2016 Summer Housekeeping Thread

[TBLeafer]

Exactly because you know the way its being built now, the Leafs, when we get to the SCF, are gonna get there every year consecutively for a decade!

That's the goal, which may or may not come to pass.

I know for sure how the team can get there (maybe) just once and then become mediocre and irrelevant for a decade after, though, and thankfully we have not been doing that.

No, no we have not.  8)

We're not about to stay bad either with the pieces we have now been given.

 

[Bill_Berg]

There is a difference between how well this team plays next year and making decisions that will cripple long term goals of consistent competitiveness.

The only reason people want a bottom 5 or 10 finish is because the team is not going to compete for the Cup this year and first round exists aren't worth anything. So if you aren't thinking playoffs, then the lower in the standings they finish the better, but no one wants to see them suck or lose terribly at the same time. It's going to be a weird year for fans.

 

[Kin]

I don't even necessarily want the team to finish at the bottom. Wherever the team finishes at the end of next year, whether it's better than last year or worse or around the same, the only thing that's really important to me is that it's a natural progression mainly brought on by the guys who figure to be huge parts of the team five years from now. If that means 80 points and the #12 pick then that means those guys are probably all going to be pretty good and developing nicely. If it's the #2 or #3 pick or whatever it probably means those guys stumbled a little and the team needs one or more major pieces.

The only thing I don't want is for decisions to be made on an artificial timeline to placate the impatient. That's the one thing this team has seen enough of.

 

[louisstamos]

The only thing I don't want is for decisions to be made on an artificial timeline to placate the impatient. That's the one thing this team has seen enough of.

This.  So much this. 

This team's core will be ready once they show they're ready.  It might even be this year, who knows?  But until it happens, the team needs to keep accumulating assets and building for the future.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I don't even necessarily want the team to finish at the bottom. Wherever the team finishes at the end of next year, whether it's better than last year or worse or around the same, the only thing that's really important to me is that it's a natural progression mainly brought on by the guys who figure to be huge parts of the team five years from now. If that means 80 points and the #12 pick then that means those guys are probably all going to be pretty good and developing nicely. If it's the #2 or #3 pick or whatever it probably means those guys stumbled a little and the team needs one or more major pieces.

The only thing I don't want is for decisions to be made on an artificial timeline to placate the impatient. That's the one thing this team has seen enough of.

It's a good way to be. Let the players decide how far along they are by the way they play over the course of a season.

 

[TBLeafer]

Except management said that there is no timeline, artificial, predetermined or otherwise.  Not signing Stamkos doesn't mean they didn't go after him.  They will continue to improve as they are able to, regardless of what the players decide, but yes they will of course play their part.

They've bottomed out.  The won the lottery.  They drafted Matthews.  Now they start the climb.

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't even necessarily want the team to finish at the bottom. Wherever the team finishes at the end of next year, whether it's better than last year or worse or around the same, the only thing that's really important to me is that it's a natural progression mainly brought on by the guys who figure to be huge parts of the team five years from now. If that means 80 points and the #12 pick then that means those guys are probably all going to be pretty good and developing nicely. If it's the #2 or #3 pick or whatever it probably means those guys stumbled a little and the team needs one or more major pieces.

The only thing I don't want is for decisions to be made on an artificial timeline to placate the impatient. That's the one thing this team has seen enough of.

This is where I'm at. I'm OK with them making the playoffs, even if it's a 1st round loss. Yes, the higher draft pick isn't ideal, but as long as the team is moving forward in their development, I'm good.

 

[Kin]

This is where I'm at. I'm OK with them making the playoffs, even if it's a 1st round loss. Yes, the higher draft pick isn't ideal, but as long as the team is moving forward in their development, I'm good.

I'd be ok with that, I guess, but like I said that would depend on how it shook out that way. If JVR and Kadri are great, the kids aren't and Andersen is good enough to steal them into that spot I don't think that would ultimately be good for the team. If Matthews scores 75 next year and Rielly takes a big step forward, thats a different story.

