Unofficial 2013-2014 Armchair GM Thread

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Your left over cap space concerns me, BWB.  No flexibility for injuries/trades/etc.
Plus, if the cap doesn't hit 71M, your roster might not even be feasible.

I think there's room to play there... I like the make up a bit better in the "hard to play against" department.

And no designated face puncher!

 

[Jalili]

This year from steen is an abberation, like that of jason blake.  He won't be hitting 40 goals again.

That's assuming that goal scoring is what defines Steen's ability as a player, when he's more of a do-everything sort of player that excels in whatever role he's put in.

He didn't seem to excel in any role with the leafs; hence why he was traded.

That was back in 2008. Steen has a come a long ways since then as a great all-around player. That's why it's problematic to compare him to a one trick pony like Jason Blake.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

A contender from Mirtle:

CAPGEEK.COM ARMCHAIR GM ROSTER
Mirtle early off-season Leafs

FORWARDS
Joffrey Lupul ($5.250m) / Tyler Bozak ($4.200m) / Phil Kessel ($8.000m)
James Van Riemsdyk ($4.250m) / Paul Stastny ($6.500m) / Radim Vrbata ($3.200m)
Benoit Pouliot ($1.450m) / Nazem Kadri ($2.900m) / Carter Ashton ($0.650m)
Troy Bodie ($0.600m) / Peter Holland ($0.700m) / David Clarkson ($5.250m)
Jerry D'Amigo ($0.650m) /

DEFENSEMEN
Jake Gardiner ($2.250m) / Dion Phaneuf ($7.000m)
Carl Gunnarsson ($3.150m) / Matt Niskanen ($4.300m)
Morgan Rielly ($0.894m) / Stephane Robidas ($2.900m)
Mike Weaver ($1.000m)

GOALTENDERS
Jonathan Bernier ($2.900m)
Thomas Greiss ($0.900m)

BUYOUTS
Mike Komisarek ($0.000m)
Mikhail Grabovski ($0.000m)
Tim Gleason ($0.833m)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $70,000,000; CAP PAYROLL: $69,727,500; BONUSES: $850,000
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $272,500

Man alive, I don't like this at all.  Available cap space is non-existent, it doesn't really address the forward group's defensive deficiencies, and it's largely (if not wholly) predicated on UFA signings.  I like the additions on defense, but with that lineup I think we'd experience deja vu all over again this time next year.

They're all historically solid possession players, suggesting that they would have defensive abilities.

And it was just thrown together by Mirtle to show that the Leafs do have some room to maneuver and make significant changes this off-season.  And doesn't take into account Reimer/Franson trades in terms of what you could recoup - swap UFA's for something from that if you want.

 

[nutman]

Getting rid of Reimer and Holland is a bad move. Why is  Phaneuf still there, there has to be a taker for him. Oh and Clarkson on the 2nd line, who in the world would do that other then RC, but I would think he will be gone, so that's not an option.

The issues need fixed in this order. 1st fire coach, and hire a better one. 2nd remove the "C"  from  Phaneuf even we keep him. #3rd bring in some stay at home defensemen. 4th deal with the bottom six, Starting with adding Komorov, and I would add from the farm not free agency.

 

[Andy007]

A contender from Mirtle:

CAPGEEK.COM ARMCHAIR GM ROSTER
Mirtle early off-season Leafs

FORWARDS
Joffrey Lupul ($5.250m) / Tyler Bozak ($4.200m) / Phil Kessel ($8.000m)
James Van Riemsdyk ($4.250m) / Paul Stastny ($6.500m) / Radim Vrbata ($3.200m)
Benoit Pouliot ($1.450m) / Nazem Kadri ($2.900m) / Carter Ashton ($0.650m)
Troy Bodie ($0.600m) / Peter Holland ($0.700m) / David Clarkson ($5.250m)
Jerry D'Amigo ($0.650m) /

DEFENSEMEN
Jake Gardiner ($2.250m) / Dion Phaneuf ($7.000m)
Carl Gunnarsson ($3.150m) / Matt Niskanen ($4.300m)
Morgan Rielly ($0.894m) / Stephane Robidas ($2.900m)
Mike Weaver ($1.000m)

GOALTENDERS
Jonathan Bernier ($2.900m)
Thomas Greiss ($0.900m)

BUYOUTS
Mike Komisarek ($0.000m)
Mikhail Grabovski ($0.000m)
Tim Gleason ($0.833m)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $70,000,000; CAP PAYROLL: $69,727,500; BONUSES: $850,000
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $272,500

Man alive, I don't like this at all.  Available cap space is non-existent, it doesn't really address the forward group's defensive deficiencies, and it's largely (if not wholly) predicated on UFA signings.  I like the additions on defense, but with that lineup I think we'd experience deja vu all over again this time next year.

But that "deja vu" crap was all about Carlyle and his system. With Bernier and Griess/Reimer there is no way that this team, under a decent, non-idiotic coach, fails so spectacularly. 

I like that roster quite alot. Would love for a way to include Komarov and/or Kulemin; however.

 

[Champ Kind]

But that "deja vu" crap was all about Carlyle and his system. With Bernier and Griess/Reimer there is no way that this team, under a decent, non-idiotic coach, fails so spectacularly. 

I like that roster quite alot. Would love for a way to include Komarov and/or Kulemin; however.

Oh, I like certain elements of that lineup, too.  But, Andy, in fairness you're speculating that this team, sans Carlyle, would have a different result.  I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

Would be a very tough argument for you to make unfortunately.

 

[Kin]

I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

Would be a very tough argument for you to make unfortunately.

 

[Champ Kind]

Getting rid of Reimer and Holland is a bad move. Why is  Phaneuf still there, there has to be a taker for him. Oh and Clarkson on the 2nd line, who in the world would do that other then RC, but I would think he will be gone, so that's not an option.

You're kidding, right?  I like your optimism and all, but there is no way he's being / he can be traded.

 

[Champ Kind]

I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

Would be a very tough argument for you to make unfortunately.

I know I'm walking into something I won't be able to effectively argue, but why?  Without getting into granular details, a general look at this team would suggest that it has a propensity to become derailed at inopportune moments.  I base this on performance over the past three or four years, which has spanned different coaching staffs.  So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

 

[Bullfrog]

So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Which is probably why nobody has said that.

 

[Kin]

So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Which is probably why nobody has said that.

You and I are reading different boards.

 

[bustaheims]

So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Which is probably why nobody has said that.

Well, at least, nobody advocating for a change in the coach has. A different coach could equal a fairly rapid improvement, but, that's about as far as any of us are willing to go.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

Would be a very tough argument for you to make unfortunately.

I know I'm walking into something I won't be able to effectively argue, but why?  Without getting into granular details, a general look at this team would suggest that it has a propensity to become derailed at inopportune moments.  I base this on performance over the past three or four years, which has spanned different coaching staffs.  So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Well, for one the roster has had a number of significant changes from the last coach to this coach, so that would be one significant hurdle to jump to say "they" have done the same thing under two coaches.  It's two different rosters and while there are significant holdovers there are significant differences in the rosters as well.

It's not a matter of changing the coach = instant success, but moreso that it would be hard for a coach to be worse, possession-wise (and by relation, shots for/against wise) than Carlyle has been (and it's been documented that this isn't just a Carlyle-Toronto specific occurrence but happened in Anaheim too) and that most people feel this is a better roster than the one his predecessor had.  To get less or the same out of it is troubling, and a lot of the indicators have been trending downward since he arrived.  He hasn't shown the ability to come close to getting the team to play a better game, so I don't see the benefits in keeping a coach who has seen similar sorts of results for years in a row now.

 

[Champ Kind]

I could make the argument that they've done the same thing under two coaches already.

Would be a very tough argument for you to make unfortunately.

I know I'm walking into something I won't be able to effectively argue, but why?  Without getting into granular details, a general look at this team would suggest that it has a propensity to become derailed at inopportune moments.  I base this on performance over the past three or four years, which has spanned different coaching staffs.  So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Well, for one the roster has had a number of significant changes from the last coach to this coach, so that would be one significant hurdle to jump to say "they" have done the same thing under two coaches.  It's two different rosters and while there are significant holdovers there are significant differences in the rosters as well.

It's not a matter of changing the coach = instant success, but moreso that it would be hard for a coach to be worse, possession-wise (and by relation, shots for/against wise) than Carlyle has been (and it's been documented that this isn't just a Carlyle-Toronto specific occurrence but happened in Anaheim too) and that most people feel this is a better roster than the one his predecessor had.  To get less or the same out of it is troubling, and a lot of the indicators have been trending downward since he arrived.  He hasn't shown the ability to come close to getting the team to play a better game, so I don't see the benefits in keeping a coach who has seen similar sorts of results for years in a row now.

I agree with what you've said.  And for the record, I also believe that the Leafs need to change their coach.  What I was responding to was the assertion from Andy that "this team" does not fail so spectacularly under a different coach.  I'm simply pointing out that that may be true, but it may not be, too.

As Busta correctly points out, I think that a new coach will improve the Leafs performance next year.  But real improvement will require personnel changes, too.

 

[Champ Kind]

So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Which is probably why nobody has said that.

I thought I'd be a pal in case you missed this three posts ago:

But that "deja vu" crap was all about Carlyle and his system. With Bernier and Griess/Reimer there is no way that this team, under a decent, non-idiotic coach, fails so spectacularly. 

 

[bustaheims]

So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Which is probably why nobody has said that.

I thought I'd be a pal in case you missed this three posts ago:

But that "deja vu" crap was all about Carlyle and his system. With Bernier and Griess/Reimer there is no way that this team, under a decent, non-idiotic coach, fails so spectacularly. 

There's a pretty large gulf between a team "not failing so spectacularly" and a team having "instant success."

 

[Champ Kind]

So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Which is probably why nobody has said that.

I thought I'd be a pal in case you missed this three posts ago:

But that "deja vu" crap was all about Carlyle and his system. With Bernier and Griess/Reimer there is no way that this team, under a decent, non-idiotic coach, fails so spectacularly. 

There's a pretty large gulf between a team "not failing so spectacularly" and a team having "instant success."

What's a little embellishment between friends?

 

[bustaheims]

What's a little embellishment between friends?

A significant misrepresentation of one side's argument.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

So to say that CHANGING THE COACH = INSTANT SUCCESS is a bit of stretch.

Which is probably why nobody has said that.

I thought I'd be a pal in case you missed this three posts ago:

But that "deja vu" crap was all about Carlyle and his system. With Bernier and Griess/Reimer there is no way that this team, under a decent, non-idiotic coach, fails so spectacularly. 

There's a pretty large gulf between a team "not failing so spectacularly" and a team having "instant success."

What's a little embellishment between friends?

If you have to stretch that far to make a point, you don't actually have a point.