herman said:
I believe I said that he had to be in the opening night line-up, so I'm probably going to lose... but my heart says I'm a winner.
Training Camp Thread - Now with 100% more Tavares
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
I believe I said that he had to be in the opening night line-up, so I'm probably going to lose... but my heart says I'm a winner.
Guilt Trip
Active member
They put McBackup on waivers because they believe he'll pass through where Sparks wouldn't. Holl and Marincin will be sitting until Oz or Dermott falter.cabber24 said:
OldTimeHockey
Active member
The question was asked on Sportsnet who would win in the case of the coaching staff wanting the more reliable McElhinney and the management looking at the future with Sparks.
Burke figured the management would get their way.
I'm a little surprised that Carrick was placed on waivers before Holl and Marincin.
Burke figured the management would get their way.
I'm a little surprised that Carrick was placed on waivers before Holl and Marincin.
Hobbes
New member
OldTimeHockey said:
There was a good piece in The Athletic on the 3 possible goalies. The take-away from it was roughly:
- McBackup was riding an unsustainably high performance in the last year and was due for a correction back to his mean which was the worst of the 3
- Pickard was the moderately safe, dime-a-dozen backup who is easy to replace
- Sparks has more potential upside and did well enough in the AHL to show decent NHL potential. He's more of a gamble but likely to come in at least as good as a regressed McBackup.
Link to original article
Hobbes
New member
L K said:
Maybe it was an agreement that if he wasn't going to crack the top 6 and get regular playing time the Leafs would trade/waive him to give him a chance with another organization. Carrick didn't show anything in the preseason or his limited use last season to make you think that you couldn't afford to lose him. Nor did Holl. With Holl perhaps they feel there's a greater chance for him to grow into it? Not sure either is more than a career AHLer.
Coco-puffs
New member
L K said:
I certainly do:
#1 Carrick doesn't look like a very good PKer. Holl was part of PK#1 on the Marlies. One that was historically good.
#2 Holl can SKATE the puck out of his own end AND pass it. Carrick seems to be ok at the passing thing, but he doesn't have the speed of Holl and doesn't exit the zone with the puck on his stick enough.
L K said:
I've brought this up before, but Carrick's big downfall is that he can't/won't play speciality teams here. Holl on the other hand can at least provide PK minutes if he's in the line-up.
bustaheims
Active member
Mildly surprised by Carrick. Won't be shocked if he's claimed, as RHD are always in demand (could also be a deal in place from a team concerned about losing him to waivers). I suspect both goalies go unclaimed.
herman
Well-known member
Coco-puffs said:
CarltonTheBear said:
On top of that, Holl was an ECHL cast off when Dubas started with the Leafs. Now he's on the opening day roster by virtue of his body of work since he joined the organization, on top of the roster flexibility he provides as stated above. For the development group and the players on the Marlies, that's a strong message from management that if you put in the work, you'll get a chance.
According to Justin Bourne, Dubas has been asking for Holl to be given a shot at the lineup for about two seasons now.
I'm a huge Carrick fan, but even I can see his body's instincts aren't keeping up with his game (over)think. If he goes unclaimed, he'll be an awesome addition to a depleted Marlies roster and can maybe work out the confidence issues.
L K
Active member
herman said:
I think that's fair, although Carrick was put in a tough position of not playing for large stretches and then being expected to perform. Everything about him suggests he's a hard worker and diligent in the gym. It's still tough to shake off rust and play defense.
Holl has the benefit of being two years older and playing in the lesser league. I'm not sure that it's entirely a fair comparison for Holl although I'm not sure that I'm all that vested in Carrick to argue too hard for him because I don't think he's a huge loss.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
I don't disagree but i think putting up good numbers as a backup is as much about adapting to the role mentally/preparation wise so while it's unlikely McBackup has developed to the point where his sv% last year is a real reflection of his ability, I could buy that he's better suited to the particular challenges that come with playing every 10 days.
ZBBM
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
I am not against picking Sparks over McElhinney, but this does kind of give the lie to the idea that if you produce at the NHL level -- in fact, do pretty much everything you are asked to do -- then you will be rewarded with a roster spot. McElhinney could legitimately go to Dubas and say, "What more did you want me to do?" And the only honest answer Dubas could give would be, "Become younger."
herman
Well-known member
L K said:
This is my biggest gripe with Babcock. It's so hard to put in a good consistent showing if you don't have consistent-ish playing time especially on defense. There were times were it looked like he was so hard on himself and trying to do too much.
On the outside, it looks like a lot of Babcock's calls on fringe players are mostly right. Holland, Corrado, Griffith never really got going after riding the bench. I don't think that's entirely to do with them being sub-NHL, but might have more to do with opportunity -- some of their prime years not playing, stigma around the league from being shelved by someone perceived to be one of the best coaches out there.
At the same time, this is the fringe; I don't think I'm going to sweat it all that much this season. We're not in rebuild mode anymore, the core is set, and once Nylander is back in the fold, it's a pretty scary great one (if we get average defense on the right side).