Why are you combining completely independent transactions? Retaining salary on Kessel has nothing to do with trading Clarkson or Phaneuf, and just because they were able to trade those guys, it doesn't mean that retaining on the Kessel deal was a good move.
- PlatosRepucklic

sure.. so it was better to keep Phil Kessel on board for another 7y at 8million (==> no Stamkos for sure) than retaining 1.2mln where you created space for with the Horton trade?

1.2mln is not a big issue.
8mln for a guy that does not bring leadership to a team is.

Why are you combining completely independent transactions? Retaining salary on Kessel has nothing to do with trading Clarkson or Phaneuf, and just because they were able to trade those guys, it doesn't mean that retaining on the Kessel deal was a good move.
- PlatosRepucklic

Because that's how NHL management works.

To view each move as its own separate entity is foolish. Don't think the leafs moved Kessel without an overall plan in place. They had a game plan this year... Tear down the old core... They've done an excellent job of it as well.

I still can't believe we traded Clarkson.

Matthews
- Bigzby

He was dominant. He should be playing with Larkin.

I didn't realize a 1.2m cap hit would break this team.


Oh how will the Leafs ever recover from such a travesty!
- Steven_Seagull

Not saying it breaks them but it certainly doesn't help for the next 6 years

I still can't believe we traded Clarkson.
- Aetherial

I can't believe we got Horton.

sure.. so it was better to keep Phil Kessel on board for another 7y at 8million (==> no Stamkos for sure) than retaining 1.2mln where you created space for with the Horton trade?

1.2mln is not a big issue.
8mln for a guy that does not bring leadership to a team is.
- MaximusAurelius

It would have been better to take back a bad contract with short term then retain for the next 6-7 years

We had to retain on his salary. That's the part were Leafs lose.
- orienbrady22

It's really not. 1.2 mil in cap space to eject a player they decided needed to go. The Leafs were not in a favourable position, and they did the best they could. Kessel had such a subpar season that his value would have been much less if they waited, and probably would have had to retain more. It's pretty frustrating that people can't see that.

Not saying it breaks them but it certainly doesn't help for the next 6 years
- orienbrady22

1.2 is nothing. The Leafs will be fine.

I didn't realize a 1.2m cap hit would break this team.


Oh how will the Leafs ever recover from such a travesty!
- Steven_Seagull

Yeah at roughly $150 a ticket (and I'm being generous) the leafs would have to play 1-1/2 whole periods at home to cover that.

Because that's how NHL management works.

To view each move as its own separate entity is foolish. Don't think the leafs moved Kessel without an overall plan in place. They had a game plan this year... Tear down the old core... They've done an excellent job of it as well.
- Dozzer

Well of course they did. But I don't think using other moves to justify a negative aspect of one particular deal is fair. Maybe i'm just in the minority here, but I didn't like the return on the Kessel deal at the time (still don't). Mainly because they had to retain salary on top of a very mediocre return.

With that said, I'm very happy with the direction the team is heading now and Kessel was a part of the old core that needed to be moved. And now we have Mathews to look forward too

It's really not. 1.2 mil in cap space to eject a player they decided needed to go. The Leafs were not in a favourable position, and they did the best they could. Kessel had such a subpar season that his value would have been much less if they waited, and probably would have had to retain more. It's pretty frustrating that people can't see that.
- BetterCallSaul

I agree, just would have been nice to get the deal done without retaining. Hell we got rid of Phaneuf without retaining.

whats that?
- senstroll

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...g-gameplan-130649936.html

It would have been better to take back a bad contract with short term then retain for the next 6-7 years
- orienbrady22

It woudl have been better as well to get Crosby or Malkin in return.
Obviously not a viable option.
the same goes for not retaining any salary in a Kessel trade.
1.2mln is peanuts in that perspective; surely Pitts were discussing 2-3mln retained before.

Well of course they did. But I don't think using other moves to justify a negative aspect of one particular deal is fair. Maybe i'm just in the minority here, but I didn't like the return on the Kessel deal at the time (still don't). Mainly because they had to retain salary on top of a very mediocre return.

With that said, I'm very happy with the direction the team is heading now and Kessel was a part of the old core that needed to be moved. And now we have Mathews to look forward too
- PlatosRepucklic

Like I mentioned earlier... The best part of the return on Kessel was not having Kessel anymore

The leafs are still a couple years away from even starting to be competitive... Wait til some of these kids start to become young men, with a couple years of experience under their belts. That's when we will get to see the results of a properly built team.

