Leafs future

What happens when Roberts, Nieuwendyk, Mogilny, Leetch, Domi, Belfour all reach their pending retirements (age factor). With the new CBA I can't see us signing any huge name UFAs. Post your thoughts on what the Leafs might do. I know Wellwood and Coliacovo (sp?) will probably see NHL time in the next NHL season. But any other thoughts?

What happens when Roberts, Nieuwendyk, Mogilny, Leetch, Domi, Belfour all reach their pending retirements (age factor). With the new CBA I can't see us signing any huge name UFAs. Post your thoughts on what the Leafs might do. I know Wellwood and Coliacovo (sp?) will probably see NHL time in the next NHL season. But any other thoughts?

Belfour the only one under contract for next season. The rest are ready for the glue factory. ;)

all the better they all are gone, they need to rebuild this team fresh and young and do things right for a change.

What happens when Roberts, Nieuwendyk, Mogilny, Leetch, Domi, Belfour all reach their pending retirements (age factor). With the new CBA I can't see us signing any huge name UFAs. Post your thoughts on what the Leafs might do. I know Wellwood and Coliacovo (sp?) will probably see NHL time in the next NHL season. But any other thoughts?

It's good for the leafs. It'll change fan's mindsets and we'll finaly begin a rebuild. It's disapointing that Means if a MAN mistaken with a BOY.

Hence the using of the words MAN, and MALE.

when we are young we are BOYS or MALES, when we are of AGE we are MEN.

if it said, a crosby + lethonen + phaneuf we drafted, then I would agree we have a good prospect pool, or MALE with MALE, only it dose not, it clearly states that one is different then the other, yet the same, hence age and when one is called a boy (our D-prospects), and when one is called a MAN(good D-prospects like Coburn).

To love is not a sin, UFA is not a sin, only I wish it was, and then we would not be so over populated with old dudes.

PS: "they shall surely be put to death" is not much of an incentive not to is, as we all are already dieing, so I guess it could not be that big of a sin, or dose this mean there is two meanings. One men has the ability to change things for the leafs, that man being Sundin, we can trade at the deadline for some decent pics or prospects.

And so we are clear, this is a question, do you believe this may be possible, you see the NHL is much like a riddle, and each thing may have two, or more meanings, I understand many, only it is this one that is most relevant to the topic. So yes if you disagree, and can offer an understanding of your own, please do, only lets not try to pick on the writer, it gets boring fast. I only expressed me understanding of that passage, not you.

It's good for the leafs. It'll change fan's mindsets and we'll finaly begin a rebuild. It's disapointing that Means if a MAN mistaken with a BOY.

Hence the using of the words MAN, and MALE.

when we are young we are BOYS or MALES, when we are of AGE we are MEN.

if it said, a crosby + lethonen + phaneuf we drafted, then I would agree we have a good prospect pool, or MALE with MALE, only it dose not, it clearly states that one is different then the other, yet the same, hence age and when one is called a boy (our D-prospects), and when one is called a MAN(good D-prospects like Coburn).

To love is not a sin, UFA is not a sin, only I wish it was, and then we would not be so over populated with old dudes.

PS: "they shall surely be put to death" is not much of an incentive not to is, as we all are already dieing, so I guess it could not be that big of a sin, or dose this mean there is two meanings. One men has the ability to change things for the leafs, that man being Sundin, we can trade at the deadline for some decent pics or prospects.

And so we are clear, this is a question, do you believe this may be possible, you see the NHL is much like a riddle, and each thing may have two, or more meanings, I understand many, only it is this one that is most relevant to the topic. So yes if you disagree, and can offer an understanding of your own, please do, only lets not try to pick on the writer, it gets boring fast. I only expressed me understanding of that passage, not you.

It's hard to disagree with you on your points.

Would have been nice to see them unload some of those old guys and maybe pick up a few young bright prospects.

Can you guys see Stajan turn into a top line player to replace these oldies?

Can you guys see Stajan turn into a top line player to replace these oldies?

No.

He looks like a support role player, with some touch.

