General Leafs Talk: Post-Olympics Edition

[Britishbulldog]

So Clarkson's buyout in the summer(which will never happen) would look like so...

David Clarkson buyout from CapGeek.com -

2014-15: $2,291,667
2015-16: $1,541,667
2016-17: $41,667
2017-18: $41,667
2018-19: $2,291,667
2019-20: $3,791,667
2020-21: $1,791,667
2021-22: $1,791,667
2022-23: $1,791,667
2023-24: $1,791,667
2024-25: $1,791,667
2025-26: $1,791,667

So they'd save about 3 million per year if they bought him out, thoughts about addition by subtraction and bringing in a player at the 3 million mark who could contribute more than Clarkson?

I WANT this to happen (assuming a trade is out of the question).  Slotting D'Amigo or Ashton in his spot is about 100x more effective, and about half the cost (when you include the buyout penalty).

Trading Clarkson and retaining some salary might even work better and would end when the contract is over rather than going twice as long.

 

[freer]

So Clarkson's buyout in the summer(which will never happen) would look like so...

David Clarkson buyout from CapGeek.com -

2014-15: $2,291,667
2015-16: $1,541,667
2016-17: $41,667
2017-18: $41,667
2018-19: $2,291,667
2019-20: $3,791,667
2020-21: $1,791,667
2021-22: $1,791,667
2022-23: $1,791,667
2023-24: $1,791,667
2024-25: $1,791,667
2025-26: $1,791,667

So they'd save about 3 million per year if they bought him out, thoughts about addition by subtraction and bringing in a player at the 3 million mark who could contribute more than Clarkson?

I WANT this to happen (assuming a trade is out of the question).  Slotting D'Amigo or Ashton in his spot is about 100x more effective, and about half the cost (when you include the buyout penalty).

We buy him out after one bad season and we will never have another "high UFA" sign here. Just saying

 

[AvroArrow]

So Clarkson's buyout in the summer(which will never happen) would look like so...

David Clarkson buyout from CapGeek.com -

2014-15: $2,291,667
2015-16: $1,541,667
2016-17: $41,667
2017-18: $41,667
2018-19: $2,291,667
2019-20: $3,791,667
2020-21: $1,791,667
2021-22: $1,791,667
2022-23: $1,791,667
2023-24: $1,791,667
2024-25: $1,791,667
2025-26: $1,791,667

So they'd save about 3 million per year if they bought him out, thoughts about addition by subtraction and bringing in a player at the 3 million mark who could contribute more than Clarkson?

I WANT this to happen (assuming a trade is out of the question).  Slotting D'Amigo or Ashton in his spot is about 100x more effective, and about half the cost (when you include the buyout penalty).

We buy him out after one bad season and we will never have another "high UFA" sign here. Just saying

Except both Philly and the Rangers haven't had any issues getting players with what they've done.  Buying out 1 guy will  NOT make a difference.

 

[AvroArrow]

So Clarkson's buyout in the summer(which will never happen) would look like so...

David Clarkson buyout from CapGeek.com -

2014-15: $2,291,667
2015-16: $1,541,667
2016-17: $41,667
2017-18: $41,667
2018-19: $2,291,667
2019-20: $3,791,667
2020-21: $1,791,667
2021-22: $1,791,667
2022-23: $1,791,667
2023-24: $1,791,667
2024-25: $1,791,667
2025-26: $1,791,667

So they'd save about 3 million per year if they bought him out, thoughts about addition by subtraction and bringing in a player at the 3 million mark who could contribute more than Clarkson?

I WANT this to happen (assuming a trade is out of the question).  Slotting D'Amigo or Ashton in his spot is about 100x more effective, and about half the cost (when you include the buyout penalty).

Trading Clarkson and retaining some salary might even work better and would end when the contract is over rather than going twice as long.

Certainly preferable, but I'm not holding out any hope.

 

[bustaheims]

We buy him out after one bad season and we will never have another "high UFA" sign here. Just saying

As other people have noted, that's just not true. On top of that, not being able to sign prominent UFAs is not necessarily a bad thing. As we've seen over the past few years, the top free agents are generally 2nd or 3rd tier players that often get wildly overpaid for what they provide. I certainly wouldn't be upset if the Leafs never had to pay big money for small contributions again.

 

[Derk]

So I went through all the games so far in the regular season to check the circumstances of the Leafs 20 blown 3rd period leads. Somehow I only counted 19 occurrences in 17 games (i.e. twice they blew two third period leads), but the results of these games are as follows:

2 wins in regulation
2 losses in regulation

13 games went to extra time:

2 OT wins
2 OT losses
6 SO wins
3 SO losses

You can take what you will from these results, but in terms of wins and losses, the Leafs are 10-7 in games where they blow a 3rd period lead, 4-4 in games that end before a shootout, and 2-2 in games that end in regulation. These numbers don't look good when you consider playoff hockey doesn't have shootouts or 4-on-4 overtime.

 

[Zee]

Just saw an interview with Carlyle where he mentioned he played with Carter Ashton's dad.  He remembers when Carter was born.  Mind.  Blown.

