General Leafs Talk: Post-Olympics Edition

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Mirtle's really nailing this stuff: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-management-miscues-leave-maple-leafs-languishing/article17847414/

I enjoyed that too, he really is among the top guys in terms of quality output.

 

[ZBBM]

turf turf turf
turf turf turf
turf their boo-tays
turf their booooooo-tays

 

[Redleaf]

They really only needed one highly paid 3rd line grinder. They just paid the wrong guy. I would have felt much better about paying Bolland the big money, and watching Clarkson walk this summer.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Ouch.

 

[Redleaf]

Ouch.

That would be horrific if Bolland and Clarkson were brought in to provide more scoring. The fact is they were brought in for more toughness, and failed miserably toward that end.

 

[Bullfrog]

Bolland was brought in for toughness? I don't believe that's the case. Clarkson, yes.

 

[Redleaf]

Bolland was brought in for toughness? I don't believe that's the case. Clarkson, yes.

Perhaps not toughness in the traditional sense. But around the net, and in the dirty areas, he's certainly more physical than what the team had prior to his arrival.

 

[Brian Glennie]

Bolland was brought in for toughness? I don't believe that's the case. Clarkson, yes.

Perhaps not toughness in the traditional sense. But around the net, and in the dirty areas, he's certainly more physical than what the team had prior to his arrival.

I think he was brought in for his leadership skills, too.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Ouch.

That would be horrific if Bolland and Clarkson were brought in to provide more scoring. The fact is they were brought in for more toughness, and failed miserably toward that end.

Regardless of why they were brought in, it wasn't a good move.  And I know MacArthur wouldn't have come back because of Carlyle.  The team dropped to 2.75 goals/game from 3.02 last season (had fortunate luck though, see Kadri, Nazem), and beyond that they were historically two of the Leafs best possession players (and are again solid possession-wise on their new teams) - something that truly reared its ugly head this season in their issues allowing chances from the opposition.

So now you're left with, for depth scoring, Kadri (no real issues for me there), an often-injured Lupul (who has fallen back closer to his career norms in terms of scoring), Clarkson, maybe Raymond? maybe Kulemin?  It's why it's funny to hear criticisms of the 1st line after last night - carried the team offensively all season, Carlyle overplayed them, two of them had extra duty in the Olympics.

I really do think those two are more significant losses than the Leafs management realize.

 

[Kin]

Bolland was brought in for toughness? I don't believe that's the case. Clarkson, yes.

It is still a fundamentally misleading chart. Bolland has been scoring at a comparable rate to Grabo(.52 ppg to .63 ppg with a significant edge in goal scoring rate) despite playing a significant number of his 23 games clearly hampered by his injuries and getting significantly less ice time both at ES(12:41 to 14:14 per game) and on the PP(1:29 to 0:35). By just about any credible measurement, Bolland has been more productive than Grabovski this year despite being used in a third line PK role(a 37.1% offensive zone start time compared to 53.5 percent for Grabovski). Outside of "boy, Nonis really should have seen that achilles injury coming" the idea that Bolland over Grabo is a bad decision at this point doesn't have much in the way of support.

So more or less the entirety of the discrepancy there is on Clarkson which, I mean, aside from the fact that nobody needs the newsflash that Clarkson has stunk this year we need to be realistic about what Mac was going to do this year. He wasn't going to be the third wheel of a Ryan-Turris line that would be healthy all year. He, like all other Toronto wingers, would have had to produce with some pretty lousy offensive centers and compete with Lupul, Van Riemsdyk, Kessel and Raymond for PP time on the wing.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

You could also say that Raymond replaced Mac and spin it that way. To the specific chart, yeah, Bolland pretty good trade, Clarkson; in a dimension all his own. I really hope Clarkson is way better next season, I'm quite surprised at the level of stink from him this season.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You could also say that Raymond replaced Mac and spin it that way. To the specific chart, yeah, Bolland pretty good trade, Clarkson; in a dimension all his own. I really hope Clarkson is way better next season, I'm quite surprised at the level of stink from him this season.

I would think at $1 million you could have had Raymond, MacArthur and Grabovski all on the team.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

You could also say that Raymond replaced Mac and spin it that way. To the specific chart, yeah, Bolland pretty good trade, Clarkson; in a dimension all his own. I really hope Clarkson is way better next season, I'm quite surprised at the level of stink from him this season.

