Legace to the Leafs?

Now this is a Leaf rumor alot of people can be-LeafManny Legace to Toronto rumors are gaining steam. Legace’s agent has said he was a Leaf fan growing up, and wants to be a Leaf, and would definately consider signing there if John Ferguson called him.

Legace was the first goalie ever to win 10 games in October, and wouldn’t have to go far to get to Toronto, considering he already plays in Detroit.

Legace was told by Ken Holland last week he would not be re-signed, and becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent July 1st.

-L


36 Responses to Legace to the Leafs?

  1. FlyersfanKyle says:

    legace isnt the answer to the goaltending pains in t.o.

  2. The-President says:

    Legace sucks, he’s a backup at best, he plays in back of a very good team year in and year out, watch him suck next year when he goes to a different team, hopefully not Toronto, and watch him struggle just like Lalime did when he left Ottawa.

  3. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    the Legace Rumor is what it is. A RUMOR, but a combination of Legace and Aubin (and Telly if one of the other two starts playing bad) would be great. having 2 potential starting goalies is a great thing to have in the new nhl.

    legaces numbers last season were terrific!

    won 80% of his games

    had 7 shutouts in only 51 games

    2.19 GAA

    .915 SV%

  4. The-President says:

    Again, playing behind Lidstrom!

  5. LeafsLeafsLeafs says:

    If the numbers are right a Legace signing would be a pretty good fit for the Leafs IMO.

  6. DJTOKid says:

    It comes down to the dollars, if the price is right then sign him. He would be good enough for a couple years until Pogge or Rask is ready. That is however that he doesn’t get over paid I would not want to see the leafs spend more then 2.5mil a year, any more then that don’t sign him. Hes got experiance, including playoffs, and I think could get the job done. I think the leafs should persue Aaron Ward from Carolina in the offseason, he sure is a solid d-man.

  7. 92-93 says:

    1) i really wished as leaf fans that we take the high road and STOP mentioning someone wanting to come to toronto because they grew up in the area. i know i know – the papers and his agent said as much, but it shouldnt be a realistic factor in him coming here or not.

    2) Legace’s numbers were inflated behind a great Detroit team. that being said, he’s been a solid goaltender his entire career.

    3) the other option – besides trading prospects and young players for a starting goalie who’ll be more expensive – is to have Aubin and Telly in net for the entire 82 game schedule.

    wouldnt you rather have Legace there and have Aubin and Telly battle it out. at least then, the leafs have options – not just in who is the back-up, but also who they can trade (i.e. Telly for a draft pick, even Pogge for a guy like Fehr or Washington’s 4th pick – of course other players/picks have to be added to such deals).

  8. Toonces99 says:

    Here, here…well put…l think Legace would be a good fit in TO. but in order for him to flourish he would have to have some decent D-Men infront of him (something we currently lack)….I don’t know exactly what he made last year but l’m sure he would be paid fairly…..

  9. Toonces99 says:

    I think this is the only time I’ve agreed with your 2 year forcast (regarding goaltending)…l don’t think he will be overpaid…he will be paid fairly, but not crazy money..my only concern is that he will want more than 2 years…

  10. Aetherial says:

    I have always thought that Legace was an underrated goalie…

    I am no longer sure of that. I would say his numebrs were inflated, not by virtue of playing on a great team but because of so many games against the weakest opponents in the league. Iwas wholly unimpressed with him against the Oilers.

    Unless this is a short-term signing, I really hope not. The ONLY goalie I would throw big, long-term dollars at is Luongo. I am guessing though that, IF Keenan can’t keep him, he gets a better offer than the Leafs can put together from someone else.

    Ugh… I heard today that the Leafs had interest in Lidstrom. I really don’t want them to spend big bucks for ANY 36 year old defenseman at this stage of the teams rebuilding…

    Provided that the Toronto organization will actually *let* them rebuild, which is by no means a given.

  11. LeafsLeafsLeafs says:

    It was a rumour that was on spectorshockey.tripod.com, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t think it was made up.

  12. Toonces99 says:

    I heard the same that the Leafs were going to prepare a “huge” offer for him….Personally, l think this move would be worse off than what was being given to McCabe…great or not 36 years old is 36 years old….I hope they don’t…

  13. Toonces99 says:

    $1,162,800.00 was his salary for the 05/06 season..so maybe 2.5 is not out of reach.

