Which signing was worse?

[BeLeafer]

Peca or Gill?

Both overkill, did not address a serious need when made, cost too much and ate up valuable resources for other areas.

Which is the worse of the two?

Good grief, I used to be the one of the most optimistic Leafs fans around until this dink of a GM came along. Now, all I can think is which move will be the worst of the bunch.

[Jeremy]

Gill -- for taking a spot away from one of our plethora of young defencemen for three seasons and being grossly overpaid.

Good to see you've made it over B!

[robinhood]

Easy, that would be Gill. IMO we already have better young defencemen. Not to mention the money could have been spent on some offence.

[TheGreenHornet]

definetly gill. at least with peca one can reasonably expect a positive contribution night in and night. even if it is only on the defensive end. while gill is clearly poised to take over the role of maple leaf fan and media whipping boy. i think he could make us long for the days of lumme, cross and berg

[glg]

thegreenhornet said:

i think he could make us long for the days of lumme, cross and berg

I wouldn't go that far...

But I agree that Gill was the worst of the two mentioned.

[mbow30]

Gill--Peca is only signed for one season and, just as a warm body, addressed a team need. On the other hand, Gill, as mentioned, was not a necessary part. Instead he will only take a spot away from a deserving younger (cheaper and possibly better) player.

[leafgm]

Yeah, I'm definitely going with Gill. I'm still baffled by the move. $2.1 million for three years for a bottom-pairing defenseman, when he already shelled out $5M per season long term on the same day to another defensemen, and we've arguably got around five young and extremely cheap guys who could potentially come in and do a better job than Gill. Stupid, stupid.

[TestSubjekt]

Is this really a negative thread on the Leafs board and no one is calling you a Leaf hater?

In my amateur GM opinion, both were bad. But Gill is taking away a roster spot from a capable youngster, who would also be cheaper...so he's my choice. Plus the guy is a pylon. At least Peca might be a good defensive player. Not worth his salary, but not a big of a waste as Gill.

[bleedsbluewhite]

I don't mind having Peca, we need to wean ourselves of not-as-good-as-they-used-to-be vets slowly.

Gill seems like a mistake, but I'll be able to give you a definitive answer during the season.

[LeafKing13]

The problem is that the leafs needed to address is the defensive end of the game. However 2.1 mill on gill is not worth the skills he brings.

We have several young defenders who could easily have stepped in to take a spot but Gill was brought in and that is gonna hinder the development of some younger players.

Btw Hey guys! same name as on FanHome, i figured i'd stop by and see what's going on. For a new site, it's doing GREAT. I hope this one does as well as old FanHome did.

[BeLeafer]

I suppose I have to agree with the consensus on this one. Gill's three year deal kind of seals it. The day I finally thought the GM moron we have did something really good, within an hour they were announcing this one.

Peca is pretty bad though.

They say up tempo offensive game, but the walk is all boring defensive hockey so far this offseason. If they were serious about that bs line, they would have got a sniper.

[axlsalinger]

You still gotta be able to neutralize the other team's top players to some extent if you want to win in the playoffs. Peca will be good here, you'll see.

I will reserve judgment on Gill until I see him in the blue and white.

[axlsalinger]

we've arguably got around five young and extremely cheap guys who could potentially come in and do a better job than Gill. Stupid, stupid.

Remember, though, having 3 rookies in your top 6 on defence is not going to work. Plus, there's always going to be injuries. The kids are not yet proven (though they have looked damn good), and giving them the 4, 6 and 7 spots to shoot for seems reasonable to me.

Whether Gill will give us what we need remains to be seen.

[leafgm]

Remember, though, having 3 rookies in your top 6 on defence is not going to work. Plus, there's always going to be injuries. The kids are not yet proven (though they have looked damn good), and giving them the 4, 6 and 7 spots to shoot for seems reasonable to me.

Whether Gill will give us what we need remains to be seen.

I completely agree. It'd have been crazy to go into the season depending on three rookies to round out the defense. But that's why you go out and sign a Luke Richardson, or someone of his ilk for a close-to-NHL minimum salary as a veteran insurance policy on the blueline. Someone that can easily slide into the lineup if one of the kids falters or if there are injury problems, but someone that you can just as easily sit in the press box if the kids are indeed ready to play.

What you don't do, is go out and sign a bottom pairing defenseman to a bloated, long-term deal that takes up four times the salary cap hit that someone like Richardson would have for each of the next three years, and guarantees him a roster spot ahead of the kids no matter how well they may play, since you can't have $2.1M in dead weight sitting in the press box, and you also won't be likely to find anyone else to take it off your hands.

And that being said, I hope Gill plays very well, I truly do. But if even he does turn out to be a solid, bottom pairing defenseman for us, it's still a horrible signing. This is not a move that I have to wait to reserve judgement on. The negative salary cap and roster implications are already readily apparant.

[MLBJB]

I do not think getting Gill the player was a bad move by JFJ. I like him a lot as a #5 or 6 pairing. I've been a fan of his for a while.

However, like most I don't agree with the length or the amount involved. So I'm sort of down the middle of the road on this.

I think JFJ was hell bent on improving the defense so much that he wasn't prepared to be outbid by any other team. Even though a lot of us are high on our young defense prospects. I never liked the idea of going into the season with 3 rookies in our lineup. No matter how much we like them there is no promise they will pan out over a long season. Furgeson went with the proven veteran and two spots (heck, maybe 3 even still since Maurice has used 7 defenseman before) are still available to our youngsters.

I don't know of another team which would have paid as much for Gill, however, take into account the demand for defenseman and I can see why JFJ jumped on Gill like that.

However, like I said, I like the player but its the amount and years attached I'm not a fan of. If this was a one year deal than I could swallow it. But its a bit much.

Though

[JFJ]

I think the worst part of it all is that if JFJ hadn't jumped the gun on this, we would've been able to afford to sign Dumont right now.

Of course there's no way he could've known that Dumont would be available, but if not him, somebody else would and there was absolutely no reason to rush and sign Gill to a deal like this.

[FRANTIC]

beleafer said:

Peca or Gill?

neither.

they'll both provide leadership and a veteran presence that the leafs seriously lacked last season.

not to mention that they'll both help with the PK.


imo, both peca and gill will help the leafs, rather than hurt us.

[sensible]

It will be interesting to see how the group feels at the end of the season. Overall, JFJ has made some questionable moves so far this offseason, but the Raycroft experiment will seal his fate one way or the other.

[brode]

Gill. Peca can at least do his job without looking dumb and useless. Not to mention on a purely organizational level, it's only a one year thing, whereas you got to look at Gill's dumb face for the next 33 months, at the cost of reliable depth guys for the same price.

Then again, it seems defensemen make twice as much as their forward counterparts. A 3-4 makes more than most second liners, and a 5-6 makes more than checking liners and especially fourth liners. Actually, I think the amount of 7 million dollar defensemen is equal with 7 million dollar forwards. Naslund, Iginla, Jagr, Yashin against Lidstrom, Neidermayer, Chara... not quite, close though.

[parrothead]

I think the verdict on many signings across the NHL is out at least until a few months of the season pass.

With the dramatic change in scenery for many players, one cannot really establish how it will affect the intangibles such as team chemistry until things get going.

The whole New York Ranger buy-a-winner thing proved that signing the most talented players available didn't really work.

Besides, as explained by the members of Jefferson Starship regarding Grace Slick in the band, one said nothing could survive without an arsehole . . . maybe that's why Gill was signed.

[sunface]

I am totally against the grain on this one.

Peca.

We don't need a checking center, we need scoring up front, especially on 5 on 5. We are relatively deep at center. Also Peca is strongly declining - he had a good playoffs, sure, but the rest of his season was abysmal. Peca's body has also taken quite a toll over the years and I'm not so sure we can count on a full season out of him.

Gill fills a need we've had for a long time - a crease clearing, big bruising defenseman. He was expensive but who's to say that he's overpaid? Defensemen were going like hotcakes. Defensive depth is always important and like a lot of you have said, having 3 rookies in our defensive lineup might not be such a good idea.

At the end of the day, scoring is still an issue and it hasn't been addressed. Also, without Allison I'm not sure that our powerplay will be as strong as it was last year - meaning that all those PP points we got might not continue, leaving us weak with a man advantage *and* 5 on 5. We really needed a winger for Sundin, and I can't help but feel that Peca's money could easily have been used to lock up a guy like Carter, who in my opinion will bring a lot more to the table than will Peca.

Of course, time will tell...