Dermott re-signed - 2 years, $1.5M per

[OldTimeHockey]

Now they can protect Holl if they want to (but shouldn't)

Nope. Holl was very good for stretches of the regular season, but was exposed at times - and definitely was in the playoffs.

Holl was very good for stretches(when Muzzin was there) and was exposed at times(when Muzzin was not).

 

[gunnar36]

Are we still doing 8/1 or 7/3 with draft protection?

Tavares/Matthews/Marner/Nylander are really the only four guys you *NEED* to protect from the forwards.

Rielly/Brodie/Muzzin are the three you need to protect on the blueline.

If they go 8/1 you can add Dermott in a protect and risk losing either Holl or Kerfoot.  or you aim for the 7/3 and protect Kerfoot and risk losing one of Holl or Dermott.

I wonder if losing Hyman and Kerfoot from the penalty kill is a lot to ask of the team defensively.

I do think Holl will be protected.  Good value at 2 million and right shot D man. 
If going the 7-3 route, I could see a somewhat remote possibility of leaving Muzzin exposed. At 5.63 million, he is overpaid by what you should be slotting to a #3,4 primarily defensive defenceman who seemed like he lost a half step last season (or playing thru injury).  Not an easy guy to replace, but 5.6 million cap freedom would go a long way in flat cap.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Are we still doing 8/1 or 7/3 with draft protection?

Tavares/Matthews/Marner/Nylander are really the only four guys you *NEED* to protect from the forwards.

Rielly/Brodie/Muzzin are the three you need to protect on the blueline.

If they go 8/1 you can add Dermott in a protect and risk losing either Holl or Kerfoot.  or you aim for the 7/3 and protect Kerfoot and risk losing one of Holl or Dermott.

I wonder if losing Hyman and Kerfoot from the penalty kill is a lot to ask of the team defensively.

I do think Holl will be protected.  Good value at 2 million and right shot D man. 
If going the 7-3 route, I could see a somewhat remote possibility of leaving Muzzin exposed. At 5.63 million, he is overpaid by what you should be slotting to a #3,4 primarily defensive defenceman who seemed like he lost a half step last season (or playing thru injury).  Not an easy guy to replace, but 5.6 million cap freedom would go a long way in flat cap.

Muzzin & Brodie would be the most difficult players to replace out of the defensive players. There's no way you leave him exposed.

 

[louisstamos]

Are we still doing 8/1 or 7/3 with draft protection?

Tavares/Matthews/Marner/Nylander are really the only four guys you *NEED* to protect from the forwards.

Rielly/Brodie/Muzzin are the three you need to protect on the blueline.

If they go 8/1 you can add Dermott in a protect and risk losing either Holl or Kerfoot.  or you aim for the 7/3 and protect Kerfoot and risk losing one of Holl or Dermott.

I wonder if losing Hyman and Kerfoot from the penalty kill is a lot to ask of the team defensively.

I do think Holl will be protected.  Good value at 2 million and right shot D man. 
If going the 7-3 route, I could see a somewhat remote possibility of leaving Muzzin exposed. At 5.63 million, he is overpaid by what you should be slotting to a #3,4 primarily defensive defenceman who seemed like he lost a half step last season (or playing thru injury).  Not an easy guy to replace, but 5.6 million cap freedom would go a long way in flat cap.

Muzzin & Brodie would be the most difficult players to replace out of the defensive players. There's no way you leave him exposed.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe both Muzzin and Brodie have NMC - thus, I don't even think they *can* be exposed; at least, not without their consent.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Are we still doing 8/1 or 7/3 with draft protection?

Tavares/Matthews/Marner/Nylander are really the only four guys you *NEED* to protect from the forwards.

Rielly/Brodie/Muzzin are the three you need to protect on the blueline.

If they go 8/1 you can add Dermott in a protect and risk losing either Holl or Kerfoot.  or you aim for the 7/3 and protect Kerfoot and risk losing one of Holl or Dermott.

I wonder if losing Hyman and Kerfoot from the penalty kill is a lot to ask of the team defensively.

I do think Holl will be protected.  Good value at 2 million and right shot D man. 
If going the 7-3 route, I could see a somewhat remote possibility of leaving Muzzin exposed. At 5.63 million, he is overpaid by what you should be slotting to a #3,4 primarily defensive defenceman who seemed like he lost a half step last season (or playing thru injury).  Not an easy guy to replace, but 5.6 million cap freedom would go a long way in flat cap.

Muzzin & Brodie would be the most difficult players to replace out of the defensive players. There's no way you leave him exposed.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe both Muzzin and Brodie have NMC - thus, I don't even think they *can* be exposed; at least, not without their consent.

neither does and both can be left unprotected. Don't see it happening.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Are we still doing 8/1 or 7/3 with draft protection?

Tavares/Matthews/Marner/Nylander are really the only four guys you *NEED* to protect from the forwards.

Rielly/Brodie/Muzzin are the three you need to protect on the blueline.

If they go 8/1 you can add Dermott in a protect and risk losing either Holl or Kerfoot.  or you aim for the 7/3 and protect Kerfoot and risk losing one of Holl or Dermott.

