• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leafs acquire Frederik Anderson from Ducks

Andersen is younger than the other two goaltenders likely to come available on the expansion market (Fleury and Bishop).

But he's also far less tested than either.

Given the fact that the tail end of this first round is indistinguishable from the second round, I'm not too worried about the trade cost. I'm not even all that worried about the contract AAV. It's the length that makes me nervous.

He has been promising so far but he hasn't had a true starter's workload. You have to like his size and some of his raw data numbers though.
 
Not many goalies in Andersen's tier even last 5 straight years as an NHL starter, save for maybe a Ryan Miller type - that's kind of the benchmark for a guy like Andersen, but it's rare to be as consistently average as he was. The term is absolutely terrifying, no doubt.
 
Yeah, either he can play 60+ games a year at a high level constantly or this is a bad contract.

The most promising thing about him so far is his consistency though. Each of the last 3 years he has been consistently average. He ranked between 14-16 in Adj. FSv% each of the last 3 years. At first that may not sound that impressive, but most goalies aren't consistently anything. Thats why he ranks top 10 in Adj. FSv% over that 3 year period, even though he was not a top 10 goalie in any individual season.

He may never win a Vezina but if he can be consistently average that is something.
 
Bright side #2: I don't have to watch Bernier take naps. Well, hopefully, they can unload him.

I don't understand the price given that the Ducks, like the Pens, are in a very tight spot with the expansion draft looming. I'll defer to Lou for now but feeling like we just inked a middling talent for the long-term at a critical position. It's definitely not Toskala 2.0 but it's pretty mediocre.
I'd be pretty surprised if we could unload Bernier. With the cap staying pretty flat and a lot of goalies on the market, I can't really conceive of any team that'd have any interest in picking him up. Maybe if you eat some of his cap hit, but we can only do that twice in a season, so they may not want to empty that bullet from the chamber at this early stage. So, I suspect he sticks with us for this season, but ends up taking his naps on the bench for the most part.

And yeah...I'm going to be very interested to see what other goalies get dealt for this off-season. With the pressure of the expansion draft, I thought this would a buyers market for goalies too, but it seems like we paid full market value for Andersen and then some.
 
i get not believing that Anderson was the right choice but i'm curious how much people think a young starting goaltender should cost both in terms of trade value and salary. seems to be some unrealistic expectations to me
Andersen's not "young" though. He'll be celebrating his 27th birthday before the puck drops this coming season.

He also hasn't proven he's a starter. He's been in the NHL for three years, and he's had seasons of 28, 54 & 43 games.
 
Hate the term. Absolutely do. However I have to admit that I hate it because it feels very similar to our last few tries at getting a goalie. Difference is the management group in this case though. Let's hope they got it right.


Having said that, what if this acquisition is the cost of putting the Stamkos signing over the top?

That has to be worth something.
 
ClbXdMxWMAAfa3Y.jpg:large
 
Ok I think I'm on board now. The advanced stats show he has been pretty good. He has been well above average, and pretty consistent over the last 3 years. He's big. He is only 27 so he has a good 8+ years ahead of him.

Maybe most importantly he can handle the puck, which I think makes a huge difference in todays NHL. It makes it so hard to dump it in and retrieve possession, and today's game is all about possessing the puck. One of the biggest reasons I wanted Bishop was because of how much his puck handling changes the game.

The biggest concern is that he has never played 60 games in a season, and only played over 45 once. He has to be able to play 60 games a year for 5 years to earn that contract, and at this point that is a question mark. But if Andersen can do that then the Leafs just solved our goaltending situation for the next 5-10 years.
 
I WANT to trust our coaching staff and management for making this decision, but this, in the best case, is a gamble. In the worst case, it's a bad trade and a worse signing.

Say all you want about goalie assessment and his 6'4 size and his raw skills, but there just isn't enough sample size to make decisions like that. He's played all but 125 NHL games and that's a very small sample size to hand him the $25M contract. It's even scarier to hear from Lou why they gave him the contract "It's extremely important that he knows that we feel he's our #1 goaltender." This is, almost word by word, the same thing JFJ said when he handed Raycroft the big contract, and then a year later Vesa. It's one thing to give up asset and trade for a goalie you believe can be a quality starter in the league, it's another to give him the contract before he's done anything to prove he's a quality starter. And you just CAN'T make that conclusion from 125 NHL games (and 114 starts)

(Now at least Andersen has shown more promise than Vesa when he got that contract, but that really isn't saying much.)

