14 Apr 2017 17:10:50
Anaheim needs to rid themselves of Bieksa prior to the expansion draft.

Here's an option:

To ANA: F - J. Lupul + D - R. Valiev + 2017 7th round pick

To TOR: D - K. Bieksa + D - J. Manson

Anaheim can now protect all of their top 3, Vatanen, Lindholm and Fowler. Lupul they get and is either LTIR or can be bought out for them and the Leafs take Manson for doing this.

1.) 15 Apr 2017
14 Apr 2017 22:10:02
You realize by doing this the leafs now need to protect bieksa (NMC) and manson on top of Reilly Gardiner and carrick. It makes 0 sense.

2.) 15 Apr 2017
15 Apr 2017 03:45:40
Could care less if Carrick goes. They can probably swing a trade with Vegas to take Carrick so they can keep Manson.

3.) 15 Apr 2017
15 Apr 2017 03:47:05
And yes, I do realize they would need to protect Bieksa. That is why the Leafs get to unload Lupul and the Leafs get Manson.

4.) 16 Apr 2017
16 Apr 2017 05:08:15
Over the years you have written an amazing amount of predictions no which have come right. You wrote 12 times a day about Stamkos and Vesey. They didn't come. You wrote off kapenen after 15 games. Now he has scored 3 huge goals in a week. Glad you and every else gave him a real chance not that it's any guarantee he becomes a star. So thank you whatever you call the opposite happens. Bring on the Norris for Connor Carrick. And since you didn't seem to clue into the wise post sent to you there's a limit to protecting players. 3 defense or 4 and the 4th one costs you huge. You lose the right to protect 2 players. How does this trade make the leafs better. There's no defense trades happening till after the expansion draft. Why would the leafs? Right now they hardly lose anything. Congrats I thought when you assessed the value of the leafs that was impressive but this takes the cake. Please continue to predict the cup gets closer everytime you do.

5.) 16 Apr 2017
16 Apr 2017 06:40:21
4fanlife

Lolol and you were the one who wrote off Austin Matthews before we drafted him saying he's not a fit for leafs? You put him in a trade to Montreal? For subban and price? Ha you shouldn't even be talking you hypocrite!

6.) 16 Apr 2017
16 Apr 2017 18:16:32
For the deal above:

The Leafs would be forced to protect Bieksa, Gardiner and Reilly and expose Manson and Carrick. The Knights would most likely take Manson. However the Leafs could still make a deal with Vegas to take a forward, so they can keep both. But even losing Manson, they get a veteran RHD, keep Carrick, and rid of Lupul's contract, plus 1.25M cap space.

The Ducks get a potential 9M in capspace next year, a 7th a young Dman, and solve their draft issue giving up only two 3rd pairings.

So what's not to like about this Win/ Win deal. It solves both teams problems (Lupul and Bieksa) without giving up much of anything.

7.) 16 Apr 2017
16 Apr 2017 21:59:01
No it doesn't at all. Anaheim gets nothing really back for bieska. Oh wait they take lupul. Wow that's helpful. Then they have to pay him to hide. The leafs end up exposing Carrick or Manson and one of them gets picked. Now you have a 35 year old 4 million player with a nmc. Um no! The leafs need another defenseman but not that. In the end the ducks may as well expose and lose Manson and move on. At the least they can keep bieska and not pay lupul to take a holiday. Another short term trade that hurts the leafs in the long run. People should stop these young players under the bus like Carrick and actually see what they can be. Young defenseman take time to develop. Thinking only for today with the leafs is why they haven't a cup in 50 years!

8.) 17 Apr 2017
17 Apr 2017 11:47:59
They get nothing back. by getting rid of Bieksa they get to keep their top 3 D and not lose 1 of them, unless they go the route of the 4 and 4 and still lose Manson in that proposal possibly. The Leafs taking on Bieksa and ridding Lupul is actually a pretty solid proposal.

9.) 17 Apr 2017
17 Apr 2017 17:45:45
A few things to consider.

1 . If the Ducks keep Bieksa, they lose one of Vatanen, Fowler or Lindholm.

2. The Leafs will only have Bieksa for 1 year, the Ducks only have to take Lupul for 1 year as well

3. Getting Manson and even if he gets taken they have Carrick still, or the Ducks take Carrick and the Leafs keep Manson.

10.) 17 Apr 2017
17 Apr 2017 18:59:04
No it doesn't fit into a plan to build and create a team for the long term. That's a trade you make if you want one last run in the playoffs. Stop thinking the leafs are going to win today and see the real possibility of them winning for a lot of years. If the leafs get a defenseman via the trade route it's going to be a younger #1 rhd that costs a lot to get but is someone who can be there for the long haul. In other words one of the ducks big 3. The time to patch holes is done. It's time to fill the last big gap and go up from there.

11.) 17 Apr 2017
17 Apr 2017 20:17:41
@4fanlife

Anaheim gets 9M in cap space, rid of Bieksa's NMC, they get to keep Hammy, Cammy, and Sammy; Manson will be exposed by the Ducks as they have no choice in the matter. Just who of Hammy, Cammy, and Sammy would you expose and keep Manson?

Yes! Lupul will be on the beach watching the game while his 5.25 M LTIR allows his SURROGATE to play for the Ducks. The Leafs can't use his LTIR this year anyways. He will be on the beach watching the game if the Leafs don't trade him, and his LTIR will go to waste.

If the Leafs make this deal or not; Carrick will remain with the Leafs. Vegas would probably prefer Manson.

The Leafs can make a pick arrangement with Vegas anyway as the Leafs have little to lose; and then make this deal.

The only player that might get thrown under the bus here is Bieksa.

A huge WIN/ WIN for both teams.

12.) 17 Apr 2017
17 Apr 2017 21:57:27
@4fanlife

Still can't see how you don't see the logic here. Lab16 explains it quite well. The Leafs could do this and very well lose nothing from their current team. Yes they will have Bieksa for 1 year, but no Lupul, so yes a WIN/ WIN. So what are the Leafs losing that is a plan for the long term?

13.) 18 Apr 2017
18 Apr 2017 01:55:52
What you lose is a spot on the roster. That could be used by someone who may play here for years eg Andrew Nielsen or maybe even Foote if they draft him. Point being this isn't 2 years ago when the leafs were happy when a player was willing to put on a jersey. This is a fast improving team where spots are valuable and the purpose of each player should be to part of a championship team. You spoke about being patient and how it takes a few years to develop dman. Well then they better use that spot for that because they got some to work on the d.

14.) 18 Apr 2017
18 Apr 2017 10:56:03
Anaheim will buyout Bieksa regardless.

15.) 18 Apr 2017
18 Apr 2017 18:26:52
@4fanlife

You are mistakenly assuming that Nielsen will be ready, and Foote will most certainly not be ready in a year. (Even though I would wager that Nielsen is ready for 3rd pair duty right now) .

But Neilsen is not part of this argument as he is LHD. We are weak on the RHS. Bieksa is a good experienced RHDman and would be here only for the year. Both Zaitsev and Carrick for the most part, would play ahead of him, still gaining experience. If Bieksa can't hold his own or someone else is better; he get's waived, and/ or then farmed if he wants to play at all; or it's off to Robidas island. The Leafs can afford to eat his salary next season.

As for being a contract; several are leaving this year and more can be obtained.

And if worse comes to worse the Leafs could trade him or even buy him out immediately themselves. (I think there's a loophole around the expn. draft in the making there) .

Laich, Michalek, and Greening weren't taking up roster spots this year, were they?

As for possibly losing Manson to Vegas; the Leafs can deal with them and come to an arrangement. Maybe one of our extra RW that will never make it to the Leafs (unless they change position) .

The Leafs could even trade Bieksa to Vegas to help meet their salary floor (Bieksa lives in or near LA and might like that) . Vegas can only offer picks or non NHL contracts in return under the rules.

@DartGuy

Ducks Buyout Bieksa:
+ Get to keep the big 3.
+ 4M if Bieksa accepts the uncond. waiver offer and is claimed.

The buyout still proceeds if not claimed:
+ the Bieksa return is 2.6M cap space 2018 minus 1.3M cost in 2019

- Still lose Manson (the obvious pick) for nothing to Vegas.
- No return for either player (other than the crappy buyouts above)


Trade to Leafs:
+ Get return for Bieksa and Manson - 7th, Valiev, 9.25 M cap space
+ Have the cap space to add a FA better than Manson (guess who) .
+ No 1.3 M cost for 2019
+ Keep the big 3.
+ Manson and Bieksa go to the East. (Not a big deal to the Ducks)
+ Lose only an insignificant player to Vegas.

Now what would you predict again?

The Leafs and Anaheim have been good trading partners in the past, and this deal is good for both teams.

It's also Lou's chance to put some really hilarious conditions on the 7th pick to get even.

16.) 18 Apr 2017
18 Apr 2017 22:15:37
If your going to defend your point at least have the courtesy to put your facts in order.

The Sharks save 4.825 million in salary. That's it.
Bieska 4 million
Manson 825000
Not 9 million
And I actually took the time to look at capfriendly to verify this. You should try it.
In return they get lupul at a cost of 5.25 million. Regardless whether they bury that or not they still pay that money. And Valievs at 778,333.
And assuming Bieska who has a NMC decides to accept a trade to Toronto he also vetoes a trade out again. In other words the ball is in his court. Why does he come to Toronto for the risk of ending up with the Marlies. I think veterans around the league are a little wary after seeing what happened to the laich and michalek and greening not that I disagree with it. And how do you know Nielsen can't play next year? Marner and Matthews are playing as kids and really well. Bottom line if your going to fill a defensive hole the guy better fill a need for the long haul. 2014 is past. this conversation is no done and finished. I would like some clarification from you as to why lupul can't stay on the ltir list? i'm not familiar with that rule.

17.) 21 Apr 2017
21 Apr 2017 19:36:09
If you are going try to to counter my points at least get the team right. Sharks?

Manson and Valiev arguably balance out cap hit wise, and the pick won't come into play for years if at all.

So Bieksa for Lupul.

Trades are not always done for straight forward reasons, and that is the case here. Bieksa is being traded because of his contract issue with the expn. draft and the need to protect the big 3; he is still a very good (although declining) defenceman.

Lupul is being traded because he is of no use to the Leafs, not even his LTIR. Why? It's kind of obvious; and it's not a rule.

Because the Leafs will shed roughly 20.375 M in cap this summer and "you can only use the LTIR after you reach the cap limit". Plus the Leafs still have Horton's guaranteed LTIR. The Ducks are challenging for the cup and will spend to the limit this summer.

NOTE: we are talking about the trade currency of "cap space" here, not of salary. There is a difference between the two as explained on Cap Friendly.

If Lupul couldn't be put on LTIR, the Ducks could still get rid of Bieksa +4M and absorb Lupuls 5.25 M. A 1.25 M loss in cap space; a minor price to save Hammy, Cammy, and Sammy. But!

Lupul comes ready with his LTIR bonus potential and that pretty much ensures he will be sitting on the beach, ticking you off nest year. The LTIR is a provision under the CBA separate from trade deals and is not activated until chosen to do so by the team.

The trade becomes Bieksa for Lupul at a cap hit if 1.25M. However because of Lupul's LTIR, it allows the Ducks to go over the cap by 5.25 M and purchase a player up to that amount to play in place of Lupul. So the trade becomes Bieksa for the surrogate of the Ducks choice. That is one massive bonus, and it all clears itself out after a year except that 5.25 M player could be signed for multiple years with no net difference in cap space. A really damm good tool when making trades or signing free agents.


The total cost in terms of SALARY for the Ducks will be Lupul's 5.25 + the surrogate (s) 5.25 M = 10.5M. But salary is never the issue for a cup contending team that direly needs to keep it's 3 top Dmen (the contract issue) .

They will most like lose Manson anyway, so why not trade him. Bieksa will waive his NMC. He may also be traded back to the West after the expn draft or to Vegas as part of a deal with them, allowing maybe Manson and/ or Carrick to stay. You can make deals with Vegas as of the day after the deadline.

So imagine the Leafs with Zaitsev, Manson, and Carrick on the RHS with whomever they get in the draft in a year or so after.

How's that not thinking of the future?

As for the Leafs; no one knows for certain how Neilsen will do next year. NOTE: THIS DEAL DOES NOT CONCERN NEILSEN - HE IS LHS. Beside's you must have misunderstood the 1st line above.

He and anyone else you look to bring up may not be ready. Bieksa fills that void for one year. He can still play; please watch the Ducks games; not the Sharks.

Laich and Michalek could no longer play well. It shows in their Marlie stats, attitude, and effort; and the fact no other team wanted them when waived. Greening you have to feel for a little bit. Robidas was done.

So there is no reason for that sentiment from potential players as the Leafs only buried two non performers in the AHL and Greening who is of marginal talent.

