Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

Its still the Chicago "model" without Stamkos, including where we picked in the last half decade (and more).

Toews and Kane's rookie seasons shot the team up the standings from 71 points (just 2 better than Toronto last season)  to 88 points in a single season.

The problem is that the Leafs drafted Marner, and have a 1st overall this year.  The Leafs have not actually drafted Toews and Kane.  You seem to think that they have.

They are our version of them.  They are what was available to us at 1st OA and 4th OA and they will be every bit as good when you look at every projective comparison available at this time.

Adding Stamkos might even mean a Cup while they are under their ELC's based on predictive model projections.

If we add Stamkos now, we are not following the Chicago "model".  We are creating a Leafs "model".  If we don't add Stamkos if he comes available, then we will be following the Chicago "model" and will still rise substantially next season out of lottery contention and be a middling team next season and be looking to add the best available UFA in the season after their sophomore season as we will be ready to contend at that point.

Personally, I like paying attention to things management says:

?If there?s a free agent or there?s a player that will make our organization better, that will fit into the thought process that we have going forward, there will be no hesitation,? he said. ?We will do whatever is the right thing to make this team, to make this organization, a team for today and tomorrow, depending upon what is available.?

- Lou Lamoriello

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Can we stop using the Chicago model as a template please...the Hossa and Keith contracts are obviously not going to happen again.

Same goes for Pittsburgh. 

Perhaps we start talking about San Jose or St. Louis?  The Rangers?

Honestly, the idea of using any other teams model as a template has always bugged me. You can't replicate another teams success. Every team that won the Cup or has had sustained success over a long period of time drafted well, acquired as many good players as they could, managed their cap efficiently, and then got a bit of luck in a number of places along the way. But every team did that stuff differently and in their own unique way.

 

[TBLeafer]

Toews and Kane's rookie seasons shot the team up the standings from 71 points (just 2 better than Toronto last season)  to 88 points in a single season.

And, if/when Matthews, Marner, and Nylander show that they can have that kind of impact, then we can start talking about them being a group of players the team can build around, and start adding pieces like Stamkos.

I mean, this really isn't that difficult a concept to understand. You can't say the Leafs prospects will have the same impact as Toews and Kane. We simply don't know whether they will or not. And, you can't build your plan around them doing so, until they show they can do so at the NHL level.

What the Leafs have is a bunch of eggs. You're planning around a bunch of chickens. For all we know, those eggs could hatch lizards.

Disagree.  You plan to make your team better at every turn.  As much as possible.  Whenever possible. As long as it means you don't have to give up your future to do so.

Climbing up the standings next season, by adding Stamkos for nothing but cap isn't giving up the future.  It is solidifying it.

 

[rdowdall]

They are our version of them.  They are what was available to us at 1st OA and 4th OA and they will be every bit as good when you look at every projective comparison available at this time.

The Leafs haven't even drafted one of the players yet.  They could still take Laine.  I mean projections never fail.  Look at that guy who was projecting the rapture because all the available data that he had said it was coming.

Adding Stamkos might even mean a Cup while they are under their ELC's based on predictive model projections.

If we add Stamkos now, we are not following the Chicago "model".  We are creating a Leafs "model".  If we don't add Stamkos if he comes available, then we will be following the Chicago "model" and will still rise substantially next season out of lottery contention and be a middling team next season and be looking to add the best available UFA in the season after their sophomore season as we will be ready to contend at that point.

So all it takes to win a Stanley cup is:

1.  1st overall pick
2.  4th overall pick
3.  8th overall pick
4.  5th overall pick
5.  Veteran UFA that was a 1st overall pick. 

I mean goaltending, support players, they don't matter much.  This building a team thing is easy.  Can't figure out why the Leafs haven't done it before. 

Personally, I like paying attention to things management says:

?If there?s a free agent or there?s a player that will make our organization better, that will fit into the thought process that we have going forward, there will be no hesitation,? he said. ?We will do whatever is the right thing to make this team, to make this organization, a team for today and tomorrow, depending upon what is available.?

- Lou Lamoriello

Personally I like to see things actually happen before I promise people that they are going happen.

 

[TBLeafer]

Can we stop using the Chicago model as a template please...the Hossa and Keith contracts are obviously not going to happen again.

Same goes for Pittsburgh. 

Perhaps we start talking about San Jose or St. Louis?  The Rangers?

