2022-23 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion

[ZBBM]

Welcome Yuzisee, first post I have noticed, we need a lot of new blood in this site.  Tell your friends (everyone).

Yep, hope you stick around, I've enjoyed your posts.

 

[ZBBM]

What do people think about running Tavares on ROR's wing against Tampa?

 

[Bullfrog]

I think they have to keep ROR and Kampf.  Then it's see what Bunting and Kerfoot want.  Acciari should be in the conversation as well.

I'd take the same approach. I might keep Kerfoot over Bunting.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I think they have to keep ROR and Kampf.  Then it's see what Bunting and Kerfoot want.  Acciari should be in the conversation as well.

I'd take the same approach. I might keep Kerfoot over Bunting.

Depends on the ask of both. Bunting is a B2B 20 goal guy. Kerfoot isn't.

 

[bustaheims]

I think they have to keep ROR and Kampf.  Then it's see what Bunting and Kerfoot want.  Acciari should be in the conversation as well.

I'd take the same approach. I might keep Kerfoot over Bunting.

Depends on the ask of both. Bunting is a B2B 20 goal guy. Kerfoot isn't.

Except that Bunting hasn't been particularly useful when he's not on Matthews' wing. I'd have a hard time committing significant dollars or term to a guy who only really succeeds in that very specific role. Kerfoot may not put the puck in the net as much, but his overall utility is significantly higher.

 

[Frank E]

I think they have to keep ROR and Kampf.  Then it's see what Bunting and Kerfoot want.  Acciari should be in the conversation as well.

I'd take the same approach. I might keep Kerfoot over Bunting.

Depends on the ask of both. Bunting is a B2B 20 goal guy. Kerfoot isn't.

Except that Bunting hasn't been particularly useful when he's not on Matthews' wing. I'd have a hard time committing significant dollars or term to a guy who only really succeeds in that very specific role. Kerfoot may not put the puck in the net as much, but his overall utility is significantly higher.

Was it Hoglund that was that guy to Sundin?

 

[bustaheims]

Was it Hoglund that was that guy to Sundin?

Basically, yeah.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

What do people think about running Tavares on ROR's wing against Tampa?

I think my preference would be to keep them apart, at least at the start. Loading up the top-6 is more of a "break in case of emergency" option for me. Largely because with them loaded up the 3C ends up being Lafferty or Kerfoot... which is fine... but only just fine.

I would have liked to see them experiment with ROR at 2C w/ Nylander and Tavares at 3C, especially since the Tavares+Nylander combination has a tendency to go cold at times (like it is right now). Although O'Reilly's injury has obviously cut into that experimentation phase the team was in.

 

[dappleganger]

What do people think about running Tavares on ROR's wing against Tampa?

I'd do both. Force Tampa to adjust to watch the Leafs are doing. 

Go with this:

Bunting-Matthews-Marner
Kerfoot-O'Reilly-Nylander
Kankrok-Tavares-Acciari/Lafferty

And switch to:

Bunting-Matthews-Nylander
Tavares-O'Reilly-Marner
Kankrok-Kampf-Acciari/Lafferty

 

[Highlander]

One problem I have with Bunting is he seems to have some of Kadri's thick skulled temperament.  I will be holding my breath during the playoffs to see if he makes some kind of bonehead move.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think they have to keep ROR and Kampf.  Then it's see what Bunting and Kerfoot want.  Acciari should be in the conversation as well.

I'd take the same approach. I might keep Kerfoot over Bunting.

Depends on the ask of both. Bunting is a B2B 20 goal guy. Kerfoot isn't.

Except that Bunting hasn't been particularly useful when he's not on Matthews' wing. I'd have a hard time committing significant dollars or term to a guy who only really succeeds in that very specific role. Kerfoot may not put the puck in the net as much, but his overall utility is significantly higher.

That's exactly my take on it. I think Kerfoot is more versatile as well.

 

[Bill33]

Except that Bunting hasn't been particularly useful when he's not on Matthews' wing. I'd have a hard time committing significant dollars or term to a guy who only really succeeds in that very specific role.

I agree that they can't throw money around, but I don't think the logic to undersell the value of a player because he's more effective top 6 vs bottom 6 makes a ton of sense. They've tried a bunch of options up top (Ritchie, Kerfoot, now Jarnkrok) and none of them have performed as effectively and consistently as Bunting. Players that can complement top 6 aren't exactly easy to find.