They are currently playing Boyle, Fehr until he was injured, old man Bozak, old man Leo, Polak (till injured), and Hunwick. So that has no basis in reality, just a desperate sportscaster's rumor.

Marner and Mathews are immensely talented and didn't make the jump to the NHL directly. Marner stayed a year in junior and Mathews in Switzerland due to his age for the draft. But as rookies, both have excelled.

Defencemen take more development, and to make the jump directly is very rare; and when it does occur, it is usually on teams with poor defence. Letting a young D develop before bringing him up, is thinking for the future.

You also have to deal with the present. Hence the new goalie, Boyle, Fehr, and other vets that have given the rookies constant instruction and the environment to develop quickly at the NHL level.

Bieksa can also make a condition for the deal with the Leafs that he plays the season or they trade him elsewhere.

18.) 22 Apr 2017
22 Apr 2017 18:31:23
Correction your right the ducks you found my typo. My question is why you are so bent on getting a defenceman that won't help the leafs long term. It's not Torontos problem the ducks are in this situation. They've had months to deal with it. In your mind apparently they are cup contenders. Let them figure own mess. If the leafs make a trade it's for one of the young talented three. Bieska has the option of waving nmc and being exposed. I agree he's a good player let them throw a cherry to Las Vegas not to pick him. Why do they get rid of him if they are going for the cup?

19.) 22 Apr 2017
22 Apr 2017 18:36:13
And getting Manson is redundant then you expose Carrick. Comparing the ohl or the Swiss league to the nhlis like comparing a Cadillac and a Buick. The NHL is a way higher league of quality and both matthews and marner excelled so yes it does happen. I'm not saying it will but it can.

20.) 25 Apr 2017
25 Apr 2017 12:29:06
The Ducks need Hammy, Cammy, and Sammy if they are going for the cup. Losing one of these 3 stellar young Dmen seriously hurts their chances. They want to keep them. Bieksa and Manson are expendable to them. Bieksa's NMC and the expn draft are what is causing the issue and the opportunity here.

Yes they could offer him to Vegas, but only if Bieksa is willing to go there, but I doubt Vegas has a use for one year of Bieksa at 4M. And what is the return for Vegas taking Bieksa off the Ducks? Manson? Compared to the Leaf deal the Ducks lose out on Valiev, the 7th and 5.25 M in cap space.

That would give the Ducks only 4 M in cap space. The Leaf deal gives them 9.25 M in cap space and solves the NMC problem. It's just a better deal for the Ducks, and a good deal for the Leafs.

If traded to the Leafs:
Bieksa is here for 1 year; he is not here for the long term. He may even retire after that year. He is not the force he once was, but can still play well and more importantly tutor the younger Leafs.

Even if Bieksa didn't play; the Leafs are still up 1.25 M in cap space, rid of a useless contract (Lupul), have a shot at retaining both Manson and Carrick (make a deal with Vegas ahead of this deal) .

Manson is an upgrade on Carrick if the Leafs lose Carrick. And if the Leafs lose Manson they are still up 1.25M in cap space and they have a Dman who can play (Bieksa), or trade, as opposed to Lupul, who will sit, eat up 5.25 M, and can't be traded in normal deals as a rule.

Think of Bieksa as a rental, in place of Lupul. That's 4 M being used, as opposed to 5.25 M being blatantly wasted.

We are not comparing leagues here, but only stating that sometimes it's better to be left in junior or the AHL for an extra year to develop.

We won't be able to make a good evalutation of Neisen until camp next year; and while I bet he makes it; it's almost always better to leave them down one to two years. They take longer.

21.) 26 Apr 2017
26 Apr 2017 04:53:37
Are you really a fan of the leafs? I'm starting to doubt it at all. Other than clearing a 5.25 million headache in lupul how does this benefit the leafs. It doesn't and you can't say it does. You called bieska and Manson 3rd liners. Your exact quote. That's not improving our defense. Secondly regarding the ducks mess I quote your exact words regarding the Hawks cap situation. Let them rot in their mess. It's not anyones problem that the ducks are in this situation. Let them talk bieska into waiving his nmc and then he can be exposed which is allowed. They can figure it out with Las Vegas from there. And if the leafs had cap issues which they don't at the present then lupul can back to the ltir. Unless you can tell me how bieska or Manson actually improve the defense which they don't let it go.