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

The Fucking Offseason Thread - Why bother waiting?

Everyone is focused on the net before and after picture, overlooking the current and what could have been picture.

Sure, net net, we gave up Hallander/7th and lost McCann. Oh but we never really had McCann, and we get to keep our other guys instead of losing them, etc.

But presently we have McCann. We could've kept him, kept Kerfoot, and one of Holl/Dermott. And losing the one D lets us get Sandin a permanent spot in the lineup. Clearly the Leafs value the RHD over all else here, and probably feel that they can bargain their way into a couple of these UFAs, but I much prefer the other scenario.

Matthews, Marner, Tavares, Nylander, McCann, Kerfoot (both able to play C if needed, which seems more important depth to have than having just another D that we can't play). Those 6 guys plus Rielly, Muzzin, Brodie, Sandin and one of Dermott/Holl is so much better than losing McCann and having a glut of playable D.
 
MindzEye said:
Except they're not losing Hallander, they're losing their 5th best forward when they don't have a good 6th best forward.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they needed 2 top 6 wingers this offseason anyway, so that doesn't change anything. And they also were going to lose a player in the expansion draft anyway.

Best case scenario they greatly upgraded Kerfoot. Worst case scenario they found a way to give up Hallandar in the expansion draft instead of Kerfoot or Dermott. Its really not that bad.
 
Best case they kept both Kerfoot and McCann, and lost one D who they could replace with a deserving kid patiently waiting his turn. And then if they wanted to trade off Kerfoot so they could sign two bargain binners, they could.

Why is that scenario just being lost here?
 
Because the worst case in that scenario is lose a top 4 dman that only makes $2 mill a year with no replacement.

Thats much worse than losing Hallandar.

And they could still keep Kerfoot and McCann this way too.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Best case they kept both Kerfoot and McCann, and lost one D who they could replace with a deserving kid patiently waiting his turn. And then if they wanted to trade off Kerfoot so they could sign two bargain binners, they could.

Why is that scenario just being lost here?
Click to expand...
Nobody is taking 3.5m kerfoot without salary coming back.
 
leafman101 said:
Because the worst case in that scenario is lose a top 4 dman that only makes $2 mill a year with no replacement.

Thats much worse than losing Hallandar.

And they could still keep Kerfoot and McCann this way too.
Click to expand...
No replacement? UFAs out there, blue chip kids internally.

And that's IF they take Holl. Dermott wasn't in our top 4 last year.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
No replacement? UFAs out there, blue chip kids internally.

And that's IF they take Holl. Dermott wasn't in our top 4 last year.
Click to expand...

Its basically impossible to replace a quality top 4 RHD like Holl for $2 mill as a UFA. Every shitty right side dman they brought in before Holl cost more than him and was way worse (Hainsey, Zaitsev, Barrie, Ceci). And they aren't going to rely on rookies to play shut down minutes.

The logic in protecting the teams #4 dman on a bargain contract is obvious.

Vegas made a killing on selecting solid vet D in the expansion draft and trading them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top