[LeaferSutherland]

Please select 11 of the following blogs that you would like to see make the next round in our Blog-Off Tournament...

Bitter Leaf fan
Budblog
Down Goes Brown
Leafs @ HockeyAnalysis
Pension Plan Puppets
Raking Leafs
Sports And The City
Toronto Sports Media
Maple Leafs Hot Stove
Die Hard Blue And White
General Borschevsky
The Wonderful World Of Loser Domi
He Score He Shoot
Far Away Leaf
Old Guys In Blue And White
Wrap Around Curl
The Other Vatican
TML Central
Truculence Is Everything
Pal Hal Pall
Frozen Leafs
Beleaf Blog

For every member that takes the time to click these links, check these blogs out, vote in the poll and impress me with a critique on any one blog mentioned, I will be giving out Jersey Awards throughout the contest.

So let's hear what you have to say... and let's please try our best to be constructive with our words.

(This tourney encourages fans of all teams to participate and not just fans of the team in question.)

[loser domi]

I would just like to say that due to the completeness and thoroughness of PPP, I don't stand a chance.

[Lord Stanley]

In response to the Bitter Leaf Fan blog and I quote:

An Eye for Talent? Um. Not really...

If you’re going to trade away picks and prospects, the returning players better pan out.

Clearly that has not been the case for the Leafs.

By my math, the Leafs traded five first round and three second round picks for the following:

69 games from Owen Nolan.
28 games of Brian Leetch.
91 games (and 268 goals against) of Andrew Raycroft (plus a multi-year buyout)
17 games of Yanic Perreault
127 games (and counting) from Vesa Toskala

Stop and marvel at that return.

Five first and three third round picks for 332 games played (plus Toskala's starts until the end of the season).

I'll spare the Leaf defenders from doing the math - Brad Boyes, one of the former first rounders traded away, has played 347 NHL games, 15 more than this motley collection managed for the Leafs.

What's worse is that every single one of these players left the Leafs without a single asset coming back in return. Nolan, Leetch and Perreault walked as UFAs and Raycroft was bought out.

I'll wait while you drink it all in.

I don’t know about you,but I don't think there’s an adjective that can adequately summarize this. One could argue that only Bernie Madoff has done a worse job of asset management - and even that might be a stretch.



These deals all made sense at the current time frame. Nolan was the veteran presence we thought we needed to put us over the top as well as give us a bit of goal output sure it didn't work but it was worth the shot at the time.

Brian Leetch again we need a veteran offensive prescence in the back end why not get a proven person. Do people honestly expect us to pickup some 25-30 year old kid and he will provide leadership I don't think so. I think that was a good move at the time as well.

Andrew Raycroft- We thought he was the guy at the time and lets not forget he set the franchise record for wins at his current time frame. They gave up on him (too soon) and so it ruined his confidence but if they trusted him for a while I think this current goalie situation with Toskala would not have been a problem.

Yanik Perrault- We needed someone to win us face-offs something as a team we were not doing. We needed experience and we went out and got the guy who had the best percentage. Sure he didn't score a lot of goals but that wasn't what he was being paid to do people forget.

Vesa Toskala- He was the next prodigy goalie. Let's remember that he also set the record for most wins in a season and broke Raycroft's old mark. At the time we were unsure and we needed someone to have a plan B. This was that plan B.

Point is we need to think as if we were the general managers and what went through their minds. We are all human and at the time most of the deals made had some sense in what these guys were bringing to the table and what the team needed at that time. Sure it's easy to say "boy what a bad deal" now that we have seen it all play out. But remember when this happened most if not all of us were cheering for this team none the less.

[mf37]

Quote

These deals all made sense at the current time frame.

I don't think they did and here's why...

Quote

Nolan was the veteran presence we thought we needed to put us over the top as well as give us a bit of goal output sure it didn't work but it was worth the shot at the time.

