Really? I had read Arizona was prepping an offer sheet, but instead of actual dollars, they were willing to offer full and absolute ownership of the team.
- PatC80

So if he signs, he assumes $360 million in bad debts?

How would that work with the salary cap?

Bob McCown thinks we should trade Nylander.

So if he signs, he assumes $360 million in bad debts?

How would that work with the salary cap?
- Atomic Wedgie

It would provide Arizona with some much needed cap relief. Since, it would put them roughly $280M below the cap... They are free to sign anyone, and the league(ie; Leafs) cover all their operating costs.

Bob McCown thinks we should trade Nylander.
- gravyface

Bob McCown shouldn't think anymore.

Bob McCown shouldn't think anymore.
- PatC80

He's a baseball guy, his commentary on hockey is typically just sensationalized nonsense.

He's a baseball guy, his commentary on hockey is typically just sensationalized nonsense.
- gravyface

I'd say more of an NCAA basketball guy.

His schtick is pretty tiresome.

Caller: I like chocolate.

McClown: YOU ARE AN IDIOT! VANILLA RULES!

Next caller: yeah, I love me some vanilla.

McClown: YOU ARE A MORON! STRAWBERRY IS THE BEST!

I'd say more of an NCAA basketball guy.

His schtick is pretty tiresome.

Caller: I like chocolate.

McClown: YOU ARE AN IDIOT! VANILLA RULES!

Next caller: yeah, I love me some vanilla.

McClown: YOU ARE A MORON! STRAWBERRY IS THE BEST!
- Atomic Wedgie

This looks to be from an average Tanner thread...

I'd say more of an NCAA basketball guy.

His schtick is pretty tiresome.

Caller: I like chocolate.

McClown: YOU ARE AN IDIOT! VANILLA RULES!

Next caller: yeah, I love me some vanilla.

McClown: YOU ARE A MORON! STRAWBERRY IS THE BEST!
- Atomic Wedgie

So basically...Bob McUGwn?

I had a similar option until this month...so need a new gig
I am looking at this https://nhllive.rogers.com/en/
- senstroll

Did you get rid of your dish/cable?

edit: nvm, I forgot you're in the Sens zone, you should have just became a Sens fan when they joined the league.

He's a baseball guy, his commentary on hockey is typically just sensationalized nonsense.
- gravyface

He admits he does not watch hockey so let's ignore his thoughts.

Did you get rid of your dish/cable?

edit: nvm, I forgot you're in the Sens zone, you should have just became a Sens fan when they joined the league.
- Garnie

He was...he’s the bizarro spatso.

He was...he’s the bizarro spatso.
- Steven_Seagull

I think he's truly a Sens fan in disguise

I think he's truly a Sens fan in disguise
- Garnie

He does have “Sens” right in his name.


...wait a minute...


Steven_Seagull

He does have “Sens” right in his name.


...wait a minute...


Steven_Seagull
- Steven_Seagull

Get out.

Get out.
- gravyface

Yeah, (frank) that guy.

Yeah, (frank) that guy.
- Dongull_Trump

Guys with the letters H.A.B.S. in their username is in deep sh!t

No, Carrick was being paid 1.3M per year.
- Archaic

1 million of which wouldn’t
Count against the cap
If he was in the AHL. So 0.3.

Such a strange strange day....

Carrick traded off then Montreal sends Valiev away to Calgary too Guess he was not as good and going to come back to haunt us as some proclaimed

Lots of interesting things going on with waivers this year so far, and have a feeling not going to be done anytime soon.

Such a strange strange day....

Carrick traded off then Montreal sends Valiev away to Calgary too Guess he was not as good and going to come back to haunt us as some proclaimed

Lots of interesting things going on with waivers this year so far, and have a feeling not going to be done anytime soon.
- Roadrunner75

Same people cried about Corrado too.

Leivo, I still have a glimmer of hope; he looked way more loose out there, had some jam in his last game playing with Naz.

I would love it if he could stick with the club when Nylander signs: Ennis is 5'9" all day every day.

Pretty cool interview with Dubas on the Athletic...it’s long but I’ll share this small portion. Kind of shuts up UG and a lot of fans who seems to think the Leafs should of traded their UFA’s. Puts it into a team perspective and not a silly fans perspective.


I don’t like the term “own rentals.” I don’t understand that. It doesn’t make sense to me. But how do you look at when you have players who are going to be unrestricted free agent going into that year? You can potentially move them and get an asset, but it hurts your roster. How do you see that scenario?

So it’s so fascinating because you hear all the time, like whether it’s experts or people will say, “Well, how can you let that person walk away for nothing?” But the reality is that you can get a draft pick or get something back, but if you do that in the season — and I think the key thing that gets lost when people use that logic that I don’t like and I think they miss — is that if you trade that player that’s a pending unrestricted free agent, you’re missing out on that player’s contribution and production from whatever time you trade them to whatever time your team ends. It’s always easy to, I think, use a little bit of revisionist history on players like that.

I wasn’t here (as the GM), but I hear it about the UFAs that we let walk away this year. I was here with Lou (Lamoriello) at the time. But I really don’t understand the logic. Because if you move all those guys for draft picks then you don’t have them for the end of the season. It’s easy to sit and say when your team doesn’t win or you don’t win a playoff round, “Well, jeez, they would’ve made the playoffs and lost in the first round anyway.” And so I get why people look at it that way, but I really think that when you say, “Well, you let him go for nothing.” Well, it’s not nothing. If you want to look at it for the most extreme example, from the trade deadline till the end of the season, you still got production, you still got output from that player. What draft pick level do you need, in terms of valuation, to make up for that production? If a team wins, and a team goes to the conference final or Stanley Cup final, that never comes up. But it’s when you don’t reach expectations — that gets used, not trading your pending free agents, gets used as a condemnation of your logic and your team-building and your management. And I think it should just go back to your overall management philosophy which is, why did the team miss the playoffs? Or why didn’t the team win a round? That’s a microcosm of a larger discussion, I think.

