2020-2021 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion

[Bender]

Am I the only one who thinks there's a cultural issue here? Marner has mentioned the work ethic and effort more than once. Matthews say things like "we just kind of quit" or "we don't care where other think we are". To me the real leaders are Rielly, Muzzin and Hyman. I don't care how talented Matthews, Marner abd Nylander are, im sick of quotes such as "we need to learn from this, we have to work harder next season" . Rielly, Hyman and Andersen need new contracts soon, we don't have the time to be nice.

That's just what hockey players say when they lose. I don't think you're going to find a bunch of players who get eliminated who say "Yeah, the other team is just better than us. No matter how hard we work, they're just at another level than we are".

Or that hockey is a random sport and sometimes the inferior team wins. I believe it's the sport with largest amount of the result based on luck vs. talent.

 

[Frank E]

Huge problems?

Yeah, I'd say that going from a middle of the pack team to a top tier contender without a good prospect base qualifies.

The cap situation complicates any trades, which is more what I was referring to.  Dubas has to trade out as much cap space as he's receiving.  This is going to be difficult with the unexpected fixed cap the teams have to adhere to.

Sure, but trades are overwhelmingly likely to be either a zero-sum game talent wise or they're future mortgaging, neither of which really helps the Leafs even if they have space.

You can facilitate a great trade from a talent perspective when you have cap space to allow for an overpayment of a contract.  That would help the Leafs in the short term.

Leafs can't do that in the cap position that Dubas has put them in.

Nor can they afford to trade out any more first round picks.  Dubas has burned the past 2 years' worth.

 

[Frank E]

Am I the only one who thinks there's a cultural issue here? Marner has mentioned the work ethic and effort more than once. Matthews say things like "we just kind of quit" or "we don't care where other think we are". To me the real leaders are Rielly, Muzzin and Hyman. I don't care how talented Matthews, Marner abd Nylander are, im sick of quotes such as "we need to learn from this, we have to work harder next season" . Rielly, Hyman and Andersen need new contracts soon, we don't have the time to be nice.

That's just what hockey players say when they lose. I don't think you're going to find a bunch of players who get eliminated who say "Yeah, the other team is just better than us. No matter how hard we work, they're just at another level than we are".

Or that hockey is a random sport and sometimes the inferior team wins. I believe it's the sport with largest amount of the result based on luck vs. talent.

I think the past few Cup winners have had very talented teams that were more multi-faceted than the Leafs "all skill" lineups.  I don't think they were just lucky.

I think "the Leafs are just unlucky" is a total cop out given they lost pretty much exactly for the reasons that we thought they might.  We've been talking about the lack of grit and defense for how long now?

 

[L K]

Am I the only one who thinks there's a cultural issue here? Marner has mentioned the work ethic and effort more than once. Matthews say things like "we just kind of quit" or "we don't care where other think we are". To me the real leaders are Rielly, Muzzin and Hyman. I don't care how talented Matthews, Marner abd Nylander are, im sick of quotes such as "we need to learn from this, we have to work harder next season" . Rielly, Hyman and Andersen need new contracts soon, we don't have the time to be nice.

That's just what hockey players say when they lose. I don't think you're going to find a bunch of players who get eliminated who say "Yeah, the other team is just better than us. No matter how hard we work, they're just at another level than we are".

Or that hockey is a random sport and sometimes the inferior team wins. I believe it's the sport with largest amount of the result based on luck vs. talent.

I think the past few Cup winners have had very talented teams that were more multi-faceted than the Leafs "all skill" lineups.  I don't think they were just lucky.

I think "the Leafs are just unlucky" is a total cop out given they lost pretty much exactly for the reasons that we thought they might.  We've been talking about the lack of grit and defense for how long now?

I mean I don't think that having a 2% shooting percentage was really the thing we expected to have happen.  Columbus played a solid defensive style but the Leafs weren't exactly hurting for changes.  They had the better scoring opportunities in the series and outside of Game 1 and when they couldn't get anything going outside the top line in Game 5 they were the better team.

I don't think it is entirely shocking that the Leafs made their comeback in Game 4 with Werenski out with injury.  Similarly Dubois really didn't start becoming a problem in the series until Muzzin was taken out.  That was a pretty fundamental loss to the blueline.

 

[azzurri63]

I?m tired of the same old crap we have to listen to after each exit. We believe in this core, players believe in each other, feel we are on the right track etc etc. Blah, blah, blah. How long is it going to take before Dumbass and Shannyplan figure this team and core have some flaws and is not cut out to win 4 rounds of playoff hockey?

Said it before the cap crunch Kyle put us in was going to hurt us and I said that after the Nylander signing. Not so much we may have overpaid but what the standard that was set before signing 16 and 34.

Team needs some drastic changes and players brought in who battle shift after shift. Too many players disappear come playoff time.

We just add some replacements for Barrie and Ceci we?ll be talking about the same shit 10-12 months from now. More needs to be done and splitting up the core is what I think needs to be done not only from a team identity but also to give Dubas some cap flexibility.

 

[Kin]

You can facilitate a great trade from a talent perspective when you have cap space to allow for an overpayment of a contract.  That would help the Leafs in the short term.

I don't think that's really true. Almost by definition an overpayment on a contract implies that it's not a value positive use of cap dollars in which case you're probably better off using that cap space on appropriately valued talent.

 

[Kin]

I think the past few Cup winners have had very talented teams that were more multi-faceted than the Leafs "all skill" lineups.  I don't think they were just lucky.

"Just luck" is probably an oversimplification but luck and an unexpected run of unsustainable goaltending can absolutely turn a mediocre team into a cup challenger.

 

[Bender]

I think the past few Cup winners have had very talented teams that were more multi-faceted than the Leafs "all skill" lineups.  I don't think they were just lucky.

"Just luck" is probably an oversimplification but luck and an unexpected run of unsustainable goaltending can absolutely turn a mediocre team into a cup challenger.

Right. I mean in a comparative sense NHL stars have far less influence on games than say Basketball where generally the best team does actually win. I'm not saying it's all down to luck, but luck plays a greater role in hockey than in most other team sports.

 

[lamajama]

I?m as frustrated as anyone but Dubas et al made a reasonable bet that the Cap would continue to increase, including a new US TV contract and those mega contracts would diminish in Cap space.

They could use this new space to add.

No one (other than long time Leaf fans) could predict a global pandemic that now has screwed that bet.

 

[Frank E]

You can facilitate a great trade from a talent perspective when you have cap space to allow for an overpayment of a contract.  That would help the Leafs in the short term.

I don't think that's really true. Almost by definition an overpayment on a contract implies that it's not a value positive use of cap dollars in which case you're probably better off using that cap space on appropriately valued talent.

Not necessarily.  The rationale behind this hypothetical move would be that you're acquiring the talent at a lesser cost due to the contract. 

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I?m as frustrated as anyone but Dubas et al made a reasonable bet that the Cap would continue to increase, including a new US TV contract and those mega contracts would diminish in Cap space.

They could use this new space to add.

I agree it was a reasonable assumption on the former, but I'm not so sure on the latter. Any new increases would essentially be needed to keep high performing guys on expiring deals, or pay for new deals for players on expiring entry level structures as opposed to making a significant acquisition without moving cornerstone players for parts.

I waffle back and forth about whether this is "fixable" or not. I wanted the leafs to lose the play in and have a shot a lafreniere because that would have gifted them a major asset they should have waited for in the first place- far more important that a play in win in a weirdo tournament. On the other hand, while they were a middling team for much of the year, they were also hampered by injuries and a back end that could only be considered in the bottom 25% in the league. Muzzin was a good acquisition, but the fact that he's so vital to the team shows how awful they are; he's really not a 1st pairing defenceman.

The cap allocation is on dubas; he went all in on offence, and it hasn't worked; probably because he overestimated secondary scoring, and of course the Barrie trade, which is probably going to be remembered as one of the worst in Leaf history.

I think he's gone all-in on this structure, and his only option is to try to money-puck his way out of it on lines 3-4 and on D. He'll keep the big four for another run, trade Kapanen (Johnsson won't likely return anything considering his injury), put Sandin in as a regular, and try to get a value Barrie replacement who can actually reliably play defence, and hope for the stars to align (pun intended).

 

[Hobbes]

Possibly worth considering as part of the "luck" aspect of things, too, is that we've been horribly unlucky in the last few years in our opponents. Boston x2 and then Columbus, both essentially big, bruising, defensive teams that we don't match up all that well against. I don't know if we would have beaten Tampa either year, or any of the other possible play-in round teams, but the heavy defensive teams are always the ones we seem to have trouble with.

Yet another element of luck is who's available at the position we draft. You always want to take the best available player and for the last number of years it's never seemed to be a defenseman (not since Rielly) or goaltender (um...nothing since Rask and Pogge?). If either Marner or Nylander's drafts had a clear-cut better defenceman in that spot instead, that would have affected our balance.

 

[Kin]

Not necessarily.  The rationale behind this hypothetical move would be that you're acquiring the talent at a lesser cost due to the contract.

But that still doesn't fundamentally change the truth that the best team is one that gets the most use of their cap dollars.

So let's say the Leafs have Defenseman A who is generally worth 5 million dollars per and is being paid about 5 million per. Because, hypothetically, they have a lot of cap space they could trade him to some other team for defenseman B whose play is worth about 9 million dollars a year but is being paid 11 million a year. The other team, because they feel defenseman B is somewhat overpaid or whatever, are willing to make this deal to free up cap space even though it makes them worse talent wise. Is this a positive talent move for the Leafs? On the surface, sure, because you're trading someone worth 5 million for someone worth 9 million. That's a "lesser cost" then what a team would normally want for someone like that.

But even then it's not just a one for one. For that trade to be worth it talent wise, Defenseman B has to be not just better than Defenseman A but better than Defenseman A + whatever the team could do with an extra 6 million dollars in cap space. That extra money, and especially the 2 million by which the more expensive player is overpaid, factors into any discussion about a trade being talent-positive for a team. As we're kind of seeing with Tavares, being inefficient with cap dollars matters even if you're adding a very good player.

 

[Kin]

Possibly worth considering as part of the "luck" aspect of things, too, is that we've been horribly unlucky in the last few years in our opponents. Boston x2 and then Columbus, both essentially big, bruising, defensive teams that we don't match up all that well against. I don't know if we would have beaten Tampa either year, or any of the other possible play-in round teams, but the heavy defensive teams are always the ones we seem to have trouble with.

I think that's true and it's important to keep in mind that while the obvious sort of response to that is that Dubas should build a team more capable to play against teams like that it's important to note that all teams will have match-up troubles unless they're basically a top of the league sort of elite contender.

 

[Hobbes]

Possibly worth considering as part of the "luck" aspect of things, too, is that we've been horribly unlucky in the last few years in our opponents. Boston x2 and then Columbus, both essentially big, bruising, defensive teams that we don't match up all that well against. I don't know if we would have beaten Tampa either year, or any of the other possible play-in round teams, but the heavy defensive teams are always the ones we seem to have trouble with.

I think that's true and it's important to keep in mind that while the obvious sort of response to that is that Dubas should build a team more capable to play against teams like that it's important to note that all teams will have match-up troubles unless they're basically a top of the league sort of elite contender.

I think it's also reasonable to think that Dubas felt we had what it takes to beat Boston in '18-'19. I suspect he even thought we might have home ice for that series. As you'll recall, we had a rash of injuries to our D meanwhile Boston went on an insane 2nd half run that let them almost catch up the the by-a-mile President's Trophy winning Bolts.

Even without home ice, if our d had been healthy and Kadri hadn't decided to be bone-headed for a 2nd consecutive year, I think it was a decent gamble to think we had a good enough team to beat the Bruins, at which point you suddenly expect to need a team capable of beating the Bolts (since nobody would have expected their melt-down in 4 vs the Jackets). I think we probably had the best chance of anyone in conference of playing run and gun with Tampa, so I'm still not convinced that was as bad a gamble as some have made it out to be. They're kind of polar extreme teams so building too much to beat one might tend to make you too easy a victim of the other.

This year was definitely a step back but maybe for the long haul it wasn't such a horror as it might appear. Ceci wasn't great but we only had to endure 1 year of him vs another 4 of Zaitsev at nearly $5M. Losing our 1st rounder this year sucked, but it also meant Spezza fairly contentedly playing 4th line minutes instead of Marleau in the top 6. I was okay with the Kadri trade on paper...I wasn't expecting great D out of Barrie (nor do I think Dubas did) but I was extremely surprised that his offensive production fell off a cliff. There were some other players I expected more from who didn't seem to progress (eg Kappy)...and some who did more than I'd expected (eg Holl). All in all I suppose from a hit/miss standpoint it wasn't a terrible attempt from our GM.

I know people are clamoring for him to go out fix the situation but as you've pointed out earlier at various times it's extremely hard to make a decent trade in this league, particularly for top pairing or even 2nd pairing D. You have to develop them yourself which means drafting a few gems or just happening to have your pick fall in the right spot where the best available player is a defenceman.

 

[Frank E]

Not necessarily.  The rationale behind this hypothetical move would be that you're acquiring the talent at a lesser cost due to the contract.

But that still doesn't fundamentally change the truth that the best team is one that gets the most use of their cap dollars.

This is obvious.

I'm arguing that cap space would help you acquire some overpaid talent at much less talent cost going the other way, since the Leafs don't want to give up much talent to acquire more.

You're suggesting that this player would have to be not only better than the outgoing talent, but also the level of talent that could be had with that overpayment cap space...I agree with that too.

My original argument was that cap space could afford more talent at a lesser cost, and that since the Leafs don't have any, it makes acquiring talent at a discount in terms of talent acquisition cost almost impossible.

 

[Highlander]

Just reading an excellent article about Ron Hextall and his hand in the formation of the very good Flyer team competing against Montreal in the race to the Cup.  Article uses the term "some of the work Hextall did while promising a patient rebuild which he ultimately wasn?t given a chance to see through. The Flyers are now emerging as a juggernaut in the Eastern Conference."  Flyers weren't patient (as we should be) and the new people have done some good supplementary work, no doubt.

We have to remain patient with Shanahan, Dubas and Keefe and let them have the time to mould and develop their vision.
I have read plenty about the salary cap and such, but plans were made before Covid shut the door on all our plans, so if you want to see the future, you need more than a crystal ball.
Regarding a few other constant complaints on this board and in general media;  Dubas didn't sign Marleau, Lou did that, as well as the Zaitzev fiasco.  We had to lose Marleau, the cost was our first round pick. Boo Hoo, thats on Lou.  Ceci although a black hole offensively was better than Marv on the D and is now hopefully gone, while Zaitzev will be an anchor on Ottawa for many more years.

Which leads me to the Kadri trade. I loved Nazem, he was a very good Centre with the sandpaper we all love to watch.  Fan favourite for sure, but the hard fact is "he HAD to go".  His blockhead mistakes probably cost us at least one of the two Bruins series.  So Dubas wanted Brodie from Calgary, Nazem didn't want to go, so we got Barrie and Kerfoot.  Barrie was a disaster in hindsight.  However when the trade was made their was high optimism on him.  Somethings work out, somethings don't. There is inherent risk in getting out of bed each morning.  Kerfoot is a very smart player and highly skilled, I believe you give him 3rd C for an entire year and stop switching him out and you have a very serviceable replacement in that position.  Kadri deserves to be at least a 2nd Centre and he HAD to go.  Dubas is not all to blame on the Barrie deal, he did what he could and we gotta get over it. 

If I have one complaint and I am not sure this is on Dubas shoulders is the lack of return for JVR, Gardner, Komorav and Bozak. The win know mentality could have been pressed on Shanahan from Larry T even. I guess we may never know on my last point.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/leafspr/status/1294346622508445700

 

[Highlander]

Good Luck Paul, thanks for your efforts.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

... and of course the Barrie trade, which is probably going to be remembered as one of the worst in Leaf history.

This feels like a bit of an overreaction. I mean the trade definitely blew up in Dubas' face, and I know most fans (including myself) had a big emotional attachment to Kadri, but even if you completely ignored what we got from Barrie it can still boil down to trading a 2nd line centre for a (younger/cheaper/not as good) 3rd line centre. Now if we end up waiving Kerfoot or trading him for nothing then maybe, but right now there's still a ton of worse trades this franchise has made.