Which is not to say Andersen is not a good goalie. He actually has a lot going for him in his young NHL career. He's got off to a pretty good start, he's got the size, he's had a good playoff, and he's still young-ish. Still, it doesn't mean he can make it, and it's almost like we SO want him to be that #1, we decided to give up trade asset and contract for a #1 and hopefully he can play up to that level.


And I really don't understand the rush. Why does it have to be THIS season? We'll have plenty of young guys in our lineup, this will very much be another 'development year' where the place in standing doesn't really matter. We still have Bernier, who's played like an average / average+ goalie in the last few months of last season. In a few months, teams with 2 good goalies will make their goalie available because of expansion draft, it will be a buyer's market. And not like there are teams lining up to compete with us either. Other than Calgary, there really isn't another team looking for a starter. So what if CAL gets Andersen? MAF, Bishop etc. are all pretty decent consolidation prizes in a few months to a year. We're in no rush!

I just hope Andersen turn out to be an awesome goalie so that all these points become moot ... because no matter how I look at it, we simply gave up too much trade asset, too much terms and too much money for a goalie who we SO desperately hope he pans out but is anything but a sure thing.
 
I go out for the day and all hell breaks loose...typical.

Don't love the trade, but I don't hate it either.

To break down the trade 1st, he's not a proven starter, but we didn't pay "proven starter" rate. We paid in the same range that SJ paid to get Martin Jones, and Freddy has a better track record than Jones did before the trade. What this kind of indicates to me is that there aren't a bunch of kids Hunter is horny about at that range in the draft. If Hunter had rod for a number of kids likely to be available in that range, we likely don't make this trade. Maybe that's reading the tea leaves a little too hard. What this isn't though, is a Toskala or Raycroft move. Raycroft was one of the worst goalies in the league the year before we traded him, a lot of people forget that. The huge rookie season he had, was 2 years prior to our flipping Rask for him. Freddy isn't the guy I would have targeted, but he's at worst a league average goaltender. Toskala was a midget who had put up seasons of .908 & .901 just prior to the Toronto trade, again a way below average goalie that we paid a huge price for. This isn't that.

The contract at first glance bothers me as well, but more for term than for cap hit. 5 years is a long ****ing time to bank on a guy who has never been a legit plus starter. The 5M doesn't bother me at all, that's just where the goaltending market is right now, wait for Reimer to sign for 4.5 in free agency. The majority of the contract is UFA years, which is really the only positive I can think of.

So yeah, don't hate it because I see the HD SV% stuff, I see how mediocre a possession club Anaheim has been during his time with them (Mo shats can have a small negative affect on raw sv%), I see how Anaheim is 6th worst in the league time spent on the PK (which has a negative effect on raw SW...more PK shots faced, lower raw SV%) during Freddy's time with them. In general, I trust Dubas and our pro scouting department to have tools of sophistication we simply don't have access to, and I trust Shanny to ensure that those tools are being used in pro scouting evaluations like this.

Don't love it, because this isn't the guy I would have targeted knowing what I know with the tools I have at my disposal, I wouldn't have handed him a 5 year deal...and that imo is the worst part about this entire move, it contains the vast majority of the downside. For a guy without a track record as a #1, that sure has the potential to be something of an anchor.
 
Just quoting this to report for the sample size. At this point his samlpe size is edging on the reliable side of the table. He certainly still has some proving to do though.
Makes me feel a tad better.

What is Adjusted Fenwich SV% anyways? Adjusting goalies' SV% based on their team's possession? (So teams with good possession, goalies' SV% get adjusted downward because he's making 'easier' saves?)
 
To break down the trade 1st, he's not a proven starter, but we didn't pay "proven starter" rate. We paid in the same range that SJ paid to get Martin Jones, and Freddy has a better track record than Jones did before the trade. What this kind of indicates to me is that there aren't a bunch of kids Hunter is horny about at that range in the draft. If Hunter had rod for a number of kids likely to be available in that range, we likely don't make this trade. Maybe that's reading the tea leaves a little too hard.

