HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

JFJ's Assists.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2013, 07:47 AM
  #76
Deebo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
which means he wasn't signed, amirite
It also means they had lots of time before they lost his rights.

If JFJ had to trade him, fine. He didn't have to trade him for Andrew Raycroft though.

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 07:48 AM
  #77
Sypher04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackJ View Post
Rename the thread to Morrisons assists. JFJ receives credit for hiring him.

GM's will only weigh in on first rounders.
This is basically what I was going to say. Furthermore, pretty sure reports out there have indicated it was JFJ who disregarded the scouts in 06 and took Tlusty instead.

Sypher04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 07:53 AM
  #78
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
I think what he is saying is that Tukka Rask had no interest signing with the Leafs at the time.

Then when questioned qualified that by saying Tukka Rask had no interest signing with the Leafs at the time unless they overpaid for him.

It's the same thing except the second time he/she went into more detail...

Splitting statements up into finite conclusions based on passing thoughts will really degrade anyone's point into a pointless conversation.

Who cares if within 3 mins of talking he/she goes on to further explain where they are coming from?
no that isn't what it's about, but thanks for tryin Marty you've been very helpful

what it's about is that people have rationalizations that support whatever beliefs they hold because of a need to blame somebody for Leaf ills it is easier to believe that trading Rask was just a further manifestation of JFj incompetance then it being a decision made because of expedience.

the truth is always subjective and thats cool

what is true is RASK was not signed and showed no inclination of signing, the Leafs needed a goaltender Manny Legace wanted way too much to come to Toronto and Raycroft was made available

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 07:58 AM
  #79
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deebo View Post
It also means they had lots of time before they lost his rights.

If JFJ had to trade him, fine. He didn't have to trade him for Andrew Raycroft though.

thanks for bringing that into the conversation, I didn't even get to that part yet, but only becasue it doesn't figure into the gist of what was being spoken about, although that was the result of it

who do you think he should've trade him for, now theres scintillating conversation

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:07 AM
  #80
Deebo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
who do you think he should've trade him for, now theres scintillating conversation
I can admit that I don't know who else might have been available or what Rask could have been packaged with to bring a better return.

My only point was there was more time to make a decision, they still controlled his rights for a year. They made what seemed to be a hasty decision and ended up with nothing to show for the trade just 2 years later.

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:34 AM
  #81
satyr9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
the truth is always subjective and thats cool

what is true is RASK was not signed and showed no inclination of signing, the Leafs needed a goaltender Manny Legace wanted way too much to come to Toronto and Raycroft was made available
So truth is malleable, fair point Mr. Deconstructionist, but "What is true..." is negated by your premise.

Rask hadn't signed, had almost a year left before he had to sign and post-trade there were rumors that he didn't want to sign. You have manufactured these into your truth that he wouldn't sign with the Leafs, but you then, in fairly normal fashion for any human being, have chosen to privilege your own truth over others, just like they are doing to you. And your truth can be more reasoned and have more points of data to support it, that still doesn't negate its manufactured quality, hence the subjectivity.

Are there always externalities that influence decisions mitigating culpability or at least explaining why the decision appeared logical at the time? Of course, but by any kind of normal standard for sports-related moaning, when a GM trades a first-rounder who becomes a starting goalie for a total failure, he's ripe for a little fangeance on the message boards.

satyr9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:42 AM
  #82
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deebo View Post
I can admit that I don't know who else might have been available or what Rask could have been packaged with to bring a better return.

My only point was there was more time to make a decision, they still controlled his rights for a year. They made what seemed to be a hasty decision and ended up with nothing to show for the trade just 2 years later.
so you don't know but you do know......excellent

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:44 AM
  #83
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sypher04 View Post
This is basically what I was going to say. Furthermore, pretty sure reports out there have indicated it was JFJ who disregarded the scouts in 06 and took Tlusty instead.
Wonder how many of the 21 GM's who passed on Claude Giroux would want a do over? Milan Lucic was Boston's 3rd. pick. Their 2nd. pick was KHL veteran Yuri Alexandrov.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:44 AM
  #84
PasDaSquini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 784
vCash: 500
All this proves is that you can't expect your draft choices to turn into Mlakin/Sid every year. Other players need more time to develop.

