Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hobarth said:I always felt that Rielly was as qualified to be TO's #1 dman as was Bozak to be TO's #1 center.
Agree. I can see if Sandin or Dermott were poised to take over, and maybe by the deadline they'll be ready, but neither is ready now. Like Rielly or not, he does play a huge role on the team and eats a lot of minutes.OldTimeHockey said:hobarth said:I always felt that Rielly was as qualified to be TO's #1 dman as was Bozak to be TO's #1 center.
So is the issue that Rielly isn't good and we should trade him or that Rielly isn't a #1 and is expected to play like one? And if it's the latter, is that on Rielly or the Leafs?
Even if Rielly is a really good #2 or #3 defenseman, trading him away creates a hole that can't magically be plugged for less money than what we figure Rielly will get.
Guilt Trip said:Agree. I can see if Sandin or Dermott were poised to take over, and maybe by the deadline they'll be ready, but neither is ready now. Like Rielly or not, he does play a huge role on the team and eats a lot of minutes.OldTimeHockey said:hobarth said:I always felt that Rielly was as qualified to be TO's #1 dman as was Bozak to be TO's #1 center.
So is the issue that Rielly isn't good and we should trade him or that Rielly isn't a #1 and is expected to play like one? And if it's the latter, is that on Rielly or the Leafs?
Even if Rielly is a really good #2 or #3 defenseman, trading him away creates a hole that can't magically be plugged for less money than what we figure Rielly will get.
Nik said:Other people have pointed it out but it's hard not to see how Edmonton set themselves up for this. By taking Keith's money they allowed Chicago to sign Jones for what they did and that bumps Nurse's price up too.
Really just some galaxy brain stuff from Holland this year.
Joe S. said:Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.
I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.
McNamara gets a pass on everything. He convinced the Leafs to bring over 2 guys from Sweden way back when and also convinced them to come play in Toronto. Hammarstrom was a pretty good player but Salming was arguably the greatest Leaf ever and my favourite.bustaheims said:Joe S. said:Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.
I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.
Stellick, in his one year as GM, wasn't exactly good - but was also thrown into the position without enough experience running a team at any level. Still, I'd call him an incompetent GM. McNamara was hit-and-miss, but was also GM during the worst of the Ballard years, so, he gets some benefit of the doubt. The rest were mostly run-of-the-mill GMs.
I think the issue is less that the Leafs have fired a bunch of incompetent GMs. It's more that they haven't really had many standouts in the position in the time frame we're talking about.
Guilt Trip said:McNamara gets a pass on everything. He convinced the Leafs to bring over 2 guys from Sweden way back when and also convinced them to come play in Toronto. Hammarstrom was a pretty good player but Salming was arguably the greatest Leaf ever and my favourite.
bustaheims said:Joe S. said:Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.
I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.
Stellick, in his one year as GM, wasn't exactly good - but was also thrown into the position without enough experience running a team at any level. Still, I'd call him an incompetent GM. McNamara was hit-and-miss, but was also GM during the worst of the Ballard years, so, he gets some benefit of the doubt. The rest were mostly run-of-the-mill GMs.
I think the issue is less that the Leafs have fired a bunch of incompetent GMs. It's more that they haven't really had many standouts in the position in the time frame we're talking about.
Joe S. said:That?s fair - that just predates my fandom.
I have been around since Punch and Conn ran the team, they won 4 cups in 6 years. Conn died and his son was not Conn and Harold was Harold, after Harold died they took a long time to find stable ownership. In my estimation we have never had a better management structure than we have now. I think the last drafts since Dubas took over have been very productive, yet that remains to be seen. At some point we just have to go with the process and hopefully will break through in the next year. The grass is not greener on the other side in most situations, I have found. If there is gross incompetence, then that is a different story. But right now I think we have to stay the course.bustaheims said:Joe S. said:That?s fair - that just predates my fandom.
It was the very early days of mine - especially McNamara - but, they also align with when the team really hit bottom in terms of how it was being run.
Burke was pretty freaking bad.Joe S. said:Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.
I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.
Bender said:Burke was pretty freaking bad.Joe S. said:Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.
I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.
I'm not saying Burke wasn't better - he was. But to me having an idiotic and poorly executed plan isn't a heck of a lot better than random chance, and as much as we say Rask for Raycroft was bad the Kessel deal is pretty high up there also.Joe S. said:Bender said:Burke was pretty freaking bad.Joe S. said:Not that I want to start a history debate here but hiring so many incompetent gms in a row seems a tad over dramatic to me.
I go back to the Floyd Smith era, and in my opinion he and JFJ are the only ones I?d label as incompetent, well and cliff fletcher 2.0, Nonis was pretty much a lame duck so who cares really. The others made good moves and bad moves, like any other competent gm would make.
Say what you want about Burke, but he had a track record and he had a plan. Obviously it didn?t work out but he stuck to his plan. As opposed to say, JFJ who seemed completely random on how he ran the team.
Joe S. said:Just to be clear I agree with you and in no way am I defending the Burke era.
But I guess I could give him credit for these finds?
Van Riemsdyk
Bozak
Gardiner
Lupul (well briefly anyway)
MacArthur
Grabovski
Not that any of these guys put any team over the top but they were decent.