  14. DJTOKid says:

    Well if he only made 1.1mil last year the leafs could probly get him for 2mil a year. Lagace won’t get greedy, he’ll be happy just to be playing somewhere. And hey if the kids are ready sooner, at least you have him as a solid and experianced back up.

  15. 92-93 says:

    i dont see the leafs signing him for more than 3 years or 2 million a year … even that is a bit much.

    i also dont see the leafs going after lidstrom. but one thing i am wondering about is: now that the McCabe deal is supposedly falling through, will the leafs not be more inclined to go after a big name free agent like Elias – something i think they couldnt have done once McCabe was signed long term for 5.75 million???

    in terms of rebuilding – and not realism or reality – trading for a guy like Gaborik (24)or signing Elias (30) to me fits in with the rebuilding process, even if they were to take up a significant amount of cap space. they are both young and could make up the core of the leafs along with Sundin and Kaberle.

    add in a couple of lesser-known UFAs on defence and in net (legace is an ideal choice considering how little he’ll make and his potential) … and the leafs would be in a fairly good position to

    a) continue brining up young guys

    b) remain competitive – even if only a .500 team.

  16. 92-93 says:

    i’m not sure i said anywhere that it was made up. in fact i acknowledged the fact that other papers and Legace’s agent (first in the Sun, then re-reported at spectorshockey.net) commented on his toronto connections.

    my point is, i think its prudent to stop considering such home-town connections because in reality, it doesnt play as big of a factor as some leaf fans – and leaf executives like Peddie – seem to think it does.

  17. Aetherial says:

    I agree that that is a path that would let them walk that line. I am just not so sure that this stupid organization will even attempt anything resembling a real rebuilding phase 🙁

  18. Aetherial says:

    With a number of teams looking for goalies, I would not be surprised if his numbers last year (misleading or not) landed him 3+

    .. in other words, too much.

  19. DJTOKid says:

    That would defenitly be too much to pay him for the leafs. Who else do you think will go after him? I think any team in the west trying to improve there goaltending will go after Luongo or Biron. I could see Lagace wanting to sign with a western confrence team to get more chances to get revenge on the wings.

  20. DJTOKid says:

    Think about the leafs organization and JFJ, how many times in interviews has he said year in year out there only goal is to win the cup. They will never fully rebuild, there going to spend all there money every year to give themselves a chance to win it all. If Mccabe doesn’t sign I would take Lidstrom for two years, for what he brings to the table, and when hes done his two years the leafs have alot of money to spend on some one else. Instead of being stuck with Mccabe for five years. How do you pass up on a Norris winning defensemen who in his later stages of his prime, but still in his prime?

  21. sergioel says:

    Some people need to understand certain things about free agency. 1 of the main sticking points goes beyond salary demands. There are quite a few players that have a team wishlist. There are players that want to be close to home, and Legace is one of them. I am confident that at the end of free agency the leafs will have locked up Legace and McKee simply because of each players desire to be closer to their families and friends. I also believe that they will be signed for reasonable amounts.

  22. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    osgood had a .897 sv% and a 2.76 gaa in front of Lindstrom!!! his ony rea flaw s that he can’t play more than 50 games a season, which is where aubin and tellqvist would come in. Linstrom is overrated anyway, he shouldn’t be making 7.6 mil.

  23. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    ferguson hasnt siged a player yet for a reasonable amount so I don’t know why you’d think that!

  24. the_word says:

    I think Legace will be looking for a long term deal as he and his agent are likely aware that that he could fall of the NHL radar in any given season. If thats the case he’d be a bad fit for Toronto.

  25. the_word says:

    “my point is, i think its prudent to stop considering such home-town connections because in reality, it doesnt play as big of a factor as some leaf fans”

    Don’t tell that to Brian McCabe, seriously don’t

  26. 92-93 says:

    yes – McCabe is from St. Catherines …

    and following your line of logic, i am sure that if JFJ would of held out, he could have gotten McCabe to sign in toronto for 2 million a year … but McCabe – with all the love of toronto that he has – held out for 5.8 million, for five years, and a no-movement clause.

    again, remember what i said about considering information in a vacuum? this is a good example. McCabe loves toronto – true, but if he didnt get the deal he wanted, he would have been gone, love toronto or not.

  27. the_word says:

    thanks professor! It was a joke because his wife is rumored to want him to sign in his home in NY.

    and following your line of logic, i am sure that if JFJ would of held out, he could have gotten McCabe to sign in toronto for 2 million a year … but McCabe – with all the love of toronto that he has – held out for 5.8 million, for five years, and a no-movement clause.”

    If you’ve read my previous post…. (playing one of your cards here), you’d know that I prase the McCabe deal. You’re creating an illusion of a phantom agruement I never made, you hypocrite.

    Again you’re engaging in sophistry.

  28. 92-93 says:

    get a new line of accusations bud. because that one’s not working.

    for the accusation of sophistry to work – the other person’s perspective must be deemed to be invalid but argued in some sort of clever and – on the surface – intelligent way in order to deceive the other person that their points are actually valid.

    but there’s two problems with your accusation:

    1) your assumption that my arguments lack validity is pretty subjective on your part (obviously). evidently, you don’t accept statistics, outside sources, or a different line of reasoning and believe that all of these methods of debating/arguing a point are invalid. if that is the case, and it is, one wonders how in the world anyone can possibly NOT be a sophist when debating you on a point, if they cannot introduce facts, alternate theories, stats, or other sources.

    2) you are using the sophist accusation as a tool of dismissal – instead of dealing with the very relevant responses and points i am bringing up, you keep falling back on this sophist accusation. i refuse to change the manner in which i express my opinions – i.e. dumbing them down so i would avoid your sophist accusations.

    so lets review, i suggest to others here to maybe stop using the hometown aspects within our considerations/speculation on whether a player is coming to toronto because, in my OPINION, it does not play as big of a factor as some would believe.

    you respond – “Don’t tell that to Brian McCabe, seriously don’t” … suggesting that McCabe’s decision to resign with the Leafs DID have much to do with his hometown connections. so, in essence, you disagreed with my point. sorry i am taking this simplistic tone with you but it seems like it is necessary that i have to recall the entire exchange.

    i responded by suggesting that, in fact, McCabe would have left toronto regardless of his hometown connections if he did not get the money, term, and clause he wanted.

    so, no, i am not a hypocrite, i am simply responding to your critique of my comments. i have not addressed your opinions on whether or not the McCabe deal is good or bad. i simply used the details of this rumored deal to refute your point.

    is it all clear to you know?

  29. the_word says:

    Congratulation you manage to say something other than ‘learn to read’, nice to see you display a pulse for once.

    Well that was a right pretty speech, however it shows how delusional you’ve become, I never said the hometown connection is a good draw for UFAs (to be clear I think the hometown connection is only good when Lindros was born in the area), you’re the one making imaginary connections. You’re so righteous that you blind yourself from what others have to say. I never critique your idea.

    1) “) your assumption that my arguments lack validity is pretty subjective on your part, evidently, you don’t accept statistics, outside sources, or a different line of reasoning and believe that all of these methods of debating/arguing a point are invalid.”

    So then what you say is objective and unquestionably true (you see this is why I say you think reason is your exclusive property). Of course what I say is subjective, the key to be able to account for your subjectivity. What you say is subjective as well; you just ignore your own subjectivity (or refuse to account for it because your ‘above that’ shit). Not everything can be reduced to statistics, outside sources (‘outside sources’ and you have the sack to accuse me of being vague) and I have no problem with other lines of REASONing, but assuming your partner in a debate can’t read or form a cogent argument is the calling card of the sophist.

    Now to be clear (you need to be spoon fed), I’m not saying statistics are meaningless, I don’t feel however they always (if ever) tell the whole story. You like to make all or nothing assumptions. That why no one can disagree with you without being accuse of being illiterate (oh yeah, cause what you say is objective).

    2) No, you refuse account for yourself, that takes you off the hook of being accountable.

    My “Don’t tell McCabe that” comment was a joke. The idea behind it was that he’d take the hometown connection thing seriously so he’d go back to NY (where he lives), because so many Leaf fans want him to walk. So it looks like I’m the one having to dumb things down for you, I don’t mind, because I have no issue accounting for what I have to say.

    So lets review, you either misread what I wrote or you constructed a whole line of reasoning I never had and pinned it on me (or you did both). Don’t you hate being paraphrased and having words put in your mouth, but its cool when you do it huh, hypocrite.

    You are seriously misguided to the point it’s laughable.

  30. 92-93 says:

    sorry bud.

    you cant continually avoid your weak way of putting your ideas forth by constantly displacing them on other people and putting them on the defence.

    i’ve already made my points and some very valid critiques of the way you defend yourself and lay out an argument.

    i never claimed total objectivity – once again, you are putting words in my mouth – please refrain from doing this. lets go back to what i actually said: “your assumption that my arguments lack validity is pretty subjective on your part (obviously)” … its so neat and tidy that you can exclude the ‘obviously’ comment that i made … because it suggests that i totally understand that when anyone – including myself – puts forth an argument, it is subjective. but you excluded that part of my comment in order to make your point. that is a HUGE NO-NO – not only in essay writing but in debating in general. do NOT exclude crucial parts of quotes.

    ‘outside sources’ is simply referring back to McKenzie, tsn.ca, and all the other sources that i used in my initial defence of Steen in a previous thread. for you to reduce it to something vaugue is conveinient amnesia on your part isn’t it?

    of course stats dont tell the whole story – AGAIN, I NEVER SAID THEY DID SO DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH – i simply used that as one of the many methods in which i presented my argument … whereas you simply compared steen to Antropov and critiqued one single skill of his (inability to clear the puck out of his zone).

    is your memory refreshed yet? because it seems like you conveniently exclude and re-interpret what was just said over and over and over.

    “So lets review, you either misread what I wrote or you constructed a whole line of reasoning I never had and pinned it on me (or you did both)” ……

    again, how conveinent it is for you to reduce our discussion simply to my end – the reader and not to your end … i.e. not expressing yourself in a way that is entirely clear, not understanding the nature of the internet – which limits the effectiveness of sarcastic comments or jokes.

    i hope you don’t display these kinds of skills in your MA or a thesis defence, because you are going to get seriously torn apart.

  31. the_word says:

    It’s funny that you once again ignore the fact that I never critiqued you on this thread, I merely took a jab at McCabe and you threw one of your typical arrogant spaz attacks (I can picture you foaming at the mouth as you type).

    You accuse me of putting words in your mouth while you construct an argument I never made. You’re a complete joke, you take a lawyer’s approach to ever issue and try to argue semantics (i.e. I didn’t copy and paste your quote correctly) to twist what’s being said (i.e. my imaginary critique of the hometown draw for free agents).

    There was no issue to debate on this thread and you launched right into an attack. That’s again evidence of that you’re more concern with attacking the author than focusing on what is written. You’ve no interest giving any respect to the issue at hand.

    I tire of these pointless posts, it obviously doesn’t matter what I write because nothing can satisfy someone with no interest in truth. So go ahead and ignore the issue and manipulate it to your own end, call me illiterate, quote me from another thread where I openly admitted to saying this in jest, etc….. You have no interest in rational hockey debate.

    Enter your next disingenuous text rant here….

  32. 92-93 says:

    i’ve already addressed what i found was flawed in your argument and the way you’ve expressed yourself, so there is no need to continue on arguing with you on a hockey trade website. ego isn’t that big.

    suffcied to say, you need to communicate better, you need avoid putting words in people’s mouths and using your education for the pursoses of NARROWING the way you communicate and consider the arguments of others (re: dimissing-through-sophist-accusations, etc.).

    ‘rant’ completed.

  33. the_word says:

    Dude, you made up a critique I never made, then you critiqued that critique and somehow I’m putting words in your mouth? Thats cute, hypocritical and outright dishonest, cute none the less.

  34. 92-93 says:

    a) you didnt make the argument or comment clear in the first place.

    b) i’ve critiqued both the ‘argument you never made’ i.e. – the point you didnt explain very well. and the subsequent, clarified point by critiquing the way you lay out your arguments.

    whats the confusion about?

  35. the_word says:

    A) It’s hard to make an argument clear when it doesn’t exist. Congradulations on tearing apart nothing, no thats too harsh. Congradulations on tearing apart an argument you constructed for me and for assuming what I would have intended to suggest with that arguement.

    B) How do you critique an argument thats was never made (oh yeah you make one up).

    So what now, I have to defend myself against arguments you make for me? How could that lead to confusion?

  36. 92-93 says:

    i’ll let you do the effort to read over what are discussion consisted of.

    i dont feel like re-addressing the whole thread again. once again, if you dont want to take my advice on constructing arguments clearly or deconstructing others’ effectively than thats fine of course.

    just some advice that’s all.

Leave a Reply