Honestly, the idea of using any other teams model as a template has always bugged me. You can't replicate another teams success. Every team that won the Cup or has had sustained success over a long period of time drafted well, acquired as many good players as they could, managed their cap efficiently, and then got a bit of luck in a number of places along the way. But every team did that stuff differently and in their own unique way.

Agreed.  Which is precisely why holding off and passing on Stamkos makes zero sense if the Leafs want to carve their own path.

They aren't even being impatient by doing so.  They would have waited patiently for his existing contract to naturally expire, instead of jumping the gun because they were confident they could sign him and traded away valuable futures for the privilege.

 

[herman]

?If there?s a free agent or there?s a player that will make our organization better, that will fit into the thought process that we have going forward, there will be no hesitation,? he said. ?We will do whatever is the right thing to make this team, to make this organization, a team for today and tomorrow, depending upon what is available.?

- Lou Lamoriello

Just highlighting that additional key point. It's not just about incremental improvement. It's strategic improvement.

 

[TBLeafer]

They are our version of them.  They are what was available to us at 1st OA and 4th OA and they will be every bit as good when you look at every projective comparison available at this time.

The Leafs haven't even drafted one of the players yet.  They could still take Laine.  I mean projections never fail.  Look at that guy who was projecting the rapture because all the available data that he had said it was coming.

Adding Stamkos might even mean a Cup while they are under their ELC's based on predictive model projections.

If we add Stamkos now, we are not following the Chicago "model".  We are creating a Leafs "model".  If we don't add Stamkos if he comes available, then we will be following the Chicago "model" and will still rise substantially next season out of lottery contention and be a middling team next season and be looking to add the best available UFA in the season after their sophomore season as we will be ready to contend at that point.

So all it takes to win a Stanley cup is:

1.  1st overall pick
2.  4th overall pick
3.  8th overall pick
4.  5th overall pick
5.  Veteran UFA that was a 1st overall pick. 

I mean goaltending, support players, they don't matter much.  This building a team thing is easy.  Can't figure out why the Leafs haven't done it before. 

Personally, I like paying attention to things management says:

?If there?s a free agent or there?s a player that will make our organization better, that will fit into the thought process that we have going forward, there will be no hesitation,? he said. ?We will do whatever is the right thing to make this team, to make this organization, a team for today and tomorrow, depending upon what is available.?

- Lou Lamoriello

Personally I like to see things actually happen before I promise people that they are going happen.

I get it.  You don't want us to get better yet by adding outside pieces because you don't think we have enough good pieces or we don't know what the ones we do have will turn into yet.

I get it.  I disagree.

 

[Kin]

Can we stop using the Chicago model as a template please...the Hossa and Keith contracts are obviously not going to happen again.

Same goes for Pittsburgh. 

Perhaps we start talking about San Jose or St. Louis?  The Rangers?

I think there's a difference between using a team as a template and planning around doing things in the exact same way they did. For instance, using San Jose as a road map would be crazy because you'd have to look at acquiring a #1 center in the prime of his career for very little in the way of assets, drafting another one in the 8th round of a draft and trading for a #1 defenseman on the strength of him being misused as a forward.

When reasonable people talk about using Chicago as a model going forward I think it's a realization that they're really just the latest example of a team taking the same basic steps to become the sort of upper-tier club you want to build. The steps they took are roughly the same as the ones Pittsburgh or LA or Florida or Washington took. Getting bogged down in trying to build an exact replica isn't helpful but you can look for commonalities in successful approaches.

 

[TBLeafer]

?If there?s a free agent or there?s a player that will make our organization better, that will fit into the thought process that we have going forward, there will be no hesitation,? he said. ?We will do whatever is the right thing to make this team, to make this organization, a team for today and tomorrow, depending upon what is available.?

- Lou Lamoriello

Just highlighting that additional key point. It's not just about incremental improvement. It's strategic improvement.

Exactly.  You insulate your rookie 1st OA by adding an available 1st OA proven UFA that is young enough so there isn't unfair pressure and expectations put on your rookie 1st OA too early.

 

[Kin]

They are our version of them.  They are what was available to us at 1st OA and 4th OA and they will be every bit as good when you look at every projective comparison available at this time.

Adding Stamkos might even mean a Cup while they are under their ELC's based on predictive model projections.