PasDaSquini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:46 AM
  #85
The Apologist
Kessel Supporter
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Soviet Kanukistan
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by satyr9 View Post
So truth is malleable, fair point Mr. Deconstructionist, but "What is true..." is negated by your premise.

Rask hadn't signed, had almost a year left before he had to sign and post-trade there were rumors that he didn't want to sign. You have manufactured these into your truth that he wouldn't sign with the Leafs, but you then, in fairly normal fashion for any human being, have chosen to privilege your own truth over others, just like they are doing to you. And your truth can be more reasoned and have more points of data to support it, that still doesn't negate its manufactured quality, hence the subjectivity.

Are there always externalities that influence decisions mitigating culpability or at least explaining why the decision appeared logical at the time? Of course, but by any kind of normal standard for sports-related moaning, when a GM trades a first-rounder who becomes a starting goalie for a total failure, he's ripe for a little fangeance on the message boards.
That is true, there was another year left to sign him. What may not have been available a year out was a goalie who was one year removed from being one of the best in the league. Was Raycroft a risk? Absolutely. Did it pan out? Nope.

In hindsight we can all agree that it was a bad trade. Back then? I think most GMs do it (especially with a Pogge in the wings)

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:47 AM
  #86
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by satyr9 View Post
So truth is malleable, fair point Mr. Deconstructionist, but "What is true..." is negated by your premise.

Rask hadn't signed, had almost a year left before he had to sign and post-trade there were rumors that he didn't want to sign. You have manufactured these into your truth that he wouldn't sign with the Leafs, but you then, in fairly normal fashion for any human being, have chosen to privilege your own truth over others, just like they are doing to you. And your truth can be more reasoned and have more points of data to support it, that still doesn't negate its manufactured quality, hence the subjectivity.

Are there always externalities that influence decisions mitigating culpability or at least explaining why the decision appeared logical at the time? Of course, but by any kind of normal standard for sports-related moaning, when a GM trades a first-rounder who becomes a starting goalie for a total failure, he's ripe for a little fangeance on the message boards.
the truth is subjective and it is malleable and one would have to be naive to think or believe otherwise.....unless of course you're second year psych in which case I understand you're beffudlement

those were not rumours, he wanted top 10 money he was a 22nd pick the Leafs said no, the B's eventually gave him top 10 money because they were a month away of losing him to the draft

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:50 AM
  #87
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by satyr9 View Post
... when a GM trades a first-rounder who becomes a starting goalie for a total failure, he's ripe for a little fangeance on the message boards.
A total failure is someone like John Doherty, Raycroft was not a total failure, just extremely overpriced for the return.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:53 AM
  #88
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Wonder how many of the 21 GM's who passed on Claude Giroux would want a do over? Milan Lucic was Boston's 3rd. pick. Their 2nd. pick was KHL veteran Yuri Alexandrov.


think of the all the eggs needlessly wasted on the faces of those 20 other GM's who let Lidstrom slide by them not once but twice and some of them even 3 times


therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:01 AM
  #89
Deebo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
so you don't know but you do know......excellent
I don't know what else they could have traded him for but I do know that Raycroft was a bad decision, even a 2nd round pick would have been better.

Raycroft was a failure and was gone for nothing within two years. They traded a top prospect for a goalie who lost his starting job the year before, posted a 3.71GAA and a .879 SV% and a record of 8-19-2. Even though the Bruins weren't very good that year Thomas was able to put up a 2.77GAA and .917SV% and Toivonen 2.63 and .914. while combining for a 21-18-14 record.

You're making it sound like you think there were 2 options, lose his rights for nothing or trade him for Raycroft. Is that what you think was the case?

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:05 AM
  #90
Deebo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
A total failure is someone like John Doherty, Raycroft was not a total failure, just extremely overpriced for the return.
I have a different definition of total failure than you.

Over 91 games he had a sub .900 SV% and and a GAA over 3.00.

2 missed playoff years and then bought out.

That, to me, says failure.

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:13 AM
  #91
Christ
Registered User
 
Christ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,723
vCash: 500
JFJ's problems never stemmed from the draft...everyone believed he was actually good at the draft and many wanted to keep him around to help our scouts with the draft. JFJ's problems arose around his trades and signings outside the draft...they ALWAYS fell through. Any trade he made, even those that looked great on paper turned to poo.

Christ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:15 AM
  #92
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deebo View Post
I have a different definition of total failure than you.

Over 91 games he had a sub .900 SV% and and a GAA over 3.00.

2 missed playoff years and then bought out.

That, to me, says failure.
I suppose. To me someone who plays 280 NHL games as a starting goalie isn't a complete failure, the same way that a 22 year old offensive forward with 28 career points isn't a star.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:19 AM
  #93
sgupca
Registered User
 
sgupca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lloydminster, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarter View Post
I don't think anybody has ever doubted his scouting ability.
This - one of the leagues best scouts, and one of the leagues worst GMs.

sgupca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:27 AM
  #94
Deebo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I suppose. To me someone who plays 280 NHL games as a starting goalie isn't a complete failure, the same way that a 22 year old offensive forward with 28 career points isn't a star.
He had some limited success before he came here, but I'd consider his leaf tenure a failure.

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:38 AM
  #95
satyr9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
the truth is subjective and it is malleable and one would have to be naive to think or believe otherwise.....unless of course you're second year psych in which case I understand you're beffudlement

those were not rumours, he wanted top 10 money he was a 22nd pick the Leafs said no, the B's eventually gave him top 10 money because they were a month away of losing him to the draft
lol, what about my post are you responding to? You're just repeating what you did last time. The truth is subjective, here's the truth and then not noticing it.

satyr9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:44 AM
  #96
TheTotalPackage
Registered User
 
TheTotalPackage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,454
vCash: 500
JFJ may not have been allowed to rebuild as he apparently went to the board with, but that should not be an excuse for his poor decision making. You have to adapt and work within the parameters given, and he failed miserably at that.

Yes, he did a good job at the draft. However, I personally wouldn't go overboard on that because while a good portion of them have become serviceable, none of them, besides Reimer, have potential star power. Which is fine as some nice pieces have been put in place, but I don't think his drafting should be overblown as if he drafted a major stud (although that goalie in Boston...).

Speaking of which, I will never forgive him for that God awful Rask/Raycroft trade, one in which I hated the second it was made. Then trying to rectify it with the Toskala trade -- those two trades alone set this franchise back a couple years. In between he threw away a 2nd for 17 games of Yanic Perrault.

Thanks for the few guys we have JFJ, but thank goodness you are long gone.

TheTotalPackage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:46 AM
  #97
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTotalPackage View Post
JFJ may not have been allowed to rebuild as he apparently went to the board with, but that should not be an excuse for his poor decision making. You have to adapt and work within the parameters given, and he failed miserably at that.

Yes, he did a good job at the draft. However, I personally wouldn't go overboard on that because while a good portion of them have become serviceable, none of them, besides Reimer, have potential star power. Which is fine as some nice pieces have been put in place, but I don't think his drafting should be overblown as if he drafted a major stud (although that goalie in Boston...).

Speaking of which, I will never forgive him for that God awful Rask/Raycroft trade, one in which I hated the second it was made. Then trying to rectify it with the Toskala trade -- those two trades alone set this franchise back a couple years. In between he threw away a 2nd for 17 games of Yanic Perrault.

Thanks for the few guys we have JFJ, but thank goodness you are long gone.
Well how many GM's have they had since Quinn / Hedberg who got it right?

Zero.

Let's hope Nonis is the guy.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 10:01 AM
  #98
satyr9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I suppose. To me someone who plays 280 NHL games as a starting goalie isn't a complete failure, the same way that a 22 year old offensive forward with 28 career points isn't a star.
Okay, but it's not Raycroft's career that's a failure. It's that they traded a future starting goalie for a current starting goalie (not a terrible proposition if you're short a goalie), a young one at that, and didn't even get a year and a half out of him before giving up on his terribleness. 72 games, a sub .900 save percentage, and the Leafs missed the playoffs by a point. Even a borderline okay goalie and they're in.

Then, the next year his GAA is up another full goal per game, and he's like .875 and that's the end of Raycroft after 19 more games. 91 games as a leafs, a 3+ GAA and some kind of .880's sv percentage. How is that not total failure for a trade where you shipped a first rounder? Not Raycroft as a total career, but the trade for the Leafs if the failure. If it'd been a future 1st pick instead of Rask and that pick had turned into crappy pants mcgee it'd still be a horrible trade. JFJ wanted to get a starting goalie and traded for a pile of awful. He got a replacement level (Hedberg/Tellqvist/Lalime level) goalie for Rask. He's actually better off signing one of those guys to start and failing to sign Rask, losing a pick for nothing, then he is trading him for Raycroft and the contract.

satyr9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 10:11 AM
  #99
hotpaws
Registered User
 
hotpaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,492
vCash: 950
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealkoho View Post
allright I'll just chalk this one up to you being obtuse

you know exactly what I'm talking and if you don't, I really don't have time to bring you up to speed

a top 10 gets a lot more in remuneration then does any body picked below them

RASK WANTED TOP 10 money, RASK WAS NOT A TOP 10 PICK

even after he was traded he played hardball with the B's and did not sign a contract until May 5 2007 a contract that was worth up to $2,350,000, which in 2007 was TOP 10 money, the B's had until June to sign him and so folded rather then let him go back into the draft. By comparison the overall #1 pick Paddy Kane received a contract worth up to $2.85m by comparison the 22nd pick(which was Rask's slotting) Max Pacioretty wasn't signed until the following year and received an NHL contract worth up to 910k.

needless to say the Leafs were not going to pay this guy any more then they gave to Justin Pogge which was a contract worth up to 683k


clear
So what your saying is JFJ traded him over a 170 000 in gaurenteed NHL salary and bonus money he had little chance of earning . If you're right he's a bigger idiot than i thought .

Also why wouldn't he expect to be paid more than a 3rd rounder like Pogge ?

hotpaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 10:13 AM
  #100
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by satyr9 View Post
Okay, but it's not Raycroft's career that's a failure. It's that they traded a future starting goalie for a current starting goalie (not a terrible proposition if you're short a goalie), a young one at that, and didn't even get a year and a half out of him before giving up on his terribleness. 72 games, a sub .900 save percentage, and the Leafs missed the playoffs by a point. Even a borderline okay goalie and they're in.

Then, the next year his GAA is up another full goal per game, and he's like .875 and that's the end of Raycroft after 19 more games. 91 games as a leafs, a 3+ GAA and some kind of .880's sv percentage. How is that not total failure for a trade where you shipped a first rounder? Not Raycroft as a total career, but the trade for the Leafs if the failure. If it'd been a future 1st pick instead of Rask and that pick had turned into crappy pants mcgee it'd still be a horrible trade. JFJ wanted to get a starting goalie and traded for a pile of awful. He got a replacement level (Hedberg/Tellqvist/Lalime level) goalie for Rask. He's actually better off signing one of those guys to start and failing to sign Rask, losing a pick for nothing, then he is trading him for Raycroft and the contract.
Rask has a chance to make that trade really bad now. He could become the goalie everyone expected.

This year his save percentage is almost as good as Reimer's.


ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.