Kyle Dubas: Keep or Move?
- Thread starter Arn
- Start date
Rob said:
It's possible that a lower budget team with plenty of cap space (Buffalo? Arizona?) would have mild interest in Tavares. After Leafs payout his bonus July 1 this year, they would only be on the hook to pay him just under 9 million total for 2 years worth of service, probably decent value if they can absorb the 11 million cap hit.
Now getting Tavares to waive his NTC to go to a low budget team that is probably not going to even make playoffs would be a tough sell.
bustaheims
Active member
cw said:
I can definitely see him feeling like he needs to finish what he started, especially since it wouldn?t be hard for him to convince himself they?re not that far from getting there (and, with a few shrewd moves/tweaks, maybe they can).
Is he the right guy to get it done? I don?t know. There?s certainly been a number of instances of teams needing a new perspective to get them over the hump, and part of me wonders if that?s the case here. Dubas might be a little too close to things to be able to get the clear view that?s needed.
bustaheims said:
If he stays he has to get cutthroat. He can't be chummy with the guys and if they ask for an unreasonable number and are unwilling to budge you sign and trade. This team can't have their stars eating that much of the cap, they just can't. It hasn't worked and it won't work, there just isn't enough depth. If any of them want anywhere near McDavid or Mackinnon money you have to walk. I love Auston but he's just not in that tier and the cap has barely moved. I'd 100% rather have Pastrnaks new contract than Marners old contract, so fat chance there's any outplaying of either of their next contracts. I'd only keep him because I think some stability at the top is important for future decision making which has to happen soon and if the Leafs decide they have to pivot and maybe reload in a year or two then so be it. We saw this with St. Louis and the like. If everyone at the top is gone you kind of wonder what incentive there is for a player to stay given the uncertainty.
Not against keeping him, but he has to recognize now that playoff hockey is a different beast and the team needs to somehow find a way to better insulate themselves against poor performances or injury through wave after wave of depth. Carolina has it, the Kraken have it, Vegas has it (except for goaltending).
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
He has written off sunk costs before, I'm just surprised how many each GM made over the years that necessitated us moving off first or second round picks to fix mistakes. We also can't let players constantly walk to free agency. Would've been nice to get off of Kerfoot while we had the chance.
bustaheims said:
I think his reactions in the suite above the rink during the games showed how into it he was - how much he cared about the outcome.
I can't imagine there would not be an element of that in his thinking.
And a pride element of wanting to finish what he started - surrounded by a bunch of people he hired.
In round one, his job was on the line so some might argue that was part of it.
His job is still on the line ...
But I suspect his emotions during the games were more than that.
bustaheims said:
I'm not sure either.
In my mind, there is little question that some of the playoff struggles and where he finds himself today is on him. In his early years as GM, he seemed to be heavier into the analytics that overvalued skill and undervalued size & grit. A couple of spankings in the playoffs underscored that and he's been playing catchup in that regard with his roster ever since. Part of the failure to score in these recent playoffs was not due to a lack of skill - it arguably related to a lack of guys to win the puck battles along the boards and score the dirty goals in their top 6.
bustaheims said:
Maybe.
If Dubas goes, Keefe probably isn't far behind because the new GM often wants his own coach.
Matthews is going to be tough to keep because the prospect cupboard is pretty bare. Nylander could be tougher to keep for the same reason but there might be something also left over from his holdout.
There is a fair chance they may only have one year left with Matthews and Nylander. So the new GM & coach might have to get acquainted with what they have, turn it around and pull it off within a year?
That leads me to maybe give Dubas more time or you could derail their last shot with this core.
Put yourself in Dubas' shoes. MLSE didn't lock him up last summer so he knows they were not bubbling with confidence in him. If he knows Matthews & Nylander are going to depart, what does his job security look like if they fall short next spring? The torches and pitchforks will be out.
Scotty Bowman was a great coach. But he helped himself a lot by looking at when to move on and the situation he was moving on to. If I were in Dubas' shoes, I'd be looking around at what all my options are. That was part of the risk MLSE took when they did not extend him. I'll bet there are rosier situations for Dubas's career elsewhere that might not be there when he's probably fired a year or two from now.
https://twitter.com/frank_seravalli/status/1658083556600446978
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Zee said:
Oddly enough I actually think Calgary could make a lot of sense as a trading partner if the Leafs decide to make core changes. Maybe Nylander goes back "home" and the Leafs finally get the "furnace" lots of people wanted in 2015?
mr grieves
New member
Bullfrog said:
Nylander can contribute during the playoffs, and Marner's worth more on the trade market.
bustaheims
Active member
Bender said:
Two aging superstars, a core in decline, question marks in net, and a pretty barren farm system? It's a pretty serious clean up job requiring a fairly short turnaround time. Not super appealing, if you ask me.
bustaheims said:
On the flip side though they're probably guaranteed to win the lottery whenever the next NHL phenom comes around.