I guess we will see. There are risks either way (changing the coach now vs letting him run out the season regardless of what happens). There are risks in taking a hard line stand on contracts (someone walks) and there are also risks in backing up the Brinks trunk every time (can't field a true contender). I just get the sense they are happy to have an entertaining team with a few generational players that is good enough to make the playoffs where "anything can happen." A lot of fans seem satisfied with this as well.
2023-24 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion
- Thread starter herman
- Start date
bustaheims said:
Part of what got us to this point is MLSE declining to renew Dubas in summer '22.
Dubas had a big shopping spree at the last deadline trying, in part, to make sure they won a round so he'd have a leg to stand on for his contract renewal.
I'm sure they're tracking this season.
The trajectory the Leafs are on is to fall short of last season.
How could they be 'satisfied' with that?
azzurri63
Active member
Chris said:
I'm not 100% sure some fans are ok with this I think it's more that some think the team is one day going to figure it out and turn it around. That the pieces are there to go on a deeper run. I've argued this many times how long do you have to wait before going a different direction?
azzurri63 said:
I've had interactions with Leaf fans in various places where they've said that they're just happy to see a Leaf team with good players after all the years of suffering. I feel like some on this forum have basically said that, though I'm not going to sift through old posts to confirm it.
bustaheims
Active member
Bender said:
In hindsight, I largely feel the same. Try few of his major moves worked out. He made some good smaller moves, did okay at the draft (or, at least, gave his scouting staff some good direction and trusted them), and wasn?t afraid to admit to making a mistake, but I have a hard time pointing to any real wins from him in terms of getting a great deal on a contract or a trade. He added some good pieces, but almost always at or near market value.
He?s not a bad GM. He?s just also not a good one. He?s very much an ordinary one with th a more modern approach to things.
Joe said:
He was a rookie. I think he was evolving and maturing.
He didn't seem to get the grit a team needs at the outset. He was heavy into skill. Towards the end, he pushed for more grit.
As well, I think they put a gun to his head in his contract year which pressured decisions that may well not have been made.
Didn't care for his exit.
Liked him more than JFJ, Burke & Nonis. Not sure about Lamoriello - have to think about that but its possible.
But he'll likely be a decent NHL General Manager for years to come. He's not stupid.
cw said:
No one is saying he's stupid but just placing part of the blame on his lack of a contract seems kind of lower tier than the mistakes he made and draft capital he tossed out along the way. He made a ton of moves another year (Big Save Dave etc.) that one year that amounted to nothing, so its hard for me to look at not having an extension as the driving force when this has been his philisophy all along and being tied to very mediocre goaltending every year. If management let him he would've acquired Karlsson and that would've set us back too. They could've sold off Barrie and Ceci that one year when they looked bad enough to reload for the next season etc. etc. Plenty of reasons why we're here.
Arn
Active member
I liked Dubas general vision. I liked how he definitely evolved. I think if given more time he'd have further evolved. I liked how he built a rapport with and managed the players (things like staying at hospital when Mikheyev cut his wrist or the way he dealt with Rodion Amirov.
I guess he didn't evolve quickly enough. And perhaps those player relationships are a bit of why maybe some of the contracts he gave out were bigger than maybe we'd have liked. I guess that's mainly speculation. I didn't like some of the trades for vets, particularly the Foligno one. I like it even less in hindsight.
I would say overall he was a good GM, with the potential to be very good, but possibly had become a bit stale in Toronto and it did need a fresh set of eyes.
Not sure they got the right fresh set, but that's a different story.
I guess he didn't evolve quickly enough. And perhaps those player relationships are a bit of why maybe some of the contracts he gave out were bigger than maybe we'd have liked. I guess that's mainly speculation. I didn't like some of the trades for vets, particularly the Foligno one. I like it even less in hindsight.
I would say overall he was a good GM, with the potential to be very good, but possibly had become a bit stale in Toronto and it did need a fresh set of eyes.
Not sure they got the right fresh set, but that's a different story.