I wonder if losing Hyman and Kerfoot from the penalty kill is a lot to ask of the team defensively.

I do think Holl will be protected.  Good value at 2 million and right shot D man. 
If going the 7-3 route, I could see a somewhat remote possibility of leaving Muzzin exposed. At 5.63 million, he is overpaid by what you should be slotting to a #3,4 primarily defensive defenceman who seemed like he lost a half step last season (or playing thru injury).  Not an easy guy to replace, but 5.6 million cap freedom would go a long way in flat cap.

Muzzin actually out produces Rielly 5v5. In the last 2 seasons here, Rielly has like 12 more points. Considering Muzz got very little PP time that's quite remarkable. I think a lot of Leaf fans underestimate his offence.

 

[Arn]

As an individual signing again, like Simmonds and Spezza, I don?t mind this at all.

But taking a step back and an wider look, if I keep liking the individual moves and players coming back do we just end up with more or less the same roster and hope for an extra years growth and response to an extra year of pain from a majority same group.

I know major changes weren?t maybe likely, but there?s not making major changes and there?s not really making any changes

 

[Kin]

As an individual signing again, like Simmonds and Spezza, I don?t mind this at all.

But taking a step back and an wider look, if I keep liking the individual moves and players coming back do we just end up with more or less the same roster and hope for an extra years growth and response to an extra year of pain from a majority same group.

I know major changes weren?t maybe likely, but there?s not making major changes and there?s not really making any changes

On a capped out team, any change that isn't internal is likely to be zero-sum. Or, at best, it'll come via trade where you're sacrificing assets not on the club.

Either way, any major change isn't going to come about by virtue of not signing someone like Simmonds or Dermott, it'll be through trading someone and using their cap space on free agents or receiving a player in return.

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

 

[ZBBM]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

At some point, though, they need to quit "learning" and start winning in the post-season.

Steve Simmons may be a jerk but he had a legitimate question, asking what does it say when you have 5 straight 1st-round exits.  The last 2 to teams that you should have beaten, having chances to close it out at home (twice this year).

These guys are out of excuses.  One more crack at winning at least 1 round.  If not, bring on the TNT.

 

[Bender]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

The Lightning had showed a lot more up to that point though. They missed the playoffs once in the last 8yrs, had two R1 exits and had 5 Conference Final finishes or better in that span. Toronto's just not in the same stratosphere.

They keep being mentioned alongside Washington, which is fine, except we don't have the luxury of signing enormously long contracts that are bound to age well as the cap goes up. We're in a bind with a flat cap.

 

[Kin]

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.

Well, where I tend to come down on that is that I have yet to hear an argument for making major changes that boils down to anything beyond "well, we didn't win and I'm frustrated by that so I'm going to say that not winning is argument enough that something is fundamentally wrong with the club".

I haven't heard "well, if we make this major change we will improve the team in this specific way" beyond people saying that if you traded Marner you'd have money to improve the team's depth via the least efficient use of cap dollars(the UFA market) while not acknowledging that without Marner this team isn't actually all that impressive in terms of star power. Nylander, Matthews and Tavares are all very good but lots of teams have three guys roughly that good. Especially if Tavares starts to decline a bit. Then it's probably a below average top 3.

 

[Kin]

Steve Simmons may be a jerk but he had a legitimate question, asking what does it say when you have 5 straight 1st-round exits.  The last 2 to teams that you should have beaten, having chances to close it out at home (twice this year).

That's only a "legitimate" question if you can come up with an actual answer that explains how the loss to Washington five years ago and the loss to Montreal this year are connected in some meaningful way. Otherwise it's exactly as compelling and rational an argument as saying that the reason the Boston Red Sox didn't win a World Series for 86 years was that they were under a curse.

 

[rdowdall]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

The Lightning had showed a lot more up to that point though. They missed the playoffs once in the last 8yrs, had two R1 exits and had 5 Conference Final finishes or better in that span. Toronto's just not in the same stratosphere.

They keep being mentioned alongside Washington, which is fine, except we don't have the luxury of signing enormously long contracts that are bound to age well as the cap goes up. We're in a bind with a flat cap.

The Leafs aren't the only team in a bind because of the flat cap though.  Tampa has to have a reckoning coming.  Colorado is in a similar boat to the Leafs in that they have had high expectations the last couple of years, but they haven't been able to make it as far as people have expected them too.  The have Landeskog, Saad, and Grubauer as UFA's this year and Makar and Jost as RFA's this year.  Yes they have $25 million in cap space and probably some LTIR wiggle room, but they also need to flush out some other pieces of their roster to give themselves some more depth up front.  So while they may not feel the pinch this year, they may be starting to put themselves in a position where they could be in a cap bind, even with that awesome Mackinnon contract.

Back to the Leafs, when they traded for Andersen years ago, there was a feeling by a group on this board that it was the wrong move at the time.  I think with 5 years of hindsight available to us now, it does show that it has put the team at a disadvantage with respect to making the group a true contender.  A season of missing the playoffs may have been good for the growth of Matthews, Marner and Nylander in a way.  Plus the additional assets that they would have had would have given them some more options down the road. 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Obviously whether or not they should make major changes is a whole other ball of yarn but if they do it's not something that should influence your thinking on these moves much.

