2021-22 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion

[Bill_Berg]

I know there?s a lot of people saying that if the Leafs don?t get past the first round this year Dubas?s job should be on the line.

I don?t think Dubas gets enough credit for the job he does tbh. Every year he?s been GM this teams gotten better and better. His club gets better each draft, better each summer and better after each trade deadline. Just like the Matthews and Marners on this team, his ability to improve this team upon past seasons is remarkable.

I don?t see any reason, regardless of what happens in the playoffs to let Dubas walk and have this process start anew with someone else. At least  not anytime soon. He?s learning and improving by leaps and bounds right now, just like his young players.

The GM has to put the team in a position to win; he's done that. This team is breaking franchise records, has a contender for the Hart, 2 100-point men (more-or-less). He's done his job. It's on the coaches and players now.

So if they lose again in the first round ... what?  Something has to change, and not just tinkering around the edges.

Does something need to change? I mean if we play Tampa and lose, is losing to the two-time defending Stanley Cup champs so bad that you need to fire people? If something big changes, I hope there is more logic to the changes than that.

 

[ZBBM]

I know there?s a lot of people saying that if the Leafs don?t get past the first round this year Dubas?s job should be on the line.

I don?t think Dubas gets enough credit for the job he does tbh. Every year he?s been GM this teams gotten better and better. His club gets better each draft, better each summer and better after each trade deadline. Just like the Matthews and Marners on this team, his ability to improve this team upon past seasons is remarkable.

I don?t see any reason, regardless of what happens in the playoffs to let Dubas walk and have this process start anew with someone else. At least  not anytime soon. He?s learning and improving by leaps and bounds right now, just like his young players.

The GM has to put the team in a position to win; he's done that. This team is breaking franchise records, has a contender for the Hart, 2 100-point men (more-or-less). He's done his job. It's on the coaches and players now.

So if they lose again in the first round ... what?  Something has to change, and not just tinkering around the edges.

Does something need to change? I mean if we play Tampa and lose, is losing to the two-time defending Stanley Cup champs so bad that you need to fire people? If something big changes, I hope there is more logic to the changes than that.

Yes, I think it does.  You can't exit in the first round 5, 6, 7 times in a row or whatever it's been and say to yourself, OK, let's hope for the best with the same core (including the management team) next year.  I mean, you could, but it wouldn't be tolerated in any other business.

 

[bustaheims]

Does something need to change? I mean if we play Tampa and lose, is losing to the two-time defending Stanley Cup champs so bad that you need to fire people? If something big changes, I hope there is more logic to the changes than that.

If they lose, a lot of it will depend on the how and the why. Did they get run over or was it a series of tight games? Was it because they folded under pressure or because a couple 50/50 pucks didn't go their way?

If they take Tampa to 7 games, with most/all those games being close - including a bunch that go to OT - then, I don't know if you need to make a major move. If they're clearly the 2nd best team in the series, then, I think you do.

 

[Redleaf]

I know there?s a lot of people saying that if the Leafs don?t get past the first round this year Dubas?s job should be on the line.

I don?t think Dubas gets enough credit for the job he does tbh. Every year he?s been GM this teams gotten better and better. His club gets better each draft, better each summer and better after each trade deadline. Just like the Matthews and Marners on this team, his ability to improve this team upon past seasons is remarkable.

I don?t see any reason, regardless of what happens in the playoffs to let Dubas walk and have this process start anew with someone else. At least  not anytime soon. He?s learning and improving by leaps and bounds right now, just like his young players.

The GM has to put the team in a position to win; he's done that. This team is breaking franchise records, has a contender for the Hart, 2 100-point men (more-or-less). He's done his job. It's on the coaches and players now.

So if they lose again in the first round ... what?  Something has to change, and not just tinkering around the edges.

I think it really depends on how the series plays out and what the central cause of the loss was. If, for instance it?s Campbell getting hurt and the rookie Kallgren not being good enough to shut down the 2 time defending champs. Then maybe? a new goaltender ? 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yes, I think it does.  You can't exit in the first round 5, 6, 7 times in a row or whatever it's been and say to yourself, OK, let's hope for the best with the same core (including the management team) next year.  I mean, you could, but it wouldn't be tolerated in any other business.