Well, that was my argument with Mirtle when it actually came to someone like James van Riemsdyk. You’re trying to win a Cup, so why would you take off James van Riemsdyk for a pick when you’re trying to win a Cup? It doesn’t jive, which I guess is what you’re saying.

I think that’s my greatest — it’s my only time when I ever, ever say and I hate when people say this, but it’s the only time when I find people outside the team really don’t understand the actual concept of the team. It’s easy to look at pure valuation and say, “OK, well, starting next year they’re going to get zero from UFA X.” But they don’t ever take account into the effect that if we went in on the trade deadline and deleted all of those players from our lineup, then you have to come into work every day and you’re responsible and you’re telling the rest of this group that we’re trying to win hockey games, but you’ve just deleted players of significant value to your team for futures when you’re setting your team record for most wins and points and the like and you’re battling for home-ice advantage in a very tough position. My question back to whoever would be how would you handle that?

What do you say?

It’s easy to sit from the periphery and just say, “Well you should get as much value (as you can) because in the future those people aren’t going to be contributing to your program.” But I think it inflates the values of draft picks and futures and it completely is ignorant of the day-to-day effect. But most importantly, to make it purely objective, it ignores what the value of the production of those players in the remaining time from the time you were supposedly going to trade them through the end of the year. Using that logic, the Washington Capitals last year would have traded John Carlson. And then they won the Stanley Cup and nobody seems to care. I guess you have to win. That’s the end-point

I bless the rains down in Toronto!

Guys with the letters H.A.B.S. in their username is in deep sh!t
- 21peter

Lumhabs

I watched HC at noon today and what a great show without Darren Millard. Gonna set the old PVR from now on.

I watched HC at noon today and what a great show without Darren Millard. Gonna set the old PVR from now on.
- shack67

I like Darren.. But not his face on TV.

Pretty cool interview with Dubas on the Athletic...it’s long but I’ll share this small portion. Kind of shuts up UG and a lot of fans who seems to think the Leafs should of traded their UFA’s. Puts it into a team perspective and not a silly fans perspective.


I don’t like the term “own rentals.” I don’t understand that. It doesn’t make sense to me. But how do you look at when you have players who are going to be unrestricted free agent going into that year? You can potentially move them and get an asset, but it hurts your roster. How do you see that scenario?

So it’s so fascinating because you hear all the time, like whether it’s experts or people will say, “Well, how can you let that person walk away for nothing?” But the reality is that you can get a draft pick or get something back, but if you do that in the season — and I think the key thing that gets lost when people use that logic that I don’t like and I think they miss — is that if you trade that player that’s a pending unrestricted free agent, you’re missing out on that player’s contribution and production from whatever time you trade them to whatever time your team ends. It’s always easy to, I think, use a little bit of revisionist history on players like that.

I wasn’t here (as the GM), but I hear it about the UFAs that we let walk away this year. I was here with Lou (Lamoriello) at the time. But I really don’t understand the logic. Because if you move all those guys for draft picks then you don’t have them for the end of the season. It’s easy to sit and say when your team doesn’t win or you don’t win a playoff round, “Well, jeez, they would’ve made the playoffs and lost in the first round anyway.” And so I get why people look at it that way, but I really think that when you say, “Well, you let him go for nothing.” Well, it’s not nothing. If you want to look at it for the most extreme example, from the trade deadline till the end of the season, you still got production, you still got output from that player. What draft pick level do you need, in terms of valuation, to make up for that production? If a team wins, and a team goes to the conference final or Stanley Cup final, that never comes up. But it’s when you don’t reach expectations — that gets used, not trading your pending free agents, gets used as a condemnation of your logic and your team-building and your management. And I think it should just go back to your overall management philosophy which is, why did the team miss the playoffs? Or why didn’t the team win a round? That’s a microcosm of a larger discussion, I think.

Well, that was my argument with Mirtle when it actually came to someone like James van Riemsdyk. You’re trying to win a Cup, so why would you take off James van Riemsdyk for a pick when you’re trying to win a Cup? It doesn’t jive, which I guess is what you’re saying.

I think that’s my greatest — it’s my only time when I ever, ever say and I hate when people say this, but it’s the only time when I find people outside the team really don’t understand the actual concept of the team. It’s easy to look at pure valuation and say, “OK, well, starting next year they’re going to get zero from UFA X.” But they don’t ever take account into the effect that if we went in on the trade deadline and deleted all of those players from our lineup, then you have to come into work every day and you’re responsible and you’re telling the rest of this group that we’re trying to win hockey games, but you’ve just deleted players of significant value to your team for futures when you’re setting your team record for most wins and points and the like and you’re battling for home-ice advantage in a very tough position. My question back to whoever would be how would you handle that?

What do you say?

It’s easy to sit from the periphery and just say, “Well you should get as much value (as you can) because in the future those people aren’t going to be contributing to your program.” But I think it inflates the values of draft picks and futures and it completely is ignorant of the day-to-day effect. But most importantly, to make it purely objective, it ignores what the value of the production of those players in the remaining time from the time you were supposedly going to trade them through the end of the year. Using that logic, the Washington Capitals last year would have traded John Carlson. And then they won the Stanley Cup and nobody seems to care. I guess you have to win. That’s the end-point
- Santo_44

Nope. They had little chance of beating Boston and Tampa Bay last year. They let valuable UFAs walk for nothing, they had internal, younger, better replacements who would have benefited from the extra ice-time (and played better anyway) and the playoff spot was already guaranteed. This was a lot of words with little substance.