Toronto Maple Leafs: The Pros and Cons of Going For It

Signing the biggest free agent in modern NHL history is apparently not a suitable enough summer for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

During a Saturday morning appearance on NHL Network, Elliotte Friedman dropped a rumour bomb on the Twittersphere by mentioning the Leafs in among the select few teams interested to swing a deal for Columbus Blue Jackets sniper, Artemi Panarin.

On the surface, this rumour reads more as HF Boards nonsense than fact-based news. Although, this is Friedge we’re talking about here. Arguably hockey’s most connected and accurate reporter, he willingly attached his name to this report while unprompted and on live television. There’s some semblance of truth at play.

While visions of Panarin in blue and white are undoubtedly enticing, it’s still quite the longshot.

Not only will a king’s ransom be needed to pry him from Columbus, Panarin hits unrestricted free agency the following summer. If you recall, next summer happens to be when significant raises for both Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner come into effect, their cap hits lumped in along with the hefty (but warranted) $11 million John Tavares accounts for already.

If Leafs intend on icing a 5-player lineup in 2018-19, then we’re cooking with gas. Otherwise, there’s simply no room to keep him. Panarin in Toronto would be a one-and-done.

Which begs the question; is that okay?

Loading up for a time-sensitive run is a tricky concept, particularly in a league where expansion teams cruise to the Cup final in year one. The risk involved is tremendous. Then again, so is the payout.

Let’s weigh them.

Precedent

Not even recent history can offer assurance on this matter, presenting a pair of examples of teams blatantly stacking their decks in the short-term to underwhelming results.

The first case draws from 2003-04. A time when, following Patrick Roy’s retirement, the Colorado Avalanche opted to make the most of their rapidly closing window and went all in.

Paul Kariya and Teemu Selanne signed one-year deals as free agents at well below market value, joining a staggering collection of talent already featuring the likes of Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Rob Blake, Milan Hejduk, Alex Tanguay, Adam Foote, and 34-point rookie John-Michael Liles.

On paper, that’s a roster standing amongst best of the pre-lockout era.

Only, cups aren’t won on paper, time’s oldest cautionary tale. The 2003-04 Avs aren’t remembered today as their dynasty’s final pillar. Rather, their ineptitude symbolizes the NHL’s most disappointing dabble in super-team construction.

Everything that could have gone wrong, did.

Kariya and Selanne struggled from the onset, never reaching the season’s offensive depths for the rest of their respective careers. Injuries then came for Forsberg, with groin and knee ailments limiting him to just 39 games. With their newest additions snake bitten and another star on the shelf, the Avs simply lacked the depth needed to compensate.

San Jose eventually bounced them in round two.

The Capitals may be guiltier of milking their window than anyone. (Gross)

Before finally doing the damn thing this season, Washington had previously believed their shot at a Cup would expire along with the 2016-17 season. So, like the Avs, they went for it. First acquiring Lars Eller at the draft from Montreal, GM Brian McLelland then solidified his team’s push by landing hockey’s biggest fish, Kevin Shattenkirk, at the deadline.

Again, they were gone by the second round.

Why Does This Happen?

Placing all your chips on one roll goes lengths to tempt fate.

Rarely, if ever, does the best team hoist the Cup. A tremendous amount of luck is required in capturing it, a sequence which includes basics such as health to the intricacies of shooting percentage.

It doesn’t matter how many Hall of Famers you sign. If luck’s against you, it won’t matter.

This is why good teams put so much work into keeping their windows open for as long as possible. Striving for sustained success may seem obvious but just look around the league. Numerous teams (*cough* Montreal *cough*) operate on a season-to-season basis. Every year can’t be the year. It’s just not possible.

Think of the NHL as a dartboard.

Chances are, you’re not hitting a bullseye on the first try. A single-season push may place you closer to the board, but sustained success gives you as many throws as you allow it to.

The Leafs are in a unique situation to the previous two examples, in that both Colorado and Washington Leroy Jenkins’ed it for what they perceived as the same reason; they didn’t have a choice.

Toronto, on the other hand, does.

Even prior to the Tavares signing, this team was a legitimate cup contender, elevated by the natural progression of their young stars. Possessing league-best centre depth, certainty in goal and a talented core of 27 or younger, the Leafs’window stretches longer than anyone.

Cost-Benefit

Sure, Panarin would be a phenomenal get, giving the Leafs’ a level of offensive force yet to be seen in the cap-era.

Although, is it worth the cost?

With graduations in the cards for a host of young prospects, Toronto’s cupboard is now noticeably thin. Not only would Panarin’s package include a bevvy of draft picks, the primary method used for re-stocking, but blue chippers in Timothy Liljegren or, cue the Twitter joke, Jeremy Bracco could follow out the door as well.

If Panarin wins them a Cup? Great! This city’s hangover would last a minimum of five years, certainly ample enough time for Kyle Dubas to re-stock for a second run. Were they to fall short, however? Well, suddenly the Leafs find themselves left with a dearth of depth, prospects, and draft picks they’d otherwise have used to reload.

When playing darts, the Leafs’ best avenue is to take as many shots as possible, even if that means passing on Panarin’s one-time chance at a bullseye.

Next: Trade Value Power Rankings

Thanks for reading!