Armchair GM 2016-2017

[rdowdall]

Of the bunch, I'm most sold on Lindholm, but he's basically Swedish Rielly. I just thought that knowing there were these big ticket RFAs out there for teams with budget/cap issues that the Leafs should've opted for flexibility rather than locker room presence.

Don't get me wrong. Cap wise I agree with you 100%. If I had my way the team wouldn't have Andersen, Martin or Polak on the books and would have done more to clear up one of the bigger salaries on the roster. I'd much rather have that flexibility then what those guys bring.

I just don't think you can look at the team's farm system right now and write off any sort of drafting of a high value D or G prospect next year.

Say the Leafs draft 1st overall again next year.  Do they take Nolan Patrick if he is still the consensus #1, or do they take Timothy Liljegren if he is still the top rated d-man?  This is where the whole "take the best player available" strategy starts to get iffy for me.  If there isn't that much of a drop between Patrick to Liljegren, then I say take Liljegren, or trade out of the #1 spot to #2 and Liljegren.  I just think that you aren't going to get that much to drop to #2 in a trade. 

 

[Kin]

Say the Leafs draft 1st overall again next year.  Do they take Nolan Patrick if he is still the consensus #1, or do they take Timothy Liljegren if he is still the top rated d-man?  This is where the whole "take the best player available" strategy starts to get iffy for me.  If there isn't that much of a drop between Patrick to Liljegren, then I say take Liljegren, or trade out of the #1 spot to #2 and Liljegren.  I just think that you aren't going to get that much to drop to #2 in a trade.

I think a ton of that depends on what happens this year and what we see with the young players. We might very well be around next June and thinking we might not be as rock solid in terms of high value young forwards as we think we are. Likewise, Rielly might grow to the point where we're less worried about finding a #1 defenseman. So "need" might be a non-issue.

I said it elsewhere though. You shouldn't draft for need in the sense of "Our NHL team doesn't have great defensemen, so we should draft a defenseman" but the idea of "We don't have a good defensive prospect base so we should draft a defenseman" makes sense to me.

 

[herman]

If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?

Drafting Defense and Goaltending is a huge priority, barring a strong trade this year.

 

[bustaheims]

Say the Leafs draft 1st overall again next year.  Do they take Nolan Patrick if he is still the consensus #1, or do they take Timothy Liljegren if he is still the top rated d-man?  This is where the whole "take the best player available" strategy starts to get iffy for me.  If there isn't that much of a drop between Patrick to Liljegren, then I say take Liljegren, or trade out of the #1 spot to #2 and Liljegren.  I just think that you aren't going to get that much to drop to #2 in a trade.

If the difference between the two isn't significant, then you take Liljegren - because, it means there really isn't a consensus #1, just a strong preference. If there's a clear gap, you probably can get a reasonable amount to trade down to 2. If not, you take Patrick, and, if you can't work out a deal you like for another young top pairing defenceman, you build your team like Pittsburgh.

 

[Kin]

So the subtext I'm taking from this is our mystifying offseason is already biting us in the buttocks.

That strikes me as a bit of an overstatement. Everyone knew there'd be some RFA defensemen out there that teams would have trouble signing. If the folks running the team thought the RFA route was either a good or a likely route to adding one of those guys I don't think the signings they made would have happened. So I don't see this as a situation where those signings closed off any avenues the team planned on pursuing.

I'm going to lay this at the feet of Lou. Honestly so long as we are talking mystifying I still don't quite understand that particular hire.

More and more I just think it was optics. I think this group, faced with a board that probably has some loud opinions on it, wanted to cut off any questions about experience or expertise they might have dealt with.

 

[Kin]

If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?

What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.

 

[herman]

If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?

What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.

Hard to say until we get there, depending on cap circumstances, but by and large, I agree with your assessment when you put it so succinctly.

 

[Tigger]

If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?

What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.

Hard to say until we get there, depending on cap circumstances, but by and large, I agree with your assessment when you put it so succinctly.

Could be sweet part of a larger deal.

 

[TBLeafer]

Of the bunch, I'm most sold on Lindholm, but he's basically Swedish Rielly. I just thought that knowing there were these big ticket RFAs out there for teams with budget/cap issues that the Leafs should've opted for flexibility rather than locker room presence.

Don't get me wrong. Cap wise I agree with you 100%. If I had my way the team wouldn't have Andersen, Martin or Polak on the books and would have done more to clear up one of the bigger salaries on the roster. I'd much rather have that flexibility then what those guys bring.

I just don't think you can look at the team's farm system right now and write off any sort of drafting of a high value D or G prospect next year.

But you don't have your way.  And the season hasn't started yet.  And you have no idea what impact these players can bring to this TEAM.