Can you guys see Stajan turn into a top line player to replace these oldies?
Actually, I can see Stajan turn into a top line player. Any time soon? Possibly not but in time he should be a well-skilled hockey player to replace some of the older players. Maybe not Roberts but when Berg gets old, Stajan should be able to replace him. Lets only hope though that Stajan would be better then Berg. Let me re-word that sentence. Lets only hope that Stajan will be a lot better than Berg.

Stajan is already better than Berg, because he has a brain and hockey sense.

It's hard to disagree with you on your points.
It's hard, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Persevere and you will find the strength to do it. :D

Would have been nice to see them unload some of those old guys and maybe pick up a few young bright prospects.
Everyone agrees that would have been nice, except for the teams being asked to give up the bright young prospects.

That said, there is a bit of an obsession with youth on this website (not so surprising, considering the nasture of the site), but I don't think we should write off the old guys. Most of those guys you listed will play again (I'm betting) though not necessarily in Toronto. And based on their performance in the most recent season (remember that?), I think they still have something to offer.

Look how old the Messenger is, and he still posts with all the energy of a young fella.

But as for the main question about what the Leafs should do. I am very curious to see what will happen. A lot depends, obviously on the CBA. In any case I'm sure they will avoid the temptation to cater to the extremes- those who want to destroy everything and rebuild, and those who want to go hog wild to win a cup NOW.

Therefore, I predict a great deal of complaining on these boards. :)

Maybe not Roberts but when Berg gets old, Stajan should be able to replace him.

:confused:

With the new CBA I can't see us signing any huge name UFAs.

why? most of the league will be UFA's, why would the Leafs not try to sign anyone worthwhile?

Allison, Kariya, and Foote all come to mind immediately

why? most of the league will be UFA's, why would the Leafs not try to sign anyone worthwhile?

Of course we'll sign some UFAs.

Bettman has got everyone convinced that this new CBA is going to provide this huge change around the league. In reality, things aren't going to change nearly as much as a lot of people seem to think.

The big market teams will still be the big market teams and the small market teams will still be the small market teams. Consequently, the big name free agents are still going to want to sign with the big market teams. Anyone who has visions of guys like Pronger signing with Nashville or something is only fooling themselves.

Of course we'll sign some UFAs.

Bettman has got everyone convinced that this new CBA is going to provide this huge change around the league. In reality, things aren't going to change nearly as much as a lot of people seem to think.

The big market teams will still be the big market teams and the small market teams will still be the small market teams. Consequently, the big name free agents are still going to want to sign with the big market teams. Anyone who has visions of guys like Pronger signing with Nashville or something is only fooling themselves.

lol it is funny to hear Owners's preach, look at your NHL, and understand something first, not only do they ask for your money, they hurt the people there suppose to be teaching, not only that they preach and if you know anything of anything the they brake or do the opposite of what the CBA says to do.

It says do not preach, do not profit from it, it says do not steal in public, and do not sell what is not yours to sell, so stop trying to sell the idea. So if your leauge thinks it hold water enough to judge where that is also something the CBA says not to do, then they are vary unwise, and again start a new war, yes now that is something I would like to have faith in. yes indeed, and before you try to talk read the CBA again, and open your eyes.

Pro-owner stance is nothing but a massive sales pitch, or so it is for owners and gm's. Sorry please understand this is only my perspective of NHL in part, I do not mean to offend any ones believes, I only state what is written in the vary book they believe in. The new CBA is only ment to hurt the big markets... even aftter the leafs where so generous to give the small markets millions of dollars now they want to force a bad CBA. Why don't they just earn income instead of taking it.

Of course we'll sign some UFAs.

Bettman has got everyone convinced that this new CBA is going to provide this huge change around the league. In reality, things aren't going to change nearly as much as a lot of people seem to think.

The big market teams will still be the big market teams and the small market teams will still be the small market teams. Consequently, the big name free agents are still going to want to sign with the big market teams. Anyone who has visions of guys like Pronger signing with Nashville or something is only fooling themselves.
It is hard to imagine no doubt my friend but also hard to get around a Hard Cap number and guaranteed contracts that add up to a figure ..

What would the purpose of the cap be in your opinion if its doesn't prevent the best UFA going to the big market teams ??

I certainly agree that the Prongers would chose Toronto or Colorado in a second over Nashville, thus the NHLPA stance we will never accept a hard cap ..

In my opinion big market teams will need to re-work current contracts to make it happen.. Make Mats 4 year deal into a 6 year deal spreading out the $$ in any 1 year .. Trade or buyout Nolan for example .. If a team wants Pronger then another contract has to go basically.

The only exception that I can see the NHLPA pulling to get around Bettman's vision is the Kariya move of the past to Colorado .. Selling their services at bargain basement prices to a contender to win the Cup .. That would mess up Bettman's on ice Parity attempt..

Or a player like Pronger could take a $5 mil - 1 year deal to play in Nashville .. and then at the trade deadline get traded to a contender, when contract is mainly paid by the Small Market team .. So rather then a no-trade clause of old now have a must-trade clause in the future, baring the team you are on does not make the playoffs.. Revenue sharing really is paying Pronger salary on a small market team anyway.

Taking my thinking outside the box theory to conclusion .. Toronto and Nashville could work out a trade during the UFA period (time delayed if you prefer) that says at the trade deadline Nashville agrees to trade Pronger to Toronto for a pre-arranged player or draft pick and $$$.. (ex. Nolan + (Vorobiev or 2nd) + 2.5 mil for Pronger) Nolan soon to be UFA clears cap room for TO, the pick or prospect is Nashville's return for the deal and money could be split player/team anyway they like ..

So Pronger plays in Nashville till the deadline hopefully for Nashville's sake bring in more fans and Revenue, and then the deal takes place at the trade deadline .. A Hard Cap is issued is worked around and the $$$ given to Nashville in trade could go to help pay Prongers contract in Nashville.

What do you think of that idea??

In my opinion big market teams will need to re-work current contracts to make it happen.. Make Mats 4 year deal into a 6 year deal spreading out the $$ in any 1 year .. Trade or buyout Nolan for example .. If a team wants Pronger then another contract has to go basically.

This is the sort of thing I expect to see happening.


The only exception that I can see the NHLPA pulling to get around Bettman's vision is the Kariya move of the past to Colorado .. Selling their services at bargain basement prices to a contender to win the Cup .. That would mess up Bettman's on ice Parity attempt..

I don't think Bettman is greatly concerned with on-ice parity (or only to a limited extent). I think he is genuinely interested in limiting spending on salaries so that all teams can dream of making a profit.


Taking my thinking outside the box theory to conclusion .. Toronto and Nashville could work out a trade during the UFA period (time delayed if you prefer) that says at the trade deadline Nashville agrees to trade Pronger to Toronto for a pre-arranged player or draft pick and $$$.. (ex. Nolan + (Vorobiev or 2nd) + 2.5 mil for Pronger) Nolan soon to be UFA clears cap room for TO, the pick or prospect is Nashville's return for the deal and money could be split player/team anyway they like ..

So Pronger plays in Nashville till the deadline hopefully for Nashville's sake bring in more fans and Revenue, and then the deal takes place at the trade deadline .. A Hard Cap is issued is worked around and the $$$ given to Nashville in trade could go to help pay Prongers contract in Nashville.

What do you think of that idea??

In short, I don't like this idea at all. If we're going to get Pronger, lets get him in the UFA period. But I like your ideas above about re-working contracts.

And so we are clear, this is a question, do you believe this may be possible, you see the NHL is much like a riddle, and each thing may have two, or more meanings, I understand many, only it is this one that is most relevant to the topic. So yes if you disagree, and can offer an understanding of your own, please do, only lets not try to pick on the writer, it gets boring fast. I only expressed me understanding of that passage, not you.


Clear as mud but it covers the ground. This poster has a strange way of communicating and a fairly odd logical system.

Translation, please.

It is hard to imagine no doubt my friend but also hard to get around a Hard Cap number and guaranteed contracts that add up to a figure ..

What would the purpose of the cap be in your opinion if its doesn't prevent the best UFA going to the big market teams ??

The purpose of a cap isn't neccessarily the same as what it will actually achieve in reality.

Like I keep saying, for the most part the players (particularly the big name ones) play where they want to play. Unless places like Nashville and Carolina can turn themselves into a desirable place for players to play, they won't be getting many big name free agents- regardless of any cap.

I certainly agree that the Prongers would chose Toronto or Colorado in a second over Nashville, thus the NHLPA stance we will never accept a hard cap ..

In my opinion big market teams will need to re-work current contracts to make it happen.. Make Mats 4 year deal into a 6 year deal spreading out the $$ in any 1 year .. Trade or buyout Nolan for example .. If a team wants Pronger then another contract has to go basically.

The only problem is that you're looking at one team (the Leafs) as if they are on an island. You've got to think of the NHL as being one big team with 700 players.

Take Bettman's assertation that he wants the average NHL salary at about $1.3 mil instead of $1.8 mil (I don't know if he's actually still throwing out these numbers, but I'll use them for this example). That's a difference of $500,000 per player. Multiply $500,000 by 700 players and that's a difference of $350,000,000.

So in essence the entire NHL (if you think about the NHL as one big team) would have to trim $350,000,000 from their payroll. That's cutting the salaries of NHL players by almost a quarter (which is why the rollback was set at 24%).

This is a monumental undertaking. Concerning yourself with stretching Mats Sundin's deal from four to six years is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg, because you're not really thinking about the reprecussions that a cap would have across the rest of the league. You're talking about the Leafs shuffling around a few million here or there when the big issue really amounts to $350,000,000. Sundin's contract is peanuts when you look at the big picture.

Like I said before, these big ticket players (the ones both with and without current contracts) aren't just going to vanish into thin air. They're going to have to end up somewhere and someone's going to have to pay them. Some people might like to think that a player like Glen Murray is all of a sudden going to be signing in Columbus for $800,000 year, but once again that isn't realistic.

I really can't say that I know how this will all turn out. But I am pretty confident that when the dust settles, everything will pretty much sort itself out and things aren't going to change all that much. I can't really see much other way of it realistically happening.

Sure there'll be some changes and the Leafs could very well initially have to do some creative thinking like you're suggesting. But fundamentally things will remain the same.

Some people seem to think that a new CBA is going to throw the whole NHL on its end where last year's bottom dwellers will now finish first and the first place teams will finish last. They seem to think that the balance of power will all of a sudden shift to the small markets and that the youngest teams will all of a sudden become best teams. This is unquestionably not going to happen.

This is becomming very long winded as I'm having a tough time putting what I'm thinking into words. I guess really though I don't disagree with you. You're saying that the big market teams will somehow make it happen. And that's basically all I'm saying too. In the end when it works itself out, nothing will be that much different from a balance of power standpoint.

The only exception that I can see the NHLPA pulling to get around Bettman's vision is the Kariya move of the past to Colorado .. Selling their services at bargain basement prices to a contender to win the Cup .. That would mess up Bettman's on ice Parity attempt..

Or a player like Pronger could take a $5 mil - 1 year deal to play in Nashville .. and then at the trade deadline get traded to a contender, when contract is mainly paid by the Small Market team .. So rather then a no-trade clause of old now have a must-trade clause in the future, baring the team you are on does not make the playoffs.. Revenue sharing really is paying Pronger salary on a small market team anyway.

Taking my thinking outside the box theory to conclusion .. Toronto and Nashville could work out a trade during the UFA period (time delayed if you prefer) that says at the trade deadline Nashville agrees to trade Pronger to Toronto for a pre-arranged player or draft pick and $$$.. (ex. Nolan + (Vorobiev or 2nd) + 2.5 mil for Pronger) Nolan soon to be UFA clears cap room for TO, the pick or prospect is Nashville's return for the deal and money could be split player/team anyway they like ..

So Pronger plays in Nashville till the deadline hopefully for Nashville's sake bring in more fans and Revenue, and then the deal takes place at the trade deadline .. A Hard Cap is issued is worked around and the $$$ given to Nashville in trade could go to help pay Prongers contract in Nashville.

What do you think of that idea??


Sure stuff like this could potentially happen. Whatever the system, teams will use whatever they can to get an edge.

In short, I don't like this idea at all. If we're going to get Pronger, lets get him in the UFA period. But I like your ideas above about re-working contracts.
In which regards ??

