Core 4 No More: The Motherfucking Off-Season Thread

[hockeylover]

I don't really care what year of the deal it is, or how much value we got out of it in the past.

We could use that $11m much better this year. If I were GM I would try my best to do just that.

Sums it up well for me.

 

[leafman101]

I mean LOF is all about playoffs right.

Without names, if you could pay this guy $11 mill a year would you:

34 gp, 10 gls, 22 pts (82 gl, 24 gls, 53 pts)

 

[hockeylover]

They literally replaced Kadri with a guy they paid only $1m less to.

You really think that extra $1m was the reason Kadri couldn’t stay?

They thought they were getting a cheaper younger C + a defenseman for not much more total.

They thought they needed to do that because they'd have so much allocated to Fs.

 

[Montana]

Literally no team that has won has paid its 4 best players as much as we have, and no team that has won's 4 highest paid players are all forwards. The entire premise of the Core 4 was flawed.

this isn’t exactly rocket science tho….we know Florida, Tampa and somehow Boston have deals for their top talent that no one can compete with.

If you have a solution to getting Matthews, Marner, Tavares, and Nylander to sign deals like Stamkos, Point, Kucherov, Reinhardt, Barkov, Vasilevsky, Hedman, Marchand, Bergeron, Pasternak are willing to sign in Florida, Tampa and Boston respectively we could skate to some titles as well.

For whatever reason we don’t have that luxury tho, so in an attempt to match the talent these teams have been able to acquire, we picked up a four top talent in free agency, with the included acquisition cost baked into the AAV, in an attempt to win while our guys were on RFA deals.

Again tho, unfortunately for us we were somehow the first team in history to not be able to even get deals on their RFA extensions to Matthews & Marner…..let alone the bargains all the above signed on their FA extensions.


To pretend we get to play by the same rules they do tho, is being intentionally blind to our circumstances. Imo

 

[LeafOfFaith]

Yes none of the moves that a team with no cap space was made because of cap space. Ok revisionist historian.

You always have to make moves to stay under the cap. Literally every move is made with the cap in mind.

The problem here is, they made the wrong moves at each critical juncture. If we’d kept Marleau and used the first to draft Jarvis, and traded off Kapanen and Johnson for 1sts or other prospects, we’d have been under the cap and also way better. If we just kept Kadri, we’d have stayed under the cap. Or dump Kerfoot and Barrie and keep Hyman.

To think we were forced into dumb moves by money is…dumb.

 

[Montana]

I don't really care what year of the deal it is, or how much value we got out of it in the past.

This is aimed at those that bemoan signing him in the first place and/or thinking he’s pure trash now.

We could use that $11m much better this year. If I were GM I would try my best to do just that.

I don’t disagree with this at all…anytime you can move old big money, to spend on bringing in younger talent it’s likely ideal.

We’d have just needed to skin the cat on moving the money out to a place that gets a NTC waived, replaced the value in the market with similar overall talent that was willing to come here, without hopefully regretting those signings even more in the future.

 

[LeafOfFaith]

No matter where you stand on the issue, to argue that many moves they made since the Tavares signing was not directly or indirectly related to having Tavares, is disingenuous.

Almost every decision they made for the past 5 years was all about keeping the band together. And the band did not win them a cup. So it was a failure.

Every move was also tied to overpays for Matthews and Marner, or stupid investments in bad players. How is it that everything is only tied to this one Tavares contract for you?

 

[Montana]

Eh, we wouldn't have traded Kadri if not for the Tavares signing, IMO.

It was money driven in that we wanted a cheaper 3c and to reallocate some of the money to D after signing JT.

It was so clearly driven by the fact he got suspended in two straight playoff series.

Doesn’t change the fact it was the wrong move…..but the uproar from the fans & media, made it pretty untenable for them to not do something.

Everyone here was in agreement it was a mistake for the most part, but we also all recognized it was inevitable.


Naz doesn’t get suspended twice he doesn’t get dealt…

 

[LeafOfFaith]

They thought they were getting a cheaper younger C + a defenseman for not much more total.

They thought they needed to do that because they'd have so much allocated to Fs.

They thought Kadri was a liability and that Kerfoot was a younger, better, cheaper version. They had no monetary need to trade Kadri, as proven by the fact that they took on more than his salary in trade. What are we even debating here? This is fact.

 

[LeafOfFaith]

I mean LOF is all about playoffs right.