 

[herman]

Except that Bunting hasn't been particularly useful when he's not on Matthews' wing. I'd have a hard time committing significant dollars or term to a guy who only really succeeds in that very specific role.

I agree that they can't throw money around, but I don't think the logic to undersell the value of a player because he's more effective top 6 vs bottom 6 makes a ton of sense. They've tried a bunch of options up top (Ritchie, Kerfoot, now Jarnkrok) and none of them have performed as effectively and consistently as Bunting. Players that can complement top 6 aren't exactly easy to find.

There's a reasonable number in which it would behoove us to retain Bunting (Jarnkrok-ish deal, for example), but he deserves a shot at making generational money to take care of his family.

With the Leafs, all of that is moot if the referee cabal decrees Bunting's mere existence on the ice to be an affront to their delicate sensibilities.

 

[bustaheims]

Except that Bunting hasn't been particularly useful when he's not on Matthews' wing. I'd have a hard time committing significant dollars or term to a guy who only really succeeds in that very specific role.

I agree that they can't throw money around, but I don't think the logic to undersell the value of a player because he's more effective top 6 vs bottom 6 makes a ton of sense. They've tried a bunch of options up top (Ritchie, Kerfoot, now Jarnkrok) and none of them have performed as effectively and consistently as Bunting. Players that can complement top 6 aren't exactly easy to find.

It's not just a top 6/bottom 6 split. Bunting was equally ineffective when lined up on the 2nd line with Tavares. He's only been effective on Matthews' wing. If he had shown he could be successful in the top 6 with any of the Leafs' top Cs, I'd be very happy to bring him back, but, he hasn't done that. He's been effective in one spot in the lineup only.

I'd also argue Jarnkrok has been similarly effective as Bunting, but with more utility elsewhere in the lineup.

 

[Bender]

Except that Bunting hasn't been particularly useful when he's not on Matthews' wing. I'd have a hard time committing significant dollars or term to a guy who only really succeeds in that very specific role.

I agree that they can't throw money around, but I don't think the logic to undersell the value of a player because he's more effective top 6 vs bottom 6 makes a ton of sense. They've tried a bunch of options up top (Ritchie, Kerfoot, now Jarnkrok) and none of them have performed as effectively and consistently as Bunting. Players that can complement top 6 aren't exactly easy to find.

It's not just a top 6/bottom 6 split. Bunting was equally ineffective when lined up on the 2nd line with Tavares. He's only been effective on Matthews' wing. If he had shown he could be successful in the top 6 with any of the Leafs' top Cs, I'd be very happy to bring him back, but, he hasn't done that. He's been effective in one spot in the lineup only.

I'd also argue Jarnkrok has been similarly effective as Bunting, but with more utility elsewhere in the lineup.

And also not consistently effective this year once the refs caught on to his act. If he can't figure it out he's more of a liability than a benefit. No way he should be paid anywhere near Hyman money.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

And also not consistently effective this year once the refs caught on to his act. If he can't figure it out he's more of a liability than a benefit. No way he should be paid anywhere near Hyman money.

I don't think there was ever a chance of him getting Hyman money, especially on that type of term. The Carter Verhaeghe (3 years, $4.166mil AAV) or Mason Marchment (4 years, $4.5mil AAV) contracts are more likely comparables. With the Leafs probably preferring to add years to get the AAV lower than those.

 

[bustaheims]

And also not consistently effective this year once the refs caught on to his act. If he can't figure it out he's more of a liability than a benefit. No way he should be paid anywhere near Hyman money.

The penalties are definitely a concern, though he does still draw a good amount, as well. It's basically an even rate. Big step down from last season and definitely something that makes giving him significant dollars and term less appealing.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Doesn't really sound promising but who knows? Hope it isn't lingering for him. he had a concussion last year around this time. I suspect his neck/shoulders/back may be the other stuff.

https://twitter.com/reporterchris/status/1643272670660755456

 

[Bill33]

Doesn't really sound promising but who knows? Hope it isn't lingering for him. he had a concussion last year around this time. I suspect his neck/shoulders/back may be the other stuff.

https://twitter.com/reporterchris/status/1643272670660755456

I guess any end run for Murray to establish himself as a 1a or 1b before the playoffs start is pretty much gone. 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

For the sake of his health I hope it's not, but there's probably a slim chance that's the last we've seen of Murray as a Leaf.