The biggest problem I see in the Hard Cap world is buyouts likely will count towards the Cap .. That is needed more for the teams pulling buyout Sundin at 2/3 rd and the then resign him at 2 mil for Cap purposes .. Perhaps that can be avoided by a clause that says buyouts can't be resigned for a period of time etc ..

But then that remains with the UFA flooded with players how could the leafs possibly trade Nolan to anyone .. Not even value in return .. Even for free at 6.5 mil tag is a tough sell .. Maybe you will see a Nolan + 2.5 mil in cash .. Sending along the bribe ;) at the time of the trade .. For a small market team this works .. They get a big name draw at bargain prices .. etc.

I was trying to address Leaf Army's concern that I support mind you that a Pronger will not want to play in Nashville but a big market team but capped out ..

The lower the Hard Cap figure (if there is one) the closer all the big market will always be IMO .. COL (Blake, Sakic, Forsberg), Det (Lidstrom, Hatcher, Lang), NYR (Jagr, Holik,) Philly (Roenick, LeClair, Amonte, Primeau), Dal (Guerin, Modano, Turgeon), St Louis ( Tkachuk, Weight, ), all face the same problems with lots of old CBA contracts carried forward .. So Pronger to a big Market is tough for him ..

This is becomming very long winded as I'm having a tough time putting what I'm thinking into words. I guess really though I don't disagree with you. You're saying that the big market teams will somehow make it happen. And that's basically all I'm saying too. In the end when it works itself out, nothing will be that much different from a balance of power standpoint..
I hear what you are saying .. As a supporter of the players calling myself Pro-fan I would like nothing more then to see all players find homes etc .. But I also have a hard time grasping that for a few reasons ..

1) As you showed the 24% rollback the players attempted did what you said Market correction of all Salaries . Outright rejected by the NHL though, other then taking the idea and adding in Hard Cap and Linkage.

2) We kind of got a glimpse of the future last UFA season before the lockout and big market spending ideas .. Our Leafs, Philly, Colorado, Detroit etc basically left the Palffy's and Kovalevs on the sidelines as UFA .. Resigned their own players in general or made moves to prepare for the Lockout .. well like our Leafs they had every player 21 of 22 under contract (missing Poni RFA) going into the lockout .. That is a full roster size and it was way over any suggested Hard Cap to boot .. Philly and Col and Detroit really no difference as us .. Lindros and Allison where sitting there pre lockout unsigned and so I can't see that changing post lockout now. Other then offering themselves at real cap friendly numbers to get back in the league again as injury prone players. The point of waiting what the new CBA brings response is lost in the filling up your roster going in IMO.

Only age turnover really effects our Leafs but going from basically $65 Mil to $40 mil (Hard Cap) payroll absorbs those bigger contracts, replaced by cheaper players.

3) You still have hard facts .. Leafs will have 8 players and $28.5 committed in Salaries (with the rollback) for next year.. You need 14 players to fill the team in size and have $10-15 mil spend left lets say (assuming a cap $38 - 43 range)... Add a player like Pronger at $5 mil (1/2 of old contract).. and you have 13 players with 5-10 mi left. Min wage is 350k times 13 players = $4.55 mil .. So if Toronto adds Pronger then 13 of your 22 man roster makes min wage..

So is it worth a Team like TO doing that, or would a better choice divide up a contract like that bringing the whole bottom group higher .. Basically I am suggesting that Toronto is now in the second tier and third tier UFA spending and not the Stars as a result. Mikael Samuelsson as a UFA makes the point of what Fergy is thinking as UFA spending, and talk of promoting Marc Moro is one of those many Min wage players to fill the roster .. neither of those players are really true NHLers..but are new CBA NHLers now..

4) The NHL does not care if former players lose jobs and careers are ended.. Either they take what owners can afford to spend or bye bye. This is a NHLPA fight to find a market place for ALL its NHLPA member, thus the raging against any cap, or setting it real high..

Right now the Leafs have 8 players and $26 million committed for next season, including the 24% rollback which sounds like it's going to happen.

That gives us, according to the latest cap estimates floating around, about $12 million to spend.

We could increase that amount by renegotiating with Nolan and McCabe, or buying out/trading them. That's about $9 million in cap space after the rollback, so JFJ needs to think carefully about how he wants to use that money. McCabe and Nolan aren't $4-6 million players under the old CBA, never mind the new one. McCabe had a 4-5 million regular season last year, but he Lalimed against the Flyers and I hardly think JFJ failed to notice that. Nolan can no longer be considered an elite forward based on his performance with Toronto.

