I think the Leafs are hoping that Franson will do what Lebda did not for them.
- spatso

Honestly, there's no chance he won't.

Your very sweet and I would consider a great personal favor if you would try to avoid using unpleasant language.
- spatso

Are you trying to bait me? Your obvious spelling mistakes make me think so.

Political Correctness is BS plainly and simply. If my opinion offends someone, then it's their problem, not mine.

You want to believe the trade somehow wasn't good for the Leafs just to be negative.

You really want to believe Franson was a guy Nashville didn't want, and Lombardi's contract not being insured wasn't THE reason for the trade.

To make it worse, Nashville had to insult Weber to sign him for a year. The guy is gone next summer. They cou'ldn't even sign him long term.

Disaster of a summer for the Preds.
- RogerRoeper

Look, I think Nashville (Poile) does the best he can with the hand he has been dealt. He has decided to deal Franson ($800k) as a hockey decision. He will move Blum into the space previously occupied by Franson. He still has more good defensive prospects coming in the system. He did the deal, nobody put a gun to his head, it was a hockey decision. Why is so important to you to see this as Poile having screwed up?

Who's hyping him? Saying he's far, far better than a guy who's not good enough to be in the NHL is not overhyping him.

The Leafs are better for this trade, Nashvile certainly is not.

Nashvile could have used BOTH Fisher and Lombardi/ Fisher did not make Lombardi expendable at all. They have a mediocre offense as it is.
- RogerRoeper

Again, here you go wanting to slam Poile. He has a track record and has done an outstanding job in managing his talent. I would not be so quick trying to claim that he did poorly on this deal. In the end, we will see the result on the ice.

Yep, Lombardi healthy, there is no way they deal him. They need the offense.
- prock

So, do you think maybe you have your answer in your own statement. Every team needs to operate within the cap provided by the league and by their own ownership. Poile has done a pretty job.

Look, I think Nashville (Poile) does the best he can with the hand he has been dealt. He has decided to deal Franson ($800k) as a hockey decision. He will move Blum into the space previously occupied by Franson. He still has more good defensive prospects coming in the system. He did the deal, nobody put a gun to his head, it was a hockey decision. Why is so important to you to see this as Poile having screwed up?
- spatso

You can read but I think the comprehension is the problem. The first 2 sentences start off with "You", meaning spatso. I think he is trying to get "You" to see that the trade was just as beneficial if not more (I believe more) to Toronto. I dont see him bringing up Poile

If Nashville signed Weber long-term I'd agree. But they're about to lose their franchise D-man.

Honestly. there's no positives to this summer for Nashville.

If they really wanted to make room for Blum, they could have moved a more expensive, less important D-Man than Franson, but they didn't. Why? Because Burke insisted on winning the trade quality-wise if he was taking Lombardi's non-insured salary off their hands.
- RogerRoeper

Here's a couple of things to consider. nashville has a pretty good string going of making the playoffs. If they lose Weber it will not be for nothing. They will get a very substantial return. In the circumstances Poile has done a first class job.

I am trying not to say too much negative about Burke todaay. But if you could do the deal Poile straight up for Burke would you not do it?

So, do you think maybe you have your answer in your own statement. Every team needs to operate within the cap provided by the league and by their own ownership. Poile has done a pretty job.
- spatso

Poile has done an amazing job over the years. He's forced to make some choices that he probably wouldn't like to, because he simply doesn't have the budget to work with. If he did have the budget to work with, not a chance in hell he makes this trade.

He couldn't take the chance on spending $3.5M on a player that wasn't playing. He would have WANTED Lombardi on the team, if he was healthy. that much is pretty obvious. At the time, he wasn't healthy. If he does turn out to be healthy for the majority of the year, you can bet Poile would probably like to have taken that trade back. If he isn't healthy, then the reality is that he gave up assets that he didn't want to because of his limited budget.

NO, it had more to do with Lombardi's contract not being insured. that's the only reason Nashville did this trade.

Nashville arguably has had the worst off season of any NHL team.
- RogerRoeper

Colorado.

Colorado.
- sanfordnson

arguable
i like alot of their youth... but did question alot of moves

arguable
i like alot of their youth... but did question alot of moves
- nightmare3020

Washington and St.Louis didn't.

Washington and St.Louis didn't.
- sanfordnson

Not to nitpick, but the St. Louis trade was not the offseason.

Not to nitpick, but the St. Louis trade was not the offseason.
- prock

May as well have been for where Colorado was sitting. You nitpicky (frank).

Look, I think Nashville (Poile) does the best he can with the hand he has been dealt. He has decided to deal Franson ($800k) as a hockey decision. He will move Blum into the space previously occupied by Franson. He still has more good defensive prospects coming in the system. He did the deal, nobody put a gun to his head, it was a hockey decision. Why is so important to you to see this as Poile having screwed up?
- spatso

It's not a Poile screw up, he was forced to do this deal due to finances. But it's a bad deal nonetheless.

Colorado.
- sanfordnson

I agree, that Varlamov deal was horrible.

Here's a couple of things to consider. nashville has a pretty good string going of making the playoffs. If they lose Weber it will not be for nothing. They will get a very substantial return. In the circumstances Poile has done a first class job.