 

[Redleaf]

I don't even necessarily want the team to finish at the bottom. Wherever the team finishes at the end of next year, whether it's better than last year or worse or around the same, the only thing that's really important to me is that it's a natural progression mainly brought on by the guys who figure to be huge parts of the team five years from now. If that means 80 points and the #12 pick then that means those guys are probably all going to be pretty good and developing nicely. If it's the #2 or #3 pick or whatever it probably means those guys stumbled a little and the team needs one or more major pieces.

The only thing I don't want is for decisions to be made on an artificial timeline to placate the impatient. That's the one thing this team has seen enough of.

It's a good way to be. Let the players decide how far along they are by the way they play over the course of a season.

I agree. And lets not forget the Babcock effect. He has shown that he has the ability to make the 'whole' better than the sum of its parts.

I expect this years team to be better than last, for two reasons.
1) The older guys have a year of his coaching under their belts and know where he wants them to be positionally, and what he expects from them in all aspects of play.
2) The younger group coming up this season is simply more talented than any pool of rookies the Leafs had ever had playing in their 1st season as Leafs.

Those points alone make me believe that this years team will be better, perhaps much better than last years version.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
Frank Corrado, Peter Holland and Martin Marincin among the 24 NHL players who have elected for salary arbitration.

Marincin's case would be interesting to see if it goes that far just to see how much analytics might play a role in them.

 

[McGarnagle]

I don't even necessarily want the team to finish at the bottom. Wherever the team finishes at the end of next year, whether it's better than last year or worse or around the same, the only thing that's really important to me is that it's a natural progression mainly brought on by the guys who figure to be huge parts of the team five years from now. If that means 80 points and the #12 pick then that means those guys are probably all going to be pretty good and developing nicely. If it's the #2 or #3 pick or whatever it probably means those guys stumbled a little and the team needs one or more major pieces.

The only thing I don't want is for decisions to be made on an artificial timeline to placate the impatient. That's the one thing this team has seen enough of.

It's a good way to be. Let the players decide how far along they are by the way they play over the course of a season.

I agree. And lets not forget the Babcock effect. He has shown that he has the ability to make the 'whole' better than the sum of its parts.

I expect this years team to be better than last, for two reasons.
1) The older guys have a year of his coaching under their belts and know where he wants them to be positionally, and what he expects from them in all aspects of play.
2) The younger group coming up this season is simply more talented than any pool of rookies the Leafs had ever had playing in their 1st season as Leafs.

Those points alone make me believe that this years team will be better, perhaps much better than last years version.

Better than last place? Odds certainly better of that than the reverse.

I'll settle for more entertaining than last year's team.

 

[TBLeafer]

Here's a fresh take on why the Leafs rebuild could very likely go quicker than expected:

WHY A REBOUND OF PERCENTAGES COULD LEAD TO A QUICK LEAFS TURNAROUND

There's been a lot of talk over the past few days, particularly in justification of decisions, that the Leafs are a rebuilding team that expects to be in the Nolan Patrick sweepstakes next year. I don't know how much of that is true. While they should by no means be "going for it" and making bold, future-costing decisions, the group they have right now might not be as incapable as we think they are. This quantification of "the bounces" shows that the Leafs were burned heavily and near-universally last year by percentage variance, and that a lot of these guys have shown in the past that they're capable of doing better.

As we all know, a lucky shot can be the difference between two points and zero. Toronto is in a position to get a bunch more lucky shots next year, which is a good place to be for a team that still performed better than just about every last-place team in the cap era despite that. Contention might be a ways away, but decency appears to potentially be within arms reach.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Here's a fresh take on why the Leafs rebuild could very likely go quicker than expected:

WHY A REBOUND OF PERCENTAGES COULD LEAD TO A QUICK LEAFS TURNAROUND

There's been a lot of talk over the past few days, particularly in justification of decisions, that the Leafs are a rebuilding team that expects to be in the Nolan Patrick sweepstakes next year. I don't know how much of that is true. While they should by no means be "going for it" and making bold, future-costing decisions, the group they have right now might not be as incapable as we think they are. This quantification of "the bounces" shows that the Leafs were burned heavily and near-universally last year by percentage variance, and that a lot of these guys have shown in the past that they're capable of doing better.

