No.92 said:
Nik the Trik said:
Kind of illustrative of the problem I have with the current group. So long as everything they say is so vague, everything can be interpreted to be "part of the plan". So a move like the Andersen move, which doesn't seem to fit with the idea of a patient rebuild, is a part of the plan because they say it is. But so could a Stamkos signing or a big offer sheet or....anything really.
It was probably too much expecting a sort of transparency so I guess I'll have to do with this front office what I did with all the other ones. That doesn't give me a great deal of comfort.
I honestly don't care if they are transparent about what their "plan" is as long as I can see appreciable improvement in the roster and we're not selling our future for now and for over-the-hill veterans like we did in the past. Our cupboards are starting to get filled and we are probably on the uptrend now as far as competitiveness goes.
I agree, I don't think there's any requirement for management to tell us what the plan is. There's no magic way to build a team, you can't just draft top 3 every single season and hope it works out (see Oilers). They'll always be opportunities to add other players through trades or free agency that could help along the overall process. I think getting Andersen as a competent option in goal can have an overall positive effect on the team. If Andersen plays well, it helps the rest of the team play with confidence and maybe some of those young players thrive. Same goes for Stamkos, although I'm on the fence with him, he's not ancient in hockey terms, far from it, and if the Leafs get him we hope we can produce well into his 30s and show leadership that younger guys like Matthews, Marner and Nylander can learn from. Again I don't think that's counter-intuitive to a "patient plan" approach. If you have the opportunity to add an elite player like Stamkos at 26/27, you have to think hard about it, those guys don't come along every day.