A trade that makes too much sense!

In my opinion, if there’s a trade that just makes too much sense, it’s Jean-Sebastien Giguere to Toronto. Clearly, it makes sense for Anaheim, which wants to cut itself from the goaltender’s contract ($6 million this season and $7 million next season). But I also think the Maple Leafs should give this some serious thought (I think they have, at least a little bit).The Leafs are one of the few teams on Giguere’s short list (he has a no-movement clause), he would be reunited with goalie coach Francois Allaire and he could mentor rookie Jonas Gustavsson, much like he did Jonas Hiller in Anaheim. Let’s face it: Vesa Toskala (UFA July 1) is probably beyond repair in Toronto, where the fans have turned on him. The Leafs, meanwhile, could rid themselves of some excess baggage in the Giguere deal, perhaps sending a forward or two the other way, a guy like Alexei Ponikarovsky, for example.

The Leafs will have some extra bodies up front when Phil Kessel makes his much-anticipated return. And, by the way, Giguere might help the Leafs win a few games over the next year and a half, which isn’t a bad thing considering Boston holds both of Toronto’s first-round picks. It’s just my own speculation, but I just think it makes too much sense.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4612328&name=lebrun_pierre


185 Responses to A trade that makes too much sense!

  1. leafy says:

    Canada beat the Russians at Lake Placid?

  2. leafy says:

    Agreed, it's very frustrating when you can't bury chances. Reminds me of the '85 Leafs.

  3. leafy says:

    Kaberle is only 8 points behind legendary Tim Horton for second place on the Leaf scoring list for blue liners.

    But he's got a long way to catch Borje Salming, one of my idols. He needs another 300+ points.

  4. leafshockey says:

    Totally agree leafs have outplayed everybody the last couple of games. Random chance and some really tough luck have us with 4 straight ot losses instead of 5 straight wins.

    Kessel looks awesome tonight, even that play where he got rocked was a pretty sick move on the first d-man, too bad ohlund was there or it could've been pretty nice. And boy did my heart ever stop when I saw that….

    Hit the crossbar in overtime. Heard this all before, right guiys? And the worst goal at the other end, we are owed an official explanation on that, big time.

  5. bbruins37 says:

    grabovski dove leading to white's PP goal on the only leafs goal so its even

  6. leafy says:

    There seems to be a problem with that Toskala to Detroit link. Try this one.

    http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/29015-Rumor-Roundup

  7. leafy says:

    It will even out in the end. Through 82 games, the Leafs will win some bizarre games too.

  8. reinjosh says:

    if you read anything i said in detail you would have seen from my first comment that i said this has absolutely no value to the leafs unless a deal like i proposed was made
    and almost every other leaf fan agrees with me
    i never once stated or implied that Anaheim would do that deal
    anyone who could read competently would see that

  9. reinjosh says:

    i don't think he fully understands NTC/NMC's and the salary cap and actual salary at all

  10. reinjosh says:

    i love how you watch leaf games
    i could swear your a leafs fan
    you watch games
    you talk almost exclusively about leafs players
    you argue with people about the leafs
    you follow their top prospects
    sounds like your a little obsessed with them

  11. albertateams says:

    First of all how could you possibly know where Campbell would or would not waive his NTC, you are speculating that he wouldn't.

    You do agree that Chicago keeps Campbell until after the cup run is completeted?

    Weather the islanders are in NY or not they have plenty of room and an owner that wants to succeed and has no problem handing out long term contracts. If they chang owners then it depends on his philosphy. I actually think that NYI is heading in the right direction. That can change but they do have some things going for them. Again you are speculating about whether or not someone would waive his no trade clause. The only person that can answer that is Campbell.

    I don't deny the leafs could help the Blackhwks. My point is that all other avenues will be exhausted before any trade with picks being shipped out is considered. There are 29 other teams in the league and what your saying is that in6 months none of them are going to be in a position to take on campbells contarct. Come on.

    Just because columbus went the enxpensive route this year doesn't mean they wouldn't be interested in the off season. Again if Chicage went to columbus in June and said Brian Campbell for a 5th you don't think they'd even consider it?