I would also like to see them renegotiate with Sundin. I would give him a 4-year deal at a lower rate so that he can finish his career a Maple Leaf, which I badly want to see. I'm so tired of us trading our captains, and yes I know that means we'd be paying Sundin a decent amount of cash at 38 years old.

I would also like to see them renegotiate with Sundin. I would give him a 4-year deal at a lower rate so that he can finish his career a Maple Leaf, which I badly want to see. I'm so tired of us trading our captains, and yes I know that means we'd be paying Sundin a decent amount of cash at 38 years old.

A reasonable deal would be a 2 year extension at 4.5 million per year for 4 years.

Leafs could do this:

Nolan-Sundin-LeClair (bought out)
Lindros-Allison-Antropov


And pay on a per game basis, and they'd never go over the cap.

Right now the Leafs have 8 players and $26 million committed for next season, including the 24% rollback which sounds like it's going to happen.

That gives us, according to the latest cap estimates floating around, about $12 million to spend. .Key fact is also with that 12 mil they need minimum 14 players.. Without a calculator I can see that fitting in Pronger will be tough..

However I do support extending Sundin contract to free cap room and allowing him to retire a Leaf.

I have kind of convinced myself that Leafs need even more change and with only 8 players including Nolan and McCabe under contract, that they possibly need to be addressed to make a more competitive team on the ice next season.

Key fact is also with that 12 mil they need minimum 14 players.. Without a calculator I can see that fitting in Pronger will be tough..

However I do support extending Sundin contract to free cap room and allowing him to retire a Leaf.

I have kind of convinced myself that Leafs need even more change and even with only 8 players including Nolan and McCabe under contract, that they possibly need to be addressed to make a more competitive team on the ice next season.


We might have to buy them out. I don't think they'll be inclined to tear up their contracts and take even less money right after they already agreed to a 24% rollback. I'm just really leery about relying on Nolan to be a big contributor at this point, and moving McCabe would be smart with younger cheaper offensive guys like Kabs and Cola on the team.

when i did my math i found we had plenty of room to sign the necessary players. i dont know where a lot of you guys are getting your figures in

We might have to buy them out. I don't think they'll be inclined to tear up their contracts and take even less money right after they already agreed to a 24% rollback. I'm just really leery about relying on Nolan to be a big contributor at this point, and moving McCabe would be smart with younger cheaper offensive guys like Kabs and Cola on the team.Not only that but ..

I would tend to believe that players may be more inclined to listened to the idea of restructuring deals when times are good.

Right after sitting out a year of lost wages and then returning to have 24% knocked off, that is really not going to put them in a favourable frame of mind when your owner comes a calling.

The players have been fighting to avoid a cap and now its their responsibility to re-work their deals to make cap room they fought so long and hard against for the benefit of ownership.

Also like anyone their lifestyle my prohibit it .. The general rule is that you spend and live a lifestyle based on your income .. I guess a hockey player may be even worse case .. They own homes and cars and boats and investments based on OLD CBA wages and pay expenses based on that .. 1/4 of you Salary is nothing to sneeze at to still maintain the same level at some point that is no longer possible and the repo-man comes a calling ..

Also a buyout favours the player and the owner more then restructuring anyways.. The player gets 2/3 of his contract on the spot (almost like getting last years wages) and then when he signs his next NHL deal the B/0 and New Deal >> Old Deal in value.. If you are confident you can find work then I would bet that option is preferred IMO ..

when i did my math i found we had plenty of room to sign the necessary players. i dont know where a lot of you guys are getting your figures in
Calculations that show that things may be okay aren't all that interesting, for some reason.

when i did my math i found we had plenty of room to sign the necessary players. i dont know where a lot of you guys are getting your figures in
As your teacher would say ..Show your work on how you came up with that answer . .

Inquiry minds would love to know ..

As your teacher would say ..Show your work on how you came up with that answer . .

Inquiry minds would love to know ..

i posted it in another thread a while back....ill look around for it later or just start over