Leafs Inquired about Flames’ Erixon

by on June 5, 2011 in Leafs News - 34 Comments

Share

I apologize for my lack of activity of late as I have been quite busy with academics, but that should change in the two weeks leading up to the draft. Anyways, passing on a bit of late night news: according to the Calgary Sun, the Maple Leafs were very much involved in the Tim Erixon sweepstakes before the talented young puck-mover was shipped to the Rangers in exchange for a pair of 2nd round selections. Erixon had reportedly refused to sign with the Flames due to concerns about not being guaranteed an NHL job come September. This bit of news may reveal some of the Maple Leafs’ motives heading into the offseason:

1) The team may not be satisfied with the current puck-moving ability on the back end. They had inquired about Colorado’s John Michael Liles at the deadline, but balked at the asking price. Look for the Leafs to seek an upgrade on last season’s 22nd ranked power play with an affordable offensive contributor.

2) Considering the consensus ho-hum nature of the 2011 draft and Burke‘s preference to compete sooner rather than later, the Leafs may choose to dangle draft picks in exchange for prospects that are two or three years ahead of the current draft class. Much like the Rangers have done with Erixon and the Senators with Runblad last year, the Leafs could market one of their 1st round selections if it lands them a player who’s a little more NHL ready.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Print article

  • LukeSchenn

    Incarcerated bob tweeted that carter would be traded to columbus.. Then followed the tweet with a quote from richards agent “he’s certainly not against playing for a premier canadian city”.. They are retweets from hockeybreak

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Nazem.K-savzri
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://www.hockey-nerd.com Cameron

    @ Nazem.K-savzri:
    -
    You asked what the difference between Richards at 6 years and Carter at 11 is. Well, besides the obvious difference in years, Carter has never even played as a team’s top line center. He racks up goals because he plays against the opposing team’s worse lines – a luxury he would not have in Toronto. Imagine how many goals Kessel would score if he was playing against everyone’s 3rd pairing defence-men? More than that though, his 46 goal season is a distant memory for me. He is no more a 45 goal man than Jonahtan Cheechoo. Richards is a far superior player.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • mitchsteel09

    @ Cameron:

    Richards may be superior as a player, but who holds more value as an asset?

    I would have to say Carter.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://www.hockey-nerd.com Cameron

    @ mitchsteel09:
    -
    That’s kind of a dumb argument though. We wouldn’t be signing Richards to have him as an asset. We’d be signing him to be a top line player for us. If you want to trade for Carter to acquire a big time trading asset, then that is something completely separate. Besides, there is nothing stopping us from doing both. There is no reason to deal in such a confined parameter.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://www.torontotruculent.com TorontoTruculent

    There are definitely pros and cons to Richards and/or Carter in relation to one another. At this point, I’m starting to think that regardless what happens, a TRADE of considerable size will go down. We have a healthy prospect/pick situation for the first time in a long time. NOT advocating that should be a sign to empty it for a marquee player, but I can see it happening.
    .
    As in, if we did manage to sign Richards in FA, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Burke throw some of those assets at another star. Not necessarily land him, but throw!

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Penthouse

    and when it comes to playoffs, richards is definitly the clutch player. Carter’s stats in the playoffs are decent but not amazing.

    we need guys for the playoffs, not just to score 30-40 goals in the season

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • JustYouW8

    If the Leafs are able to sign Richards, it would cost them only cap space. Not a couple young prospects for someone like Carter. I would rather see them add before taking away, and the Leafs have a history of trading away prospects for help now. I’d like to see how the prospects do in the future and by signing Richards, it takes the pressure off to perform this year and gives them more time to develop. If you look at Detroit, Vancouver, or even Nashville, the reason they are considered to be good drafting teams is the players don’t typically enter the league until a couple years in the AHL. Don’t rush them into the league and try not to trade them.
    Good article by Tran. Erixon will be a good player. As someone who lives in Calgary and keeps an eye on the Flames, losing Erixon hurts. They don’t have too many young guys that can make an impact the way this kid can.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Bring the Cup Home

    i agree with the first poster.

    if richards is our guy, he fills the powerplay quarterback role. this allows us to wait for gardiner to get nhl ready…..which will be by the end of this season.

    i predict that gardiner will be with the big club at some point due to injury and he will prove his value and earn a full time spot. kind of like aulie last season.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)