 

[TML fan]

So wouldn't the logical approach be to develop and implement a style that doesn't lean so heavily on defense? It seems to me that if your team is strong offensively and weak defensively, then you'd want to be on the attack a lot more than you are defending.

Except there are practical limits to any style that would preach "being on the attack" for the entire game. There really isn't any coaching solution to a poor defensive team allowing a bunch of goals.

Right, but that isn't what I said.

Sure it is. You said that this is a problem that can be addressed through a matter of "style". That, through coaching, a bad defensive team can press the attack to a point that they're less likely to give up goals.

The solution clearly isn't sit back and let the other team come at you until the clock runs out or you eventually give up the lead, so maybe trying to score more goals than your opponent could possibly come back from is a better option? They don't have a great defensive team, so why are they a defence first team? I'm not saying neglect defence either. I'm saying play to your strengths. They're fast and they can score. So play an aggressive style that takes time and space away from your opponent, forces turnovers, and let's the players we have use their best skills to help the team win.

The "practical limit" being that sometimes teams are just better than you...

 

[Kin]

The solution clearly isn't sit back and let the other team come at you until the clock runs out or you eventually give up the lead, so maybe trying to score more goals than your opponent could possibly come back from is a better option? They don't have a great defensive team, so why are they a defence first team? I'm not saying neglect defence either. I'm saying play to your strengths. They're fast and they can score. So play an aggressive style that takes time and space away from your opponent, forces turnovers, and let's the players we have use their best skills to help the team win.

I think they do that though and I don't agree with the premise that they're a defense first team in late situations. They don't, for instance, score a significantly lower amount of goals in the third than they do the second. They're 6th in the entire league in 3rd period goals and that doesn't read like a team that just hangs back and lets teams come to them in the third.

Because what they do, I think, does play to their strengths. They're fast and they can score but they're not much for winning tough battles which I think is the sort of thing you need to be if you're constantly pressuring the other team. To exploit your team's speed they need room to work with and knocking the other team around down low doesn't do that. They've made their bones by counter punching and it's been relatively successful for them in the third period. 

 

[TML fan]

The solution clearly isn't sit back and let the other team come at you until the clock runs out or you eventually give up the lead, so maybe trying to score more goals than your opponent could possibly come back from is a better option? They don't have a great defensive team, so why are they a defence first team? I'm not saying neglect defence either. I'm saying play to your strengths. They're fast and they can score. So play an aggressive style that takes time and space away from your opponent, forces turnovers, and let's the players we have use their best skills to help the team win.

I think they do that though and I don't agree with the premise that they're a defense first team in late situations. They don't, for instance, score a significantly lower amount of goals in the third than they do the second. They're 6th in the entire league in 3rd period goals and that doesn't read like a team that just hangs back and lets teams come to them in the third.

Because what they do, I think, does play to their strengths. They're fast and they can score but they're not much for winning tough battles which I think is the sort of thing you need to be if you're constantly pressuring the other team. To exploit your team's speed they need room to work with and knocking the other team around down low doesn't do that. They've made their bones by counter punching and it's been relatively successful for them in the third period.

It's not a premise it's a fact. Just watch the games. Tell me that a team that sends one forechecker in and keeps 4 guys back isn't sitting back. As for their 3rd period goals, what percentage of them were scored when they were tied or losing? What percentage on the power play? Saying they're 6th in goals is nice but meaningless without context.

Most battles for the puck are not fought 1-on-1. Usually the guy that wins it is the guy who has someone to give it to once he does. The Leafs don't support the puck because supporting the puck puts them in a defensive position Carlyle doesn't want them to be in, that is, outmanned in the middle.

Pressuring the puck isn't just about winning battles, it's about forcing turnovers and not giving the other team time to make plays. Watch how easily the Leafs give up the line even with 4 guys back. Watch how they give up on the forecheck and don't pressure the puck carrier. That's as passive as it gets.

 

[Kin]

It's not a premise it's a fact.

No, it's an opinion and it's one that the actual facts don't support. They're a passive team, yes, but that's true throughout the game not specifically in late game situations. I'm sure some of their second period goals are scored on the PP and when behind too. The facts are that the Leafs are not a notably less productive offensive team in the third than they are in the second. If you want to poke holes in that it's on you to say how many of them are scored in situations that render that misleading, especially in how it compares to other teams.

Pressuring the puck isn't just about winning battles, it's about forcing turnovers and not giving the other team time to make plays. Watch how easily the Leafs give up the line even with 4 guys back. Watch how they give up on the forecheck and don't pressure the puck carrier. That's as passive as it gets.

Yeah, I get it. You think you're the only one watching the games.

There is nothing the Leafs could do stylistically that wouldn't open up other holes in their game that teams with smart coaches and talented players wouldn't then be able to exploit. Not every period or game where the Leafs are outplayed is a failure of coaching and effort.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Bahh humbug it's all the coaching and you know it! Well except when they win.

 

[TML fan]

It's not a premise it's a fact.

No, it's an opinion and it's one that the actual facts don't support. They're a passive team, yes, but that's true throughout the game not specifically in late game situations. I'm sure some of their second period goals are scored on the PP and when behind too. The facts are that the Leafs are not a notably less productive offensive team in the third than they are in the second. If you want to poke holes in that it's on you to say how many of them are scored in situations that render that misleading, especially in how it compares to other teams.

Pressuring the puck isn't just about winning battles, it's about forcing turnovers and not giving the other team time to make plays. Watch how easily the Leafs give up the line even with 4 guys back. Watch how they give up on the forecheck and don't pressure the puck carrier. That's as passive as it gets.

Yeah, I get it. You think you're the only one watching the games.

There is nothing the Leafs could do stylistically that wouldn't open up other holes in their game that teams with smart coaches and talented players wouldn't then be able to exploit. Not every period or game where the Leafs are outplayed is a failure of coaching and effort.

The actual facts don't support it? Getting outshot every game and being one of the worst posession teams don't support it? Whatever man.

Yeah I know that. They aren't the best team. By the very definition of that, they have exploitable weaknesses. What I'm suggesting is that they should stop making their weaknesses so easy to exploit. Not getting out possessed every night would probably lead to not getting outshot every night. Being a better offensive team would likely lead to them being a better defensive team, just by virtue of having the puck more. The whole world knows try suck at defence, so why be so passive?

 

[Kin]

The actual facts don't support it? Getting outshot every game and being one of the worst posession teams don't support it? Whatever man.

Again, this is a conversation that was specifically about the third period and the Leafs tendency to give up goals therein. Giving up a lot of shots every game and being a bad possession team can certainly be linked to coaching and style of play but not specifically to anything being done in the third period. The Leafs are 26th in 1st period goals for and 23rd in 1st period goals against.

Whatever the problem is, it's not relegated to the third problem or any specific approach the Leafs take with the lead. If we're going to describe them as "passive" it's something they stick with all game. The idea that they adopt a more conservative style in the third period relative to the rest of the game is what the facts don't support. A larger discussion of the team's overall strategy and it's impact on their performance might be interesting to you in it's 89,000th incarnation but it's misplaced here.

 

[MetalRaven]

so why be so passive?

trick is to trap the opposing forwards deep in your zone, hope to intercept a pass/wait for an error, grab the puck, use our speed to skate up ice beating the poor defencemen who have to turn and then chase. This leads to a lot of scoring on the rush. Hes using our speed to our advantage. This inevitably leads to 1) more shots against (opposing team has to be confident to get trapped in our zone) 2) Higher shooting percentages (seen as "unsustainable") because we score on 2-1's, breakaways, 3-2's. Scoring from the rush means less shots in the opposing zone. Less shots but more goals = high shooting percentage.

Heres the issue. Leafs aren't good enough defensively. The idea is to keep the trapped forwards to the perimeter in order to give them low % shots or force them to shoot through "the danger zone" of Leafs waiting to steal the puck. We aren't good at this. Not good enough for this to be an effective strategy. We get beat to the inside, our defensemen get pulled to the corner, the forwards are lazy in stealing pucks, as you said we arent putting any pressure on the point men so mistakes aren't happening enough for us to 'make them pay'

Or thats what ive gathered so far

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Sooooooooooooo you're saying the Leafs aren't getting enough shots? Do tell

 

[TML fan]

The actual facts don't support it? Getting outshot every game and being one of the worst posession teams don't support it? Whatever man.

Again, this is a conversation that was specifically about the third period and the Leafs tendency to give up goals therein. Giving up a lot of shots every game and being a bad possession team can certainly be linked to coaching and style of play but not specifically to anything being done in the third period. The Leafs are 26th in 1st period goals for and 23rd in 1st period goals against.

Whatever the problem is, it's not relegated to the third problem or any specific approach the Leafs take with the lead. If we're going to describe them as "passive" it's something they stick with all game. The idea that they adopt a more conservative style in the third period relative to the rest of the game is what the facts don't support. A larger discussion of the team's overall strategy and it's impact on their performance might be interesting to you in it's 89,000th incarnation but it's misplaced here.

Teams get more desperate in the third period when they're behind. The Leafs style of play doesn't change, the intensity of their opponent does. It's pretty easy to all out attack with 20 minutes to go and nothing to lose.

 

[Kin]

Teams get more desperate in the third period when they're behind. The Leafs style of play doesn't change, the intensity of their opponent does. It's pretty easy to all out attack with 20 minutes to go and nothing to lose.

Right, so the Leafs style of play doesn't change with the lead in the third.

 

[freer]

Teams get more desperate in the third period when they're behind. The Leafs style of play doesn't change, the intensity of their opponent does. It's pretty easy to all out attack with 20 minutes to go and nothing to lose.

Right, so the Leafs style of play doesn't change with the lead in the third.

I really think or wish Phanauf was a mean "Pri_k" like he was when he was younger because I dont see him knocking people over in front of the net anymore.

 

[freer]

Good aggressive game by the team. They played with a little meanness