As we all know, a lucky shot can be the difference between two points and zero. Toronto is in a position to get a bunch more lucky shots next year, which is a good place to be for a team that still performed better than just about every last-place team in the cap era despite that. Contention might be a ways away, but decency appears to potentially be within arms reach.

There's really virtually no equivalency between a rebound season (as they reasonably argue) and a quicker rebuild, as you've somehow interpreted their arguments to mean.

 

[nutman]

Here's a fresh take on why the Leafs rebuild could very likely go quicker than expected:

WHY A REBOUND OF PERCENTAGES COULD LEAD TO A QUICK LEAFS TURNAROUND

There's been a lot of talk over the past few days, particularly in justification of decisions, that the Leafs are a rebuilding team that expects to be in the Nolan Patrick sweepstakes next year. I don't know how much of that is true. While they should by no means be "going for it" and making bold, future-costing decisions, the group they have right now might not be as incapable as we think they are. This quantification of "the bounces" shows that the Leafs were burned heavily and near-universally last year by percentage variance, and that a lot of these guys have shown in the past that they're capable of doing better.

As we all know, a lucky shot can be the difference between two points and zero. Toronto is in a position to get a bunch more lucky shots next year, which is a good place to be for a team that still performed better than just about every last-place team in the cap era despite that. Contention might be a ways away, but decency appears to potentially be within arms reach.

That, I can see. I  agree, its what I have been saying, they were way better then they played. I think it was part of learning the new system as well. we will see this year.

 

[TBLeafer]

There's really virtually no equivalency between a rebound season (as they reasonably argue) and a quicker rebuild, as you've somehow interpreted their arguments to mean.

If they pull off that rebound and continue to progress the season after and not regress like the Flames or Sens, does it not essentially lead to the same thing?

The goal after all is being a perennial playoff team/contender.

 

[herman]

There's really virtually no equivalency between a rebound season (as they reasonably argue) and a quicker rebuild, as you've somehow interpreted their arguments to mean.

If they pull off that rebound and continue to progress the season after and not regress like the Flames or Sens, does it not essentially lead to the same thing?

The goal after all is being a perennial playoff team/contender.

I think you've missed Heroic Shrimp's point, TBLeafer. Like goals in games, team points per season are largely luck-driven; our focus should be on the process (getting into supported/supportive positions, generating more shots, stifling shot attempts) rather than the results. On the team scale, that means continuing to develop our prospects and not selling them off for shortcuts.

We were terribly unlucky last year, in terms of scoring, saves, injuries. It stands to reason there will be a regression towards the mean. I thought we were an edge of bottom 5 team last season, and the injuries and shrewd trades/call ups helped get us to the bottom. I don't expect we'll be much higher than bottom 5 this year, but you never know which way the bounces go.

 

[TBLeafer]

There's really virtually no equivalency between a rebound season (as they reasonably argue) and a quicker rebuild, as you've somehow interpreted their arguments to mean.

If they pull off that rebound and continue to progress the season after and not regress like the Flames or Sens, does it not essentially lead to the same thing?

The goal after all is being a perennial playoff team/contender.

I think you've missed Heroic Shrimp's point, TBLeafer. Like goals in games, team points per season are largely luck-driven; our focus should be on the process (getting into supported/supportive positions, generating more shots, stifling shot attempts) rather than the results. On the team scale, that means continuing to develop our prospects and not selling them off for shortcuts.

We were terribly unlucky last year, in terms of scoring, saves, injuries. It stands to reason there will be a regression towards the mean. I thought we were an edge of bottom 5 team last season, and the injuries and shrewd trades/call ups helped get us to the bottom. I don't expect we'll be much higher than bottom 5 this year, but you never know which way the bounces go.

The perfect storm was created when another errant Phaneuf slapper, broke JVR's foot, ruining any scoring depth the Leafs had built through November and December, especially since the other top six replacement option (Nylander) was also injured.