When you say this, what are you referring to? Actual statistical projections? Or just personal interpretation? Because we've already discussed how Marner's actual #'s in his draft+1 year aren't anywhere close to what Kane's #'s were in his draft year.

 

[TBLeafer]

They are our version of them.  They are what was available to us at 1st OA and 4th OA and they will be every bit as good when you look at every projective comparison available at this time.

Adding Stamkos might even mean a Cup while they are under their ELC's based on predictive model projections.

When you say this, what are you referring to? Actual statistical projections? Or just personal interpretation? Because we've already discussed how Marner's actual #'s in his draft+1 year aren't anywhere close to what Kane's #'s were in his draft year.

Where does Marner's NHLe project?

 

[rdowdall]

They are our version of them.  They are what was available to us at 1st OA and 4th OA and they will be every bit as good when you look at every projective comparison available at this time.

The Leafs haven't even drafted one of the players yet.  They could still take Laine.  I mean projections never fail.  Look at that guy who was projecting the rapture because all the available data that he had said it was coming.

Adding Stamkos might even mean a Cup while they are under their ELC's based on predictive model projections.

If we add Stamkos now, we are not following the Chicago "model".  We are creating a Leafs "model".  If we don't add Stamkos if he comes available, then we will be following the Chicago "model" and will still rise substantially next season out of lottery contention and be a middling team next season and be looking to add the best available UFA in the season after their sophomore season as we will be ready to contend at that point.

So all it takes to win a Stanley cup is:

1.  1st overall pick
2.  4th overall pick
3.  8th overall pick
4.  5th overall pick
5.  Veteran UFA that was a 1st overall pick. 

I mean goaltending, support players, they don't matter much.  This building a team thing is easy.  Can't figure out why the Leafs haven't done it before. 

Personally, I like paying attention to things management says:

?If there?s a free agent or there?s a player that will make our organization better, that will fit into the thought process that we have going forward, there will be no hesitation,? he said. ?We will do whatever is the right thing to make this team, to make this organization, a team for today and tomorrow, depending upon what is available.?

- Lou Lamoriello

Personally I like to see things actually happen before I promise people that they are going happen.

I get it.  You don't want us to get better yet by adding outside pieces because you don't think we have enough good pieces or we don't know what the ones we do have will turn into yet.

I get it.  I disagree.

You understand that the reason I don't think the Leafs should jump the gun before they know what they have is because that is what they have done for the last 49 years and it hasn't worked. 

The Gilmour years, when they were making the playoffs and getting to the conference finals, the core was flawed, because it was built around Gilmour playing 30 -40 minutes a night and being super human.

The Sundin years when they were making the playoffs and getting to the conference finals, the core was flawed because it was built around Sundin being awesome and Joeseph/Belfour stopping 40 shots a night because they didn't have a defence.

The Kessel years when they weren't making the playoffs and not getting high picks, the core was flawed because Kessel didn't have the support players he needed to even attempt to be the player that we all think that Gilmour and Sundin are. 

These cores were all built poorly.  They were all jerry rigged together in an effort to be good enough.

If you add Stamkos, even without paying anything other than cap space, you are creating a core that is flawed again because you don't have the necessary pieces around him to make the team great.

Look at the Kessel trade.  Lets say that the Leafs didn't have to pay the picks they did in order to get Kessel, and they got Kessel for free.  That Leafs team still wouldn't have been able to compete for a cup.  Sure they would have had Seguin and Hamilton, but that Leafs team was further away than a Seguin and Hamilton away from getting a cup and being a dominate team year after year.  They didn't have the core in place in order to make that cup run.  It wasn't the Kessel trade itself that did in the Leafs, although it certainly didn't help either, it was the thinking that I can add a good or great player to a team without a core, and we are going to be able to add to that good or great player sometime later to make a better core.  That's the thinking that has done the Leafs in time and time again.  Trying to run before they can even crawl.

 

[Kin]

Where does Marner's NHLe project?

Well, without getting into the specifics we know it's less than Kane's. Kane scored 145 points in 58 games as an 18 year old. Marner scored 116 points in 57 games as a 19 year old. Given that the two factors in the NHLe projection are points and the age of the player, then Marner's advanced age and significantly lower output(his PPG was 80% of Kane's and his GPG was about 60% of Kane's) then he doesn't project to be in Kane's ballpark. Again, his Draft+1 numbers are much closer to Drouin's than Kane's draft year numbers.