I would think at $1 million you could have had Raymond, MacArthur and Grabovski all on the team.

Sure, but then you wouldn't have Bolland, which was the reason for buying out Grabo, no?

 

[bustaheims]

Sure, but then you wouldn't have Bolland, which was the reason for buying out Grabo, no?

Which, outside of the cap implications, doesn't look it would really have been much of a loss for the team. Bolland really didn't provide much for them.

 

[Kin]

You could also say that Raymond replaced Mac and spin it that way.

It's not a matter of spin, at some point there's just the fundamental reality that a team can only really have 6 forwards that they give significant PP time to(or, at least, if you start giving PP time to forwards 7-9 you're taking it away from guys 1-6). So the extent to which it's Raymond and not Clarkson who "replaced" MacArthur is 100% true in the sense that Raymond is filling the role for the Leafs that Mac is with the Sens. If Grabo, Mac and Raymond were all on the team together, then two of those guys would be getting very little PP time and playing on the 3rd line.

Someone saying that they'd rather have a Mac-Grabo-Kulemin third line than a Kulemin-Bolland-Clarkson one is presenting a legitimate argument. Doing so on the basis of offensive totals those guys are putting up in offensive roles, however, is nonsense. It's like pretending that Mike Ribeiro replaced Boyd Gordon in Phoenix.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You could also say that Raymond replaced Mac and spin it that way. To the specific chart, yeah, Bolland pretty good trade, Clarkson; in a dimension all his own. I really hope Clarkson is way better next season, I'm quite surprised at the level of stink from him this season.

I would think at $1 million you could have had Raymond, MacArthur and Grabovski all on the team.

Sure, but then you wouldn't have Bolland, which was the reason for buying out Grabo, no?

I'm not sure what the reason was, I assumed it was to free up money for other signings/moves.  But since we have a $5.25 million 3rd line winger this season, a $5.5 million 3rd line C (if that's how he was played) wouldn't have been so bad, and Clarkson probably isn't signed.  Grabovski would have come off in 16-17, but for $250,000 less of a cap hit, Clarkson lasts until 19-20, is worse, and in a less important position.

I don't really know if any moves were one for one type things, but I think if you don't buy out Grabovski (and say buy out Liles instead), you don't sign Clarkson, and looking farther down the line, don't have Gleason's contract still either.

 

[Tigger]

Yup, that was not played correctly in terms of cap chess, instead of being stuck with Grabbo ( if you want to say it that way ) now the Leafs are stuck with Clarkson and Gleason.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I don't really know if any moves were one for one type things, but I think if you don't buy out Grabovski (and say buy out Liles instead), you don't sign Clarkson, and looking farther down the line, don't have Gleason's contract still either.

I agree, I wanted that move to happen. It was good management to deal with Liles over Grabo, however at the time, I really didn't like Grabo in a 3rd line role and wanted Kadri on the 2nd line more than him.

Really bummed about the Clarkson thing, didn't see it coming...

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Sure, but then you wouldn't have Bolland, which was the reason for buying out Grabo, no?

Which, outside of the cap implications, doesn't look it would really have been much of a loss for the team. Bolland really didn't provide much for them.

But with him, I think Bolland would have been a successful trade, if it we could have seen this freak accident with his injury coming. He fit better on the 3rd line than did Grabovski, in my opinion.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

It's not a matter of spin, at some point there's just the fundamental reality that a team can only really have 6 forwards that they give significant PP time to(or, at least, if you start giving PP time to forwards 7-9 you're taking it away from guys 1-6). So the extent to which it's Raymond and not Clarkson who "replaced" MacArthur is 100% true in the sense that Raymond is filling the role for the Leafs that Mac is with the Sens. If Grabo, Mac and Raymond were all on the team together, then two of those guys would be getting very little PP time and playing on the 3rd line.

Someone saying that they'd rather have a Mac-Grabo-Kulemin third line than a Kulemin-Bolland-Clarkson one is presenting a legitimate argument. Doing so on the basis of offensive totals those guys are putting up in offensive roles, however, is nonsense. It's like pretending that Mike Ribeiro replaced Boyd Gordon in Phoenix.

I agree with all that. If Clarkson would have played better and kept the 2nd line spot and Kulemin and Raymond provided solid 3rd line play, it would look better financially. Wasn't Clarkson getting decent PP time in Jersey? Not that that is the reason his totals are down, even if he would have gotten PP time here this season, I don't think the difference would have been drastic.