    I'm not saying its doom and gloom for chicago's team. I'm merely stating that all other avenues will be looked at prior to packaging picks with Campbell.

    Yes I do think that three picks mean something to every team and you were hardly proposing late round picks 1st and 2nds. Once again i'm not saying that if absolutely everything goes wrong in the offseason they don't consider it, but your making it sound like between now and July 1 not a single option will present it self. Thats pretty pesimistic.

    So much can change between now and then. What if Phoienix gets a new owner and wants to get a quality veteran puck mover? would they then turn down the same offer as columbus. Thats three teams it just that you don't like the answers.

    You have tunnel vision on this issue. To think no opertunity to move campbell will arise before july 1 is pretty redicolous.

  12. albertateams says:

    I completely understand the salary cap and NTR/NMC.  What you are doing is speculating that he won't waive his NTR. Unless you have some list that he has provided to the blackhawks as to where he would and would not go you are just guessing he would not go to certain teams.

  13. albertateams says:

    Alls I'm saying is that your option A is the last resort to moving Campbell. To think it is not possible to move campbell without giving up picks and prospects under any cir*****stances that could occur in the next six months is a pretty ridiculous notion.

    Teams like NYI, Colarado, Dallas, Phoenix, and st loius all have plenty of cap room to take a contract on like that its not like you are getting an unproductive player. Would they prefer to be able to sign UFA for nothing at a cheaper cost obviously. To say that not one of those teams would even consider taking him for a 5th pick is pretty unrealistic. And yes I know it restricts there decisions down the road due to cap implications, but with those teams all well under the cap those pressures shouldn't be felt in the next two years when the cap is likely not moving substantially by the time you get three years in to campbells contract the cap most likely has risen and provides room for more teams to maneuver.

    I completely agree that moving Campbell is the most logical fix for the Blackhawks cap problems. Where I disagree is that Chicago will have to give up a high pick/prospect to move him.

    My point is you have tunnel vision of course they prefer your first option what I'm saying is that they are not faced with only two options. There are others that will a rise in the next six months that will be more desirable.

    I didn't rip you on Kane it seems pretty obvious to me.

  14. albertateams says:

    Suggesting a trade implies that the other team would at least consider the deal other wise its pointless. Other wise you could throw out random statements like the leafs should trade finger for crosby, but I'm not implying that the pens would do the trade what would be the point its asinine.

    You completely ignore the fact that it is a valid argument other wise this rumor wouldn't continue to come up over and over again.

    Well if almost all the leafs fans agree it most be so because none of them on this site are biased.

  15. reinjosh says:

    He doesn't have tunnel vision
    Present him with 1 other option that will present itself and he may agree
    you tried with Columbus but he gaev you adequate and very good reasons why not yet you ignored them like you ignore other argument because they proved you wrong
    You continue to ignore the very real and very serious aspect of the salary cap and whats more the actual salary
    50 million dollars is a shit load for one player
    yes option may present themselves but nothing like you think
    If a team wants Campbell they will be offering a salary dump player to offset Campbell's salary
    like maybe the Rangers offer Redden for Campbell straight up
    or some other team offers a 4 million dollar guy who didn't do much for Campbell
    that really doens't help
    Toronto offers 7 million dollars free and all they ask is a pick or a prospect
    you have to stop ignoring the fact that cap space is almost as valuable as the player himself if not more
    especially when it comes to the fact that the cap may be going down, teams would be taking player very much inferior to a couple players on their team and yet get paid more
    Chicago is not going to get any better option
    I guarantee you that
    in fact i would bet you with 100 percent certainty that Campbell does not move and stays a blackhawk for a long time
    because i highly doubt any GM is going to want him, let alone Burke

  16. albertateams says:

    Dallas is another option, St louis is another option, even NYI and Phoenix under the right cir*****stances are options. Just because you don't like the options doesn't mean they aren't plausible.

    I know that cap space is extremely valuable and I know its a lot of money but there will be other options available.

    I agree that trading him for another large contract does no good for Chicago.

    You think that if Chicago in June lets it be known that they would move Campbell for a 5th round pick or a low level prospect not one of the five teams I mentioned doesn't at least explore the option? We are not talking about a garbage player like Redden. The contract is bad and it is a lot of money I'm not arguing that.

    You guarantee Campbell stays with the Blackhawks. I think that is the most absurd thing you have said.

    Look at some of the cap moves in the offseason.

    Nobody thought Gomez was going to be moved and for a much higher return then the 5th round pick I propose for Campbell.

    Even Ryan Symth in the offseason there wasn't anyone beating down the door to get that contract and he got moved.

    Ehroff and Lukowhich got moved for cap reasons for a zero return.

    All of those deals occurred without the teams giving up picks for teams to take these contracts. The returns were lower than if they all had low cap hits but the trades were still made.

    You can't just dismiss the fact that it is pausible to move large contracts  for low returns  if the player is still  productive.

  17. reinjosh says:

    just because rumor comes up does not make it valid
    in any way
    theirs a rumor out there that Detroit might want Toskala
    thats asinine
    and suggesting a trade does not imply the other team would consider it
    if you say before hand that the only way this player comes here is with this for that then it implies that its an offer that only takes into account one side
    i stated that over and over again
    and yet you continue to ignore it
    just like you continue to ignore the restrictions of the salary cap
    and how does this trade rumor have any validity?
    because one person said so? one person who happens to be in the media and in his opinion thinks it is smart?
    no
    it still makes no sense at all
    keep in mind a rumor doesn't mean anything at all was discussed
    honestly you are just as frustrating to argue with as bbruins is
    you just don't listen
    and you have this weird sense of anti-leafism

  18. albertateams says:

    Lebrun isn't the only one that has brought up this trade it has been on HTR at least one other time and has been noted by other sources. Its not just one source. I'm not saying that the trade is a lock just speculating. I'm not ignoring the cap the cap is not violated with any deal I have proposed.

    Proposing a trade that makes the leafs a better team on the ice is anti-leafism? Claiming ant-leafism is what you always claim when some one has a different opinion than yours. Its very obtuse and quite pathetic. At least Cam you can logically discuss things you just spew anti leaf rhetoric when it is clearly not the case.

    You don't agree with the trade thats fine. It doesn't make my point any less valid.

  19. reinjosh says:

    NYI dont need him. They have Streit.
    Phoenix can't afford him and the way Jovo has been playing they don't need him
    St. Louis is a well run organization and i find it hard to believe they will go out and get a 7million dollar dman when they could just look to the free agecy for a far cheaper guy and thats not even considering the fact they could easily be fine without it, with Brewer, Johnson, Pietrangelo and they could even sign Colocaivo. So they wouldnt even need him.
    Dallas has Robidas playing well and as long as they have confidence they wont risk losing any of their young RFA's for an overpaid player when they could look to cheaper options in the trade market or in free agency.
    Ryan Smyth is completely different. There was no need to trade him, Colorado didn't need cap space but they did because you can never have too much cap space.
    See where Erhoff and Lukowhich got moved because of being close to the cap, they were not bad contracts themselves

    Campbell is. I never dismissed the fact that he could get a zero or low return. I just said every day we get closer to July 1st, he gets less and less valuable. Once July 1st hits, why in the world would any team want him when they could sign a player capable or even 2/3's capable of making his production for a fraction of the cost.
    Tell me why any team in the right mind would handcuff themselves with a 7.14 million dollar player who is signed for the next 7 years and who only does the production of 4 -5 million dollar guy, when they could sign a 3 – 5 million dollar guy capable of the same production.
    Teams cannot AFFORD THE MONEY HE IS BEING PAID, CANNOT AFFORD TO RESTRICT THEMSELVES WITH HIS CONTRACT, COULD GET THE SAME OR EVEN SIMILAR STYLE PLAYER FOR FAR CHEAPER AND FOR LESS TERM
    why would they trade for him even at low value.
    The only way Campbell gets moved is if the Hawks offer up something to go with him or take back a significant chunk of salary (anything 3 million or more and like 2 or more years)

  20. reinjosh says:

    no it wasnt you it was like 3 other people
    ok well i see where your coming from but i completely disgaree with you

  21. reinjosh says:

    wow i jsut stated you seem to have a weird anti leafism, which i may be wrong i will admit it
    but i dont think i have ever used that before
    in fact most times i argue logically and well but for whatever reason you ignore it
    i dont think everyone who has a different opinion than me is wrong
    your just using that to try and end a losing argument
    how is your point valid
    what do you not understand about how this trade doesnt make sense

    we get an overpriced, under performing, not much better than two of our goalies goalie who will take up almost a third of our cap space next season and seriously hamper our ability to sign a top free agent
    we give up a terrible goalie which isnt all that bad but we could just wait out the season and spend far less on that
    and a pick that we could better use on ourselves

    Anaheim gets
    a pick, a goalie that could do far better in a different environment (one who significantly improved in his last game), plus 2 million in cap space and 2 million less in salary this year PLUS 6 million less salary and cap space next year
    they give up an underperforming overpaid backup goaltender who they are not going to be using much anyways

    now tell me how that makes sense to the leafs when we could just wait till the end of the season (seeing as most people have written us off anyways so it doenst really matter hoe we end up, seeing as you yourself said we already lost those picks so it doesn't matter much) to pick up a backup who can teach Gustavsson and provide solid goaltending. Just one reason? other than it would be nice to give the bruins a lower pick, because that is a very weak argument.

  22. reinjosh says:

    i have reevaluated my position and i feel that if Campbell is moved it will be for next to nothing or less
    like a 7th round pick or some random ass prospect
    although i think its very possible he could get moved with a pick to facilitate the trade
    and i think you originally said that he had value and he wouldnt be moved for nothing
    so your changing your argument

  23. albertateams says:

    You ignore the facts that

    Burke likes gigure
    He would help mentor Gustavsson
    He would be reunited with a goalie coach he played well with.
    He makes the team better.

    I'm not ignoring the fact that the contract is a lot of money I'm simply stating that it is an option that could be considered.

    Once again because you don't like someones opinion does not make it less valid.

  24. albertateams says:

    Completely agree.

    My original argument was a 4th or 5th pick which is essentially nothing. I never said he wouldn't be moved for nothing. If the CBA allowed chicago to move him for a bag of picks they would do it if nothing else was on the table.

    And I agree a pick could be used to move the contract if there is no other options.

  25. reinjosh says:

    He likes Giguere? what difference does that make. None
    He would help mentor Gustavsson? we could do that by getting a far cheaper option.
    He would be reunited with the goalie coach he did well with? big deal. He was with him last and that didnt turn out well.
    He makes the team better? how? he hasn't played well since the season before last. He hasn't played well in a while and we already have a good goalie. WE DON"T NEED ANOTHER UNDERPERFORMING GOALIE
    even if he was playing better its not worth going after him if we have to give up anything as well as the fact we would be giving up cap space to make us better next year
    So its either we get marginally better at best now and miss out on being able to fully commit to going after a big name free agent
    or do no worse without him and sign a cheaper option in the offseason as well as pursue a big name fully
    theres also no guarantee JS will regain his form from two seasons ago
    he hasnt yet. betting on goalies to do that has gotten the leafs in trouble before.
    why not just stay with what we have, (which is a golatender that has played very well in the games he has played, a goaltender who has played solid in games, and a goaltender that has played terrible but as evidenced by his last game it looks like he could be ok)
    how you cant understand this i dont know
    i dont like your opinion because its flawed it every way
    in fact every other person here has backed me up on this
    and yes when i argue logically and smartly and provide evidence to back myself up
    fully proving you wrong
    it does make your opinion wrong
    my god your stupid
    not one of these factors conclusively states why it would be smart or even better to acquire him rather than not acquire him
    had giguere not been so shitty last season and had a bad start this season, i might agree with you on the fact he would make the leafs better
    but he was shitty last season and so far he is the same this season
    and it seems like a pretty damn big risk acquiring and taking up a third of our cap space in the offseason on a goaltender that hasnt really done anything to get his starting spot back

  26. leafshockey says:

    I wish they would take him, but like the article said, the prospect of anybody taking him off our hands is "laughable". There's just not a team in the league who wants a 4 million dollar gamble on backup material at best right now. Especially the Leafs.

    On the other hand… That article also said Nylander is tearing it up in his conditioning stint. Good for him and his 4.9 million dollar contract, but I don't think the leafs should pick him up, unless Washington is going to give us some incentives coming back, which I doubt.
    And Biron, likely he won't be going anywhere for a while, and in this case, a while happens to be right about when the leafs will know whether we can for sure go with Gustavsson, and with Joey as backup.

  27. reinjosh says:

    then why were you arguing thats what was being said the whole time
    just we assuming that worst case scenario (which actually isnt worse case scenario, that would be having to choose between Kane, Toews and Keith)
    comes a whole lot faster than you think it will

  28. cam7777 says:

    Campbell has said himself he has no interest playing in the south – I'm not merely speculating, I'm quoting him.  That is why he would not resign with San Jose, and that is why he will not waive his NTC to go to any team in the south.  In fact, that is why he has a NTC in the first place.  So you can throw out Dallas and Phoenix right away. 

    If you look into the Islanders situation at all, you will find that it is very grave.  Even if the money is there (which it's not), why would anyone waive their NTC to go there?  Especially when you consider that once he's moved, he's in all likelihood staying where-ever he is traded – he will only become less valuable as he gets older and less productive, but his contract stays just as expensive.

    St.Louis is an interesting option on the surface, because you look at their cap and see that they could probably afford him.  One major issue though – almost their entire team is RFA's with contracts that expire in 2011 or sooner, and all of them are earning huge raises.  Oshie, Backes, Perron, Berglund, Steen, Crombeen, Johnson, Colaiacovo and Mason all have to be signed to extensions before they can even consider bringing in an expensive long-term contract, or they will put themselves in the exact same situation as the Black Hawks.

    It's not that I don't like the options, because I sure as hell don't want Campbell's contract in Toronto.  I just realize that any of the teams that would appear to make sense, actually don't.  There is no market for Campbell unless he puts up 75 points and establishes himself as the league's next Lidstrom.  As for the trades you mentioned, there are big, big reasons why Campbell's situation is much different:

    1.) the Gomez trade is considered to be one of the worst moves, if not THE worst move since the Thornton trade – on par with Luongo for Bertuzzi.  It could happen again with Campbell, but I doubt it.

    2.) Smyth had only 2 years left on his contract, and the Avalanche dumped an expensive defensemen who sits in the press box in the deal.  Fact is, Smyth fit the teams' long-term plan, because his contract is off the books by the time Moller, Doughty and Johnson need extensions.  If he had five years left on the deal, he would still be in Colorado.

    3.) Again, Erhoff is actually worth his price tag at 3.1 million, and his contract expires next year.  There are no long-term ramifications for the Canucks to take on that salary.  They gave up nothing, and got something that was both cap friendly, and worth the money – Campbell is neither of these things.  Lukowich, and players of his ilk, are only moveable on the final year of their deals, so that they can be buried in the minors without penalty (as is what happened to Brad).  This trade would be more like Chicago giving up Versteeg and Sopel for nothing in return.

    No one even close to being in Campbell's league for having a bad contract has been moved for nothing in return, and nor will they be in the next few years…..

    And yes, in response to your other comment, I do believe Chicago waits until after the playoffs to move Campbell (which is why moving Huet now is smart).  This is also a big part of the reason I believe they will have to give up picks and prospects to move him.  Who's going to take on Campbell for free, when they know Chicago has to get under the cap between the end of the playoffs and July 1st.  If they cannot accomplish that, I'm pretty sure that any and every team in the league would rather invest 50 million dollars in Toews, Kane or Keith when they become unrestricted free agents…. 

  29. mojo19 says:

    Considering Boston and Detroit were playing at the same time.

  30. cam7777 says:

    Having said all of that, you've forced me to review my feelings on the matter.  If there is one team that potentially meets all the criteria that I believe Campbell would need met, then I believe that team is the Carolina Hurricanes.  With Brind'Amour likely retiring at year's end, and Whitney, Cullen and Walker not likely to be back, plus Samsonov likely bought out, they will actually have a substantial amount of capspace.  It looks like they will probably have a shot at adding a lottery pick to the roster, and they have no one to commit to long term except Staal and Sutter (who are only going to cost a combined 10 million – at most – for the next 5 years or so).

    Still, if you're Jim Rutherford, and you want Campbell, but you know no one else is willing to take Campbell off the Hawks hands, and they have only days to move him…wouldn't you ask for a pick or a prospect in return?  You're a fool if you wouldn't….

    And even at that, they would still have an extremely expensive core:

    E. Staal – 8.25 million
    C. Ward – 6.3 milllion
    B. Campbell – 7.14 million

    22 million on just 3 players could really hurt that franchise when they have off years.  They lose millions and millions of dollars when they aren't winning, and that makes it tough to commit to multiple massive long-term contracts.  Lots to conisder even for them, but I believe they are the most feasible option in the NHL.

  31. albertateams says:

    I would love to see this link/qoute or video where campbell says he would not play for any team in the south, because I have a very tough time believing that exists. Campbell isn't going to come out and say I don't want to play for any team in the south even though Chicago hasn't formally asked him to waive his NTC. In short I call bullshit.

    That is why I said under the right cir*****stances NYI or Phoenix could be interested. If ownership issues are resolved you still think there is no chance they would want Campbell?

    The St loius arguement doesn't really hold by 2011 the cap should be more stable and provide enough flexibility to for them to keep there existing players even with Campbell's contact. I am coinfident that the Blues could keep all of those players and Campbell past 2011 if they so disered. Any way even if they couldn't it still does not mean that they wouldn't be interested in campbell.

    The Gomez trade proves my point almost perfectly you don't need 29 GM's thinking its a good idea you need 1. I agree Gomez was a bad trade but the posibility of moving Campbell for virtually nothing still exists.

    I agree Smyth is a different set of cir*****stances. But that trade could have very easily not turned out as well as it did. I know the term is far more desirable.

    In reagrds to the erhoff deal yes he is probably worth 3.1. But what is campbell actually worth probably 5-5.5 million per year. so your only taking excess of true market value of 2 million dollars. Vancouver does have the option of walking away from Erhoff or trading him but they also may chose to sign him long term. The point with this comparison is San jose had to shed salary and  chose to dump 2 players for virtually nothing the situation is different but it is not out of  the realm of possibility that it could occur with campbell.

    You just finished saying that Gomez move was one of the worst trades and I agree it doesn't change the fact that it still happened not even 6 months ago.

    At least we can agree that Campbell won't be moved until after the Blackhawks run at the cup unless an unbelievable deal presents it self which I think is pretty clear it won't.

  32. albertateams says:

    Last time I checked Carolina was in the south, so what happened to not waiveing his NTR?

    Other than that I agree that it is another possibility and of course any GM is going to try and squeeze more from the Blackhawks they would be a fool not to.
    Like I said all it takes is one GM out of 29 to see fit to add campbell for a low level draft pick and it could happen.

  33. albertateams says:

    I was arguing because until your last few posts you were denying the possibility of moving Campbell without picks. I wasn't arguing if nothing else was available they wouldn't consider moving picks with Campbell.

    By worst case scenario I meant in moving Campbell, not worst case scenario for the Blackhawks I can imagine much worse scenarios for the Blackhawks. I definitely agree it will come very quickly to Chicago and I'm sure bowman is having some sleepless nights over the cap situation.

  34. albertateams says:

    Isn't Burke tooted as extremely loyal to his players see brad may. It won't have a big impact on weather he does the trade but he will consider it none the less.

    I do think that Giguere does make the team better on the ice as he is better right now than either Toskala or Macdonald.

    I love how you resort to name calling it really strengthens your point.

    One year at 6 million is not the disaster you are making out to be for a team that doesn't realistically have a shot at contending during the life of the contract. How many big name guys do think TO will sign in the offseason 2-3? Why not have JS and his contract expiring two summers from now and maybe look at adding another UFA at that time. IF TO gambles like Montreal and signs three main pieces are they better off maybe maybe not.

    If you read through the thread there are others who think it should be considered, nobody's saying its a slam dunk to happen merely it is an option that Burke is exploring.

Leave a Reply