Cue full on tank.

We don't have Phaneuf this season. 

I think we can all agree that this management was never going to bail on top picks/prospects to 'accelerate' the rebuild so I don't understand the purpose of reiterating that point.

The article points to players' shot percentage rebounding and being more learned in Babcock's system for those returning, thus aiding stronger shot suppression at the same time.

Yes, a good share of luck will come into play as well.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I'm not sure if this was posted, it takes a look at some of the percentages and why they could support the Leafs being at least a little better than we might think in the short term.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/7/5/why-a-rebound-of-percentages-could-lead-to-a-quick-leafs-turnaround

There's been a lot of talk over the past few days, particularly in justification of decisions, that the Leafs are a rebuilding team that expects to be in the Nolan Patrick sweepstakes next year. I don't know how much of that is true. While they should by no means be "going for it" and making bold, future-costing decisions, the group they have right now might not be as incapable as we think they are. This quantification of "the bounces" shows that the Leafs were burned heavily and near-universally last year by percentage variance, and that a lot of these guys have shown in the past that they're capable of doing better.

As we all know, a lucky shot can be the difference between two points and zero. Toronto is in a position to get a bunch more lucky shots next year, which is a good place to be for a team that still performed better than just about every last-place team in the cap era despite that. Contention might be a ways away, but decency appears to potentially be within arms reach.

 

[herman]

There's really virtually no equivalency between a rebound season (as they reasonably argue) and a quicker rebuild, as you've somehow interpreted their arguments to mean.

If they pull off that rebound and continue to progress the season after and not regress like the Flames or Sens, does it not essentially lead to the same thing?

The goal after all is being a perennial playoff team/contender.

I think you've missed Heroic Shrimp's point, TBLeafer. Like goals in games, team points per season are largely luck-driven; our focus should be on the process (getting into supported/supportive positions, generating more shots, stifling shot attempts) rather than the results. On the team scale, that means continuing to develop our prospects and not selling them off for shortcuts.

We were terribly unlucky last year, in terms of scoring, saves, injuries. It stands to reason there will be a regression towards the mean. I thought we were an edge of bottom 5 team last season, and the injuries and shrewd trades/call ups helped get us to the bottom. I don't expect we'll be much higher than bottom 5 this year, but you never know which way the bounces go.

The perfect storm was created when another errant Phaneuf slapper, broke JVR's foot, ruining any scoring depth the Leafs had built through November and December, especially since the other top six replacement option (Nylander) was also injured.

Cue full on tank.

We don't have Phaneuf this season. 

I think we can all agree that this management was never going to bail on top picks/prospects to 'accelerate' the rebuild so I don't understand the purpose of reiterating that point.

The article points to players' shot percentage rebounding and being more learned in Babcock's system for those returning, thus aiding stronger shot suppression at the same time.

Yes, a good share of luck will come into play as well.

I brought up prospect development as a metaphor illustrating the focus on the process, rather than the point results, which is what I assumed you were fixated on when you said "the Leafs rebuild could very likely go quicker than expected". That is to say, focusing on the number of points the team gets as the sole indicator of rebuild progress is faulty -- also exactly the same reasoning that made ownership think that the team Burke/Nonis put together was close to contending if only they had more grit after that brief playoff drive. I brought up the roster turnover to highlight that the past season's result has little bearing on the next season's result when there are so many unknown variables introduced as the year progresses.

The Tank wasn't triggered by Phaneuf accidentally ending JvR's season -- I don't understand why you keep saying that other than trying to be humourous; it was foreordained at the end of last, last season when Shanahan received permission from ownership to tear the team down.

 

[herman]

I'm not sure if this was posted, it takes a look at some of the percentages and why they could support the Leafs being at least a little better than we might think in the short term.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/7/5/why-a-rebound-of-percentages-could-lead-to-a-quick-leafs-turnaround

TBLeafer posted this upthread (we're discussing it now).
Kadri with his career SH% could've netted 32 goals!