IMO you are right. I think the draft drops off pretty far in the early 20's. After that point there are some intriguing prospects but its similar to last draft where they had no issue dropping back from 24 to 34. I'm not sure there is much of a difference between 30 and 57 or 62. In fact some of the guys I would have seriously considered at 30 might make it to 57 based on Bobby Mac's list (Girard, Hart, Dineen, Dahlen, Abramov, Fox, Mascreshin).
 
Last edited:
This is a fantastic trade for the Leafs.

Less Bernier, no Reimer = huge improvement in nets.

I can't fathom why anyone would want to sign Reimer over this trade.

Lou :

“I love his competitiveness,” Lamoriello said. “If you look at his playoff history, he’s always played well in the playoffs, and he gives us size, which today is a necessity the way the game is played. (And) his athleticism is exceptional.

I believe – and our organization believes this – that this will help the growth of our young players with the tandem of Freddie and Bernie,” Lamoriello said. “Whenever you have a goaltender of this magnitude, of this success, it breeds confidence from the defence through the forwards and from the forwards through the defence. We feel that it’s a necessity with the growth and where we’re at.”
 
Makes me feel a tad better.

What is Adjusted Fenwich SV% anyways? Adjusting goalies' SV% based on their team's possession? (So teams with good possession, goalies' SV% get adjusted downward because he's making 'easier' saves?)

Yeah thats exactly what it is. Its a goalies fenwick save percentage (which is the save percentage on unblocked shots) minus their expected fenwick save percentage based on the teams goals against and fenwick against. So it is supposed to normalize goalies save percentage from different teams on the same scale. The same thing as Corsi Rel% for players.
 
And I really don't understand the rush. Why does it have to be THIS season? We'll have plenty of young guys in our lineup, this will very much be another 'development year' where the place in standing doesn't really matter. We still have Bernier, who's played like an average / average+ goalie in the last few months of last season. In a few months, teams with 2 good goalies will make their goalie available because of expansion draft, it will be a buyer's market. And not like there are teams lining up to compete with us either. Other than Calgary, there really isn't another team looking for a starter. So what if CAL gets Andersen? MAF, Bishop etc. are all pretty decent consolidation prizes in a few months to a year. We're in no rush!

I just hope Andersen turn out to be an awesome goalie so that all these points become moot ... because no matter how I look at it, we simply gave up too much trade asset, too much terms and too much money for a goalie who we SO desperately hope he pans out but is anything but a sure thing.
This is one aspect of the trade that I really don't mind. I didn't really give a crap what we had in net last year, because I knew almost all of our high-value kids would be kept far away from the NHL roster for almost all of the season.

But Matthews, Nylander & Marner are all going to be in the lineup next year, along with a bunch of other kids. And I think one of the worst things you can do to young developing players is to stick them in front of a sieve that wastes their hard work and undermines their confidence. This kids will also make mistakes and have growing pains, and it'd be great to have a guy behind them that can pick them up.

Whether or not Andersen's that guy, we'll have to see, but I do like that they at least don't intend to hang these kids out to dry.
 
ClbTzXeUoAE8Si1.jpg:large


One of the younger guys near the top too.

unfortunately a sample comp that treats him very well - compares him to full time starters and cuts off most of the part timers as well. also ignores that his Fsv% rank has gone down according to workload/strength of comp:

Fsv% Min 1000min

13-14: #12 of 55 F.Andersen .951 (1241min)
15-16: #16 of 49 F.Anderson .950 (1788 min)
14-15: #26 of 47 F.Anderson .944 (2400 min)

Those 3yrs for comparison:

Reimer

15-16: .957 (1787min) #1 of 49
13-14: .948 (1417min) #22 of 55
14-15: .935 (1399min) #42 of 47

(also finished #4 in 10-11 and #10 in 12-13)

Bernier

13-14: .952 (2422min) #8 of 55
14-15: .946 (2456min) #20 of 47
15-16: .938 (1694min) #42 of 49
 
Lou :

“I love his competitiveness,” Lamoriello said. “If you look at his playoff history, he’s always played well in the playoffs, and he gives us size, which today is a necessity the way the game is played. (And) his athleticism is exceptional.

I”

uh oh, Lou is already...er....exaggerating.

Andersen was pretty poor his first 2yrs, and while he was good last year he still only played 5 of the 7 games. Saying he has always been good in the playoffs is kinda far from true.
 
Back
Top