You can't build an NHL team entirely on skill.

You're not close to Andersen I suspect and like me have barely seen him play.  I would have preferred bringing Reimer back, especially considering what he signed for but that's because I don't know Andersen that well.

Martin is a GOOD insulator and team player and signed for a decent value for what he brings.  Ditto Polak.

Ask the Czechs what they think of Polak.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

TheLeafsNation: What Game Score Says About The Leafs At The World Cup

Roman Polak: In what is perhaps the least surprising thing of this tournament, Polak was not good. Actually, that's underselling it, he was bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was very bad. Actually, thats' underselling it, he was extremely bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was terrible. Actually, that's underselling it, he was on another level of terrible that I was frankly unaware existed. Actually, that's underselling it, he was horrific in the same way that most horror movies are also horrific, just scary bad, but also still frightening to watch if you have a rooting interest for the characters involved. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an actual train-wreck. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions. Actually, that's underselling it, he was a perfect analogy for ice hockey's version of the Titanic. Actually, that's underselling it, he was worse than the Raycroft for Rask trade. Okay on second thought, that last one went a bit too far. The point is that Polak did not play well. He had the worst Game Score at the tournament thanks to the worst Corsi differential there at -36. The next worst player was a three-way tie at -24. The difference between Polak and the next worst Corsi performance is the same as that guy and the guy 34 players below him. That bad. Polak was also a -4 in 5-on-5 goal differential, also last, but this time, he had company as it was a five-way tie with four players on Team USA. But hey, at least he got an assist and blocked six shots. It is honestly impressive how bad Polak was, I didn't think it could be done, but it was done, and it was done by a member of the 2016-17 Toronto Maple Leafs.

 

[rdowdall]

Say the Leafs draft 1st overall again next year.  Do they take Nolan Patrick if he is still the consensus #1, or do they take Timothy Liljegren if he is still the top rated d-man?  This is where the whole "take the best player available" strategy starts to get iffy for me.  If there isn't that much of a drop between Patrick to Liljegren, then I say take Liljegren, or trade out of the #1 spot to #2 and Liljegren.  I just think that you aren't going to get that much to drop to #2 in a trade.

If the difference between the two isn't significant, then you take Liljegren - because, it means there really isn't a consensus #1, just a strong preference. If there's a clear gap, you probably can get a reasonable amount to trade down to 2. If not, you take Patrick, and, if you can't work out a deal you like for another young top pairing defenceman, you build your team like Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh did a good job in getting Letang in the third round.  The Leafs might have something along those lines with Nielsen or Dermott.  The first time they won the cup in 2009 their defence consisted of Letang, Gonchar, Goligoski, and Orpick in their top 4.  At that time, I am not sure that Letang was at the level that year that he is today.  This last cup that the Pens won, Letang was definitely the linchpin on that defence.   

 

[TBLeafer]

TheLeafsNation: What Game Score Says About The Leafs At The World Cup

Roman Polak: In what is perhaps the least surprising thing of this tournament, Polak was not good. Actually, that's underselling it, he was bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was very bad. Actually, thats' underselling it, he was extremely bad. Actually, that's underselling it, he was terrible. Actually, that's underselling it, he was on another level of terrible that I was frankly unaware existed. Actually, that's underselling it, he was horrific in the same way that most horror movies are also horrific, just scary bad, but also still frightening to watch if you have a rooting interest for the characters involved. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an actual train-wreck. Actually, that's underselling it, he was an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions. Actually, that's underselling it, he was a perfect analogy for ice hockey's version of the Titanic. Actually, that's underselling it, he was worse than the Raycroft for Rask trade. Okay on second thought, that last one went a bit too far. The point is that Polak did not play well. He had the worst Game Score at the tournament thanks to the worst Corsi differential there at -36. The next worst player was a three-way tie at -24. The difference between Polak and the next worst Corsi performance is the same as that guy and the guy 34 players below him. That bad. Polak was also a -4 in 5-on-5 goal differential, also last, but this time, he had company as it was a five-way tie with four players on Team USA. But hey, at least he got an assist and blocked six shots. It is honestly impressive how bad Polak was, I didn't think it could be done, but it was done, and it was done by a member of the 2016-17 Toronto Maple Leafs.

And then of course there's the view of his actual GM, not some stat watcher.

Leafs Defenceman Roman Polak is ?Heart and Soul? of Czech Team

?He?s our heart and soul,? Czech general manager Martin Rucinski said. ?He plays hard, blocks shots. He?s a difficult player to play against. With our situation in Czech hockey, he was an easy choice for our team.?

Not just 'a' heart and soul player.  'The' heart and soul player.