Without names, if you could pay this guy $11 mill a year would you:

34 gp, 10 gls, 22 pts (82 gl, 24 gls, 53 pts)

It’s not great, but if you’ve been watching the Leafs during the Matty era and the only problem you see is Tavares, you’re not exactly watching very closely.

 

[Montana]

They thought Kadri was a liability and that Kerfoot was a younger, better, cheaper version. They had no monetary need to trade Kadri, as proven by the fact that they took on more than his salary in trade. What are we even debating here? This is fact.

Can’t say taking on more salary when it’s two positions vs one tho.

Unless whoever Barrie replaced made > money.

 

[leafman101]

For whatever reason we don’t have that luxury tho, so in an attempt to match the talent these teams have been able to acquire, we picked up a four top talent in free agency, with the included acquisition cost baked into the AAV, in an attempt to win while our guys were on RFA deals.

Again tho, unfortunately for us we were somehow the first team in history to not be able to even get deals on their RFA extensions to Matthews & Marner…..let alone the bargains all the above signed on their FA extensions.


To pretend we get to play by the same rules they do tho, is being intentionally blind to our circumstances. Imo

You realize Tavares was the first one to sign and set the bar for everyone else on the team right?

 

[LeafOfFaith]

It was so clearly driven by the fact he got suspended in two straight playoff series.

Doesn’t change the fact it was the wrong move…..but the uproar from the fans & media, made it pretty untenable for them to not do something.

Everyone here was in agreement it was a mistake for the most part, but we also all recognized it was inevitable.


Naz doesn’t get suspended twice he doesn’t get dealt…

We also all liked the trade at the time. Pretty sure that trade thread will have some great takes in it, mine included.

 

[leafman101]

It’s not great, but if you’ve been watching the Leafs during the Matty era and the only problem you see is Tavares, you’re not exactly watching very closely.

He’s not the only problem he’s just clearly the worst of the big 4, the oldest, the second most expensive and the last to join the party.

 

[LeafOfFaith]

Can’t say taking on more salary when it’s two positions vs one tho.

Unless whoever Barrie replaced made > money.

Even so, the $1m direct savings between Kadri and Kerfoot was not the reason for the trade. Literally no major trade has been forced by the need to save $1m. Ever.

 

[zeke]

this is so tiresome.

Tavares is obviously the worst value on the roster. We'd be better off using that money elsewhere. No other player move would give us more benefit.

 

[Montana]

No matter where you stand on the issue, to argue that many moves they made since the Tavares signing was not directly or indirectly related to having Tavares, is disingenuous.

There’s some truth to that…..we signed on to the concept this board always wanted leading into that era…..pay for top talent, and don’t overpay for mediocrity.

Which I still don’t think is a bad concept…

And the band did not win them a cup. So it was a failure.

Don’t you turn to the dark side, and become a results over process guy.

 

[LeafOfFaith]

He’s not the only problem he’s just clearly the worst of the big 4, the oldest, the second most expensive and the last to join the party.

But also the 4th best forward on the team. That we paid a UFA price, and saw the other three guys and everyone else fail for 6 years, doesn’t make Tavares the problem.

We’ve been able to retool and add good players every single offseason. It’s never resulted in getting past the first round, except for that one time Tavares scored to get us to advance.

You can’t go to game 7 every year, have all the big boys go silent and unable to just score that one deciding goal, and keep coming back to this $11m. We’ve been one goal away like a zillion times and have often had a better supporting cast than the opposition, just like this year, and couldn’t bring it home.

 

[Montana]

this is so tiresome.

Tavares is obviously the worst value on the roster. We'd be better off using that money elsewhere. No other player move would give us more benefit.

This is different than arguing he was a bad signing.


Getting to sign Tavares for $11m x 6 is better than signing him for $11m x 7, no question.

….and if we could have moved him, (would he waive for whoever would have taken him on?)….and could be assured some of the good value FA’s would have come, that’s a dream scenario. If possibly a bit unrealistic.

But yeah, that’s not discussing whether signing him originally was good or not.

 

[Montana]

this is so tiresome.

Tavares is obviously the worst value on the roster. We'd be better off using that money elsewhere. No other player move would give us more benefit.

Out of genuine curiosity given your knowledge on players values, etc….whats the absolute max you’d have given Tavares on a one year deal for this coming season alone?