Nielsen.

Nielsen still has big issues with skating and his defensive positioning. He's basically a PP monster who isn't very effective during 5v5 hockey at this point. He's a 3-4 year project.