I liked the Nolan deal at the time. It was the only one of the four that made any sense. But you're reason for defending it seems odd to me. That team didn't need a veteran presence, what do you call Roberts, Domi, Sundin, Svehla, Mogilny, Green, Lumme, Fitzgerald and on and on. That team was pretty much nothing but veterans.

Quote

Brian Leetch again we need a veteran offensive prescence in the back end why not get a proven person. Do people honestly expect us to pickup some 25-30 year old kid and he will provide leadership I don't think so. I think that was a good move at the time as well.

Again, the Leafs didn't need leadership. This team was chock full of veterans and had several players that had captained other clubs (Fitzgearld, Nieuwendyk, Francis, etc.) Leetch did offer great offense from the back-end and yet more depth, but everyone knew the lock-out was coming -I was told it could last two years. Trading for Leetch was a huge gamble and it didn't go the Leafs way.

Quote

Andrew Raycroft- We thought he was the guy at the time and lets not forget he set the franchise record for wins at his current time frame. They gave up on him (too soon) and so it ruined his confidence but if they trusted him for a while I think this current goalie situation with Toskala would not have been a problem.

No no no, a million times no. Raycroft was an RFA who could have been acquired with an offer sheet and a 2nd round pick. There were many goalies avilable as UFAs. Raycroft stunk his last year in Boston, was third on their depth chart and he stunk in Europe during the off-season. He also only tied Belfour's record for most wins and it took 72 games to do so. His win percentage was garbage as were all of his other stats. He's gone on to be horrible in Colorado and I'm sure by the end of the season he'll be awful in Vancouver too. There is no defending this deal. It was bad at the time, it was bad with hindsight and 15 years from now Leaf fans will still be making Raycroft jokes.

Quote

Yanik Perrault- We needed someone to win us face-offs something as a team we were not doing. We needed experience and we went out and got the guy who had the best percentage. Sure he didn't score a lot of goals but that wasn't what he was being paid to do people forget.

The Leafs were 7th in faceoffs at the time of the Perreault deal. They desperately needed help on the PK, which Perreault does not play. He also didn't score a lot because he didn't play a lot. He was a healthy scratch on more than one occassion and got less ice time as the season wrapped up. A ridiculous trade: a 2nd rounder for 13 games of a 8 minute a night guy.

Quote

Vesa Toskala- He was the next prodigy goalie. Let's remember that he also set the record for most wins in a season and broke Raycroft's old mark. At the time we were unsure and we needed someone to have a plan B. This was that plan B.

Toskala was a 31 year old career back-up and pending RFA when the Leafs traded for him (I think you need to look up what prodigy means). He's never won more than 33 games in a season - four less than the Leafs record, held by Raycroft and Belfour (Belfour did it in 10 fewer games before the shoot-out). I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that JFJ traded a 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick for Plan B? Look at the price paid for other, proven, goalies and then compare it with the Toskala deal. This was another high-risk gamble that the Leafs lost.

Quote

Point is we need to think as if we were the general managers and what went through their minds. We are all human and at the time most of the deals made had some sense in what these guys were bringing to the table and what the team needed at that time. Sure it's easy to say "boy what a bad deal" now that we have seen it all play out. But remember when this happened most if not all of us were cheering for this team none the less.

With the exception of the Nolan deal - and to a lesser extent the Leetch deal - these were bad trades. The Leafs have not recovered from the depletion of so many picks and they cost JFJ his job.

Even if you take out Leetch and Nolan, it still leaves Perreault as a wasted pick, Raycroft as a pro-scouting failure and Toskala was a massive overpay. That's two firsts, two seconds and a fourth round pick for a guy that walked away, a buy-out and a guy who's never laid claim to the starters job.

A terrible return.

[LeaferSutherland]

^_^

Welcome to the Arena, mf37!

[Lord Stanley]

mf37, on Nov 29 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

I don't think they did and here's why...