Bender said:
I'd have to give the transactions a more careful review to refresh my memory of them. But my impression was that Dubas sort of carried on from Lamoriello. Which GM did what is a little blurry in my memory. I don't recall an abrupt change in direction.
At times, Dubas seemed too free and easy with trading picks and prospects. In his early years, he also tended to go too heavy on skill and too light on grit. What concerned me more between the two GMs was the timing - that they started trading off young assets too soon.
I thought then and continue to think now that they needed to spend more time and effort building up the prospect system and picks so they would have enough to take their shots when the team was a top contender and enough good prospects flowing onto the roster to help them manage the inevitable cap crunch that comes with a club that has become a contender.
Currently, the Leafs prospects are ranked around 27th and they have the fewest 1st & 2nd round picks in the next 3 years of any team in the NHL. They need those young assets to manage the cap in the next few years. So they're close to bankrupt for the trade deadline. They can try to do something but it will cost them down the road. So that is some irrefutable proof that they did not manage that well. Their mismanagement of it will curtail Treliving's abilities in the near term - so there are consequences for mortgaging the future prematurely/too much.
Shanahan has been around for all of it. I think Lamoriello had a hand in it. It wasn't the "Dubasplan". It was the "Shanaplan" with Lamoriello's fingerprints all over it and MLSE board approval that Dubas inherited. So there is no question Dubas bears a bunch of responsibility for where we find ourselves. However, between Lamoriello and Shanahan, MLSE board approval of the Shanaplan and what the MLSE board did with Dubas' contract renewal, I do not feel Dubas, a young apprentice who came in as this was developing, is solely responsible.
To limit that last paragraph: managing is getting people to do things for you. That includes getting owners to go along with you. If there was something about the Shanaplan or any one else that Dubas did not agree with, as General Manager, it was his job to convince them to do otherwise. There may be questions as to how long a leash he had - which again is partially on him. But if he failed to convince them to do otherwise, he bears some responsibility for that too.
https://twitter.com/KPapetti/status/1747122927705722937
You know I'm starting to worry more and more that Gregor's impressive pre-season (where his career was on the line) and a few bursts of speed here and there may have hoodwinked us into thinking he's a better player than he actually is. Like maybe there's a reason the worst team in the league said "thanks but no thanks" to him.
You know I'm starting to worry more and more that Gregor's impressive pre-season (where his career was on the line) and a few bursts of speed here and there may have hoodwinked us into thinking he's a better player than he actually is. Like maybe there's a reason the worst team in the league said "thanks but no thanks" to him.
Arn said:
I actually remember that day well. We were all so happy for you.
Arn
Active member
I just looked it up actually, was December 2013 so just over 10 years ago!
Leafs third line then was Ashton- D'Amigo - McLaren
McLaren played 5 shifts for 3.22 of ice time.
Phaneuf, Kessel and Kadri were all -2, while Gardiner was +2 in a 5-2 loss.
Bernier was in net.
It's important to remember these things when looking at the current team and realising it's not that bad...
Leafs third line then was Ashton- D'Amigo - McLaren
McLaren played 5 shifts for 3.22 of ice time.
Phaneuf, Kessel and Kadri were all -2, while Gardiner was +2 in a 5-2 loss.
Bernier was in net.
It's important to remember these things when looking at the current team and realising it's not that bad...
Palmateer29
New member
Anyone hearing about the Maple Leafs executives all meeting up today without Keefe? Wondering if that means they are just about done with him?
Palmateer29 said:
An "anonymous insider" twitter account with about a 0.00% success rate when it comes to rumours floated this one out there yesterday, so I wouldn't really think much about it.
Champ Kind
New member
Arn said:
Perspective is everything
Guilt Trip
Active member
Wasn't sold on him when they signed him. Rather would have kept Lafferty. Is it just coincidence that Kampf looks bad this season with him as a linemate? I can remember a few goals against where Gregor would go to Kampf's position defensively and then the scramble is on. Kampf hasn't forgotten how to play.CarltonTheBear said: