2016 Offseason Review

[Frank E]

Isn't that the same article herman posted at the beginning of the thread?

It is, that's my bad.

I read the full thing this morning, it was part of a Leafs news roundup this morning and had yesterday as the publish date.

I didn't want to start a new thread so I dumped it in here because it looked loosely related.

I've been busy and haven't been keeping up with the threads unfortunately.

Quit fooling around with work stuff and pay attention.

 

[herman]

I didn't want to start a new thread so I dumped it in here because it looked loosely related.

I didn't want to start a new thread for a single article, so I made a thread for all the similar articles (especially it's two other upcoming articles), and now I feel accomplished that you picked this thread for it.

 

[hockeyfan1]

The Ghat: Auston Matthews
The Great: Signing Rielly and Kadri, divesting of Phaneuf
The Gracious Good: Not signing Stamkos for tons
The Good: Carrick and Marincin signings
The Gat: Nylander, Soshnikov, Brown, Hyman
The Ghood: yeah Enroth, Komarov played well
The Gouda: Andersen
The Galleon: Hopeful draft, returns on trades
The Golem: Martin
The Gollum: Kessel cup
The Gallows: Bernier

The poor thing.   

 

[TBLeafer]

I think far more of you are really gonna appreciate the Matt Martin signing as the season gets underway.

The only real head-scratcher for me is the Andersen trade when Reimer could obviously been re-signed at much better value for what they both bring.

But it was time to end any and all Bernier/Reimer goalie controversy and usher in a new era as this team rebuilds, so I'm okay with and understand the decision. 

The Kadri/Rielly signings were a spot of pure genius.

The draft is the draft.  Its a crap shoot at best after the top ten OA so I have no problem with them going off the radar.  Our re-vamped scouting department saw something and we needed some size and grit to go with the plethora of speed/skill acquired in 2015.  A good team needs balance.

The last two summers overall have been the best I've experienced as a Leafs fan as far back as I can remember.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I think far more of you are really gonna appreciate the Matt Martin signing as the season gets underway.

The only real head-scratcher for me is the Andersen trade when Reimer could obviously been re-signed at much better value for what they both bring.

But it was time to end any and all Bernier/Reimer goalie controversy and usher in a new era as this team rebuilds, so I'm okay with and understand the decision. 

The Kadri/Rielly signings were a spot of pure genius.

The draft is the draft.  Its a crap shoot at best after the top ten OA so I have no problem with them going off the radar.  Our re-vamped scouting department saw something and we needed some size and grit to go with the plethora of speed/skill acquired in 2015.  A good team needs balance.

The last two summers overall have been the best I've experienced as a Leafs fan as far back as I can remember.

It's sad when the best two summers are the two that surround a last place finish. Not to say these having been encouraging summers, just that you know the team has hit a low when that's a common sentiment. They're turning a corner for sure, but still.

 

[Kin]

While I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about what the drafting of big forwards means re: the influence of analytics within the Leafs braintrust and, to some extent, the game itself I think it's probably best not to look at that as the more common criticism of the Leafs' draft which is that a team that already had a lot of forward talent in it's prospect pool used it's first three picks on forwards and didn't take a defenseman until #72 despite a bunch of opportunities to add a bunch of interesting high upside defensemen(Girard, Dineen, Allard, etc). Also their most panned pick was going big over small on defense(Middleton).

Typically I don't like post-draft "Why didn't you take Player X over Player Y" criticisms because I think we're just as hopeless as NHL GMs are in telling who'll be the right pick but I think general strategy in terms of position and the types of players are ripe for criticism. For the life of me, I just can't understand the reluctance to roll the dice on high risk, high reward defensemen.

 

[Redleaf]

While I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about what the drafting of big forwards means re: the influence of analytics within the Leafs braintrust and, to some extent, the game itself I think it's probably best not to look at that as the more common criticism of the Leafs' draft which is that a team that already had a lot of forward talent in it's prospect pool used it's first three picks on forwards and didn't take a defenseman until #72 despite a bunch of opportunities to add a bunch of interesting high upside defensemen(Girard, Dineen, Allard, etc). Also their most panned pick was going big over small on defense(Middleton).

Typically I don't like post-draft "Why didn't you take Player X over Player Y" criticisms because I think we're just as hopeless as NHL GMs are in telling who'll be the right pick but I think general strategy in terms of position and the types of players are ripe for criticism. For the life of me, I just can't understand the reluctance to roll the dice on high risk, high reward defensemen.

I can't help but wonder if that will be the strategy for next years draft. They seem to be attacking draft day from different angles the past 2 years.

 

[Kin]

While I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about what the drafting of big forwards means re: the influence of analytics within the Leafs braintrust and, to some extent, the game itself I think it's probably best not to look at that as the more common criticism of the Leafs' draft which is that a team that already had a lot of forward talent in it's prospect pool used it's first three picks on forwards and didn't take a defenseman until #72 despite a bunch of opportunities to add a bunch of interesting high upside defensemen(Girard, Dineen, Allard, etc). Also their most panned pick was going big over small on defense(Middleton).

Typically I don't like post-draft "Why didn't you take Player X over Player Y" criticisms because I think we're just as hopeless as NHL GMs are in telling who'll be the right pick but I think general strategy in terms of position and the types of players are ripe for criticism. For the life of me, I just can't understand the reluctance to roll the dice on high risk, high reward defensemen.

I can't help but wonder if that will be the strategy for next years draft. They seem to be attacking draft day from different angles the past 2 years.

It's certainly possible but even if so I think you'd be in a tough situation because of the typical development curves of defensemen. Sure, maybe they get lucky and get someone near the top of the draft who can step in right away but with late 1sts and 2nd round picks you're usually talking about 4-5 years post draft until those guys are at their peak.

So if we're hoping on uncovering the next Weber/Keith you want to get a start on those development years now.

 

[herman]

I agree with a lot of what Nik is saying, re: why not pick some high upside d-men with those late rd 1/rd 2 picks, particularly with their longer development lead times.

On the flip side, the Leafs have been picking 4 defensemen in each of the past two drafts, out of 9 picks and 11 picks, which is still a pretty substantial number of defensemen if you consider the ratio of forwards to defense to goaltenders per team (and thus your team prospect pipeline). Effective defensemen have also been found south of the 2nd round with more apparent frequency than forwards, right? And aren't we still a bit early in the rebuild to be drafting for specific need rather than BPA?

As for why we haven't bitten on Kylington, Girard, Dineen, Allard... I wonder if it's because we're pretty loaded up on young offensive defensemen at the top already. As long as the Leafs keep picking BPA players with good to great skating and smarts, I think it'll even out nicely. Some of our panned defense picks from 2015 have surprised nicely (Neilsen, esp.).

 

[Kin]

On the flip side, the Leafs have been picking 4 defensemen in each of the past two drafts, out of 9 picks and 11 picks, which is still a pretty substantial number of defensemen if you consider the ratio of forwards to defense to goaltenders per team (and thus your team prospect pipeline).

3 of those 8 have been in the 6th round, a place where you're lucky to get a spare NHL part. Being as I think the Leafs are pretty set for bottom pairing/press box defensemen I don't know how relevant that is.

Effective defensemen have also been found south of the 2nd round with more apparent frequency than forwards, right?

I don't know how true that is(if it is, I would suspect it has a great deal to do with how one defines "effective"). In terms of potential top pairing guys I would doubt that very much. Off the top of my head once you get outside the 3rd round in terms of impact defensemen you have Stralman, Klingberg, Muzzin, Brodie, Giordano...I'm sure I'm missing someone but that's not a great bunch.

And aren't we still a bit early in the rebuild to be drafting for specific need rather than BPA?

I don't think there's any sort of definitive statement on when to draft for organizational need as opposed to just taking the best player available(which is itself a subjective matter). I think drafting for NHL need is always a bad idea but prospect need? I don't think that's a bad thing at any stage of the process. Especially when you're never dealing with a situation where anyone could definitively say whether or not one prospect is better than the other.

As for why we haven't bitten on Kylington, Girard, Dineen, Allard... I wonder if it's because we're pretty loaded up on young offensive defensemen at the top already. As long as the Leafs keep picking BPA players with good to great skating and smarts, I think it'll even out nicely. Some of our panned defense picks from 2015 have surprised nicely (Neilsen, esp.).

Whatever happened to the best defense being a good offense? I thought that was the strategy you were pushing? Now the Leafs draft some lumbering goons on the backend and we're back to recognizing the value of crease clearers?

The Leafs aren't "loaded" on offensive defensemen. The single season high of anyone the Leafs have is 36 points and Rielly ever becoming a #1 calibre guy is far from a sure thing. Taking the sort of "offensive" defenseman that can become the sort of guy who puts points on the board and keeps the puck generally in the opposing zone is a good thing regardless of who they have on the roster.

 

[herman]

3 of those 8 have been in the 6th round, a place where you're lucky to get a spare NHL part. Being as I think the Leafs are pretty set for bottom pairing/press box defensemen I don't know how relevant that is.

I don't know how true that is(if it is, I would suspect it has a great deal to do with how one defines "effective"). In terms of potential top pairing guys I would doubt that very much. Off the top of my head once you get outside the 3rd round in terms of impact defensemen you have Stralman, Klingberg, Muzzin, Brodie, Giordano...I'm sure I'm missing someone but that's not a great bunch.

Fair points. I'd be curious to know how many impact defensemen come out of rd 3+ too. Honestly, I really agree we should spend some higher picks on prime defense picks. Just spitballing why the Hunter drafts haven't really focused on them to the degree we'd like to see. L K might have some additional insight here as the Knights appear to have drafted similarly under Hunter's watch.

I don't think there's any sort of definitive statement on when to draft for organizational need as opposed to just taking the best player available(which is itself a subjective matter). I think drafting for NHL need is always a bad idea but prospect need? I don't think that's a bad thing at any stage of the process. Especially when you're never dealing with a situation where anyone could definitively say whether or not one prospect is better than the other.

