• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

Montana you never made a really good post in your career, that was deep, thoughtful, prescient. But its too bad you feel that way. Its pretty homerish here, and for people to be saying that Reimer was our best player last year, is just so brutally inaccurate, I think I will allow you to come back, and drop off the picture here.

Reimer is such a great goaline,we brought in another guy at much higher salary? I have told you ad nauseum, two guys were written off as serious Leafs in the Boston series. Reimer and Phaneuf. Get me an NHL goalie and get rid of that overpaid stiff were almost ad verbatim what was screamed upstairs at Nonis.

Yet the blue and white crowd here still fawns over them.
 
It will be highly unlikely we retain both Reimer and Bernier past next summer.

However, it is way too premature to say Reimer's out. If Reimer can stay healthy, and prove he is the superior goalie, it will be Bernier who the Leafs will try to trade in the offseason.

And as long as Bernier have a decent, or good season, his pedigree should make him very easy to trade as well.

The tricky question is what if Reimer and Bernier post identical #'s at the end of this season, who do the Leafs keep?
 
I know everybody is looking at total cap spending, but the Leafs are still spending in the lower half of the league in terms of goaltending salaries and have two good/great goalies on the team. Why complain?

Lets measure the quality of starts by both Bernier and Scrivens at seasons end, and see where this trade really shakes out.
 
BG said:
I know everybody is looking at total cap spending, but the Leafs are still spending in the lower half of the league in terms of goaltending salaries and have two good/great goalies on the team. Why complain?

Lets measure the quality of starts by both Bernier and Scrivens at seasons end, and see where this trade really shakes out.
Click to expand...

The best part of the Leafs last year was that they got top-end goaltending for the lowest cost in the NHL. That's significant.

Now, they're spending closer to average in goal, and we aren't even sure if they will be better in goal.
 
BG said:
Leafs are paying less for 2 goalies than most teams pay for their starter, cap-wise I'm not sure of the complaints.
Click to expand...

meh, last year we had dirt cheap goaltending, with top-10 performance.

this year we have average priced goaltending, with maybe top-10 performance, maybe not.

we had a nice advantage last year in getting two impact performances - Kadri and Reimer/Scrivens for near league minimum. That's the kind of bargain elite performance that teams need to be good under a cap. and now both of those bargains are gone.
 
Last edited:
It's about cost/risk.

I could understand bringing in an established goalie. A guy who has a proven track record of success in the NHL. I might not agree with it, but I can understand it at least.

But with Bernier, we paying a lot more on the goalie position, without much proof that there will be an improvement, as we found a goalie less proven than Reimer.
 
Using the fact that we are now at league average cap hit for a goalies for a reason to acquire Bernier is frigging ridiculous.

We just went from a huge strength cap wise (Top 10 goaltending for pennies) to average.

The strength was going to go away in another year anyway when it was time to Re-up Reimer. But that extra year of cap savings was going to be huge. We may have been able to negotiate excellent contracts for Kadri and Franson. Now, we may be forced to do 1 yr deals and ruin our cap situation in the future. We would be sitting a lot nicer right now if our cap did not include Bernier and retained salary.

I don't think anyone here can argue that it wasn't a good trade if we didn't have to worry about the cap. Absolutely would have been a good gamble. But its possible that this lost year of cap savings is going to cost us dearly this year and in the future.
 
IMO the chances of this years goalie tandem being top 10 are a lot higher than the odds for last years tandem to be top 10 again.
 
Cojo said:
Is that worth losing Kadri or Franson over?
Click to expand...

I fail to see how acquiring Bernier cockblocks us from signing Kadri and Franson. Lets put it this way, no team is going to offer sheet them so they have 2 choices a) sign a contract with the leafs or b) sit out next season. I really think Kadri and Franson aren't stupid enough to hold out, they will be resigned to a contract(s) that best suits the Leafs.
 
Cojo said:
Is that worth losing Kadri or Franson over?
Click to expand...

Depends how good Bernier actually is. Unlike most of the other, much more expensive, moves this offseason Bernier actually has a chance of being pretty damn good, so I'm less concerned about that $2 million.
 
They really should eliminate the salary cap. None of this welfare crap.
Click to expand...

The cap really is uncompetitive in a sense. Can you imagine a team like Real Madrid being forced to curb their spending because Valencia can't afford to keep their players. It's rubbish, if you ask me.
 
Pronger84 said:
I fail to see how acquiring Bernier cockblocks us from signing Kadri and Franson. Lets put it this way, no team is going to offer sheet them so they have 2 choices a) sign a contract with the leafs or b) sit out next season. I really think Kadri and Franson aren't stupid enough to hold out, they will be resigned to a contract(s) that best suits the Leafs.
Click to expand...

You fail to see the point.

Yes there is still a risk we lose one of them this year but the bigger risk is their next contract. If we are only able to sign them to 1 yr deals this year, their next deal, assuming continued strong play, will result in deals which will restrict us heavily next year with the likes of Kessel, Gardiner, Phaneuf etc coming due.
 
da_next_kid said:
The cap really is uncompetitive in a sense. Can you imagine a team like Real Madrid being forced to curb their spending because Valencia can't afford to keep their players. It's rubbish, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, the NHL isn't a draw like the NFL, and especially not like international soccer.

If the league wants to remain strong and competitive then some balance needed to be forced into place.

And for the record, no team got screwed more than the Senators by the lockout. It hurt them bad...and this was the reward...still a system where we can't spend on the same level as the big guys.
 
corksens said:
Like it or not, the NHL isn't a draw like the NFL, and especially not like international soccer.

If the league wants to remain strong and competitive then some balance needed to be forced into place.

And for the record, no team got screwed more than the Senators by the lockout. It hurt them bad...and this was the reward...still a system where we can't spend on the same level as the big guys.
Click to expand...

Dunno how you figure really.
 
Nahh, he's right. They lost both Havlat and Chara the year after the lockout, essentially for nothing, because they didn't have the cap space for Havlat and the salary cap forced them to make their infamous choice between Redden and Chara instead of just keeping both of them.

Though I suppose the Sens are broke-ass salary cap or no salary cap, so maybe they would have just let Chara walk and salary dumped Havlat anyways. But I can see the argument at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top