I liked the Nolan deal at the time. It was the only one of the four that made any sense. But you're reason for defending it seems odd to me. That team didn't need a veteran presence, what do you call Roberts, Domi, Sundin, Svehla, Mogilny, Green, Lumme, Fitzgerald and on and on. That team was pretty much nothing but veterans.



Again, the Leafs didn't need leadership. This team was chock full of veterans and had several players that had captained other clubs (Fitzgearld, Nieuwendyk, Francis, etc.) Leetch did offer great offense from the back-end and yet more depth, but everyone knew the lock-out was coming -I was told it could last two years. Trading for Leetch was a huge gamble and it didn't go the Leafs way.



No no no, a million times no. Raycroft was an RFA who could have been acquired with an offer sheet and a 2nd round pick. There were many goalies avilable as UFAs. Raycroft stunk his last year in Boston, was third on their depth chart and he stunk in Europe during the off-season. He also only tied Belfour's record for most wins and it took 72 games to do so. His win percentage was garbage as were all of his other stats. He's gone on to be horrible in Colorado and I'm sure by the end of the season he'll be awful in Vancouver too. There is no defending this deal. It was bad at the time, it was bad with hindsight and 15 years from now Leaf fans will still be making Raycroft jokes.



The Leafs were 7th in faceoffs at the time of the Perreault deal. They desperately needed help on the PK, which Perreault does not play. He also didn't score a lot because he didn't play a lot. He was a healthy scratch on more than one occassion and got less ice time as the season wrapped up. A ridiculous trade: a 2nd rounder for 13 games of a 8 minute a night guy.



Toskala was a 31 year old career back-up and pending RFA when the Leafs traded for him (I think you need to look up what prodigy means). He's never won more than 33 games in a season - four less than the Leafs record, held by Raycroft and Belfour (Belfour did it in 10 fewer games before the shoot-out). I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that JFJ traded a 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick for Plan B? Look at the price paid for other, proven, goalies and then compare it with the Toskala deal. This was another high-risk gamble that the Leafs lost.



With the exception of the Nolan deal - and to a lesser extent the Leetch deal - these were bad trades. The Leafs have not recovered from the depletion of so many picks and they cost JFJ his job.

Even if you take out Leetch and Nolan, it still leaves Perreault as a wasted pick, Raycroft as a pro-scouting failure and Toskala was a massive overpay. That's two firsts, two seconds and a fourth round pick for a guy that walked away, a buy-out and a guy who's never laid claim to the starters job.

A terrible return.

I agree but this article is basically saying all of the trades are busts. But I disagree Leetch and Nolan were good in my books Raycroft had good year or two in Toronto to me if they continued to develop him as a goalie it might of done some good. I think that he had some good years and sure he wasn't content being a back-up but can you blame him? He comes in wins 47+ games and then gets replaced the year after?

We cannot get on this guy because he leaves in a completely outragous situation. At the time Raycroft had a bad year but he also had some good ones before that. Sure he was coming off a bad year but the current gm was confident that he could turn that around and fulfill his potential. This deal was not a bust. He was not overpaid. We miss played the whole situation and let him walk. If we had played it differently then he might still be around. Toskala was a bust I agree and Perrault perhaps didn't pan out but Raycroft had the potential to be a good deal we just messed up.

[mf37]

LeaferSutherland, on Nov 29 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

:lol:

Welcome to the Arena, mf37!

Thanks for the welcome. I'm a long time reader, first-time poster.

[Kavel Pubina]

Salutations TheNHLArena!

I am honoured thay mu humble blog has been selected here. :)

[LeaferSutherland]

mf37, on Nov 29 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

Thanks for the welcome. I'm a long time reader, first-time poster.

I'm an even longer time reader. A big fan.

[Kavel Pubina]

loser domi, on Nov 28 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

I would just like to say that due to the completeness and thoroughness of PPP, I don't stand a chance.