Andy Petrillo.

It's not that I would do her. It's more that I wouldn't not do her.

I think you are forgetting what Spott and the coaches asked of Kessel.
- LeafMan

I normally don't put too much stock into crap like this.

Except...

I attended a coaches' clinic put on by the Leafs in around October of last year.

At the end of it, Shanny was taking questions from the audience.

One guy stood up and said that he wasn't supposed to be the coach of his kid's team that year, but the coach's son got called up a level, so he sort of inherited the team.

Dude went on to say that there was a lot of things ingrained in the culture of the team that he didn't like, and wanted to change, but he was worried about being the guy who came in and disrupted what a lot of other families had built. So he asked Shanny if he had any advice, since he was trying to effect culture change.

Shanny paused, looked at the guy and said, "I don't know what the rules of your league are, but can you trade anyone to Pittsburgh?"

I poop you not.

And then Shanny smiled and said something like, "that's going to get me in trouble."

So you know I thought that Kessel took unfair criticism here. You know my feelings on a) Leafs Nation hating our best players and b) Canadians hating wingers.

But yeah, sometimes where there's smoke there's fire. And Shanny was sure sending out smoke signals that day.

so...

David Clarkson caphit (into 2019-2020 season): 5.25mln
Nathan Horton caphit (into 2019-2020 season): 5.3mln --> LTIR

Leafs gain 5.25mln in capspace for 5 full seasons with that trade.

Leafs retain 1.2mln until 2021-2022 season (2 more seasons).

For first 5 seasons, net win still is 4.05mln.
Last two seasons 1.2mln 'loss'.

This does not even take into account the Phaneuf trade.
- MaximusAurelius

Taking on Nathan Horton was a necessary evil to get rid of Clarkson.

The long-term problem is actual cap space is > LTIR cap space.

In 3-4 years when we are potentially buyers at the deadline, horton’s contract could be a hindrance to us adding players at the deadline.

So retaining salary long-term on kessel’s deal with Horton on the books is actually worse.

1.2 is nothing. The Leafs will be fine.
- Steven_Seagull

1.2 Million is 1.2 million add on the Gleason and Gunnerson contracts and we are sitting at like 3.3 million in wasted cap space. The fact that they could move Clarkson and Dion without retaining and not Kessel is mind boggling

I can't believe we got Horton.
- LeafMan

The bench has never been so warm

Taking on Nathan Horton was a necessary evil to get rid of Clarkson.

The long-term problem is actual cap space is > LTIR cap space.

In 3-4 years when we are potentially buyers at the deadline, horton’s contract could be a hindrance to us adding players at the deadline.

So retaining salary long-term on kessel’s deal with Horton on the books is actually worse.
- Tumbleweed

Still better than having kessel (and consequently no Stamkos) on your team until 2022.

1.2 Million is 1.2 million add on the Gleason and Gunnerson contracts and we are sitting at like 3.3 million in wasted cap space. The fact that they could move Clarkson and Dion without retaining and not Kessel is mind boggling
- orienbrady22

Different circumstances.

Taking on Nathan Horton was a necessary evil to get rid of Clarkson.

The long-term problem is actual cap space is > LTIR cap space.

In 3-4 years when we are potentially buyers at the deadline, horton’s contract could be a hindrance to us adding players at the deadline.

So retaining salary long-term on kessel’s deal with Horton on the books is actually worse.
- Tumbleweed

What? Horton's contract does not count against the cap... He's LTIR. So how would this hamper the leafs in any way?

1.2 Million is 1.2 million add on the Gleason and Gunnerson contracts and we are sitting at like 3.3 million in wasted cap space. The fact that they could move Clarkson and Dion without retaining and not Kessel is mind boggling
- orienbrady22

Gunnerson's contract ends this offseason. Gleason's buyout penalty ends in two years. Stop overreacting...

1.2 is nothing. The Leafs will be fine.
- Steven_Seagull

Cup contending teams typically overspend the cap, not underspend – cap circumventing contracts, leverage other teams salary caps (salary rentention, trade deadline acquisitions), ltir guys until the playoffs etc.

The differences between teams at the top are so minimal. To put your team over the top, you need every dollar working for you and then some.

So yes, to me, $1.2M is a big deal.