 

[TBLeafer]

Where does Marner's NHLe project?

Well, without getting into the specifics we know it's less than Kane's. Kane scored 145 points in 58 games as an 18 year old. Marner scored 116 points in 57 games as a 19 year old. Given that the two factors in the NHLe projection are points and the age of the player, then Marner's advanced age and significantly lower output(his PPG was 80% of Kane's and his GPG was about 60% of Kane's) then he doesn't project to be in Kane's ballpark. Again, his Draft+1 numbers are much closer to Drouin's than Kane's draft year numbers.

60-70 point range, right?  No not quite as good as Kane, but he's OUR Kane and that's still pretty damn good.

Matthews projects between Eichel and McDavid, which probably ends up with a higher PPG AVG than Toews.

I'm okay with Toews and Kane reversed in PPG.

 

[rdowdall]

Where does Marner's NHLe project?

Well, without getting into the specifics we know it's less than Kane's. Kane scored 145 points in 58 games as an 18 year old. Marner scored 116 points in 57 games as a 19 year old. Given that the two factors in the NHLe projection are points and the age of the player, then Marner's advanced age and significantly lower output(his PPG was 80% of Kane's and his GPG was about 60% of Kane's) then he doesn't project to be in Kane's ballpark. Again, his Draft+1 numbers are much closer to Drouin's than Kane's draft year numbers.

60-70 point range, right?  No not quite as good as Kane, but he's OUR Kane and that's still pretty damn good.

Matthews projects between Eichel and McDavid, which probably ends up with a higher PPG AVG than Toews.

I'm okay with Toews and Kane reversed in PPG.

Marners NHLe projection is 53 points.

 

[TBLeafer]

They are our version of them.  They are what was available to us at 1st OA and 4th OA and they will be every bit as good when you look at every projective comparison available at this time.

The Leafs haven't even drafted one of the players yet.  They could still take Laine.  I mean projections never fail.  Look at that guy who was projecting the rapture because all the available data that he had said it was coming.

Adding Stamkos might even mean a Cup while they are under their ELC's based on predictive model projections.

If we add Stamkos now, we are not following the Chicago "model".  We are creating a Leafs "model".  If we don't add Stamkos if he comes available, then we will be following the Chicago "model" and will still rise substantially next season out of lottery contention and be a middling team next season and be looking to add the best available UFA in the season after their sophomore season as we will be ready to contend at that point.

So all it takes to win a Stanley cup is:

1.  1st overall pick
2.  4th overall pick
3.  8th overall pick
4.  5th overall pick
5.  Veteran UFA that was a 1st overall pick. 

I mean goaltending, support players, they don't matter much.  This building a team thing is easy.  Can't figure out why the Leafs haven't done it before. 

Personally, I like paying attention to things management says:

?If there?s a free agent or there?s a player that will make our organization better, that will fit into the thought process that we have going forward, there will be no hesitation,? he said. ?We will do whatever is the right thing to make this team, to make this organization, a team for today and tomorrow, depending upon what is available.?

- Lou Lamoriello

Personally I like to see things actually happen before I promise people that they are going happen.

I get it.  You don't want us to get better yet by adding outside pieces because you don't think we have enough good pieces or we don't know what the ones we do have will turn into yet.

I get it.  I disagree.

You understand that the reason I don't think the Leafs should jump the gun before they know what they have is because that is what they have done for the last 49 years and it hasn't worked. 

The Gilmour years, when they were making the playoffs and getting to the conference finals, the core was flawed, because it was built around Gilmour playing 30 -40 minutes a night and being super human.

The Sundin years when they were making the playoffs and getting to the conference finals, the core was flawed because it was built around Sundin being awesome and Joeseph/Belfour stopping 40 shots a night because they didn't have a defence.

The Kessel years when they weren't making the playoffs and not getting high picks, the core was flawed because Kessel didn't have the support players he needed to even attempt to be the player that we all think that Gilmour and Sundin are. 

These cores were all built poorly.  They were all jerry rigged together in an effort to be good enough.

If you add Stamkos, even without paying anything other than cap space, you are creating a core that is flawed again because you don't have the necessary pieces around him to make the team great.