Roles matter.  He wasn't brought for his offence. 

 

[Kin]

Don't get me wrong. Cap wise I agree with you 100%. If I had my way the team wouldn't have Andersen, Martin or Polak on the books and would have done more to clear up one of the bigger salaries on the roster. I'd much rather have that flexibility then what those guys bring.

I just don't think you can look at the team's farm system right now and write off any sort of drafting of a high value D or G prospect next year.

But you don't have your way.

This is true. A keen-eyed sleuth, however, might notice that the name of the thread is "Armchair GM" and not "Actual GM".

You can't build an NHL team entirely on skill.

Absent bringing in any of those guys the Leafs still would have had  role players and Gritty McGrittersons. Komarov, Laich, Greening, Marincin, etc

 

[TBLeafer]

Any of those guys?  Andersen's a gritty player?

Polak's only on a one year.  I'm just saying, let's not INVENT problems before they actually establish themselves as problems.

 

[Kin]

Any of those guys?  Andersen's a gritty player?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Polak's only on a one year.  I'm just saying, let's not INVENT problems before they actually establish themselves as problems.

The whole point of this thread is to talk about what we might do as the GM of the team. That's not "inventing problems". It's a hypothetical exercise.

 

[TBLeafer]

Any of those guys?  Andersen's a gritty player?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Polak's only on a one year.  I'm just saying, let's not INVENT problems before they actually establish themselves as problems.

The whole point of this thread is to talk about what we might do as the GM of the team. That's not "inventing problems". It's a hypothetical exercise.

Hypothetical or not, to me Armchair GM means you take the team that exists today and move forward with it 'hypothetically'.  Saying you'd take back moves already made, isn't Armchair GM'ing.  Its complaining.  Like the trade for Kessel when Burke gave up 2 unprotected 1sts and a 2nd when the team obviously needed rebuilding. 

Let's Armchair forward, not back.

 

[Kin]

Hypothetical or not, to me Armchair GM means you take the team that exists today and move forward with it 'hypothetically'.  Saying you'd take back moves already made, isn't Armchair GM'ing.  Its complaining.  Like the trade for Kessel when Burke gave up 2 unprotected 1sts and a 2nd when the team obviously needed rebuilding. 

Let's Armchair forward, not back.

Nah, I'm good. You do you though.

 

[mr grieves]

If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?

What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.

Huh. I always sort of though talent-for-talent from the big three would be the way the Leafs grabbed an upgrade of defense. Maybe not fully emerged, "established" but someone on the cusp of prospect and NHLer.
That wouldn't be a sure shot at a top-pairing defenseman, but it might be a pretty valuable contribution to the defense all the same.

 

[Kin]

If we get #1, couldn't we move the weaker of our big three for an established defender (or high pick + d prospect) and still draft Patrick at 1?

What grade of established defender do you figure an A- prospect fetches? I doubt you land the sort of guy who solves anything.

Huh. I always sort of though talent-for-talent from the big three would be the way the Leafs grabbed an upgrade of defense. Maybe not fully emerged, "established" but someone on the cusp of prospect and NHLer.
That wouldn't be a sure shot at a top-pairing defenseman, but it might be a pretty valuable contribution to the defense all the same.

Absolutely that's something they could do. My comment was more predicated on two things:

1) That a player being "established" in any meaningful sense raises their value. So an A- prospect is probably bringing back, on a straight trade, an established player a half-grade or so lower.

2) That right now defensemen are valuable to the point that I think the forward-defense drop-off value is as sharp as established/prospect.

So could you do a deal like Nylander for Provorov or Werenski? I don't know. My guess is maybe. But in terms of a straight up trade for a NHL defenseman I really don't know what he could bring back. My money says we'd hear back some disappointing names.

 

[rdowdall]

2) That right now defensemen are valuable to the point that I think the forward-defense drop-off value is as sharp as established/prospect.

I wonder if that is because there seems to be a lack of top notch d-man in the draft or at least more risk in drafting a top notch d-man near the top of the draft.  Here is the number of d-men taken in the top 5 since 2010:

2010:  1 at 3 (Erik Gudbranson)
2011:  1 at 4 (Adam Larsson)
2012:  3 at 2, 4, 5 (Ryan Murray, Griffin Reinhart, Morgan Rielly)
2013:  1 at 4 (Seth Jones)
2014:  1 at 1 (Aaron Eckblad)
2015:  1 at 5 (Noah Hannifin)
2016:  1 at 5 (Olli Juolevi) 

So it's either harder to get a read on d-men when they are young so teams are somewhat hesitant to risk a high pick on them, or the development cycle for a d-man doesn't allow them to be as noticeable as 18 year olds as the forwards.