I echo your sentiments, LD. :lol:

[mf37]

Lord Stanley, on Nov 29 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

Raycroft had good year or two in Toronto

No, Raycroft didn't. His first year he was sub-standard in every category: sv%, GAA, and w%. He may have won 37 games, but it took 72 starts to get there (that's only .517; Belfour was .596 the year he won 37).

Raycroft also showed he couldn't be developed. He had a bad year post-Calder (was third on the B's depth-chart) and was a total blow-out in Europe during the off-season. He shows up in Toronto where he has the worst save percentage among starting goalies. There is a trend here and all the arrows are pointed in the wrong direction. If Raycroft was remotely salvagable, the Leafs wouldn't have spent massively to bring in Toskala after just one year.

Quote

We cannot get on this guy because he leaves in a completely outragous situation.

Raycroft played his way off the team. He had to go. He was also a bust in Colorado and will be a bust in Vancouver. There's a reason his contract dollars have hit terminal velocity. Can you name a single other NHL player who has seen their compensation drop from $2M/year to league minimum on a one-year deal? There's no way Raycroft is even in the NHL one year from now.

Quote

Sure Raycroft was coming off a bad year but the current gm was confident that he could turn that around and fulfill his potential.

Trading a 1st and 2nd round pick for another goalie is a very strange way of showing confidence in your goalie. Raycroft demonstrated he wasn't the guy (biggest game of the year and he stinks it up in the "my glove exploded" game against Montreal).

Quote

This deal was not a bust. He was not overpaid.

I cannot think of a single way that the Raycroft deal was a positive. Leafs gave up on Rask for a goalie who's barely in the league. There's the upfront cost and the opportunity cost. The Leafs could have had Raycroft for a 2nd round pick (RFA offer sheet) and kept Rask or they could have signed a myriad of RFAs (and kept Rask). Had they done either, they most likely would not have had to deal 1,2,4 picks for Toskala a year later.

By any measure that is horrific asset management.

Quote

If we had played it differently then he might still be around...Raycroft had the potential to be a good deal we just messed up.

Raycroft stunk. He was bad 2 out of 3 seasons in Boston; he was awful in europe in the lock-out year; he put up terrible numbers in Toronto; he was awful in Colorado and he's on the road to ruin in Vancouver. Even if you go back to his junior stats, he only ever had one good year.

The biggest way the Leafs messed up was by pulling off the trade in the first place.

To go back to my original post - the Leafs gave up two 1 first round picks, two 2nds, and a 4th for a buyout, 13 games of Perreault and Toskala who will walk at the end of the season.

Consistenly dealing the future for little to no return is one of the biggest reasons the Leafs are struggling on the ice, have little depth and have few options as to how to get out of the mess they're in.

[LeaferSutherland]

I really have to agree with mf, here. The Raycroft and Perreault deals had me scratching my head the most in JFJs tenure with us. In Perreault's case, we should never have even considered being a buyer that deadline. This was not a team that was going to make any noise in the playoffs, even if we managed to get ourselves there.

Nevertheless, we are getting a little off topic here.

[Lord Stanley]

Agreed. So Welcome to the Arena Mf and I agree with most of your points. I was just saying in some pressure situations some people don't always do the right thing but they all do the best they can.

[Potvin29]

I agree with MF's assessment of the Leafs mismanagement of assets being the key to the teams struggles. That has been the case for at least 15 years. I disagree with his assessment of Raycroft however.

Raycroft had several solid pro campaigns in the AHL, won the Calder and was not horrible in Europe during the lockout. I can think of few NHL players that did well in Europe during that lockout. Besides Raycroft wasn't bad over there. He wasn't special but not terrible as everyone was quick to assess. He was a .500 goalie on a mediocre team with average goalie stats.

In his return to Boston people often overlook the fact that Raycroft spent much of the 2005 season injured. He had a bad groin, knee, etc. Those are nagging injuries for goalies. Look at Toskala last year and what that meant to him. Plus Boston was a transitioning team that was also struggling.

It was easy to see why JFJ was high on Raycroft. The Leafs had no NHL goalie yet two pretty good prospects (at the time). They couldn't roll with JS Aubin or Telly. Raycroft was a means for JFJ to acquire a young goalie who was only 26 yet had already had NHL success. Raycroft was supposed to be the goalie of the now and the future.

Andrews first season in Toronto was nothing special either but again, not horrible. He had issues here and struggled with confidence. But the team was abysmal again. The guy had to play 72 games because we had no backup goalie worthy of ice time. Seems to be another theme. Raycroft ended up having a season relatively similar to Toskala's season here which is ironic to me because as I identified in other threads that Tosk doesn't get nearly the crap Raycroft did.

I think the trading of the 1,2,4 for Tosk and Bell showed just more of the same asset squandering in Toronto. JFJ gave up on Raycroft for a goalie who IMO is no better. Toskala has never been much better, if at all than Raycroft and you cannot convince me otherwise. Meanwhile Raycroft has the best stats over Luongo in Vancouver. I don't see how you can say he is barely holding on to the NHL with a 2.18 GAA and .916 SA%.

Since Raycroft was dumped out of this city for an older more expensive and equally unimpressive goalie, Toronto still has no goalie. Toskala is too inconsistent to even be regarded as the solid number 1. Cujo was a failed PR experiment, Pogge was dumped after only a handful of experimental starts, MacDonald, Gerber, etc all have been equally lackluster which tells me either the Leafs brass really suck at picking goalies or the team just is that bad no goalie can survive here.

The same happened to Raycroft in Colorado. Neither he nor Budaj could succeed there. They both were bad. Vancouver appears, to me anyway, to be where Raycroft is going to revitalize his career, not end it.

To me the crime of Raycroft was that after only one year JFJ opted to make that trade for Toskala. That made no sense to me. You just gave up a top ranked goalie prospect and first rounder for him not to mention signed him to a 3 year deal. JFJ should have ridden out Raycroft or at the very least sought a UFA replacement for him. Dealing those picks for Tosk just exacerbated the problem, it did nothing to repair it. Lars Eller would look mighty fine in a Leafs jersey this year.

This point has been edited by Potvin29: 29 November 2009 - 04:26 PM

[LeaferSutherland]

Heh. I guess this will not go away... so if you can't beat them... join them.

Personally, I was very much against the Raycroft trade from the beginning, much like I am against the Kessel one. However, Kessel is at the very least coming off a pretty dynamic season and Boston would have held all the cards if it weren't for the cap crunch.

At the time of the Raycroft deal, his latest NHL campaign was abysmal during his sophmore year. The lockout that followed should have only decreased Boston's stranglehold on negotiations even further. The Leafs were never once guaranteed of a goaltender that could handle a starter's role, much less a regular role in the NHL. And I don't recall a team ever giving up a bonafied goaltending prospect for a "game-ready" goaltender two year's removed from a successful season.

Beyond all that, Raycroft's game was fundamentally flawed as far as I was concerned. His pads were lightning quick, but he was overall a rather clumsy netminder and owned one of the weakest glove hands at this level.

Personally, I would have seen him as far too great of a risk to take on. Not to mention that I would have begun the rebuilding plan once the new NHL began. If both Pogge and Rask met expectations (which in retrospect, we now know didn't happen) we would have had a huge transaction chip at our disposal.

[Potvin29]

LeaferSutherland, on Nov 29 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

Heh. I guess this will not go away... so if you can't beat them... join them.

Personally, I was very much against the Raycroft trade from the beginning, much like I am against the Kessel one. However, Kessel is at the very least coming off a pretty dynamic season and Boston would have held all the cards if it weren't for the cap crunch.