I know everybody is going to just point at the big 3/4 and say that's the "core" but has the team not changed drastically throughout these long stretches of first round exits? We've seen pretty controversial GM and head coach changes, a starting goalie change, a complete overhaul of the defence, we've seen key forwards in Kadri/JVR/Bozak/Hyman and to a lesser extent Kapanen/Johnsson/Brown get moved/let go. The idea that we're just throwing out the exact same team year in and year out and wondering why it keeps losing is pretty nuts. Let's even just lessen the scope the argument by looking at the Dubas-era team: 6 players remain on the roster of the team that lost game 7 to the Bruins in his first season as GM.

 

[Andy007]

Just to pontificate on the "consecutive 1st round losses" narrative: Is that really accurate now that the entire post-season system has been drastically altered? Those first two series against Boston were, effectively, meetings that should have traditionally been seen in the conference finals. And then the following two years were marred by covid and its fallout.

So in light of all that, let's say this team has consecutive game 7 conference final losses and two losses in covid post-seasons where they significantly outplayed their opponents (Columbus/Montreal) and were "goalie'd", to say nothing of the multiple game absences by Kadri, Kadri, Muzzin and Tavares, respectively; wouldn't that be considered pretty good?

I'm not even trying to make excuses here; I'm genuinely curious as to how to assess this team, particularly if they lose in the "1st" round again. Firing Dubas kind of sounds like the logical move but when you look at the team he has assembled, it's almost something to marvel at. As a fervent fan since the late 80's, this skill, depth and defence is unlike anything I've ever seen. I think it would be a shame to let this guy go.

 

[Deebo]

I wouldn't blow up a .700 team because of what happened 4/5 years ago when the core were rookies and most of the rest of the team weren't even here yet. I don't think losing to Washington and Boston in 17 and 18 should have any impact on the decision on what to do going forward with the team.

This is the first full, normal season with Dubas and Keefe.

 

[leafsjunkie]

Yes, I think it does.  You can't exit in the first round 5, 6, 7 times in a row or whatever it's been and say to yourself, OK, let's hope for the best with the same core (including the management team) next year.  I mean, you could, but it wouldn't be tolerated in any other business.

I know everybody is going to just point at the big 3/4 and say that's the "core" but has the team not changed drastically throughout these long stretches of first round exits? We've seen pretty controversial GM and head coach changes, a starting goalie change, a complete overhaul of the defence, we've seen key forwards in Kadri/JVR/Bozak/Hyman and to a lesser extent Kapanen/Johnsson/Brown get moved/let go. The idea that we're just throwing out the exact same team year in and year out and wondering why it keeps losing is pretty nuts. Let's even just lessen the scope the argument by looking at the Dubas-era team: 6 players remain on the roster of the team that lost game 7 to the Bruins in his first season as GM.

Unfortunately people don't look at these things critically. They use emotions, additionally, main stream sports media fuel on the negative and the emotional side of things. So then it just becomes people parroting Darren Dreger and his bad takes.

 

[Redleaf]

I wouldn't blow up a .700 team because of what happened 4/5 years ago when the core were rookies and most of the rest of the team weren't even here yet. I don't think losing to Washington and Boston in 17 and 18 should have any impact on the decision on what to do going forward with the team.

This is the first full, normal season with Dubas and Keefe.

Agreed. And look at what the team looks like this year. Individual and teams records galore .

If they were to let Dubas go there would be a third of the league or more waiting in line to hire him as their GM. That could also turn around and bite the organization in the ass if he wins a cup somewhere else or our new management team fails. And? we all know change for the sake of change doesn?t guarantee anything, let alone consistent improvement like we?re seeing now.

 

[ZBBM]

Yes, I think it does.  You can't exit in the first round 5, 6, 7 times in a row or whatever it's been and say to yourself, OK, let's hope for the best with the same core (including the management team) next year.  I mean, you could, but it wouldn't be tolerated in any other business.

I know everybody is going to just point at the big 3/4 and say that's the "core" but has the team not changed drastically throughout these long stretches of first round exits? We've seen pretty controversial GM and head coach changes, a starting goalie change, a complete overhaul of the defence, we've seen key forwards in Kadri/JVR/Bozak/Hyman and to a lesser extent Kapanen/Johnsson/Brown get moved/let go. The idea that we're just throwing out the exact same team year in and year out and wondering why it keeps losing is pretty nuts. Let's even just lessen the scope the argument by looking at the Dubas-era team: 6 players remain on the roster of the team that lost game 7 to the Bruins in his first season as GM.

With all due respect ? seriously ? my response is, you are kind of making my point.  Results are what count.  And if you don't get them, in any enterprise, changes get made.  And if you've had the same management team presiding over several failures in a row after changing personnel/tactics again and again, well ... that's where you look to make changes.

Look, I like Shanny and Dubas.  I would love to see the team have some success in the playoffs and keep them at the helm because I like them as people and think they have a lot of integrity.  But if the team loses again in R1, one or both should be replaced.  That's the hard reality in a results-based business. 

 

[ZBBM]

This is the first full, normal season with Dubas and Keefe.

Again, with respect and apologies, but this sounds like pure rationalizing to me.

 

[ZBBM]

My question to you all is: at some point you have to win in the playoffs to have "success" in this league.  When is that, for you?  How many more R1 exits are you willing to accept before you agree that it's time to pull the plug on the top managers?  Serious question, I'd be interested in what different folks think.

I've reached my limit; for those who disagree, you apparently haven't.  There's no right answer, and that's all we are disagreeing about.

 

[Redleaf]

Yes, I think it does.  You can't exit in the first round 5, 6, 7 times in a row or whatever it's been and say to yourself, OK, let's hope for the best with the same core (including the management team) next year.  I mean, you could, but it wouldn't be tolerated in any other business.

I know everybody is going to just point at the big 3/4 and say that's the "core" but has the team not changed drastically throughout these long stretches of first round exits? We've seen pretty controversial GM and head coach changes, a starting goalie change, a complete overhaul of the defence, we've seen key forwards in Kadri/JVR/Bozak/Hyman and to a lesser extent Kapanen/Johnsson/Brown get moved/let go. The idea that we're just throwing out the exact same team year in and year out and wondering why it keeps losing is pretty nuts. Let's even just lessen the scope the argument by looking at the Dubas-era team: 6 players remain on the roster of the team that lost game 7 to the Bruins in his first season as GM.

With all due respect ? seriously ? my response is, you are kind of making my point.  Results are what count.  And if you don't get them, in any enterprise, changes get made.  And if you've had the same management team presiding over several failures in a row after changing personnel/tactics again and again, well ... that's where you look to make changes.

Look, I like Shanny and Dubas.  I would love to see the team have some success in the playoffs and keep them at the helm because I like them as people and think they have a lot of integrity.  But if the team loses again in R1, one or both should be replaced.  That's the hard reality in a results-based business.

With all due respect? if we?re looking at this team as a business, like other businesses that operate in other markets ?you don?t tear down a business team that continues to show improvement year over year and stands among the top five businesses in their industry. You don?t disassemble that team because they haven?t yet won the big account and replace them unless you absolutely have a group you know can secure that big account for you. I don?t see the later option available or what that would even look like tbh. Who are you headhunting for replacements and how sure are you you can get them?

 

[Bill_Berg]

If there was someone better than Dubas, maybe, but change for the sake of change is a bad idea. And what other change would be available? Trade Matthews, Marner, or Nylander? That seems like a bad idea too. Trade Tavares? Maybe, good luck though. And then anything else is just 'tinkering' isn't it?

Also agree with RedLeaf, perhaps they get exposed somehow in round one, but that's new information we don't have now.

They have to do what gives them the best odds of winning. I lost 4 poker hands in a row isn't an argument for why I'll never win at poker.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Yes, I think it does.  You can't exit in the first round 5, 6, 7 times in a row or whatever it's been and say to yourself, OK, let's hope for the best with the same core (including the management team) next year.  I mean, you could, but it wouldn't be tolerated in any other business.

I know everybody is going to just point at the big 3/4 and say that's the "core" but has the team not changed drastically throughout these long stretches of first round exits? We've seen pretty controversial GM and head coach changes, a starting goalie change, a complete overhaul of the defence, we've seen key forwards in Kadri/JVR/Bozak/Hyman and to a lesser extent Kapanen/Johnsson/Brown get moved/let go. The idea that we're just throwing out the exact same team year in and year out and wondering why it keeps losing is pretty nuts. Let's even just lessen the scope the argument by looking at the Dubas-era team: 6 players remain on the roster of the team that lost game 7 to the Bruins in his first season as GM.

With all due respect ? seriously ? my response is, you are kind of making my point.  Results are what count.  And if you don't get them, in any enterprise, changes get made.  And if you've had the same management team presiding over several failures in a row after changing personnel/tactics again and again, well ... that's where you look to make changes.

Look, I like Shanny and Dubas.  I would love to see the team have some success in the playoffs and keep them at the helm because I like them as people and think they have a lot of integrity.  But if the team loses again in R1, one or both should be replaced.  That's the hard reality in a results-based business.

With all due respect? if we?re looking at this team as a business, like other businesses that operate in other markets ?you don?t tear down a business team that continues to show improvement year over year and stands among the top five businesses in their industry. You don?t disassemble that team because they haven?t yet won the big account and replace them unless you absolutely have a group you know can secure that big account for you. I don?t see the later option available or what that would even look like tbh. Who are you headhunting for replacements and how sure are you you can get them?

Yep. And add the fact that inconsistent reffing makes every series a coin flip.  You just gotta keep on doing the next right thing, win or lose.

 

[Bill_Berg]

My question to you all is: at some point you have to win in the playoffs to have "success" in this league.  When is that, for you?  How many more R1 exits are you willing to accept before you agree that it's time to pull the plug on the top managers?  Serious question, I'd be interested in what different folks think.

I've reached my limit; for those who disagree, you apparently haven't.  There's no right answer, and that's all we are disagreeing about.

I don't want them to fire management based on first-round losses at all. Not in this even-steven league. If the league is clearly going one way, and management swims against the current, fire 'em. Or if the culture starts to twist, do something. Bob Loblaw.

 

[Frank E]

What if it's bad goaltending that loses them the first series?

I think Dubas is culpable there.

 

[princedpw]

In making a change, it is often very, very easy to do worse. 

It's hard for me to say which other GM would be better.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

My question to you all is: at some point you have to win in the playoffs to have "success" in this league.  When is that, for you?  How many more R1 exits are you willing to accept before you agree that it's time to pull the plug on the top managers?  Serious question, I'd be interested in what different folks think.

I've reached my limit; for those who disagree, you apparently haven't.  There's no right answer, and that's all we are disagreeing about.

I don't really think it's as simple as "number of R1 exits to be fired = x". Dubas should be fired when he's no longer demonstrating the ability to make the team better and regardless of what happens in round 1 of the playoffs this season I simply can't believe he's at that point after building a team that quite literally set new franchise records in wins and points in a season. All while among other things managing a completely unforeseen flat cap, rebuilding the defence to easily be the best we've seen in the cap era (and arguably beyond), and also finally having some draft picks/prospects in the system that are showing some promise.

So here's a question to you: is a 1st round exit an automatic firing for Dubas? There's absolutely no room for any context/debate there? I can see if they get swept in 4 games but how about if they go the distance and losing in game 7 in OT? What if we have the Lightning or Bruins on the ropes in game 6 and we get Kerry Fraser'd? What if we absolutely dominate in every single game but Vasilevskiy decides to go super-human and steals the series with a .950 save percentage?

 

[Frank E]

https://www.tsn.ca/NHL/video/i-was-pissed-random-video-session-helped-nylander-get-back-on-tr~2425772