Look at the Kessel trade.  Lets say that the Leafs didn't have to pay the picks they did in order to get Kessel, and they got Kessel for free.  That Leafs team still wouldn't have been able to compete for a cup.  Sure they would have had Seguin and Hamilton, but that Leafs team was further away than a Seguin and Hamilton away from getting a cup and being a dominate team year after year.  They didn't have the core in place in order to make that cup run.  It wasn't the Kessel trade itself that did in the Leafs, although it certainly didn't help either, it was the thinking that I can add a good or great player to a team without a core, and we are going to be able to add to that good or great player sometime later to make a better core.  That's the thinking that has done the Leafs in time and time again.  Trying to run before they can even crawl.

When was the last time we had as full a prospect cupboard as we now do?  How many more are we already going to add this year to that?  We are drafting.  We are developing.  We aren't trading away picks or top prospects.  We haven't been since we drafted Rielly, unless they were already being replaced by a better, already overflowing prospect pool.

Adding Stamkos in his prime is not trying to run before they crawl.  They have been crawling along now quietly for the last half decade.

Adding Stamkos makes them stand up and teaches them how to walk.

 

[TBLeafer]

Where does Marner's NHLe project?

Well, without getting into the specifics we know it's less than Kane's. Kane scored 145 points in 58 games as an 18 year old. Marner scored 116 points in 57 games as a 19 year old. Given that the two factors in the NHLe projection are points and the age of the player, then Marner's advanced age and significantly lower output(his PPG was 80% of Kane's and his GPG was about 60% of Kane's) then he doesn't project to be in Kane's ballpark. Again, his Draft+1 numbers are much closer to Drouin's than Kane's draft year numbers.

60-70 point range, right?  No not quite as good as Kane, but he's OUR Kane and that's still pretty damn good.

Matthews projects between Eichel and McDavid, which probably ends up with a higher PPG AVG than Toews.

I'm okay with Toews and Kane reversed in PPG.

Marners NHLe projection is 53 points.

I was using the playoffs.

 

[Kin]

60-70 point range, right? 

Not as far as I can tell. Marner's NHLe in his draft year was 52, now it's 53. Although it should be mentioned this isn't a hard science and doesn't account for linemates. I've seen Marner's draft year NHLe at under 50.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/7/7/8897001/2014-15-nhl-equivalencies-of-leafs-prospects

 

[rdowdall]

When was the last time we had as full a prospect cupboard as we now do?  How many more are we already going to add this year to that?  We are drafting.  We are developing.  We aren't trading away picks or top prospects.  We haven't been since we drafted Rielly, unless they were already being replaced by a better, already overflowing prospect pool.

The Gilmour years and the Sundin years.  Before getting Gilmour, the Leafs had drafted the likes of Clark, Damphousse, and Courtnall.

In the Sundin years, they had highly touted prospects like Grant Marshall and Brandon Convery to go along with Danil Markov, Tomas Kaberle and Yannick Trembley. 

This myth that the Leafs haven't ever sat there and tried to draft a team is somewhat inaccurate.  The problem has always been that they didn't want to take the time to see it through and they tried to accelerate the plan. 

Adding Stamkos in his prime is not trying to run before they crawl.  They have been crawling along now quietly for the last half decade.

You should probably throw the Reilly year out.  Yes they kept their 1st overall pick, but not much else may come from that draft.  The Nylander year, may be okay.  It's really only last year that they actually started to stockpile picks in an effort to build their prospect base.  So really, they have only been crawling for about a year. 

EDIT:  Sorry, the Reilly year may be okay.  It's the year after that that isn't all that great.  Again, these are still only okay years, not great years. 

Adding Stamkos makes them stand up and teaches them how to walk.

Adding Stamkos sends the message that they want to win now, as opposed to the future and puts pressure on the young players to develop faster than they may be able to develop.  The team will then have to start making decisions to maximize the Stamkos asset, which means that they will have to start sacrificing their future so that they can surround Stamkos with the pieces they need to win now.  Seems oddly familiar.

 

[TBLeafer]

60-70 point range, right? 

Not as far as I can tell. Marner's NHLe in his draft year was 52, now it's 53. Although it should be mentioned this isn't a hard science and doesn't account for linemates. I've seen Marner's draft year NHLe at under 50.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/7/7/8897001/2014-15-nhl-equivalencies-of-leafs-prospects

Okay, I view playoffs to be a higher level of competition than league play, no?

44p in 18GP = 2.44 PPG x 82G = 200.08 * .30 = 60 PPG NHLe to be exact, not 70.  Still....