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.




2 years ago, the Lightning lost in four straight to the Blue Jackets? Did they blow it up?

The Lightning had showed a lot more up to that point though. They missed the playoffs once in the last 8yrs, had two R1 exits and had 5 Conference Final finishes or better in that span. Toronto's just not in the same stratosphere.

They keep being mentioned alongside Washington, which is fine, except we don't have the luxury of signing enormously long contracts that are bound to age well as the cap goes up. We're in a bind with a flat cap.

My point really isn't that Toronto is in the same stratosphere as Tampa.

Really, my point was what will a major change do to make this team better and give them a better shot of making it past the 1st round?

 

[ZBBM]

Steve Simmons may be a jerk but he had a legitimate question, asking what does it say when you have 5 straight 1st-round exits.  The last 2 to teams that you should have beaten, having chances to close it out at home (twice this year).

That's only a "legitimate" question if you can come up with an actual answer that explains how the loss to Washington five years ago and the loss to Montreal this year are connected in some meaningful way. Otherwise it's exactly as compelling and rational an argument as saying that the reason the Boston Red Sox didn't win a World Series for 86 years was that they were under a curse.

Having much of the same core around for that time isn't meaningful?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[L K]

Steve Simmons may be a jerk but he had a legitimate question, asking what does it say when you have 5 straight 1st-round exits.  The last 2 to teams that you should have beaten, having chances to close it out at home (twice this year).

That's only a "legitimate" question if you can come up with an actual answer that explains how the loss to Washington five years ago and the loss to Montreal this year are connected in some meaningful way. Otherwise it's exactly as compelling and rational an argument as saying that the reason the Boston Red Sox didn't win a World Series for 86 years was that they were under a curse.

Having much of the same core around for that time isn't meaningful?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

While they played prominent roles right from the get-go...holding rookies to the standard of being "the core" in their first two years seems wildly unfair.

Should Colorado have moved on from MacKinnon because he was "the core" of Colorado while they were a bad team?

 

[Kin]

Having much of the same core around for that time isn't meaningful?

Yeah, that's not really how this works. If you're going to suggest causation you actually have to make an argument for it. Otherwise, well, they still wear blue jerseys too.

And, no, "they haven't won a round" is not a compelling argument that they can't otherwise "Steve Yzerman can't win a cup" would have been a compelling argument for about 12 years.

 

[Kin]

While they played prominent roles right from the get-go...holding rookies to the standard of being "the core" in their first two years seems wildly unfair.

But even then, they didn't lose all 5 series' because "the core" wasn't good enough. As I've pointed out, prior to this year Matthews and Marner had good playoff production. Not great, but certainly good. Teams have certainly won series with less. Nylander, who some around here questioned all year as to whether or not he could play in big moments, had a dynamite playoffs.

Beyond that though, the idea that anyone really "can't" play in the playoffs doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny. Or at least not to any that can be explained. Joe Thornton has a pretty mediocre playoff record, yet by all accounts he's a salt of the earth all-Canadian leader whose teammates love him and doesn't shy away from physical stuff. So what's the explanation? Why can't he play well in the playoffs?

Well, of course, he can. He's had good playoffs and bad playoffs. The idea that sportswriters like to push that some guys have mental blocks or a lack of toughness or whatever that prevents them from being good in the playoffs is largely horsecrap. It doesn't apply to the guys on the Leafs and reaching for it as an answer to the Leafs troubles and excuse for making bad moves just to satisfy a need for change so that you can say people were held "accountable" is the laziest sort of thinking.

 

[mr grieves]

I mean, that's the ultimate question right? Do they need major changes? Are we that upset about the 1st round loss to the Canadiens? Do we rush and blow it up? Do we change one of the major 4 forwards? Do we trade one of the major 4 D? Or do we realize that sh*t happens and sometimes a team blows it and sometimes they need to learn.

Well, where I tend to come down on that is that I have yet to hear an argument for making major changes that boils down to anything beyond "well, we didn't win and I'm frustrated by that so I'm going to say that not winning is argument enough that something is fundamentally wrong with the club".

I haven't heard "well, if we make this major change we will improve the team in this specific way" beyond people saying that if you traded Marner you'd have money to improve the team's depth via the least efficient use of cap dollars(the UFA market) while not acknowledging that without Marner this team isn't actually all that impressive in terms of star power. Nylander, Matthews and Tavares are all very good but lots of teams have three guys roughly that good. Especially if Tavares starts to decline a bit. Then it's probably a below average top 3.

Well, there?s a second part to trading Marner and, say, Rielley ? besides getting space for UFAs, you get to restock with picks, prospects, and/or young NHLers, giving the Leafs a path toward some ELC contributors or young players who can outperform their RFA deals. There?s not much coming along right now.

I think they ought to give it another whirl with the group they?ve got, and these re-signings suggest they will, but if it?s another early out, there?s no way they can avoid dealing with the unprecedentedly top-heavy roster construction.