I like this comment a lot.

Whatever happened to the best defense being a good offense? I thought that was the strategy you were pushing? Now the Leafs draft some lumbering goons on the backend and we're back to recognizing the value of crease clearers?

The Leafs aren't "loaded" on offensive defensemen. The single season high of anyone the Leafs have is 36 points and Rielly ever becoming a #1 calibre guy is far from a sure thing. Taking the sort of "offensive" defenseman that can become the sort of guy who puts points on the board and keeps the puck generally in the opposing zone is a good thing regardless of who they have on the roster.

I still definitely advocate for good offense driving good defense, largely derived from a mobile backend and supportive forwards. What I meant in reference to our young offsensive defensemen stable was that a lot of them were of the small and fast variety. I wouldn't consider the ones we drafted most recently to be goonish "crease-clearers" only other than Middleton.

I had lots of misgivings about the Neilsen and Desrocher picks last year, but at least one of them has shown he has developed beyond his pre-draft scouting report. I see them as trying to round out their backend with guys that can bull through a forecheck and reclaim the puck and move it back in the right direction. JD Greenway is an exciting prospect to keep an eye out for me, in that regard. It's not like there's no value in adding big and mean to fast, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of skill.

 

[Kin]

Fair points. I'd be curious to know how many impact defensemen come out of rd 3+ too. Honestly, I really agree we should spend some higher picks on prime defense picks. Just spitballing why the Hunter drafts haven't really focused on them to the degree we'd like to see.

"Sometimes, this organization may make bad decisions" is also an attempt to figure out why they might do something.

I had lots of misgivings about the Neilsen and Desrocher picks last year, but at least one of them has shown he has developed beyond his pre-draft scouting report. I see them as trying to round out their backend with guys that can bull through a forecheck and reclaim the puck and move it back in the right direction. JD Greenway is an exciting prospect to keep an eye out for me, in that regard. It's not like there's no value in adding big and mean to fast, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of skill.

But that's largely meaningless in this context. If you're drafting in the 2nd and 3rd rounds for defensemen you're not going to be getting someone who's big, fast and just as skilled as the smaller guys. Those guys are high first round picks. When you're floating mid round picks you're going to be sacrificing one thing for another.

Nielsen having a good Draft +1 year in junior is great and everything but there's a long way between that and becoming the sort of defenseman the team is looking for.

 

[herman]

"Sometimes, this organization may make bad decisions" is also an attempt to figure out why they might do something.

"Bad" is the potential result, not exactly the reason why they're doing something. I think we're in agreement that the Leafs should spend picks on high potential defensemen earlier in the draft. Just because Hunter did something different than what we wanted/value doesn't automatically make it a bad decision, does it?

Our recently drafted defensemen:
James "JD" Greenway: Pros: big, mean, good cruising speed, good hands; Cons: not good under pressure
Keaton Middleton: Pros: big, mean; Cons: skating is improving but not great, no offense
Jonathan "Jack" Walker: Pros: faaaaast, agile, puck handling at speed, played forward too; Cons: smaller, D+2 pick
Nicolas Mattinen: Pros: big, RHD, can play forward, NHL-level slapshot; Cons: slow, still getting used to his size, mostly unknown due to sitting much of last season

The only baffling one right now is Middleton. The others have trade-offs, but they look quite projectable.

I think the defensemen I really want are in the top 5, and sort of within the top 15. Anything after feels largely meaningless to ascribe value to the draft round/pick number the pick ends up coming in at.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Fair points. I'd be curious to know how many impact defensemen come out of rd 3+ too. Honestly, I really agree we should spend some higher picks on prime defense picks. Just spitballing why the Hunter drafts haven't really focused on them to the degree we'd like to see.

"Sometimes, this organization may make bad decisions" is also an attempt to figure out why they might do something.

They must have had some reasoning behind it, poor reasoning or not.

 

[Kin]

"Bad" is the potential result, not exactly the reason why they're doing something.

No, but I'm not overly interested in their reasoning. I'm sure their reasoning is roughly the same as the reasoning behind every draft pick in history whether it be spectacular find or damaging bust. Of the various players available, they chose the ones that they thought would help them the most. The unknown is their competence. That they thought it was the right thing to do is neither interesting nor validating.

So when they do something that seems counter-intuitive, them potentially being just flat-out wrong is as good a reason as any. Especially when it's in a summer full of pretty baffling decisions outside of the automatic ones.

 

[herman]

Now that it's on season, it might actually be a decent time to take a look at our offseason again.

The Draft (excepting Matthews) and Free Agency was a head turner for the wrong reasons, although new light is helping the Draft look way rosier than our initial hot takes.

What has changed the most since this thread was started were the lineup decisions. Like a refreshing spray of snowplowed ice chips, management actually cut the vets we thought would bog down the progress of the youth (at least on the forward side).

 

[Kin]

I stand by each and everyone of my hot takes.