I am trying not to say too much negative about Burke todaay. But if you could do the deal Poile straight up for Burke would you not do it?
- spatso

If they are forced to trade Weber it's unlikely they'll get true market vale though. But we'll see.

Nashville can't keep losing their core players like they are.They'll never truly go forward as an organization without keeping their players they draft.

Again, here you go wanting to slam Poile. He has a track record and has done an outstanding job in managing his talent. I would not be so quick trying to claim that he did poorly on this deal. In the end, we will see the result on the ice.
- spatso

Not slamming Poile at all. He's been a great GM.

May as well have been for where Colorado was sitting. You nitpicky (frank).
- sanfordnson

So, do you think maybe you have your answer in your own statement. Every team needs to operate within the cap provided by the league and by their own ownership. Poile has done a pretty job.
- spatso

No one's ever said Poile wasn't a good GM. I personally believe him to be among the best in the league. Top 3, along with Holland and LouLam.

But if someone makes a trade, and deals assets on the premise that they can't pay a player because he won't be playing, and that player subsequently plays the season, negating the whole reason for them to give up assets in the first place, how do you view that as anything but a loss? How do you give away one asset and one liability, and view it as a win, when the liability subsequently turns into an asset?

No one's ever said Poile wasn't a good GM. I personally believe him to be among the best in the league. Top 3, along with Holland and LouLam.

But if someone makes a trade, and deals assets on the premise that they can't pay a player because he won't be playing, and that player subsequently plays the season, negating the whole reason for them to give up assets in the first place, how do you view that as anything but a loss? How do you give away one asset and one liability, and view it as a win, when the liability subsequently turns into an asset?
- prock

Teams do it all the time in relation to the cap. If they had dealt Lombardi and Franson to St. Louis it would have been a minor one day story. As I have said it adds to the Leafs depth and it is a good move from that perspective. On the Nashville side of the story, not sure there is anything about the story other than they needed to do a salary dump and they did the best they could. I am sure they tried other teams and they go the best deal from the Leafs. I am not sure there is much to say beyond that.

Teams do it all the time in relation to the cap. If they had dealt Lombardi and Franson to St. Louis it would have been a minor one day story. As I have said it adds to the Leafs depth and it is a good move from that perspective. On the Nashville side of the story, not sure there is anything about the story other than they needed to do a salary dump and they did the best they could. I am sure they tried other teams and they go the best deal from the Leafs. I am not sure there is much to say beyond that.
- spatso

So, teams deal players that they would want if they were healthy, packages assets to get another team to take them, only to watch that player become healthy, and an asset again? Name ONE other instance.

Essentially, end result, two assets traded away for a liability? THAT is the best they could do? Two assets for a liability? You think that's good? If you think that's good, I'll trade you my the privilege of paying my phone bill, if you give me a $20 bill and a $5 bill. Just cause I'm a nice guy, I'm going to give you that opportunity.

So what are you using to determine that Schenn is better than Myers???
- Doppleganger

Watching them play. Try it some time.

Watching them play. Try it some time.
- Schenn-Sational!

Sorry bud, I don't think so. There are only a couple of youngster Dmen in the league I would personally trade Schenn for, and Myers is one of them (Doughty being the other).

Teams do it all the time in relation to the cap. If they had dealt Lombardi and Franson to St. Louis it would have been a minor one day story. As I have said it adds to the Leafs depth and it is a good move from that perspective. On the Nashville side of the story, not sure there is anything about the story other than they needed to do a salary dump and they did the best they could. I am sure they tried other teams and they go the best deal from the Leafs. I am not sure there is much to say beyond that.
- spatso

Of course because they're two organizations people didn't talk about. I don't really find the trade was made into that big of a deal, considering it involved the Leafs.

So, teams deal players that they would want if they were healthy, packages assets to get another team to take them, only to watch that player become healthy, and an asset again? Name ONE other instance.

Essentially, end result, two assets traded away for a liability? THAT is the best they could do? Two assets for a liability? You think that's good? If you think that's good, I'll trade you my the privilege of paying my phone bill, if you give me a $20 bill and a $5 bill. Just cause I'm a nice guy, I'm going to give you that opportunity.
- prock

It becomes a circular argument. Nobody seems to be disputing the facts. The issue from a Nashville perspective was a need to move salary. Lombardi was offered up because of his salary (uninsured) and his doubtful status. Franson was offered as part of the package, an incentive because Lombardi was regarded as a high risk situation. In the situation Franson was deemed expendable. You know that variations on that offer would have been offered to other teams but the Leafs did the deal.

So, the Leafs decided to take the risk and do the deal. If it works Burke will be able to take the credit for having taken the risk. If Lombardi is injured the Leafs are on the hook for $7m over two years. But, if both players remain healthy the Leafs have improved their depth. But we do not know if they have substantially improved their competitive edge in terms of winning more games.

Nashville is happy that they have been relieved of a problem. They have moved players that they were willing to move and they know they have the depth player to bring forward (eg Blum) that allows them to be very comfortable with the deal. They effectively replaced Lombardi last year when they did the deal for Fisher. But for some people they want this deal to mean something than it really does. The Leafs got a third line skater and 2nd or 3rd pair Dman.

As I have repeatedly said it is a good depth addition. What have I missed.