At the time of the Raycroft deal, his latest NHL campaign was abysmal during his sophmore year. The lockout that followed should have only decreased Boston's stranglehold on negotiations even further. The Leafs were never once guaranteed of a goaltender that could handle a starter's role, much less a regular role in the NHL. And I don't recall a team ever giving up a bonafied goaltending prospect for a "game-ready" goaltender two year's removed from a successful season.

Beyond all that, Raycroft's game was fundamentally flawed as far as I was concerned. His pads were lightning quick, but he was overall a rather clumsy netminder and owned one of the weakest glove hands at this level.

Personally, I would have seen him as far too great of a risk to take on. Not to mention that I would have begun the rebuilding plan once the new NHL began. If both Pogge and Rask met expectations (which in retrospect, we now know didn't happen) we would have had a huge transaction chip at our disposal.

I was not crazy about the Raycroft deal either when Martin Gerber was on the table but I at least understood what he was trying. I also am not as hard on Raycroft's lockout season. It was no more successful than most other NHLers. Players like McCabe, Jagr, and others jumped clubs, struggled, many quit on contracts and came home, etc. And much like Toskala last year no one ever gives Raycroft any break for being injured most of his second NHL season.

But perhaps the best argument was that the Leafs should have began the rebuild at the lockout. I was a big champion of that on the old Leafs forum about how they should sell and rebuild but the dilemna was what to do with Sundin. Mats was too old to rebuild with and too young to sell off or retire. I lived with the Nolan and Leetch trades because the team was a top club. They had a chance to win the cup those years so that type of buying is reasonable. But trading guys like Jonnsson and a 1st for Wendel Clark part Deaux when you are one of the worst teams in the league was unbearable.

Burke's current Kessel deal is identical to the Raycroft deal. It is rationalized because he is young and talented. I think Kessel will at least be a star for Toronto unlike Raycroft but I am with LS. I think over the long run we will miss the depth those 3 picks could have provided vs what Kessel will bring over the long run.

[LeaferSutherland]

Potvin29, on Nov 29 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

I was not crazy about the Raycroft deal either when Martin Gerber was on the table but I at least understood what he was trying. I also am not as hard on Raycroft's lockout season. It was no more successful than most other NHLers. Players like McCabe, Jagr, and others jumped clubs, struggled, many quit on contracts and came home, etc. And much like Toskala last year no one ever gives Raycroft any break for being injured most of his second NHL season.

But perhaps the best argument was that the Leafs should have began the rebuild at the lockout. I was a big champion of that on the old Leafs forum about how they should sell and rebuild but the dilemna was what to do with Sundin. Mats was too old to rebuild with and too young to sell off or retire. I lived with the Nolan and Leetch trades because the team was a top club. They had a chance to win the cup those years so that type of buying is reasonable. But trading guys like Jonnsson and a 1st for Wendel Clark part Deaux when you are one of the worst teams in the league was unbearable.

Burke's current Kessel deal is identical to the Raycroft deal. It is rationalized because he is young and talented. I think Kessel will at least be a star for Toronto unlike Raycroft but I am with LS. I think over the long run we will miss the depth those 3 picks could have provided vs what Kessel will bring over the long run.

I am far too biesed to even get involved with talks about the Wendel deal.

I would have traded my mother (and 5 1st rounders) for that guy.

[Potvin29]

LeaferSutherland, on Nov 29 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

I am far too biesed to even get involved with talks about the Wendel deal.

I would have traded my mother (and 5 1st rounders) for that guy.

Well you got your wish. They traded Kenny Jonsson, Roberto Luongo, Darby Hendrickson, and Sean Haggerty for him.

[LeaferSutherland]

Potvin29, on Nov 29 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

Well you got your wish. They traded Kenny Jonsson, Roberto Luongo, Darby Hendrickson, and Sean Haggerty for him.

Not a whole lot of Stanley Cup rings to show for it.

Heh.

[Lord Stanley]

Yeah but at least your mother got to say she was traded for Wendel Clark. Besides this Loungo it's not like he is a starter in the NHL today anyway. Heh.